[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1352-H1359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Gutknecht). The Chair would remind all
Members the matter before the House is House Resolution Number 107.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to just comment on the majority whip's remarks about campaign finance
reform and lack of action on the Democrat majority's part when we were
in charge, and remind him that we passed it twice out of the House.
The first time, it was passed again through the Senate, vetoed by a
Republican President; the second time, it was filibustered to death in
the Senate. And, by the way, I think I did mention, I do have a
campaign finance reform bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, not only will the Republicans
not bring campaign finance reform to the floor, but their rhetoric
today tells us how far away they are from what is happening in America.
They want to suggest that the existing system is just fine, that it
is a transgression simply of the White House that we should only be
concerned about. And we should be very concerned about those.
[[Page H1353]]
They would argue that it is OK, as they did under the existing
system, to have Haley Barbour say that he can set up meetings for
anybody who gives $100,000 to any Republican chairman of the House, and
he has never been turned down.
They would say it is fine to have a person who is accused of shaking
down a lobbyist and threatening them that if they do not contribute to
him, they will never have access to his office again. Under a current
FBI investigation, it is just fine to have him investigate the
President.
{time} 1215
They would suggest that it is fine that a committee Chair, Republican
committee Chair, get $200,000 from the very people he meets with about
matters before his committee and the money comes right after the
meetings. That is all apparently allowed under the existing system, and
they do not think it should be investigated. They do not think it
should be investigated; that there is nothing wrong with the system;
that at the Republican gala, top donors, if you give $250,000 you can
get to a lunch with the Republican majority leader, the Speaker, the
whip, and others and committee Chairs. If you give $10,000, you can
have a meeting.
You know what you get, ladies and gentlemen, you get seats in the
gallery. You the public get seats in the gallery. You know what big
donors get? They get access to leadership power and decisions. That is
under the existing system, and that is why we are saying it has to be
reformed. Two years ago we watched as top lobbyists sat in the majority
whip's office and drafted legislation to the Clean Water Act.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman's words be taken
down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from California will be seated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
If you give $10,000, you can have a meeting. You know what
you get, ladies and gentlemen? You get seats in the gallery.
You the public get seats in the gallery. You know what big
donors get? They get access to leadership power and
decisions. That is under the existing system, and that is why
we are saying it has to be reformed. Two years ago we watched
as top lobbyists sat in the majority whip's office and
drafted legislation to the Clean Water Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas seek
recognition?
Mr. DeLAY. No, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the Chair rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
In the opinion of the Chair, there was no direct reference to a
Member specifically performing a quid pro quo. Therefore, the Chair
will rule that the words are not unparliamentary.
The Chair would, however, admonish all Members that it is a violation
of the House rules to address the people in the galleries. It is also a
violation both of the rule and the spirit of the rules to challenge or
question other Members' personal motives.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if I understand your ruling correctly, the
gentleman from California has made statements about another Member of
this House that are incorrect. Is it the ruling of the Chair that a
Member can make incorrect statements about another Member on the floor
and not have his words taken down?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not in a position to rule on
the truthfulness or veracity of a statement made by a Member on the
floor of the House. That is a subject for debate.
Mr. DeLAY. I thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California may proceed in
order.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the point is this. The point
is that the American public is treated on a daily basis to account
after account after account where money buys you privilege in the House
of Representatives among the leadership and it buys you access. That
has got to stop because it simply is not fair to the American people.
Money is distorting how decisions are being made in this House, the
people's House. Money is distorting outcomes in the people's House.
Money is distorting the schedule in the people's House. That has got to
stop.
And that is what is happening under the existing system. That is
happening under the existing system, and that is why we objected
yesterday so we could get time today to speak out against the status
quo. The status quo is corroding this institution, it is corroding the
decisionmaking process, it is corroding the outcome. The people of this
country deserve better. That is why we need campaign finance reform. We
need it for this institution. We need it for the integrity of the
Democratic institution, the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate.
We need it to bring back the faith of the people we represent.
This is not about our campaigns. This is not about whether we get
elected or not elected. This is about whether or not it is on the level
in this place, whether or not every person has the right to the same
access; not access based upon merit, not on the size of your wallet,
not on the size of your contribution. That is what this argument is
over.
But they will not let us have this debate on the floor of the House
of Representatives. We have to go through parliamentary maneuver after
parliamentary maneuver to have this said. Why? Because it is very
embarrassing. It is very embarrassing on the bipartisan basis. But we
have got to clear the air. We owe it to the American public. We have
got to clear the air at that end of Pennsylvania Avenue and we have got
to clear the air at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. We owe the public
no less.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Sugarland, TX [Mr. DeLay].
Mr. DeLay. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has repeatedly brought up
this incident, including in the media, and has been quoted in the media
about an incident where there were lobbyists in the majority whip's
office writing legislation.
I will be glad to yield to the gentleman to give me the names in the
Record of those lobbyists that were in my office writing legislation,
and the incident and the time and the date. The least he could do when
he makes a statement that is totally incorrect, that he could provide
that information to the House, or at least if that is the case and it
violates the rules of the House or violates a law, would bring charges
against this Member.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
{time} 1230
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows,
unfortunately I can either make the contribution or I am a lobbyist. I
was not privy to the meeting, but the meeting was widely reported, and
I am not seeing the denial of the meeting taking place.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, obviously the gentleman
cannot substantiate his charges, obviously he cannot name names.
Mr. MILLER of California. Does the gentleman deny that these meetings
took place?
Mr. DeLAY. This gentleman, Mr. Speaker, denies categorically that it
ever happened, that there are lobbyists in the majority whip's office
writing legislation, unlike in the gentleman's office where
environmental groups write legislation.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman wanted to take
down words for inaccurate statements. I guess we can understand why the
ruling does not exist right now.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine [Mr. Allen].
(Mr. ALLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, bring this down to a different level.
I rise to urge Members of this body to vote in opposition to the
motion for the previous question and I do so because I want to raise
the issue of campaign finance reform. I think it is time
[[Page H1354]]
for us to deal with it, and I want to mention a couple of points.
First, according to a recent poll, 85 percent of Americans think that
there is a crisis or a problem with the way candidates raise and spend
campaign funds, and according to another recent poll, 85 percent of the
people think that special interest groups have more influence than
voters.
Now, when I was back in my district over the last 2 weeks, people did
raise the issue of campaign finance reform, and do my colleagues know
what a couple of them said? They said, ``Why are you spending millions
of dollars on investigations and doing nothing to help us? Why are you
spending millions of dollars on investigations and doing nothing to
help us?''
I believe that from my experience if we cannot find people who care
about campaign finance reform we are not looking very hard. It may not
deal with their jobs, it may not deal with their education, it may not
be Social Security or Medicare. They are things that matter to their
personal lives, but they care about our democracy and they care about
this system of campaign funding. It is important because the
relationship between those who elect us and those who sit in elective
offices is critically important. It is a matter of trust. If our
citizens continue to believe, as they do now, that money has more
influence than votes, then we are diminished, they are diminished, and
this democracy is diminished.
There is too much money in politics, and we need to do something
about it.
I am a cochair of a freshman task force, a bipartisan group, six
Republicans and six Democrats, and we want to work on this issue
through this Congress, and what I ask all the Members here is to make
sure that the year 2000 is not a repeat of the year 1996 and we deal
with campaign finance reform now.
Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on my colleagues
from Maine and from California, particularly the gentleman from
California, who said that we have an obligation to bring up the issue
of campaign finance reform, and the main reason for that, I believe, is
what I experienced in the last 2 weeks in my district during our
district work period.
Again, as the gentleman from Maine said, so many of my constituents
would come up to me and say, ``What is going on in Washington? The
Congress isn't doing anything. The only thing that they're doing is
doing investigations of campaigns and frankly we're not interested. We
don't want the money, the millions of dollars that is going to be spent
on this. Sure, you can do a little investigation if you want, you can
look into it, but the main thing is you have to do something about the
issue of too much money in campaigns. You've got to address it.''
And believe me, the American people feel very strongly that this is
not happening right now, and the fault lies squarely with the
Republican leadership of this House of Representatives. The Speaker,
the Speaker has repeatedly said on many occasions there is not enough
money in campaigns. Just the opposite is certainly true, and we have
been here, many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle, many times
over the last 3 or 4 months, including myself, saying we want this
issue brought up, we are not in the majority, we cannot control the
agenda.
That is why we have to go to the floor in these procedural ways and
ask to defeat the previous question because the Republican leadership
refuses to bring it up, and do not tell me that when the Democrats were
in the majority that we did not bring it up. In fact we did. It passed.
I remember. I voted for it on the House floor here. But it went over to
the other body, and the Senators, the Republican Senators on the other
side filibustered and killed it.
So there is no question the Democrats are in favor of campaign
finance reform, Democrats are in favor of debate, Democrats want a bill
to pass. We have said that we would like to have it happen by Memorial
Day; I think the President mentioned July 4. Certainly the sooner the
better, but so far no hearings on the other side, the Republicans. The
Republicans have not had a hearing, they do not bring it up, they have
no bill, they have no plan, they do not want to talk about it, which is
why they get mad when we do. But I am telling my colleagues right now
that the public will not stand for it. They want action.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder].
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fascinating to watch the hue
and cry for campaign finance reform from the Democrats when they
controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House 4 years ago and
chose not to bring it up.
The fact of the matter is we have two kinds of campaign financing
systems in America; one is congressional. We could only take $1,000
from an individual or $5,000 from a PAC, we must report everything we
receive and everything we spend, and that system did not break down,
and no one is accusing it of having broken down.
There is another system for Presidential campaigns. If they accept
$75 million of taxpayer money, they may not spend a penny more. That is
precisely what Bob Dole did; that is not what President Clinton did. He
accepted the $75 million, and he spent $40 million more than that. He
admitted to doing that, but he said it was necessary to break the law
because ``we would have lost.''
Now, I do not want to see America pay for the congressional races,
with ceilings on them like they did for the White House, and have that
system so easily abused as it was by President Clinton. Let us move on
with this bill which allows bringing up the bill for veterans'
benefits, let us pass this rule and get on with the business of the
House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
place into the Record an article from the Washington Post, March 12,
1995: ``Forging an Alliance of Deregulation, Representative DeLay Makes
Companies Full Partners in the Movement.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. DeLAY. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the objection.
The point is on March 12, 1995, the Washington Post sets forth the
series of meetings taking place wherein lobbyists and campaign
contributors are provided a full partnership, are provided a full
partnership, and I will yield in 1 second, in the drafting of
legislation that was dealing at that time with deregulation.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller) has expired.
Mr. DeLAY. As usual, the gentleman's time is always expiring while he
is trying to accuse another Member of the House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. DeLay].
Mr. DeLAY. I just got to say, Mr. Speaker, in that article there is
no--there are no names, there are no time periods that this meeting
happened, there is absolutely no--regular order, Mr. Speaker. I know
the gentleman does not like the rules----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is out of
order.
Mr. DeLAY. I know the gentleman does not like to follow the rules,
Mr. Speaker, but I am asking for regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
controls the time.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy from the gentleman.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I prefer truth over courtesy any time.
Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Speaker, or have the gentlemen removed
from the floor.
[[Page H1355]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. We will have regular order.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. DeLAY. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, it seems that it is OK to take something out
of the newspaper that is not true and bring it down to the floor of the
House and attack other Members of this House with something that is not
true, written by a reporter in the Washington Post, and using it as if
it were true, and I think it is really, Mr. Speaker--it shows the lack
of shame in this House about what is going on in this House when we are
trying to pass a rule to bring bills up, consentual bills up, under
suspension when the minority does not even have a campaign finance
reform bill that they could bring to the floor even if we gave them the
time to bring it to the floor.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office when I saw the incident
that just occurred on the House floor involving the meeting that was
discussed by the gentleman from California which he indicated had taken
place in the majority whip's office. The majority whip has said that
the newspaper article to which the gentleman from California referred
contained no names of lobbyists. I have in my hand, as the Senator from
my own State used to say, a copy of the article in question, and if my
colleagues examine the text, there are the names of seven lobbyists
listed.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield and read those
names?
Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to allow the gentleman to read the names.
I am not going to mention the name of any person on the floor who is
not here to defend himself.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield further, not at this time.
The gentleman can come here and read the names.
I would ask unanimous consent again to be allowed to place this in
the Record so that the names can be in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
Mr. DeLAY. I object.
Mr. OBEY. I thought the gentleman would.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. OBEY. I thought the gentleman would.
I find it interesting that the truth is being suppressed on the floor
of the House in the name of the rules of the House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, once again I yield 1 minute to my friend,
the gentleman from Sugarland, TX [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me, and since the gentleman from Wisconsin would not yield to me,
especially when I asked him to read the names, he does not want to read
the names because he will not enter into a dialog with me about the
fact that one newspaper article misrepresented what happens in my
office and that the fact that there has never been lobbyists sitting in
my office or any office of the leadership sitting down writing bills.
We all know that the legislative counsel does that, and we all know
that we talk to people about the bills, and he will not read the names.
Read the names so that I may respond to the incident. But they do not
want to read the names because once again they are trying to smear
another Member of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I think we just consider the source of the issue, and if
the gentleman does not yield to me, I am not going to yield to him.
Mr. OBEY. I yielded to the gentleman.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members the
matter before the House is House Resolution No. 107.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this
time to me, and as my colleagues know, the reason we have had such a
tizzy in the last half hour is very simple. Everybody in this Chamber
knows the system is rotten to the core. They may quibble about a
detail, this or that.
Mr. Speaker, regular order.
{time} 1345
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The Chair would require all
Members to be respectful of each other anywhere on the floor. Hershey
was only 3 weeks ago.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] is recognized. The
gentleman has 32 seconds remaining.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I have seen these
articles, they have names in them. One of the articles refers to a
lobbyist being the chief draftsman of the bill.
Now, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] says it is not true. The
Washington Post reporter obviously thought it was true.
There is one point to all of this. The reason that the gentleman from
Texas is so inflamed about this is because we all know the system is
rotten to the core, and we deserve a lot of blame on this side that
when we had the majority, we did not reform it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Glenwood Springs, CO [Mr. McInnis], a very able member
of the Committee on Rules, as we continue this debate on this very
important rule that will allow us to debate suspensions today and
tomorrow.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
Let me say I am not sure what offends me most, the lack of civility
that we have just seen in the last few minutes or a colleague of mine
standing up in front of the American people and saying that this system
is rotten to the core. Come on, wake up. This system is not rotten to
the core.
Sure, we have a few bad apples. I would ask the gentleman to show me
535 people anywhere in this country where we do not have some of those
individuals that misbehave. But frankly, as a whole, most of the people
within this Congress are hardworking individuals on both sides of the
aisle. We have good people on both sides of the aisle. Both sides of
the aisle have individuals who work very hard.
Take a look at the current system that we have on campaigns. Do not
listen to the rhetoric that we have heard. The problems that we have
seen in the last year, it is not the system. The system is not the
problem. It is people who are violating the system. It is people who
are violating the law.
Name one administration that my colleague can think of in the history
of this country that discloses, gives top secret information to the
national political committee. Just take a look at incident after
incident after incident.
The system does not allow that. It is against the law. We ought to
investigate that and we ought to have repercussions for disobeying the
law. But it is wrong because somebody goes out and violates a law, it
is wrong because somebody goes out and violates the intent of the law,
it is wrong because there are a few bad apples in the system that the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] comes out and says that this
system is rotten to the core.
Let me tell my colleagues, we live in the greatest country in the
world. We have a system that is the best system in the world. It allows
this kind of debate on this House floor. We can stand up here and talk
about any issue that we want without facing repercussions from the
military, for example, as we see in other countries.
It is wrong for any one of us in these chambers to stand up and speak
in such derogatory terms as to paint a blanket paintbrush over every
individual in here that some system is rotten to the core. I apologize
for the statement on behalf of the individual that made it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize to anyone for saying
that the system of campaign finance in this country is rotten to the
core.
[[Page H1356]]
There are good people here, and even they are turned in a bad
direction by the way we finance campaigns, and the sooner the gentleman
from Colorado and every Member of this body, Democrat and Republican,
face that, the sooner we will be able to clean it up and restore
people's faith.
Mr. Speaker, I love this country as much as the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. McInnis] does. I ask my colleagues to go ask the American
people. The system of the way we finance campaigns is rotten to the
core.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my friend from
Colorado [Mr. McInnis].
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, a very simple question to the gentleman:
How much money do you have in your bank account?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has asked
why I do not want to read the names of the lobbyists in the article. It
is very simple. They are not Members of the House and they cannot
defend themselves. He can, and he ought to. I would suggest that if he
wants to discuss these names, I am happy to discuss them with him
publicly or privately any time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this has been perhaps the most revealing
debate of this entire session of Congress.
I might say, to use an old phrase, when push comes to shove, we get
down to the heart of a critical issue to the American people and we see
why it is that our Republican colleagues are so fearful of giving us
even 10 minutes to debate this issue on the floor of the U.S. Congress;
why they are so hypersensitive when the issue is not influence peddling
down the street, but influence peddling right here in this building:
Peddling out checks from tobacco companies; having meetings, not just
one isolated meeting that has been discussed here. At the committee
that I served on last year, they turned over the taxpayer financed
computers to the lobbyists to write the legislation, and then they had
them sit there and whisper in the ear of the committee counsel how to
answer the questions about the legislation that the lobbyists had
written.
It is that connection between special interest campaign finance and
between the writing of legislation to benefit those same special
interests that ought to be devoted a week, not an hour, a week, on the
floor to debate how to fix it, and they are afraid to do it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I shall offer an amendment which will
require that comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation be
considered by this House by the end of the month.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the
proposed amendment at this point in the Record along with a brief
explanation of what the vote on the previous question really means and
to include extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
The material referred to is as follows:
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Section 2. No later than May 31, 1997, the House shall
consider comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation
under an open amendment process.
Mr. Speaker, this vote on whether or not to order the previous
question is not merely a procedural vote. It is a vote against the
Republican majority's failure to develop and carry out an agenda that
is meaningful to the American people. It is one of the few tools we
have as the minority to offer an alternative plan for what the House
should spend its time debating. We believe that should be comprehensive
campaign finance reform. If the previous question is defeated, we will
have the opportunity to amend the rule to require consideration of a
campaign finance bill by the end of next month. The previous question
is the way we can, by vote of the House, tell this Republican
leadership to do what the American people really sent us here to do.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question. Vote for
comprehensive campaign reform.
the vote on the previous question: what it really means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's ``Precedents of the House of
Representatives,'' (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House is
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not
what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership ``Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives,'' (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.
Deschler's ``Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives,'' the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is the one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
____
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1995]
Forging an Alliance for Deregulation
(By Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss)
rep. delay makes companies full partners in the movement
The day before the Republicans formally took control of
Congress, Rep. Tom DeLay strolled to a meeting in the rear
conference room of his spacious new leadership suite on the
first floor of the Capitol. The dapper Texas Congressman,
soon to be sworn in as House majority whip, saw before him a
group of lobbyists representing some of the biggest companies
in America, assembled on mismatched chairs amid packing
boxes, a huge, unplugged copying machine and constantly
ringing telephones.
He could not wait to start on what he considered the
central mission of his political career: the demise of the
modern era of government regulation.
Since his arrival in Washington a decade earlier, DeLay, a
former exterminator who had made a living killing fire ants
and termites on Houston's wealthy west side, had been seeking
to eradicate federal safety and environmental rules that he
felt placed excessive burdens on American businesses.
During his rise to power in Congress, he had befriended
many industry lobbyists who shared his fervor. Some of them
were gathered in his office that January morning at the dawn
of the Republican revolution, energized by a sense that their
time was finally at hand.
The session inaugurated an unambiguous collaboration of
political and commercial interests, certainly not uncommon in
Washington but remarkable this time for the ease and
eagerness with which these allies combined. Republicans have
championed their
[[Page H1357]]
legislative agenda as an answer to popular dissatisfaction
with Congress and the federal government. But the agenda also
represents a triumph for business interests, who after years
of playing a primarily defensive role in Democratic-
controlled Congresses now find themselves a full partner of
the Republican leadership in shaping congressional
priorities.
The campaign launched in DeLay's office that day was quick
and successful. It resulted last month in a lopsided vote by
the House for what once seemed improbable: a 13-month halt to
the sorts of government directives that Democrats had viewed
as vital to ensuring a safe and clean society, but that many
businesses often considered oppressive and counterproductive.
A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate, where
its chances of approval are not as certain.
Although several provisions of the ``Contract With
America'' adopted by Republican House candidates last fall
take specific aim at rolling back federal regulations, the
moratorium was not part of that. In fact, as outlined that
day in DeLay's office by Gordon Gooch, an oversized, folksy
lobbyist for energy and petrochemical interests who served as
the congressman's initial legislative ghost writer, the first
draft of the bill called for a limited, 100-day moratorium on
rulemaking while the House pushed through the more
comprehensive antiregulatory plank in the Contract.
But his fellow lobbyists in the inner circle argued that
was too timid, according to participants in the meeting. Over
the next few days, several drafts were exchanged by the
corporate agents. Each new version sharpened and expanded the
moratorium bill, often with the interests of clients in
mind--one provision favoring California motor fleets, another
protecting industrial consumers of natural gas, and a third
keeping alive Union Carbide Corp.'s hopes for altering a
Labor Department requirement.
As the measure progressed, the roles of legislator and
lobbyist blurred. DeLay and his assistants guided industry
supporters in an ad hoc group whose name, Project Relief,
sounded more like a Third World humanitarian aid effort than
a corporate alliance with a half-million-dollar
communications budget. On key amendments, the coalition
provided the draftsman. And once the bill and the debate
moved to the House floor, lobbyists hovered nearby, tapping
out talking points on a laptop computer for delivery to
Republican floor leaders.
Many of Project Relief's 350 industry members had spent the
past few decades angling for a place of power in Democratic
governing circles and had made lavish contributions to
Democratic campaigns, often as much out of pragmatism as
ideology. But now they were in the position of being courted
and consulted by newly empowered Republicans dedicated to
cutting government regulation and eager to share the job.
No congressman has been more openly solicitous in that
respect than DeLay, the 47-year-old congressional veteran
regarded by many lawmakers and lobbyists as the sharpest
political dealer among the ruling House triad that includes
fellow Texan Richard K. Armey, the majority leader, and
Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
DeLay described his partnership with Project Relief as a
model for effective Republican lawmaking, a fair fight
against Democratic alliances with labor unions and
environmentalists. ``Our supporters are no different than
theirs,'' DeLay said of the Democrats. ``But somehow they
have this Christ-like attitude what they are doing [is]
protecting the world when they're tearing it apart.'' Turning
to business lobbyists to draft legislation makes sense,
according to DeLay, because ``they have the expertise.''
But the alliance with business and industry demonstrated in
the push for a moratorium is not without peril for
Republicans, many GOP strategists acknowledge. The more the
new Republican leaders follow business prescriptions for
limited government in the months ahead, the greater the risk
that they will appear to be serving the corporate elite and
lose the populist appeal that they carried with them into
power in last November's elections.
William Kristol, a key Republican analyst whose frequent
strategy memos help shape the conservative agenda, said the
way congressional leaders deal with that apparent conflict
could determine their prospects for consolidating
congressional power. ``If they legislate for special
interests,'' he said, ``it's going to be hard to show the
Republican Party has fundamentally changed the way business
is done in Washington.''
the exterminator
After graduating from the University of Houston with a
biology degree in 1970, Tom DeLay, the son of an oil drilling
contractor, found himself managing a pesticide formula
company. Four years later he was the owner of Albo Pest
Control, a little outfit whose name he hated but kept anyway
because a marketing study noted it reminded consumers of a
well-known brand of dog food.
By his account, DeLay transformed Albo into ``the
Cadillac'' of Houston exterminators, serving only the finest
homes. But his frustrations with government rules increased
in tandem with his financial success. He disparaged federal
worker safety rules, including one that required his termite
men to wear hard hats when they tunneled under houses. And
the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide regulations,
he said, ``drove me crazy.'' The agency had banned Mirex, a
chemical effective in killing fire ants but at first
considered a dangerous carcinogen by federal bureaucrats. By
the time they changed their assessment a few years later, it
was too late; Mirex makers had gone out of business.
The cost and complexity of regulations, DeLay said, got in
the way of profits and drove him into politics. ``I found out
government was a cost of doing business,'' he said, ``and I
better get involved in it.''
He arrived in the Texas legislature in 1978 with a nickname
that defined his mission: ``Mr. DeReg.'' Seven years later he
moved his crusade to Washington as the congressman from
Houston's conservative southwest suburbs. He sought to
publicize his cause by handing out Red Tape Awards for what
he considered the most frivolous regulations.
But it was a lonely, quixotic enterprise, hardly noticed in
the Democrat-dominated House, where systematic regulation of
industry was seen as necessary to keep the business community
from putting profit over the public interest and to guarantee
a safe, clean and fair society. The greater public good,
Democratic leaders and their allies in labor and
environmental groups argued, had been well served by
government regulation. Countless highway deaths had been
prevented by mandatory safety procedures in cars. Bald eagles
were flying because of the ban on DDT. Rivers were saved by
federal mandates on sewerage.
DeLay nonetheless was gaining notice in the world of
commerce. Businessmen would complain about the cost of
regulation, which the government says amounts to $430 billion
a year passed along to consumers. They would cite what they
thought were silly rules, such as the naming of dishwashing
liquid on a list of hazardous materials in the workplace.
They pushed for regulatory relief, and they saw DeLay as
their point man.
The two-way benefits of that relationship were most evident
last year when DeLay ran for Republican whip. He knew the
best way to build up chits was to raise campaign funds for
other candidates. The large number of open congressional
seats and collection of strong Republican challengers offered
him an unusual opportunity. He turned to his network of
business friends and lobbyists. ``I sometimes overly
prevailed on these allies, DeLay said.
In the 1994 elections, he was the second-leading fund-
raiser for House Republican candidates, behind only Gingrich.
In adding up contributions he had solicited for others, DeLay
said, he lost count at about $2 million. His persuasive
powers were evident in the case of the National-American
Wholesale Grocers Association PAC, which already had
contributed $120,000 to candidates by the time DeLay
addressed the group last September. After listening to his
speech on what could be accomplished by a pro-business
Congress, they contributed another $80,000 to Republicans and
consulted DeLay, among others, on its distribution.
The chief lobbyist for the grocers, Bruce Gates, would be
recruited later by DeLay to chair his anitregulatory Project
Relief. Several other business lobbyists played crucial roles
in DeLay's 1994 fund-raising and also followed Gates's path
into the antiregulatory effort. Among the most active were
David Rehr of the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Dan
Mattoon of BellSouth Corporation, Robert Rusbuldt of
Independent Insurance Agents of America and Elaine Graham of
the National Restaurant Association.
At the center of the campaign network was Mildred Webber, a
political consultant who had been hired by DeLay to run his
race for whip. She stayed in regular contact with both the
lobbyists and more than 80 GOP congressional challengers,
drafting talking points for the neophyte candidates and
calling the lobbyist bank when they needed money.
Contributions came in from various business PACs, which
Webber bundled together with a good-luck note from DeLay.
``We'd rustle up checks for the guy and make sure Tom got
the credit,'' said Rehr, the beer lobbyist. ``So when new
members voted for majority whip, they'd say, `I wouldn't be
here if it wasn't for Tom DeLay.' ''
For his part, DeLay hosted fundraisers in the districts and
brought challengers to Washington for introduction to the PAC
community. One event was thrown for David M. McIntosh, an
Indiana candidate who ran the regulation-cutting Council on
Competitiveness in the Bush administration under fellow
Hoosier Dan Quayle. McIntosh won and was named chairman of
the House regulatory affairs subcommittee. He hired Webber as
staff director.
It was with the lopsided support of such Republican
freshmen as McIntosh that DeLay swamped two rivals and became
the majority whip of the 104th Congress. Before the vote, he
had received final commitments from 52 of the 73 newcomers.
the freeze
The idea for Project Relief first surfaced before the
November elections that brought Republicans to power in the
House for the first time in 40 years. Several weeks after the
election, it had grown into one of the most diverse business
groups ever formed for specific legislative action. Leaders
of the project, at their first post-election meeting,
discussed the need for an immediate move to place a
moratorium on federal rules. More than 4,000 regulations were
due to come out in the coming months, before the Republican
House could deal with comprehensive antiregulatory
legislation.
DeLay agreed with the business lobbyists that a regulatory
``timeout'' was needed. He
[[Page H1358]]
wrote a letter to the Clinton administration Dec. 12 asking
for a 100-day freeze on federal rule-making. The request was
rejected two days later by a mid-level official who described
the moratorium concept as a ``blunderbuss.'' DeLay then
turned to Gooch to write legislation that would do what the
administration would not.
At the Jan. 3 meeting in DeLay's office, Paul C. Smith,
lobbyist for some of the nation's largest motor fleets,
criticized Gooch's draft because it excluded court-imposed
regulations. He volunteered to do the next draft and came
back with a version that addressed the concerns of his
clients. Under court order, the EPA was about to impose an
air pollution plan in California that might require some
of Smith's clients--United Parcel Service and auto leasing
companies--to run vehicles on ultraclean fuels, requiring
the replacement of their fleets.
Smith removed the threat with a stroke of his pen,
extending the moratorium to cover court deadlines. He also
helped Webber add wording in a later amendment that extended
the moratorium from eight to 13 months.
Peter Molinaro, a mustachioed lobbyist for Union Carbide,
had a different concern: He wanted to make sure the
moratorium would not affect new federal rules if their
intention was to soften or streamline other federal rules.
The Labor Department, for example, was reviewing a proposal
to narrow a rule that employers keep records of off-duty
injuries to workers. Union Carbide, Molinaro noted in an
interview, had been fined $50,000 for violating that rule and
was eager for it to be changed.
For his part, Gooch wanted to make sure that the routine,
day-to-day workings of regulatory agencies would not be
interrupted by a moratorium. His petrochemical clients rely
on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make sure
natural gas and oil, used in their production processes, flow
consistently and at reasonable rates.
Gooch said he had ``no specific mission'' other than
helping DeLay. ``I'm not claiming to be a Boy Scout,'' he
added. ``No question I thought what I was doing was in the
best interests of my clients.''
the war room
On the first day of February, 50 Project Relief lobbyists
met in a House committee room to map out their vote-getting
strategy for the moratorium bill. Their keynote speaker was
DeLay, who laid out his basic objective: making it a veto-
proof bill by lining up a sufficient number of Democratic
cosponsors. They went to work on it then and there.
Kim McKernan of the National Federation of Independent
Business read down a list of 72 House Democrats who had just
voted for the GOP balanced budget amendment, rating the
likelihood of their joining the antiregulatory effort. The
Democrats were placed in Tier One for gettable and Tier Two
for questionable.
Every Democrat, according to participants, was assigned to
a Project Relief lobbyist, often one who had an angle to
play.
The nonprescription drug industry chose legislators with
Johnson & Johnson plants in their districts, such as Ralph M.
Hall of Texas and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey. David
Thompson, a construction industry official whose firms is
based in Greenville, S.C., targeted South Carolina
congressman John M. Spratt Jr.
Federal Express, with its Memphis hub, took Tennessee's
John S. Tanner. Southwestern Bell Corp., a past campaign
contributor to Blanche Lambert Lincoln of Arkansas, agreed to
contact her. Retail farm suppliers picked rural lawmakers,
including Charles W. Stenholm of Texas.
As the moratorium bill reached the House floor, the
business coalition proved equally potent. Twenty major
corporate groups advised lawmakers on the eve of debate Feb.
23 that this was a key vote, one that would be considered in
future campaign contributions.
McIntosh, who served as DeLay's deputy for deregulation,
assembled a war room in a small office just off the House
floor to respond to challenges from Democratic opponents. His
rapid response team included Smith, the motor fleet lobbyist,
to answer environmental questions; James H. Burnley IV, an
airline lobbyist who had served as transportation secretary
in the Reagan administration, to advise on transportation
rules; and UPS lobbyist Dorothy Strunk, a former director of
the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, to tackle
workplace issues. Project Relief chairman Gates and lobbyists
for small business and trucking companies also participated.
When Republican leaders were caught off guard by a
Democratic amendment or alerted to a last-minute problem by
one of their allies, Smith would bang out responses on his
laptop computer and hand the disk to a McIntosh aide who had
them printed and delivered to the House floor.
The final vote for the moratorium was 276 to 146, with 51
Democrats joining DeLay's side. Still 14 votes short of the
two-thirds needed to override a veto, the support exceeded
the original hopes of Project Relief leaders.
One week later, DeLay appeared before a gathering of a few
hundred lobbyists, lawmakers and reporters in the Caucus Room
of the Cannon House Office Building to celebrate the House's
success in voting to freeze government regulations and, in a
pair of companion bills, curtail them. He stood next to a
five-foot replica of the Statue of Liberty, wrapped from neck
to toe in bright red tape, pulled out a pair of scissors, and
jubilantly snipped away.
Standing next to him, brandishing scissors of his own, as
the chairman of Project Relief.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In conclusion, let me remind my colleagues that defeating the
previous question is an exercise in futility, because the minority
wants to offer an amendment that will be ruled out of order as
nongermane to this rule. So the vote is without substance, and in fact
we do not have a campaign finance reform bill that has even been
introduced that would be offered if this were to be ruled germane.
The previous question vote itself is nothing more than a procedural
motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to the very important
vote that we will have allowing us to consider the veterans bill, the
American Samoan bill, these suspensions. The vote has no substantive or
policy implications whatsoever, that being the previous question vote.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I ask unanimous consent to insert in the
Record an explanation of the previous question issue from our House
Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The material referred to is as follows:
The Previous Question Vote: What It Means
House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part
that:
There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,
being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if a
quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all
debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the
immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or
ordered.
In the case of a special rule or order of business
resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing
for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the
previous question is moved following the one hour of debate
allowed for under House Rules.
The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural
vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting
the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and
amendments on the legislation it would make in order.
Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would say that this has been the most
interesting debate that we possibly could have had over a measure that
will simply allow us to consider two additional days of suspension.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair announces that he may
reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time within which a vote by
electronic device, if ordered, may be taken on agreeing to the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213,
nays 196, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 74]
YEAS--213
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
[[Page H1359]]
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--23
Andrews
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Becerra
Bishop
Boyd
Carson
Chambliss
Doolittle
Fawell
Filner
Granger
Hefner
Istook
McCarthy (NY)
Peterson (MN)
Porter
Ryun
Schiff
Stark
Watts (OK)
Young (AK)
{time} 1315
Ms. RIVERS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________