[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.

                          ____________________