[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.

                          ____________________