[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3633-H3637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
1997 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR RECOVERY FROM
NATURAL DISASTERS, AND FOR OVERSEAS PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS, INCLUDING
THOSE IN BOSNIA--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
(H. DOC. NO. 105-96)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto
message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1469, the
``Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, FY 1997.'' The
congressional majority--despite the obvious and urgent need to speed
critical relief to people in the Dakotas, Minnesota, California, and 29
other States ravaged by flooding and other natural disasters--has
chosen to weigh down this legislation with a series of unacceptable
provisions that it knows will draw my veto. The time has come to stop
playing politics with the lives of Americans in need and to send me a
clean, unencumbered disaster relief bill that I can and will sign the
moment it reaches my desk.
On March 19, 1997, I sent the Congress a request for emergency
disaster assistance and urged the Congress to approve it promptly. Both
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees acted
[[Page H3634]]
expeditiously to approve the legislation. The core of this bill,
appropriately, provides $5.8 billion of much-needed help to people in
hard-hit States and, in addition, contains $1.8 billion for the
Department of Defense related to our peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and
Southwest Asia. Regrettably, the Republican leadership chose to include
contentious issues totally unrelated to disaster assistance, needlessly
delaying essential relief.
The bill contains a provision that would create an automatic
continuing resolution for all of fiscal year 1998. While the goal of
ensuring that the Government does not shut down again is a worthy one,
this provision is ill-advised. The issue here is not about shutting
down the Government. Last month, I reached agreement with the
Bipartisan Leadership of Congress on a plan to balance the budget by
2002. That agreement is the right way to finish the job of putting our
fiscal house in order, consistent with our values and principles.
Putting the Government's finances on automatic pilot is not.
The backbone of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement is the plan to
balance the budget while providing funds for critical investments in
education, the environment, and other priorities. The automatic
continuing resolution would provide resources for fiscal year 1998 that
are $18 billion below the level contained in the Bipartisan Budget
Agreement, threatening such investments in our future. For example:
college aid would be reduced by $1.7 billion, eliminating nearly
375,000 students from the Pell Grant program; the number of women,
infants, and children receiving food and other services through WIC
would be cut by an average of 500,000 per month; up to 56,000 fewer
children would participate in Head Start; the number of border patrol
and FBI agents would be reduced, as would the number of air traffic
controllers; and our goal of cleaning up 900 Superfund sites by the
year 2000 could not be accomplished.
The bill also contains a provision that would permanently prohibit
the Department of Commerce from using statistical sampling techniques
in the 2000 decennial census for the purpose of apportioning
Representatives in Congress among the States. Without sampling, the
cost of the decennial census will increase as its accuracy, especially
with regard to minorities and groups that are traditionally
undercounted, decreases substantially. The National Academy of Sciences
and other experts have recommended the use of statistical sampling for
the 2000 decennial census.
The Department of Justice, under the Carter and Bush Administrations
and during my Administration, has issued three opinions regarding the
constitutionality and legality of sampling in the decennial census. All
three opinions concluded that the Constitution and relevant statutes
permit the use of sampling in the decennial census. Federal courts that
have addressed the issue have held that the Constitution and Federal
statutes allow sampling.
The enrolled bill contains an objectionable provision that would
promote the conversion of certain claimed rights-of-way into paved
highways across sensitive national parks, public lands, and military
installations. Under the provision, a 13-member commission would study
the issue and provide recommendations to resolve outstanding Revised
Statute (R.S.) 2477 claims. R.S. 2477 was enacted in 1866 to grant
rights-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands not
already reserved for public uses. It was repealed in 1976, subject to
``valid, existing rights.''
This provision in the enrolled bill is objectionable because it is
cumbersome, flawed, and duplicates the extensive public hearings
conducted by the Department of the Interior over the last 4 years. In
addition, the proposed commission excludes the Secretary of Defense,
but military installations are among the Federal properties that would
be affected by the recommendations of the commission. Furthermore,
there is no assurance that the proposed commission would provide a
balanced representation of views or proper public participation. Under
the provision, the Secretary of the Interior can disapprove the
commission's recommendations, preventing their submission to the
Congress under ``fast-track'' procedures in the House and Senate. I
believe--and my Administration has stated--that a better approach would
be for Interior to submit a legislative proposal to the Congress within
180 days to clarify R.S. 2477 claim issues permanently, with full
congressional and public consideration.
The enrolled bill contains an objectionable provision that funds the
Commission for the Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement. I agree with
the Fraternal Order of Police and other national law enforcement
organizations that certain activities of the Commission, such as
evaluating the handling of specific investigative cases, could
interfere with Federal law enforcement policy and operations. This type
of oversight is most properly the role of Congress, not an unelected
review board. If external views about law enforcement programs are
needed, a better approach would be to fund the National Commission to
Support Law Enforcement.
I also object to two other items in the bill. One reduces funding for
the Ounce of Prevention Council by roughly one-third. This reduction
would substantially diminish the work of the Council in coordinating
crime prevention efforts at the Federal level and assisting community
efforts to make their neighborhoods safer. The Council is in the
process of awarding $1.8 million for grants to prevent youth substance
abuse and of evaluating its existing grant programs. The Council has
received over 300 applications from communities and community-based
organizations from all across the country for these grants. In
addition, the bill reduces funding for the Department of Defense Dual-
Use Applications Program. That program helps to develop technologies
used and tested by the cost-conscious commercial sector and to
incorporate them into military systems. Reducing funding for this
program would result in higher costs for future defense systems. The
projects selected in this year's competition will save the Department
of Defense an estimated $3 billion.
Finally, by including extraneous issues in this bill, the Republican
leadership has also delayed necessary funding for maintaining military
readiness. The Secretary of Defense has written the Congress detailing
the potential disruption of military training.
I urge the Congress to remove these extraneous provisions and to send
me a straightforward disaster relief bill that I can sign promptly, so
that we can help hard-hit American families and businesses as they
struggle to rebuild. Americans in need should not have to endure
further delay.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, June 9, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be
spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and bill will be
printed as a House document.
Motion Offered by Mr. Mc Dade
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the message together with the
accompanying bill be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, by prior agreement with my distinguished
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], I yield 15 minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and I yield back 30 minutes of
the 1 hour.
General Leave
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the veto message of the President to the bill, H.R. 1469, and that I
may include tabular material and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The effort that we knowledge making tonight is an effort to speed to
the disaster victims of the country as quickly as we can the assistance
which they so direly need. All of us know that there has been a
stalemate between the two bodies, between the White House and between
the Congress, and this motion which refers this bill back to committee
is the beginning of the process,
[[Page H3635]]
once again, to pass this bill, hopefully in a way that the President
will sign it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes and 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, 90 days ago the President sent the Congress an emergency
message asking that we appropriate supplemental funds to help flood
victims and to help meet the costs of our activities in Bosnia. Last
week, instead of responding to that request, the Congress in essence
decided to load up that proposal with a series of unrelated riders. One
related to roads on public lands, another related to census sampling,
and a third created a change in budget rules which would allow Congress
to pass appropriations which it prefers but bottle up the passage of
the President's budget priorities. That is not the way to establish a
bipartisan relationship with the other branch of government.
The President vetoed that proposal. He told us ahead of time he
would.
{time} 1915
And he has told the Congress to do it right. He said, in essence, do
not try to gain political leverage by using the distress of innocent
Americans.
Now, I do not hesitate to speak out publicly when I think the
President is wrong. I think people on this floor understand that. But
the fact is the President is not wrong in this instance. He is
absolutely correct.
He recognizes that farmers need this money to get on with their
planting. He recognizes that they need it to replace livestock that
were killed in the floods. He recognizes that local communities need
the community development money in order to plan for their communities'
futures. And he recognizes that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
indicated that they will have to stand down in terms of a number of
important training exercises and other military activities unless
Congress quits fiddling and sends the President the package that he has
asked for.
So, very simply, what will happen here tonight is this. At the end of
this discussion, when the motion comes to refer this matter to
committee, I will ask Members to vote no on the previous question so
that, in the event the previous question fails, we can immediately ask
unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1796, which would have the effect of
stripping from this proposal the three riders that caused the President
to veto the bill and sending a clean bill back to the White House.
It would contain every other provision that was fashioned by the
majority in this House except those three political riders. That is all
our motion would seek to do.
What we are asking people to do is to recognize that for the people
in the affected areas, who we are trying to help with this
supplemental, for them, refusal of the Congress to provide needed
assistance in a timely fashion is nothing but a second government
shutdown. That is what it represents in those areas.
So I ask my colleagues to end that second government shutdown for
those purposes by voting no on this proposal to send it to the
committee tonight and get on with doing this week what we should have
done last week, which is to pass a clean supplemental appropriation.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding me this time, and I say to my colleagues on the floor this
evening, ``I told you so,'' because I have been suggesting to Members
on both sides for some time now that this is where ultimately we would
end up.
We have a bill that has been under consideration for several weeks,
and the people in this country, one thing they are not missing is that
what is delaying consideration of this bill, what is delaying disaster
relief, is politics. I am not sure that everybody understands exactly
all the intricacies of the continuing resolution or of the census and
what is trying to be accomplished there, but one thing they do know is
that this institution, Washington, DC, is playing politics with
disaster assistance.
When I was out there this week, and I guess I would urge my other
colleagues, because many of them have not seen what I have seen, but
when they have looked at the mud-filled basements and seen the
disastrous effects the floods and the blizzards have had on the cattle
and the livestock industry of my State and the people who are waiting
for assistance, when we have said in Washington help is on the way, and
we have made a commitment that we are going to deliver, and yet we have
failed to do it, what I heard repeatedly this last week was, ``Can you
in Washington not get it right? You do not seem to get it.''
These people want the Republicans and the Democrats and the White
House and the Congress to work together in a way that will get a
consensus so that we can get this process on the way.
I was on Highway 281, Federal Highway 281 this last week, north of
Tulare, SD, just south of Redfield, and there was a gentleman sitting
on the center line of Highway 281 fishing for northerns. Highway 281 is
completely under water, and with it is the railroad that transports the
grain commodities on which our State depends for its economic survival.
We have railroad assistance in this bill. We have several things that
are going to be important for agriculture to recover. So I urge this
body and our colleagues in the Senate and the White House to get
together and to work something out to get this job done.
I believe the message has been sent. Whatever that message was, and
it still eludes me, but the fact of the matter is people are waiting,
patience is wearing thin, and temperatures are on the rise all over the
country. And I am glad to say not just in South Dakota, I think people
elsewhere around the country are getting the message we need to do
something. Congress needs to act, the White House needs to act,
Republicans and Democrats need to develop a consensus in order to get
this done. I hope we will get that process underway tonight.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity for
83 days, since the administration sent an urgent disaster relief
package to Congress, to work out the details and send it on for
Presidential signature so we could really address the overwhelming
needs of people in 35 different States around the country, some of
whom, as in the upper Midwest, continue to suffer as we speak.
We have played around, we have squabbled over details that, frankly,
did not even need to be included in this bill, and we have allowed a
number of extraneous matters to become an impediment to getting it
signed into law. It is time we bring an end to this charade. The public
expects us to deliver on fundamental promises we make people, and that
is if we have people suffering in this country, we will all get
together to help them address it.
The President has indicated that there are two particular amendments
he cannot live with. At the moment, it seems we are dead set on sending
them right back to him, prolonging the gridlock, bringing down
additional disrespect on this institution. We have an opportunity in a
few minutes to offer our support for a clean bill that can be signed
within several days that will let us restore public trust in this
institution and get about the business of doing what we were elected to
do, and that is deal with basic problems.
My district suffered in January. We are concerned that we will not be
able to prevent another disaster next winter in northern California
because we do not have the funds to go about improving our levee
system, bringing it back to a level of protection we thought we had
last January. It is unconscionable that we continue to argue about the
census or about some automatic mechanism by which we could pass all
appropriations bills when we all know what we have to do is stick to
the business of appropriating funds for disaster relief.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we will act tonight to support this motion which
will be made that will give us an opportunity to pass a clean disaster
relief bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that each and every one of us is
[[Page H3636]]
here as a Member of the House of Representatives because the bottom
line is we care about people. We believe differently as to how we best
help people, but we are here to help people. Let us remember that this
bill is about helping people.
Six and a half weeks ago the levees broke on the Red River,
inundating Grand Forks and East Grand Forks. This is a photograph that
appeared in the newspaper, of a woman being told in the dead of night
that she has to get out of her home, leave all her possessions, because
the water is about to take everything she knows and holds dear.
The trauma of such an event in such a middle America place like Grand
Forks, ND, is beyond my ability to describe to my colleagues, but I was
there and, believe me, it was God awful. Now the people are being
traumatized by another occurrence, this one not a natural disaster but
a Congress-made one.
We need help. It is very clear. It is very clear to any American that
has watched the news footage about what we have gone through just how
badly we need help. People from around the country have responded in
wonderful ways, small ways, like the 7-year-old that dropped off some
canned goods so I could send them back to the people I represent; and,
large ways, like the woman who gave $15 million in individual grants of
assistance.
But they expect fundamentally their government to respond, and we
have been unable to respond, unable to respond because we have played
to our worst instincts in this body, putting shallow, crass partisan
politics in the middle of an effort to get help to people who need it.
This clipping says it all. It says what so many are saying to me as I
go back to Grand Forks every weekend: ``You are playing with our
lives.''
My colleagues have to understand that there are people that are not
in homes tonight, there are families that are not together, and they
cannot make a fundamental decision about even where they are going to
live until we pass this bill.
FEMA does not fund the initial buy-out program that Grand Forks is
going to launch. That is funded by the community development block
grant funds in this bill. There is not money in the pipeline to help
these people on these home buy-out decisions. We have to pass the bill
first. And so until we pass the bill, these people are stuck. They are
in limbo.
Again and again and again, when one goes back to our districts, we
hear about how we are in limbo. I would invite any Member of this body
to come with me to Grand Forks. If my colleagues do not believe it,
come with me to Grand Forks. We will go tomorrow. If Members do not
want to miss votes to do that, we will get on the phone. Come with me
to my office. We will call Democrats in Grand Forks, we will call
Republicans in Grand Forks, we will call anyone my colleagues want to
in Grand Forks to hear from the people themselves.
Sometimes maybe in our partisan warfare we forget what this is all
about, but it is about helping people. And the people in our area are
in a state of tremendous need tonight. Do not play with the lives of
those we represent. These are Americans, they need our help. This is
our Government, they deserve no less.
Let us act now and, for that reason, take precisely the action the
gentleman from Wisconsin is suggesting. Do not go to committee. We have
had enough of committees. Let us, as a body tonight, strip off the
extra provisions and get the aid out of the House.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Had the President signed this bill, the aid which the gentleman
who just appeared in the well wanted to see flow back to his region
would have started. We would have had 3 days of moneys out of this bill
flowing already into the distressed areas.
So who is playing with whose lives? Could not the President have
signed that and understood that to prevent the Government shutdown is
another good measure that would have been swept into the mix of
providing this relief for the distress of the Middle West?
I have been trying, and everybody knows it, for 10 years now to
produce an automatic methodology by which we could prevent Government
shutdowns. It has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do
with trying to get the President to succumb to some political pressure,
because I did it when President Bush was President. I did it when
President Reagan was President. I did it with a Democrat controlled
Congress and a Republican President, and now the reverse, a Republican
Congress and a Democrat President.
It merely says that, if we fail as a Congress, which we have done 50-
some times in the last 10 years, to come to an agreement on a budget
within the budget deadline, that automatically, the next day, last
year's appropriations would go into being until the full budget can be
completed.
The President in his veto message says, ``While the goal of
preventing a Government shutdown is a worthy one''. That is his
language, ``is a worthy one''; he proceeds to veto a vehicle that would
provide for a method to prevent Government shutdown.
{time} 1950
That is politics. That is game playing. He says, on the one hand, it
is bad to shut the Government down. Then when the Government was shut
down, he blamed the Republicans. Now the Republicans fashion a bill
that would prevent the Government shutdown, and he vetoes it, saying we
want to see the possibility of a shutdown occur again. That is
politics.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the same line of argument we heard
from the majority party last year when they announced ahead of time
that they were going to shut down the Government in order to leverage
the President to swallow things that he did not feel he ought to
swallow. And then after he stood up for principle, then they said, see,
you caused the problem, you caused the problem, after they told the
country for 3 months ahead of time they were going to shut the
Government down.
What my colleagues have to recognize on that side of the aisle is
that for the people in the areas affected by these floods, their
refusal to let this legislation go to the White House in shape that can
be signed is tantamount to a second Government shutdown. Now it is time
that they put their own subjective judgments second to the needs of the
people in the affected areas and deliver the aid that they have a right
to expect.
Government is either going to be on their side or it is going to be
against them. In this case, unless we let this legislation go, they
have a perfect right to conclude that Government is against them, and
that is not where it ought to be tonight.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
Mr. BONIOR. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is absolutely
right, Mr. Speaker. For millions of people across this country, this
amounts to another Government shutdown. It amounts to the Government
turning their back on them, not being there for them when they need the
help.
Week after week, we have urged our Republican colleagues to pass a
disaster relief bill that would rush help to families struggling to
recover from the worst floods to hit the northern plains in 500 years.
Disaster relief, emergency relief, nothing more, nothing less, disaster
relief; this is help that people desperately need. As the gentlemen
from South Dakota and North Dakota so eloquently said this evening,
they need to rebuild their homes, to reopen their businesses, to
replant their fields, to resuscitate their economy.
And what did my Republican colleagues do? Ignoring President
Clinton's promised veto, they loaded up the disaster bill with
extraneous provisions, provisions that had nothing whatsoever to do
with flood relief, provisions aimed at undermining the accuracy of the
U.S. census in the year 2000.
People need help now. We are arguing about a problem in the year
2000. It took the President all of 19 minutes to veto the bill. Now we
are back where we were 2 weeks ago. Meanwhile, flood
[[Page H3637]]
victims are still waiting. They have waited for 83 days. They waited
while Congress went on vacation. They waited all weekend. And they are
still waiting. They are waiting for some sign of hope. They are waiting
without their homes, in trailers. They are waiting without jobs. They
are waiting without the ability to work in their fields. They are
waiting without their businesses.
I stand ready with my Democratic colleagues to pass a disaster relief
bill that just does that, it provides disaster relief to working people
who are struggling to get on with their lives and provide it today,
now, in a few minutes. Disaster relief. Nothing more. Nothing less. No
census formulas. No Government shutdown clauses. Disaster relief.
It is not complicated. It should not be controversial. Enough is
enough. The flood victims have run out of patience. Let us vote on
disaster relief and do it now. Nothing more. Nothing less. Stay with
the proposal that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
offering on the previous question to vote it down to bring a clean bill
to the floor. Stay with the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune],
who got up here and gave an eloquent statement about the misery of the
people that he represents. Stay with your colleague, who wants a clean
bill. My colleagues would want no less if they were in his shoes.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
shall speak for just a few seconds, Mr. Speaker.
The one way to begin to bring relief tonight to the people who are
affected in this disaster is to vote to send this back to committee so
the process can be rejuvenated and worked out. If my colleagues vote
for the previous question, Mr. Speaker, it creates chaos in this body.
I urge my colleagues to assist the people in our country who are crying
out for relief in the disaster by voting to send this bill to
committee.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the
motion to refer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). 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.
Mr. OBEY. 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 the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of the
motion to refer.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 205, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 177]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
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
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
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
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
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
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
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
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
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
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--13
Barcia
Becerra
Boucher
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Flake
Metcalf
Molinari
Packard
Schiff
Schumer
Tauzin
{time} 1956
Messrs. MARTINEZ, HALL of Texas, and McDERMOTT changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BILBRAY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Pease]. The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade].
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________