Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8067-H8073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, July 18, 1996, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3845.

[[Page H8068]]

{time} 1732

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3845) making appropriations for the government of the
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in
part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of
Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficent]
had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 52, line
25.
Are there further amendments to the bill?

amendment offered by mr. gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht: Page 52, after line 23,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 146. The amount otherwise provided under the heading
``Federal Payment to the District of Columbia'' for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, is hereby reduced by
1.9 percent.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht] for 10 minutes.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is the next installment of the amendments that I
have been offering to all of the appropriation bills since the House
passed the joint budget conference committee report, and as my
colleagues will probably recall, under that report this House for the
first time in the last 4 years is actually going to allow the deficit
of the United States to go up in the next fiscal year, and many of us
who were upset upon learning that went back to our offices and tried to
figure out what it was that perhaps we could do on a constructive basis
to recover that fumble. And what we came up with was the notion that if
we offered a 1.9 percent across-the-board reduction on the balance of
the appropriation bills that were still out there, we could recover
$4.1 billion in additional Federal spending.
So I offer this amendment in good faith even though I serve in the
District of Columbia Oversight Subcommittee, and I appreciate the work
that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and his subcommittee have
done in terms of controlling the level of spending and trying to get
the fiscal house in order not only for the District of Columbia, but
for all of the taxpayers of the United States.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think, in fairness, if we are going to offer
this to one appropriation bill, we have to offer it to all of them.
This amendment that I am offering today affects the $660 million that
goes to the District of Columbia in the way of a Federal payment. It
does not affect the Federal contributions to employees' retirement
accounts, it does not affect the rest of the $5 billion which flows
through the District of Columbia general fund, and it does not unfairly
pick on the District of Columbia.
We have offered this same amendment to all appropriation bills since
the approval of the joint budget resolution conference committee
report. We are asking the District of Columbia government to make the
same kind of sacrifice that we have asked the rest of the Federal
Government to make, a simple 1.9 percent reduction.
As I said earlier, I serve on the District of Columbia Subcommittee,
I appreciate the work that that District of Columbia Subcommittee has
done, and I appreciate the work that the financial oversight board has
been doing to try and put the District of Columbia back on a financial
path toward solvency. But I believe that if we are going to be fair and
if we are going to be honest and if we are going to be consistent in
what we do around here, I have to offer this amendment in good faith.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. While I know it is with the best of intentions, looking
toward reducing our deficit by reducing our Federal spending, I want to
assure him that we have made every effort to do so, in fact, have been
accused of asking for too many spending cuts of the District of
Columbia.
The Federal payment to the District of Columbia is a contribution
that is made in lieu of taxes to the District government. The Federal
Government occupies roughly 45 percent of the land area of this city.
This payment is our contribution to the local community for the police,
fire, and other services that are provided not only to Congress, but to
the Federal offices and foreign embassies and various groups that have
received congressionally chartered tax exemptions, not to mention the
millions and millions of tourists and other visitors who come here
either to see the beauty of our Nation's Capital or to participate in
government or in business.
The second point I want to make is that the amount we are
recommending in this bill for fiscal year 1997 is exactly the same
amount that was appropriated in each of the last 2 years. In other
words, this will make it 3 years in a row with no increase--a flat
Federal payment appropriation for the past 3 years for the District of
Columbia.
Third, the Constitution places the responsibility for the District
under the Congress, and it is our duty to provide a fair contribution
for the operation of the seat of our national Government.
Mr. Chairman, the District is in the midst of a financial crisis. In
response to that crisis, this Congress last year passed legislation to
create a financial control board. That board has been in place a little
over a year and is making some progress in grappling with the
situation.
I would say to my good friend and colleague from Minnesota that we
are appropriating exactly the amount authorized by his committee. The
authorizers told us this is the amount that we should spend, and in
respect to that committee and in respect to the process, we are
appropriating at exactly that level. If the gentleman wishes to change
that authorization, he is on the committee that can make that change.
So, Mr, Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
gentleman's amendment. We should not shirk our responsibility to our
Nation's Capital by reducing the Federal payment to a level below what
it was 3 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Souder].
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first off I want to congratulate the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Davis] also in the authorizing committee, for their hard work.
Washington, DC, is our national Capital. It is seen across this country
as a symbol of our Nation, it is seen throughout the world as a symbol
of our Nation, and its efforts to try to improve the situation there
and to shepherd it are to be commended, and as my colleagues well know,
as we go through this amendment process, these amendments are not aimed
at any particular committee or any particular approach.
I also serve on the authorizing committee, the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, and as my colleagues know, authorizing
numbers are a cap, they are not the actual amount. That is up to the
appropriating committee what they spend, and when we got our
authorizing cap, we did not realize that the budget was going to have a
bump up in the second year. That came later in the whole negotiating
process, and some of the appropriating numbers got bumped up in dealing
with the President and with the Senate, and we did not come to Congress
to watch the deficit go up our second year here. We made a commitment
to the American people that that deficit was going

[[Page H8069]]

to go down. And we did better than expected last year. Now we have a
challenge to meet.
One of our concerns as fellow Republicans is that some of the
rhetoric that has been used against our 1.9 percent amendment is
potentially digging our party into a trap. Next year our discretionary
spending is supposed to go down 4 percent in actual dollars. Nondefense
spending is supposed to go down 4 percent in our own budget that we
voted for, yet we constantly hear every time we bring up this
amendment, ``Oh, there's nothing that can be cut, there's nothing that
can be reduced.'' If there is nothing that can be reduced, how in the
world are we going to reduce things 4 percent next year?
Every time we bring this up, we hear over and over that, oh, we are
going to wipe out this, we are going to wipe out that, and if we are
not careful, we are going to hoist ourselves on our own rhetoric and
dig ourselves into a hole. The fact is that the budget deficit goes up,
I wish we could target it more precisely, I wish we could have worked
it out through the different appropriating committees to be fair and
rather than doing a 1.9 percent, but at this point since we do not have
a lockbox that works, this is our only way to have the budget deficit
not go up the second year.

Any my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, this is not aimed
at the District of Columbia. I commend not only the delegate from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] and many of the others for their
efforts, but quite frankly we did not control the House for 40 years.
We have a terrible deficit that we have to get control of, that we were
making progress, and we are very nervous that this step backward that
we are doing, ever so slight a step, but nevertheless a step, is in the
wrong direction, and the American people sent many of us here because
they were tired of hearing ``tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.'' They want
to see it happen now, and this is our only way we have to express our
frustration not only with our own leadership, but our frustration with
the way Congress works.
Every program has some benefits, every spending has some benefits,
but we do not have any money. Even at the extreme it will take 7 years
to balance our budget on an annual basis. Households do not have that
choice, businesses do not have that choice, State governments do not
have that choice, local governments do not have that choice, yet every
time we try to reduce it just 1.9 percent it is always too much.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
comment on my colleague's remarks.
We have made, I think, tremendous progress in reducing our deficit
spending. This Congress reduced discretionary spending by $56 billion
last year, a remarkable and astounding feat, given past performance,
and no one in this body is more committed to reducing deficit spending
or reducing our deficits than I. We have, I think, made great effort
here to reduce the projected deficit by an additional $59 million or 60
percent to bring this budget closer to balance. It may take another
year before we get there, but we are heading in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon], the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding this time to me, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Every day we open the newspaper or turn on TV we see a problem that
needs to be fixed in the District of Columbia. We need to restore the
infrastructure to the water system here. Public health, in my personal
view, is in a crisis in the District of Columbia. And public safety,
even 60 Minutes is now paying attention to it.
The gentleman from Minnesota seems to say that because he offered
this amendment on 12 other bills that he must offer it on this bill. I
would suggest to the body that we respond to him the same way that we
did on the other 12 bills and reject this amendment.

{time} 1745

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I do have some regrets about having
to offer this amendment, but I think it needs to be put in perspective
in terms of how much money is actually spent here in the District of
Columbia.
The per capita total spending, for example, in States like Nevada, is
$4,900. Here in the District it is $9,954. There is waste. They could
reduce spending by 1.9 percent without dramatically affecting public
safety and the waterworks and so forth.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Ms.
Hostettler], my freshman colleague.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment to the fiscal year 1997 District of Columbia appropriations
bill to decrease funding in the bill by 1.9 percent across the board. I
believe that this is the seventh time we have come to the floor to
offer this amendment. While we have not been successful with our
previous efforts, we are not discouraged. When it comes to protect the
financial future of this country's children, we must be tireless.
While many come to the Chamber and criticized the budget resolution
for increasing the deficit, few of us supported these efforts to regain
that extra spending. Before we decide that we just can't resist the
temptation to spend these few extra dollars--those few extra dollars
that represent the thousands of hours of hard work performed by hard
working folks in my district--we should think about the financial
burden we are placing on our children.
This amendment will trim less than 2 percent--just two pennies from
every dollar of discretionary spending in this appropriations bill. The
District receives approximately $717 million in the form of a Federal
payment, a payment to the teachers', firefighters', police, and judges'
retirement fund, and a payment for this 1997 inauguration. Included
among the reasons that the District receives the Federal payment is the
notion that a large percentage of the city's land is owned by the
Federal Government. In actuality, just over 26 percent of the city'
property is owned by the Federal Government. However, 68 percent of
Alaska is owned by the Federal Government, 64 percent of Utah is owned
by the Federal Government, and a whopping 83 percent of the State of
Nevada is owned by the Federal Government. At the same time, Alaskans
receive $1,755 per capita in Federal revenues; Utah residents receive
$634 in per capita Federal revenues; and Nevada residents receive just
$547. District residents, on the other hand, receive $3,898 per capita
in Federal revenues. When we consider these facts, a 1.9 percent
decrease in the Federal payment seems like a small amount to ask for. I
can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I do not believe this is the most
perfect solution for cutting $4 billion from the appropriations bills,
and I can assure you that this is not being done to target any specific
appropriations bill or any specific program--but this is a solution
that will be shared by all. I asked everybody in this body--from both
sides of the aisle--who is serious about staying on that real path
toward a balanced budget to support our amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I am inclined to simply say, ``Enough already.'' Mr. Chairman, look
at this week's U.S. News and World Report. The National Capital, the
gentleman's capital, has become a national daily controversy. You
cannot separate yourself from that.
There is a reason why the chairman of the committee on which you
serve and the chairman of the subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations oppose this bill. This is not an appropriation we are
dealing with; this is a city we are dealing with. It is a city that is
insolvent.
These across-the-board cuts have been offered before in the Congress,
but never for the District of Columbia appropriation. There is a reason
for it. It is a complicated organism we are dealing with here. It is
down on its knees, going, going, gone.
The Federal payment has not increased in 5 years. For the third year
in a row the chairman has required a cut in the District's payment. Mr.
Chairman, the PILOT we have here,

[[Page H8070]]

PILOT, the payment in lieu of taxes, keeps us from building on the most
valuable and most useful land in the city, right in the middle of the
city.
Let me tell the Members something: Congress has not paid its taxes
recently, because the PILOT has not been increased in 5 years. Before
that, until 1991, it had not been increased in 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, we have been using a monolithic strategy to downsize
the District of Columbia. We have been using that even before the 104th
Congress came into place. It is going down so fast that the taxpayers
are picking up and leaving at a rate that should make your hair stand
on end.
I have not called for an end of downsizing or an end of cuts, but
after a control board and a Committee on Appropriations have looked
closely at a city that is on the verge of dying and cut and said no
more cuts, it ill behooves any of us to come to this floor and, shall
we say, third-guess them on what should be done.
The 1.9-percent cut, you are not selling anything, I do not know why
you do not say 2 percent cut and round off this figure, the 2-percent
cut I think is sincerely offered, and it is sincerely received.
I ask Members to note the difference between an ordinary
appropriation and a city in the deepest possible trouble. I ask Members
to realize that the 2-percent cut has more than been made by, first,
the control board, then the subcommittee, then the Committee on
Appropriations, and now, it would appear, by the full body here. Please
vote against this amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on this committee, and I have the greatest
respect for our committee chairman and for the ranking minority member
and for all the work that has been done here. However, when we get done
looking at all of these priorities individually, we have to come back
to the fact that we have a higher priority, and that is to do what it
right for the future of our country.
We are $5.2 trillion in debt. The time has come for us to do what is
right for future generations of Americans and get to a balanced budget.
This is simply a small step in the right direction for the future of
this great country of ours. That is what this is all about.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Horn].
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I particularly praise the chairman of the Subcommittee
on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations and the
chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Davis]. Both are doing an outstanding job, and are the hardest workers
in this Congress.
I have a high regard for my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht], on the committee on which I serve, but I must oppose his
amendment. I think enough. We have cut budgets as much as we reasonably
can.
Washington must remain a beautiful world capital. It is a beautiful
world capital, but there are a couple of things I would like to ask a
question of the chairman about, to see if we could change. That is,
driving around town yesterday, I found numerous stoplights never
replaced, crossing walk lights never replaced, potholes never filled. I
think that is the impression every single visitor to Washington gets.
If we are going to put in this Federal contribution, can we at least
get the District Department of Public Works to do something about
simple matters like that, that do affect life and death?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman's questions, we
are all very much aware of all of these problems in the city. I would
remind my colleague that these did not just happen overnight. The
bridges and roads and infrastructure and police cars and fire engines
have been running on basically empty for years. There has been no
investment in the schools. The city's capital program basically does
not exist.
The fact is, the District of Columbia's budget is over $5 billion for
a city of 550,000 people. The State of South Carolina, with 3\1/2\
million people, has a budget of $4 billion. So it would seem that there
is enough money.
We have discussed this with the city officials and have urged them to
spend money on these public works projects. Basically the funds in this
bill are at their discretion to spend, but we do strongly urge them to
make these structural repairs and changes to turn the District around
from its downward spiral.
Mr. HORN. If I might suggest to the chairman of the Committee, if he
would condition the Federal payment, I think they would move a lot
faster.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance on my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I will end this debate the way I began.
I do respect the work that is done on the Subcommittee on the District
of Columbia of Committee on Appropriations for the District of
Columbia. This is a very serious problem. But I would have to agree
with my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], who
spoke earlier. The problem is not necessarily that there is not enough
tax money flowing through the District of Columbia.
On a per capita basis, if we compare the schools, for example, how
much we spend back in Minnesota on our public schools, something like
$5,600. Here in the District of Columbia, by some estimates, it is
almost $10,000. The problem is not that we are not spending enough
money, but the District and the Federal Government, as oversight, have
not been ensuring that those moneys are spent properly.
Mr. Chairman, what this amendment is really about is keeping our
promises of last year. As the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] said,
if we cannot cut 1.9 percent this year, how are we going to cut 4
percent next year? Balancing the budget is not what you do next year,
it is not what you do 2 years from now, it is what you do this year.
I think we have to keep faith with what we told the voters 2 years
ago. I think we have to keep faith with our children. This is about
generational equity, it is not about whether potholes are going to be
filled in Washington, DC. They have not been filled in the past and
perhaps they will not be filled in the future. But we can balance the
Federal budget, if everybody is willing to tighten their belts just a
little bit.
If we take 1.9 percent across-the-broad and we compare it to a
haircut, and what we are talking about is giving the bureaucracy a
slight haircut, it is like cutting your hair about one-eighth of an
inch. Most people would not even notice the difference.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just to sum up, we certainly have worked
very hard to try to get this bill to where it is today. Basically it is
a bipartisan bill. Not everyone is happy with it.
Is it the right amount of Federal funds? I believe it is. If we were
to reduce another $12 million, $13 million, the District could take
that from wherever they decide to take it. We just put $15 million back
in for the fire department. I would hate to think that is where it
would come from.
The fact is this $660 million Federal payment is the amount that was
authorized, and is the amount included in our 602(b) allocation. I
think it is the right amount, and I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote
on the Gutknecht amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
18, 1996, further proceedings on the

[[Page H8071]]

amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] will
be postponed.
Are there further amendments?

sequential votes postponed in the committee of the whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
18, 1996, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which
further proceedings were postponed in the following order: First, the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms.
Norton], followed by the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota, [Mr. Gutknecht].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

amendment offered by ms. norton

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia [Ms. Norton] on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 223, not voting 34, as follows:

[Roll No. 332]

AYES--176

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Martini
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Moran
Nadler
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
White
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--223

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Ewing
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--34

Allard
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Clement
de la Garza
Durbin
Everett
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Jefferson
Lincoln
Manzullo
Matsui
McDade
Mink
Morella
Neal
Nethercutt
Norwood
Owens
Pryce
Quillen
Rush
Smith (MI)
Thornton
Torricelli
Towns
Wilson
Young (FL)

{time} 1818

This Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

Mrs. Morella for, with Mr. Everett against.

Mr. MURTHA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. VENTO, BASS, and BOEHLERT changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mr. gutknecht

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 229, not voting 34, as follows:

[Roll No 333]

AYES--170

Archer
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Brewster
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
English
Ensign
Ewing
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Funderburk
Ganske
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kleczka
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Luther
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Orton
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Ramstad
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schroeder

[[Page H8072]]

Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Zimmer

NOES--229

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Armey
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Calvert
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Rogers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--34

{time} 1827

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Everett for, with Mrs. Morella against.

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments, under the previous
order of the House of July 18, 1996, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ewing) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R.
3845), making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1997, and for other purposes, and pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, July 18, 1996, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
Pursuant to that order of the House of July 18, 1996, the previous
question is ordered.

{time} 1830

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if proceedings
resume on the three postponed questions on agreeing to motions to
suspend the rules immediately after an electronic vote on the question
of passing H.R. 3845, then the Speaker may reduce to 5 minutes the
minimum time for electronic voting on each of the postponed questions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 332,
nays 68, not voting 33, as follows:

[Roll No. 334]

YEAS--332

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Torres
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker

[[Page H8073]]

Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff

NAYS--68

Baesler
Baker (CA)
Barr
Barton
Brewster
Campbell
Chenoweth
Coble
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cramer
Crapo
Dornan
Duncan
Fowler
Funderburk
Gillmor
Gilman
Goss
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
LaHood
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lofgren
Maloney
McIntosh
Meyers
Mica
Moorhead
Nadler
Neumann
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Ramstad
Roberts
Roemer
Roukema
Royce
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Solomon
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Watt (NC)
Weller
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--33

Allard
Brownback
Clement
Clinger
de la Garza
Everett
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Jefferson
Lincoln
Manzullo
Matsui
McDade
Mink
Morella
Neal
Nethercutt
Norwood
Owens
Pryce
Quillen
Rush
Smith (MI)
Thornton
Torricelli
Towns
Wilson
Young (FL)

{time} 1846

Mrs. MALONEY and Mr. HEFLEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________