[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4945-H4948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1775, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1998
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 179
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1775) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1998 for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall
be considered as read. Points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply
with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(a) or clause 5(b) of
rule XXI are waived. No amendments to the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be in order unless
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of
debate only on this issue.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and
include extraneous matter.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be in the somewhat unique
position of serving the House and my constituents as a member of the
Committee on Rules and as chairman of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. I certainly feel in very good company,
following the footsteps of our former colleague, Tony Beilenson, who in
the 101st Congress served in both capacities, and did so in great
distinction from the other side of the aisle.
I am proud to be able to fulfill obligations to both committees in
bringing forward to the House Resolution 179, making in order H.R.
1775, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. I
believe this rule is without controversy.
With the approval of this rule by the House later today during a
debate on the bill itself I will be describing in more detail the
specific provisions of the unclassified portions of H.R. 1775. All
Members have been advised that the bill's classified provisions are and
have been available for review in the Committee on Intelligence spaces.
For the purpose of this rules debate, I would simply like to point
out to the House that this measure reflects several months of very hard
work and bipartisan cooperation by the Members of the Committee on
Intelligence and its staff. It is a bill which I think is solid,
professional, and necessary, and a bill which I believe faithfully
fulfills our obligation to the American people to conduct vigorous
oversight of our Nation's intelligence programs and activities. We are
the line of defense in that area for the people of this country. We
take our job seriously.
Mr. Speaker, as to this rule, House Resolution 179 is a fairly
traditional rule for this type of legislation. As in past years, the
rule is a modified open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Intelligence. My friend, the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Dicks], will take care of that part for the minority.
The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now
printed in the bill which shall be considered by title and as read.
In addition, based on consultation with the parliamentarian, the rule
waives points of order against the committee amendment for failure to
comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, which is the germaneness section, and
clauses 5(a) and 5(b) of rule XXI prohibiting appropriations on an
authorization bill and prohibiting the consideration of tax or tariff
measures which have not been reported by the Committee on Ways and
Means.
These waivers are quite technical, but I would like to briefly
explain them so Members understand what we are doing. The germaneness
waiver is necessary because the committee mark which comes in the form
of an amendment in the nature of a substitute is broader in scope than
the bill as originally introduced.
This will come as no surprise to most Members. The rule XXI clause
5(a) waivers pertain to three specific sections of H.R. 1775: sections
401, 402, and 603. On those specific sections, as on many of the issues
in this legislation, the Committee on Intelligence staff has been in
close contact with the staff of the Subcommittee on National Security
of the Committee on Appropriations which has not, to my knowledge,
objected to these waivers. In fact, we have worked closely with the
appropriations staff on this point.
{time} 1345
Regarding the 5(b) waiver that pertains to the Committee on Ways and
Means, I submit for the Record correspondence between the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Ways and Means, and
the Committee on Rules.
[[Page H4946]]
The provision in question, which is section 305 of H.R. 1775, is a 1-
year extension of the deferral of sanctions provision in current law.
Section 305 continues, until January 6, 1999, the President's current
statutory authority under the National Security Act to delay imposing a
sanction upon his determination that proceeding with the sanction could
compromise an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source
or method. This subject matter falls within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Ways and Means and within the scope of the prohibition
outlined in clause 5(b) of rule XXI.
So by way of history, this deferral authority was in fact first
included in the fiscal year 1996 Intelligence Authorization Act, was
extended for 1 year in the fiscal year 1997 intelligence authorization
bill and here we have it again. Through the exchange of correspondence,
the Committee on Ways and Means and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence have reached an accommodation to allow the 1-year
extension provided by section 305 to remain in H.R. 1775, as reported,
and to coordinate future activity on this subject.
I understand, therefore, that there is no objection to granting the
waiver and I understand further that there will probably be some
colloquy during the debate time on the rule on this point.
Mr. Speaker, the rule allows for consideration of all germane
amendments, but in the interest of ensuring that sensitive classified
information is protected, the rule has required that Members have their
amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record prior to
consideration of the bill. This has proved to be a prudent and helpful
and nononerous requirement in past important intelligence authorization
bills, and we have made every effort to ensure that Members have had
ample time to consider and to file their amendment and to receive
appropriate staff assistance from our committee, if desired.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for the traditional motion to
recommit with or without instructions. Thus I believe this unanimously
supported rule in the Committee on Rules is fair, appropriate, and
noncontroversial. Accordingly, I urge support for the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following correspondence:
Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, July 8, 1997.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Bill: I am writing to you concerning your objection to
the inclusion of section 305 in this Committee's Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (H.R. 1775). I
understand that staff have consulted on this issue and
resolved the matter to our satisfaction.
To that end, it is important that for future purposes we
set out our agreement that this provision falls squarely
within the scope of Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI, which
provides that no tax or tariff provision may be considered by
the House that has not been considered by the Committee on
Ways and Means. We appreciate your authority over tax and
revenue provisions and in no way seek to undermine that
jurisdiction. I will work to defeat any additional tax or
revenue increasing provision that any other Member may seek
to attach to this bill, both during floor consideration of
this bill by the House and during Conference Committee
meetings with the Senate.
This provision is of critical importance to the protection
of intelligence sources and methods whenever a proliferation
violation has been identified and sanctions are deemed to be
the appropriate method of discipline. This provision supplies
the President with the necessary flexibility to address the
competing interests of punishing the violators and protecting
our national security interests at the same time. I
appreciate your recognition of this important aspect of this
section of our bill.
I will also offer any modification of this provision in
future Intelligence Authorization bills, beyond a mere
reauthorization for additional periods of time, will be
subject to consultation between our Committees, and subject
to points of order pursuant to Clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI.
Based upon this understanding, I would ask that you
withdraw your request to the Committee on Rules to strike
section 305 from H.R. 1775 prior to consideration by the full
House.
Thank you for your cooperation in this regard and I look
forward to your support for H.R. 1775.
With all best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours,
Porter Goss,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, July 7, 1997.
Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Gerry: I am writing to you regarding further
consideration of an import sanction provision included in
H.R. 1775, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1998, as reported by the Committee on Intelligence.
As previously indicated, section 305 of H.R. 1775 would
amend section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 441d) to extend through January 6, 1999 the authority
of the President to stay the application of import sanctions
contained in certain laws outlined in 50 U.S.C. 441c. The
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has now
acknowledged that this provision falls within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and he has
agreed to oppose the inclusion of any other provisions within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means during
further consideration of this legislation. Based on this
understanding, and in order to expedite consideration of this
important legislation, I will not object to consideration by
the House of H.R. 1775 in its present form. However, this is
being done only with the understanding that this does not in
any way prejudice the Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives
on this measure or any similar legislation, and it should not
be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of
jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways and Means in
the future. I reserve the right to request that the Committee
on Ways and Means be named as conferees on any provisions of
jurisdictional interest should the need arise during further
consideration of the bill.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bill Archer,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules support
this rule. We do, however, share a concern about the provisions of the
rule, and it is the same concern we had last year. The rule allows only
for consideration of those amendments to the bill which have been
preprinted in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, our concern with this requirement to preprint amendment
centers around the fact that this is not a particularly controversial
bill. Consequently, we are not convinced that the preprinting
requirement is necessary. We understand that preprinting may ensure
that debate on this legislation does not inadvertently disclose
classified materials. The ranking minority member of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence has no objection to the inclusion of
the requirement in the rule. But the Democratic members of the
Committee on Rules are concerned that a precedent has now been
established with regard to the construction of the rule for the
consideration of this legislation. I want to take this opportunity to
voice our concern.
The rule also contains a number of waivers against the committee
amendment including germaneness, appropriations on an authorization
bill, and consideration of tax or tariff matters not reported by the
Committee on Ways and Means.
While the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules do not oppose
these waivers, we would simply like to point out to the House that
these waivers are included in the rule.
Mr. Speaker, the funding levels for intelligence activities
authorized in H.R. 1775 are contained in the classified annex to the
report issued by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The
committee reported the bill by a vote of 15 to nothing, and there are
no areas of major controversy in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset, I do not oppose this rule. I
would urge my colleagues to support the rule so that the House may
proceed to the consideration of this vitally important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Texas
for his wise words and support on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
[[Page H4947]]
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my chairman
for yielding me this time.
I rise to express my support not only for the rule itself but also
for the bill that will be before the House shortly.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence now for some 4 years and presently having the privilege of
serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical
Intelligence, I can say that this is a very, very finely crafted bill.
I am speaking to the bill briefly at this moment before I have to go to
the full Committee on Appropriations during the time of general debate,
but I wanted to share with the Members my thought that in crafting this
bill, it is most impressive to see that the chairman and our ranking
member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], have very carefully
gone about scrubbing the numbers here to make certain that we are
spending as little as possible for very, very important interests of
the American public and our national strategic interests as well.
I would point out that in the final analysis, there are some very
significant cuts to a number of unmanned aerial vehicle programs and
other technical programs in spite of the high priority given by my
subcommittee. At the same time the funding that does go for technical
assistance is critical to our future and I think the committee overall
has done a very fine job.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out to my
colleagues that the President's request for some of those tactical
intelligence systems and operations supporting our men and women in
both activities and reserve military components is significantly less
than the Congress authorized last year.
Mr. Speaker, this bill increases the President's request for
intelligence support to the military by only 1.3 percent, and despite
this increase, the bill's authorization in this area is 4 percent below
last year's.
The men and women who serve and who indeed have to fight and
sometimes die for this country when in difficult circumstances deserve
the best weapons we can provide but they also deserve the best
intelligence systems that can be made available. It is our effort to
meet that challenge as well as we can provide. This bill is a very well
developed and finely balanced bill.
I urge support for the rule as well as for the bill's final passage.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I speak in strong support of the rule which allows for a number of
serious amendments. I think the main point that I would make, as we
proceed in this discussion, is that it is imperative for the U.S.
Congress to get its priorities straight.
There are proposals that we are going to be debating here within the
next couple of weeks which call for massive cuts in Medicare, massive
cuts in veterans programs; we have experienced major cuts in housing,
programs for our kids. And it seems to me that those Members who are
concerned about national priorities, those Members who are concerned
about deficit reduction have also got to take a hard look at the
intelligence budget.
It is wrong to say to the elderly, we are going to cut home care
service to you; say to low income people, we are going to cut back on
Medicaid for you; allow a situation to continue by which we have the
highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world; and then
say, well, despite the fact that the cold war is over, despite the fact
that the Soviet Union does not exist, that international communism is
basically dead, that despite all of that, we can allocate more money to
the intelligence community despite the fact that the record shows that
in area after area after area, the intelligence community has been
extraordinarily wasteful and not costeffective.
I would remind Members that last year the New York Times reported,
and I quote, May 16, 1996,
In a complete collapse of accountability, the government
agency that builds spy satellites accumulated about $4
billion in uncounted secret money, nearly twice the amount
previously reported to Congress, intelligence officials
acknowledged today.
And the article continues:
To put the $4 billion in perspective, the National
Reconnaissance Office, what the National Reconnaissance
Office did was to lose a sum of money roughly equal to the
annual budgets for the FBI and the State Department combined.
John Nelson, appointed last year as the reconnaissance office's's top
financial manager and given the task of cleaning up the program, said
in an interview published today in a special edition of Defense Week
that the secret agency had undergone, and I quote, a fundamental
financial meltdown. End of quote.
Let us get our priorities straight. We cannot cut for the kids. We
cannot cut for the elderly. We cannot cut for the homeless, and in fact
even make over the years significant cuts in military spending and then
say to the intelligence community, hey, we treat you differently than
any other aspect of government.
I rise in support of the rule because it enables us to have a serious
debate on a major issue.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and also
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Our good friend, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], has made a
few comments in the well. I want my colleagues to know it was the
Democratic staff of the Committee that uncovered the problem at the
NRO. I want you also to know that both the authorizers and the
appropriators have taken the money, the excess money that was there and
utilized it for other programs. So we have dealt with that problem. In
fact, I worry a little bit that we may have been a little too harsh on
the NRO, but I will report to the House in my judgment we have solved
the financial problems.
Mr. Deutch, before he left, brought in new financial people at the
NRO. I think they are doing a very fine job. I think the problems that
were there have been corrected. It is part of the process of oversight.
We found the problem. We corrected it. We made sure that whatever
reserves are there are only those that are necessary to keep the
program going.
Now, this committee operates on a very bipartisan basis and I think
this bill is a good bill. The gentleman is correct, we are going to
have some very serious debate here on amendments. I urge my colleagues
to support the rule. But I also would remind every one that we have cut
defense by over $100 billion between 1985 and 1995. Of course, the
intelligence budget is part of the defense budget. And it has received
cuts as well. So to say that this area has not received reductions
simply is inaccurate. Anyone who wants to come up and see the numbers
in the committee is welcome to do so.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support the rule and support
the underlying legislation.
The intelligence community is in a very difficult position. Because
of the classified nature of their work, it is difficult for them to
respond to some of the public criticisms. I hope that this House will
not only support the underlying legislation but will oppose the
amendment that would make it difficult for the intelligence community
to be able to carry out their work. They do outstanding public service.
I have had an opportunity to visit some of the facilities. I hope more
of my colleagues would take the opportunity to visit and see firsthand
the type of work that we are doing. We had the best intelligence
operation in the world. It is in our national interest to make sure
that it is adequately authorized and funded.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for their work. They have worked
in a bipartisan manner to bring this legislation forward. It deserves
the support of this body. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding
me the time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I urge
adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H4948]]
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Rogan]. The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 425,
nays 2, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 252]
YEAS--425
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
Bonior
DeFazio
NOT VOTING--7
Cox
Edwards
Hall (OH)
Hastert
Neumann
Roukema
Schiff
{time} 1419
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________