[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 107 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5783-H5793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2209, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules I call up House Resolution 197 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 197

       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. 2209) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1998, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 
     302 or 308 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are 
     waived. 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 Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall 
     be considered as read. Points of order against provisions in 
     the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI 
     are waived. No amendment shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each amendment may be considered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the 
     report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     All points of order against amendments printed in the report 
     are waived. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: 
     (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business: 
     Provided, That the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. 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. 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 [Mrs. Morella]. The gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to my good 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.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this resolution, and that I may be permitted to insert 
extraneous material into the Record following my remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 197 makes in order 
the bill H.R. 2209, the fiscal year 1998 legislative branch 
appropriations bill, under a modified closed rule.
  At the outset I would like to commend the chairman, the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Walsh, and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York, Mr. Jose Serrano, and the rest of my colleagues on the 
Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations for 
their hard work in bringing what has historically been a difficult bill 
to the floor.
  During this year's bill, we will not be free of controversy, I am 
afraid. I am sure we will hear from our friends in the minority about 
their concerns. Unfortunately, the bill has been hampered by issues 
that are outside the control of the Committee on Rules. But given that 
there may be some folks who would go so far as to recommend zero 
funding for the legislative branch and send us all home to get jobs in 
the real world, I believe this is a very responsible rule for a 
responsible bill.
  As the Reading Clerk has described for us, the rule waives a limited 
number of points of order against the consideration of the bill to 
permit timely consideration and to address some technical requirements 
with regard to the Congressional Budget Act, and transfers of funds 
within the bill.
  The rule makes in order four amendments printed in the Committee on 
Rules' report to accompany this resolution, to be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, by the Member specified, and debatable for 
the time specified in the report. The amendments are to be considered 
as read and are not subject to amendment or to a demand for a division 
of the question in either the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
In addition, all points of order against the amendments are waived.
  Furthermore, the rule provides that the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the 
Chairman may reduce voting time on a postponed question to 5 minutes, 
provided that the vote immediately follows another recorded vote, and 
that the voting time

[[Page H5784]]

on the first in a series of votes is not less than 15 minutes.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions, as is the right of the minority.
  Madam Speaker, while the annual funding bill for the operations of 
the House, the Senate, and various congressional agencies is often a 
lightning rod for partisan conflict, we should not forget that the 
legislative branch appropriations bill has also been a prime vehicle 
for reforming this institution from within to make it more open, more 
effective, and more accountable to the people we serve. By adopting 
this fair rule, we continue those important reforms while further 
streamlining and updating the operations of this unique and historic 
institution.
  As most of my colleagues know, this Congress has consistently 
emphasized the need to have a balanced Federal budget, and I am pleased 
to note that under this year's legislation funding for congressional 
operations will be $10 million less than last year's enacted level.
  Now, that may not be a great amount of money, but it is important for 
our constituents back home to know that we are taking the task of 
cutting government very seriously here. We are looking at our own 
backyard. We are doing our part to contribute to the larger deficit 
reduction effort, and we have saved nearly $400 million since fiscal 
year 1996, the first year of the Republican majority.
  This year, for example, H.R. 2209 cuts a total of 316 positions 
throughout the legislative branch, and since 1994 nearly 4,000 
positions have been cut. The bill saves $1.6 million in House 
Information Resources by cutting funding for 20 unused positions, 
reducing costs for equipment replacement and generating greater savings 
from increased competition for telecommunications services.
  It also funds the Joint Committee on Taxation at a level lower than 
was originally requested. I am also pleased to note that this year's 
bill includes funding for a modest cost-of-living increase for 
congressional staff. I commend the subcommittee for including this 
COLA, because in so many ways we are indebted to the hard work, 
dedication, and commitment of our staffs, who are dedicated public 
servants.
  Finally, let me say a word or two about the amending process of this 
bill. The rule makes in order four amendments, two by Republican 
sponsors and two by Democrat sponsors. In addition to considering those 
amendments, any Member who is still opposed to the bill can offer a 
final amendment through the customary motion to recommit with 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, this resolution is the traditional structured rule 
that we have used in the past to debate funding for the legislative 
branch. We should keep in mind that the bill which this rule makes in 
order is about more than just appropriations. It is also about 
protecting the integrity of this institution, ensuring that we have the 
proper resources to legislate responsibly and efficiently, and to 
preserve the Capitol and its grounds for Americans and visitors to see 
and to enjoy.
  Summer is the time when the Capitol Building plays host to thousands 
of vacation visitors who have come to see firsthand this hallowed 
shrine of history, democracy, and freedom. Throughout the year, these 
Halls of democracy echo with the sounds of adults, children, and youth 
alike who want nothing more than a front row seat to watch the 
democratic process in action. It is for their sake and for future 
generations of Americans who will want to experience their democratic 
heritage that we are considering this very important funding 
legislation today.
  While a completely open rule may seem appealing, the operations of 
the Congress and the organizations that support our work are extremely 
vital, Madam Speaker. We should consider floor amendments in a very, 
very careful, measured way, something which is less likely to happen 
under an open rule. In other words, I believe it is beneficial to 
ourselves and to the people who sent us here to consider this bill in a 
disciplined manner.
  Madam Speaker, this is a responsible rule for a very responsible and 
reasonable legislative branch spending bill that maintains our 
commitment to fiscal responsibility and to doing more with less.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, this resolution is a modified closed 
rule. It allows for the consideration of H.R. 2209, the legislative 
branch appropriations bill for fiscal 1998. This bill funds the 
activities of Congress and other agencies in the legislative branch.
  I will oppose the rule, Madam Speaker, and ask to defeat the previous 
question because it fails to make in order an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] to prohibit the use of $7.9 
million previously set aside in a contingency fund for use by House 
committees.

                              {time}  0930

  I am reluctant to oppose this rule because the bill which funds the 
Congress is critical for operating our national Government. 
Furthermore, I am reluctant on the grounds that just a single amendment 
has been denied. However, that single amendment is so important to the 
integrity of this institution that my side has no choice but to force a 
debate on the issue.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that a woeful and gross violation of the 
House rules may have occurred in connection with the approval of $1.4 
million out of the committee reserve fund for an investigation into 
labor laws and union activity. Even if such a violation did not occur, 
there has been an unmistakable breach in the commitments made on this 
House floor and a demonstration of contempt for the American taxpayers 
who will foot the bill for this unnecessary investigation.
  On January 7, 1997, the House adopted an amendment to rule XI 
authorizing the creation of a reserve fund expressly for the use of 
unanticipated expenses of committees. There is no ambiguity in this 
language. The rules explicitly state that the expenses must be 
unanticipated.
  On February 13, 1997, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
adopted an oversight plan which included a project called the American 
Worker and the Department of Labor.
  Four months later, the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce submitted a similar proposal to the Committee on House 
Oversight and requested $1.4 million from the contingency funds. This 
time the proposal was called a continuation of the Education at a 
Crossroads project.
  Let me quote from the original proposal, the American Worker and the 
Department of Labor, written February 13, and this is available on the 
Internet for all Americans to read: ``The committee intends to initiate 
a systematic and comprehensive review of the Department of Labor, its 
programs and activities.''
  Let me read from the alleged unanticipated, emergency proposal, 
Education at a Crossroads project, 4 months later: ``This will include 
a review of the Department of Labor and its programs, activities, and 
spending habits.''
  Now, quoting from the first proposal: ``Among other things, the 
Committee hopes to review the DOL's activities in response to the 
Government Performance and Review Act.''
  Quoting from the so-called unanticipated, emergency proposal 4 months 
later: ``The project, in particular, will examine agency submissions 
under the newly implemented Government Performance and Review Act.''
  If this is not a violation of the House rule, it certainly violates 
the spirit of the rule and the repeated assurances House Members were 
given when the contingency fund was established.
  A statement by the chairman of the Committee on Rules from the 
Congressional Record when the rule was adopted on January 7 stated that 
the reserve fund is expected to be for use only in extraordinary 
emergency or high priority circumstances.
  That statement was read back to the House by the vice chairman of the 
Committee on Rules on March 20 when the House took up a measure to put 
$7.9 million into that fund: ``extraordinary, emergency, or high 
priority circumstances.''

[[Page H5785]]

  Again, on March 21, he reassured the House that the reserve fund 
would be fully accounted for and open to public scrutiny to cover 
unexpected funding emergencies.
  The decision to spend $1.4 million of taxpayer money from the 
contingency fund was made by the House Committee on House Oversight. It 
was made at a stealth meeting on the evening of July 8 for which notice 
was given only the day before. The committee denied a request to 
postpone the meeting so that the ranking minority member who at the 
time was on official business with the President could attend. Of 
course details of the emergency funding request, such as they were, 
were provided barely 24 hours before the start of the meeting. The 
promised opportunity for public scrutiny never happened.
  Now it is time to shed some sunshine on this decision.
  Just what is the American taxpayer getting for this $1.4 million? 
Details are sketchy but one member on the Republican leadership team 
told the newspaper Roll Call the study will look at the ways labor 
leaders are not representing workers and this will include using dues 
for political purposes.
  I challenge any Member to come to this House floor and tell his 
colleagues that this funding request complies with the House rules 
because the project was unanticipated.
  I challenge any Member to say with a straight face that the need to 
investigate the Labor Department is extraordinary or emergency. I 
challenge any Member to tell the American people that this $1.4 million 
boondoggle that they are paying for is a high priority circumstance.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to 
the rulemaking and order the Gejdenson amendment to put an end to the 
contingency fund and the wasteful spending it represents. A vote to 
defeat the previous question is a vote against spending millions of 
dollars on yet more endless investigations that no one really cares 
about. Cutting unnecessary spending is what our constituents elect us 
to do, so this is what we should do now. I would say oppose the rule, 
defeat the previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio for yielding me time.
  I would like to thank very much the Committee on Rules for the good 
solid rule that they provided us for consideration of this bill. Let me 
begin by stating that the Subcommittee on Legislative worked in a very 
bipartisan manner to produce this bill. My colleague, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Serrano], was extremely thoughtful and helpful 
throughout the process, as was his staff.
  The rule that was provided by the Committee on Rules is a modified 
closed rule. This is the traditional approach to the legislative 
branch, the reason being this is the budget that we use to govern and 
to fulfill our responsibilities as legislators. This is always an 
opportunity for mischief. I am sure that we will hear from a number of 
Members from the other side who are disappointed that certain 
amendments were not granted, but those amendments, Madam Speaker, had 
absolutely nothing to do with this bill. This bill funds the 
legislative branch. It also funds the other aspects of the legislative 
branch other than the House, which would include the Library of 
Congress, the Architect, Government Printing Office, General Accounting 
Office, Capitol Police, Botanic Garden, et cetera. It is important that 
we stick to those issues as laid out by the subcommittee.
  We had a good solid bipartisan approach all the way along on this 
bill. And unfortunately, as we came through subcommittee to full 
committee, outside issues, as they have on other appropriations bills, 
have entered in and sort of poisoned the well somewhat.
  I do think we have a good bill here. I think it is something that we 
can support on both sides of the aisle. But we will hear some weeping 
and gnashing of teeth about the amendments that were not allowed, and I 
would submit to my colleagues that they do not belong on this bill. I 
think the Committee on Rules exercised good judgment in providing us 
with a rule that allows for two amendments from Democrats, two 
amendments from Republicans.
  I think every Member of the House should take a moment and look 
around at our complex, at this campus where we work and remind 
themselves of how fortunate we are to be working here. The bill that we 
will be debating later provides the needed funds to maintain this vast 
campus and the wonderful people who work here on a daily basis. It is 
not just our personal or committee staffs who make up the House. There 
are Capitol Hill Police, maintenance personnel, cafeteria workers, 
clerks, and a variety of services, elevator operators, countless 
people, the sea of faces that we see every day who make this place 
work. We have a responsibility to them also, not just to each other as 
legislators but to the people who work here and make this place work. 
We are very, very fortunate to have the degree of professionalism that 
we have.

  We are also responsible for other offices I mentioned, General 
Accounting Office, Congressional Budget Office, Library of Congress, 
the greatest repository of information on Earth, Madam Speaker. We have 
a huge responsibility to make sure that not only we take care of the 
physical structure but also the wonderful, intelligent, thoughtful 
people who work in these institutions.
  This bill continues a trend that was begun under the leadership of my 
predecessor, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] to downsize, 
to right size the legislative branch. The Federal Government has grown 
like Topsy over the past 20 or 25 years. The legislative branch since 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] became chairman 2 years ago 
has exercised tremendous restraint.
  We are leading the Federal Government in the effort to downsize 
Government. In fact, we have reduced staff on the legislative branch by 
almost 14 percent. No other branch of the Federal Government has done 
nearly as well, as the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] mentioned.
  If this budget is adopted over these 3 years, we will have reduced 
Federal spending just in the legislative branch by almost $400 million. 
If every branch, if every bureau of the Federal Government did what the 
legislative branch has done, we would have a Federal Government surplus 
in the year 1998. We would not have to wait for a 5-year budget deal. 
We would not have a balanced budget. We would have a budget surplus of 
$183 billion, if we did what the legislative branch has done.
  Madam Speaker, I am very proud of this bill. I am very proud of the 
way that we arrived at this bill. Unfortunately, there will be some 
carping today about the rule and about the bill, but overall I think in 
their heart of hearts everybody can agree that we did our best. This is 
the best bill we could bring forward. There is something here that we 
can all support.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I cannot believe we are here again with this 
kind of a rule. We have just gone through a very frustrating and 
acrimonious period because the Committee on Rules chose to turn 
previously bipartisan bills reported out of the Committee on 
Appropriations into partisan war zones by the nature of amendments 
which they did and did not allow on appropriation bills.
  It took us a long time to work out the arrangement last night on the 
foreign operations bill which ended that controversy, I had hoped.
  Now apparently we are right back at it. It is important for the 
majority to understand that we have our responsibilities to manage 
these bills just as they have their responsibilities. And it is 
disruptive of the legislative process when on a routine basis the 
request of our party's bill managers on these bills is ignored and 
frustrated. We asked--and we gave them their choice--we asked that they 
make any one of three amendments in order which would allow us to 
eliminate or reduce the expenditure of public money under the Speaker's 
slush fund. And we were denied the opportunity to reach that problem 
with any of the amendments that we had before us.

[[Page H5786]]

  I think that is a very basic mistake. The fundamental job of this 
House--we can argue about taxes, we can argue about all other 
authorizations--the fundamental job of this House, after all, is to get 
the basic work of the Government done through the appropriations 
process. Rules like this get in the way of that obligation. They extend 
the acrimony rather than shorten it. They extend the debate rather than 
shorten it. They make it more difficult for the House to complete its 
work in a timely fashion.
  Most of all, with this rule the House has a clever way to sneak 
around the staff cuts which were provided in committees 2 years ago 
under the Republican contract and now under this, committees are able 
to get large amounts of additional funding for large amounts of 
additional staff without ever having taken a vote on that on the House 
floor. That is just plain wrong. They ought not to do this. They ought 
to listen to what witnesses before their committee said last night. I 
would hope that this episode will not be repeated on future 
appropriation bills or, again, the House will not be providing the 
leadership to this country that it ought to provide.

                              {time}  0945

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, the last speaker is the ranking member of 
the Committee on Appropriations. It is a very important position in 
this body, and I personally have a great deal of respect for him.
  But the gentleman used to be the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and when I hear statements like those just mentioned in 
the well a few minutes ago, it really disturbs me because we always 
have to be consistent.
  I made a pledge when I became chairman of the Committee on Rules 3 
years ago that we would be fair and open as much as possible, and at 
all times at least as fair and more fair than the Democrats treated us 
when we were in the minority.
  And the gentleman comes to the well and he says that the majority, 
when he was chairman, never shut out the ranking members when they 
wanted to offer an amendment because, as the ranking member of the 
committee, they ought to have that opportunity. And I believe the 
gentleman is right. But the truth is, we have an example right now, we 
have the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], who now is chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative, but he used to be the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, of which 
Madam Speaker has a lot of interest in.
  And just in the last Congress, in other words the Congress that the 
Democrats controlled, on the bill that the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh] brought to the floor as the ranking member at that time, he 
requested at that time three amendments to be made in order. And the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], who was chairman of the committee, 
recommended to the Committee on Rules they make none of those 
amendments in order. Yet he was the ranking member at the time and they 
shut him out.
  I just saw the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] walk through, who 
is chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary, and he had requested in that 103d Congress that he have 
amendments made in order, too, as the ranking member, and they just 
arbitrarily shut him out.
  So let us be consistent around here. We are at all times trying to be 
fair. This rule that is on the floor now, because it does deal with our 
funding for the legislature, should be fair. And of the 8 or 9 or 10 
amendments that were offered, we tried to consider all of the Democrat 
amendments that we could, and we ended up making in order 2 Democrat 
amendments and 2 Republican amendments. Yet we are in the majority. 
Now, how much more fair can we be than that?
  And when we talk about closing down the rules, we have come under 
great criticism for putting out so many open rules. And we have heard 
Members on that side of the aisle and Members on our side of the aisle 
complain about all these open rules. They cannot get their planes, they 
cannot go home on Friday afternoon to be with their constituents and 
their families.
  In the 103d Congress, the last time that the Democrats controlled 
this House, they had open rules about 40 percent of the time. Yet when 
we took over in the 104th Congress, we opened those rules up to 60 
percent of the time. So when we talk about this, let us try to get some 
comity in the House.
  We solved a big problem last night, tried to bring a compromise so 
that we could move the legislation which is so vital to the American 
people, and so let us not come down here and be critical of something 
that does not exist. We are here to try to move this legislation. We 
are under great deadlines because we do not want to get into a 
situation where we close down the Government because this Congress 
could not get together.
  So let us move these appropriation bills. They have to be dealt with 
by September 30. We are going to be off for 3\1/2\ weeks in August for 
constituent work periods back home. There are very few legislative days 
left until September 30. It is imperative we move the legislation. So 
let us work together and let us move the legislation and have a free 
and fair and open debate on it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I want to correct the comments of the 
previous speaker.
  If he will go back and review the history of the D.C. bill, what 
happened on that bill, and on several other occasions, is that the 
gentleman in question asked that the Committee on Rules make in order 
amendments which would otherwise not have been allowed under the rules. 
It would have been nongermane under House rules, and we asked under 
those circumstances to deny them.
  I never said that there were not occasions when the wishes of the 
ranking minority member were not granted. Go back and read what I said. 
I never described that in any way. What I urged my colleagues to do was 
not on a routine basis turn down the request of ranking members.
  I do not expect the committee to grant all of them, but I do expect 
them to grant a reasonable number. And the fact is that this year the 
Committee on Rules has routinely turned down the requests of the 
ranking minority members, and the record demonstrates that.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, the gentleman has just made my point. He 
has mentioned that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the 
chairman, at the time the ranking member, wanted to offer amendments 
that would not otherwise have been in order unless he received a 
waiver.
  And that is really what this whole argument started from at the 
beginning from our very good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates], who I greatly admire and respect, he has been around here for 
so many years, on the NEA issue. Whether we are for or against it, the 
gentleman from Illinois wanted to offer an amendment that would 
otherwise not be allowed without waivers because the program had not 
been authorized, the same thing as was the situation with the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  So let us, again, put this aside, let us get down and really debate 
the issues. That is what is important. That is what all the American 
people watching us today want us to do.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, the Gingrich Republicans have done it 
again. They have launched another sneak attack in their campaign to 
undermine the rights of working families, and this time they are using 
taxpayer dollars to do it.
  I am talking about the Speaker's allocation of $1.4 million to 
investigate, intimidate, and to harass people and organizations that 
are standing up for fair wages, worker safety, decent pensions, and the 
freedom of speech. This partisan slush fund, which was rushed

[[Page H5787]]

through the committee without any notice, without any substantive 
debate, is part of a broad Republican effort to silence the voices of 
anybody who disagrees with them on working issues. It is an effort to 
stifle the opposition, to muffle the ideas they do not like, to stuff a 
rag down liberty's throat.
  And why would Republicans try to silence the voice of America's 
working families? Because they do not like what they are saying. They 
do not like what they are saying and they do not like the fact that 
these families, through their membership in unions, are able to speak 
with force and passion and clarity about their vision for a better 
America.
  Madam Speaker, our parents and our grandparents fought, went to jail, 
were beaten, sometimes even died for basic rights that millions of 
working Americans now enjoy and, unfortunately, take for granted: The 
40-hour workweek, the 8-hour day, maternity leave, paid sick leave, the 
weekend, secured pensions, safety laws in this country. They did not 
just happen. They happened because someone stood up and struggled and 
fought for them.
  Now, the Speaker and his Republican colleagues are trying to take 
those basic rights away from us and they are trying to give big 
corporations unprecedented powers over our lives. All we have to do is 
look at the tax bill. The corporate minimum tax. They want to basically 
forgive corporations from paying Federal taxes. They have a $22 billion 
giveaway in their proposal to the large corporations, to go back to the 
1980's when companies like AT&T and Boeing paid no Federal income tax 
and the rest of us picked it up. Their tax bill? Five percent of 
Americans, the richest 5 percent, get 60 percent of the benefits.
  And, of course, they have made an all-out assault on the minimum wage 
in their bill through independent contracting, which would allow people 
to be paid below the minimum wage, would allow health benefits and 
pension benefits to be taken away.
  So what they are doing with this slush fund, to silence workers and 
their unions as a voice to stand up for worker rights, is a pattern of 
attack on working families' basic rights. It fits this pattern they 
have been about. It is intending to intimidate and undermine labor's 
voice in the political process.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and 
let us make in order the Gejdenson amendment so we can get some justice 
in this institution. This is the wrong way to treat working people.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Madam Speaker, I have never voted against a 
rule on legislative branch before in all the years I have been a 
Member, and I have only voted against the conference report on one 
legislative branch bill because of the removal of the Office of 
Technology Assessment in that conference after this floor sustained it.
  But I rise today in opposition to this rule and of this bill, and I 
do so ruefully because I have great respect for the gentlemen from New 
York, [Mr. Walsh] and [Mr. Serrano]. I think they are going to make the 
institution proud. I think they will do an excellent job of taking one 
of the more important roles that we have, and that is to protect this 
institution and, by doing so, the rights of all Americans.
  But what we are talking about today is a gag rule that does not 
permit this House to discuss the problems that are eating us alive, and 
I mean problems that are attendant to investigations, as the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] said, of labor, that are not voted by 
Members here on the floor but done in a back-room deal using a cookie 
jar fund that was put aside for the fun and pleasure of the Republican 
leadership.
  More important, we are engaged in an investigation, supposedly of 
campaign finance violations, by another committee which is being run in 
the most partisan manner anyone has ever recognized in Washington. The 
similar investigation on the other side puts us to shame because of the 
bipartisan manner in which it is being conducted.
  But we are also in the midst of another investigation that I think we 
all have to focus on, and that is a concerted effort to prolong the 
agony of one of our Members. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez, won, and has been certified as the winner by the 
California Secretary of State, a close race in what had been totally 
Republican Orange County. Today, we continue to prolong her agony by 
preventing her from being made a permanent Member of this institution.
  I think we have to be very sensitive to what has been going on in 
this investigation. If her name were Smith and not Sanchez, we would 
not be investigating the Browns and the Joneses and the Littles, we 
would be investigating people who may have, perhaps, made some 
inappropriate decision about voting. But we would not be doing it by 
investigating the Rodriguezes and the Ortizes, because they happen to 
be Hispanic.
  In my view, this investigation is out of bounds and over the line and 
ought to be ended. And we have no chance here today to express our 
frustration during the course of this debate. We should have and, 
therefore, we should defeat this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am pleased to follow my colleague from California. I do not know 
that there are any two more stronger supporters of the institution than 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and I. There are strong 
supporters on that side of the aisle as well, in particular the 
chairman of this committee. I believe and agree with the gentleman from 
California that he is going to be a strong supporter, and that he and 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] are going to make a team that 
will stand up for honest debate and honest policies with respect to the 
administration of the House of Representatives, the people's House.

                              {time}  1000

  But I wanted to follow the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and 
I wanted to follow him with respect to this investigation that is going 
on with respect to one of our Members, an investigation that has now 
been going on for 8 months that is unprecedented.
  First of all, it is the first time in history, the first time in 
history, under the Federal Contested Election Act, where a Member has 
ever been allowed to have subpoena power to subpoena organizations like 
Catholic Charities and ask for all their financial records. It is the 
first time in history that we have not disposed of a Federal Contested 
Election Act case either because it was withdrawn or because in a 
preliminary fashion we decided there was not sufficient evidence to 
move forward.
  The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. It is the first time 
in history in any district in America that INS has been asked to 
compare the names of the voters with their lists. My colleagues, think 
of the message that we are sending. Think of the message that we are 
sending to those Americans; Americans, I stress, of Hispanic 
background.
  I am a Danish-American. Never in history has anybody asked that we 
check on Danish-Americans through the INS. That is why I am against 
this rule, because they did not allow debate on this critical issue and 
recompense of $150,000 to the INS, as they should do.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This 
debate really is disintegrating, and it is really unfortunate. To wave 
the bloody shirt of ethnicity on a debate on the rule really demeans 
all of us. It really does.
  I am chairman of the subcommittee. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Serrano], the ranking member, is Hispanic. I do not think there is a 
Member in this body who I respect more than that gentleman. The points 
that were made I do not think reflect well on this body. They certainly 
do not reflect well on this rule.
  To get back to the specifics of the request, $150,000 out of the 
legislative branch to give the Immigration Naturalization Service. They 
did not ask for

[[Page H5788]]

this money. It takes money out of the operations of the legislative 
branch, which, as we all know, we have reduced 3 years in a row.
  This amendment does not have anything to do with the legislative 
branch. It is an opportunity for the minority to vent. They are 
frustrated. We were frustrated when we were in the minority, too. It 
goes with the turf. But we have tried to be fair. This rule allows for 
amendments for Democrats and Republicans, but they have got to be 
germane to the bill. They should be fair. I think we have been fair. 
Fairness, obviously, is in the eyes of the beholder. But we really have 
done our best to give everybody their opportunity on this bill. And 
this idea of ethnicity really has absolutely nothing to do with this 
bill.
  I am Irish-American. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is 
Danish-American. There is room in this bill, in this Nation, for all of 
us.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep 
concern about the subject being discussed and how some of the moneys in 
this bill could be appropriated.
  Since the polls closed in November, one of our colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], has been subjected to 
unprecedented harassment. Her defeated opponent has been given subpoena 
power. He has used this power to harass not only the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez] and her family, but Catholic nuns, college 
students, and many others.
  We are now 9 months into this ludicrous tantrum by this poor, 
disappointed man who lost. We have expended hundreds of thousands of 
dollars in this assault, and it is time for it to stop. I say to my 
colleagues in the majority, accept the word of the voters, cease this 
constant undermining of this Member, the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Sanchez]. Let her do what she came to Washington to do, to vote 
all her considerable intelligence, energy, judgment to the constituents 
who have sent her here.
  I urge my colleagues, in the name of the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Sanchez], to oppose this rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will 
be relatively brief. Actually, I am one who presented three amendments, 
which were turned down. But I rise in support of the rule.
  My concern is, as it has been for some time, and this raises 
bipartisan hackles, I might add, is the use of the franking privilege. 
I believe that sometimes it is used in a political context, which 
concerns me a great deal. And I presented three amendments to address 
this.
  But I must say that this Congress and this Committee on Rules, and 
particularly the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], have really 
started to address these issues. And for this I have tremendous praise 
for them.
  For example, we have gone from a high in 1988 of $113.4 million for 
frank mail to free mail, which is sometimes used for political reasons, 
to a low of $30 million in fiscal year 1995. I am convinced, after 
discussing this with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], 
chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
that we are going to try to address even additional areas with respect 
to this to make sure that our mail is used for the purposes of 
responding to our constituents and not for mass mail used in a 
political sense.
  For that reason, I am here to report that even though my particular 
amendments, which I do not think we need to discuss now, are not being 
considered on the floor, the direction is good, the effort is good, the 
focus is there, Congress is going in the right direction. I just hope 
we can continue to do this.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today because I'd like you to make in order 
three amendments to the legislative branch appropriations bill. These 
amendments build upon the progress Congress has made in recent years to 
reduce the cost to taxpayers of the congressional franking privilege.
  During the last decade, Congress spent from a high of $113.4 million 
in fiscal year 1988 to a low of $30 million in fiscal year 1995 on 
franked mail. This is an impressive reduction. Nevertheless, I believe 
improvements can still be made, notwithstanding the legitimate need 
Members have to respond to the inquiries and concerns of their 
constituents.
  My first amendment will ban mass mailings during election years up to 
the general election. Use of the frank increases cyclically during 
every election year. During the 103d Congress, the House spent $24 
million in 1993, and $42 million in 1994. During the 104th Congress, 
the House spent $24.5 million in 1995 and $27 million in 1996.
  Currently, Members cannot send franked mass mail 90 days before a 
primary or general election. Since primaries occur on different dates 
in different States, Members are held to different mass mail standards 
depending on the dates of their primaries. My amendment will simplify 
the issue by banning all mass mailings prior to election day in 
election years. It will prevent House Members facing tough reelection 
campaigns from tapping into their official office accounts to flood 
constituents with self-promoting newsletters and mailings.
  My second amendment addresses a relatively new issue, raised by 
changes in House rules which permit Members to use their Members 
Representational Allowance [MRA] to pay for radio advertisements. The 
cost of these advertisements are not counted against a Members's 
Official Mail Allowance, even though these radio advertisements are 
generally substituted for town meeting notices sent by mail. This 
oversight frees up additional funds for a Member to spend on 
unsolicited mass mailings. I believe that these advertisements should 
be counted against a Member's Official Mail Allowance to avoid this 
substitution affect and my second amendment does this.
  My third amendment reduces the MRA by $5,674,000, the amount that the 
Appropriations Committee recommends as an increase in the Official Mail 
Allowance. This 27 percent increase over fiscal year 1997 funding is 
completely unjustifiable. Given the excellent work the Appropriations 
Committee has done in recent years to reduce taxpayer funding of 
franked mail, I believe this is the wrong approach to take.
  I know that it is impossible to serve constituents well while 
spending relatively little on franked mail, because I represent the 
third largest congressional district in the country, and yet I am 
consistently among the lowest franked mail spenders. We are diligent, 
however, at responding to letters and phone calls from constituents, 
and we have a very organized, computerized system of tracking the mail 
we receive and send out. The way I accomplish this is by refusing to 
send my constituents unsolicited newsletters, questionnaires, or 
postcards using the franked mail privilege.
  Last year, the Rules Committee made in order two franking disclosure 
amendments I offered, which were adopted on the floor and have been 
made permanent. Those were good reforms, and I appreciate your making 
the amendments in order. I believe that these amendments also make 
important reforms, and hope you will give them every consideration.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware 
[Mr. Castle] for his continued vigilance. Amendments made in the last 
Congress have moved us much along the path of making sure that the 
former tactic of having a sawed-tooth pattern of mail, oddly enough, 
the greatest expense during election years, has been smoothed out 
significantly. No longer is the old partisan pattern being followed. It 
is largely due to the continued vigilance of the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time does my side remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] has 11 minutes. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] has 10 
minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago, Republicans met behind closed doors and 
hatched a devious partisan political campaign with $1.4 million in 
public funds to harass and intimidate workers, union leaders, and the 
Department of Labor. Now under this rule, which prohibits amendments, 
Republicans want to deny Members of this House a vote to eliminate 
their $7.9 million slush fund from which this $1.4 million

[[Page H5789]]

boondoggle was withdrawn. The Republican slush fund was supposed to be 
used, and I quote, for unanticipated expenses of committees.
  Well, if there is one thing in this Congress that was not 
unanticipated, it is the continued Republican assault on the rights of 
working men and women. Time and time again, the leadership of this 
House attacks the rights of workers and then abuses House procedures to 
choke off dissent against their extremist agenda. By denying the vote 
on the Gejdenson amendment, the Republican majority is striking another 
blow against democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, we should reject this rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I 
think we only have two speakers remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
  As a member of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
and a new Member of this Congress, as many Members and people of 
America may remember, on January 7 this Congress adopted budgets for 
the various committees of the Congress; and in that adoption, after 
some dismay, there was set aside a $7.9 million reserve fund, more 
commonly known as slush fund, that was supposed to be used for three 
purposes: high priority, emergencies, and extraordinary circumstances.
  On July 8, with less than 24-hour notice, as the rules require, the 
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight was called together 
and a $1.4 million deduction from that slush fund was had for an 
investigation of the Labor and Education Department. As a member of the 
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I felt then, as I 
do now, that the rules had not been followed, that we did not have 
proper notice, that we were again going to spend another $1 million of 
the American people's money on another investigation.
  Since 1996, over $10 million have been spent on investigations. Over 
the last 18 months, over $30 million has been spent on investigations.
  I rise to oppose the rule. I rise to defeat the previous question, 
because I believe the American people want us to have the input and the 
exchange. That is why they sent us here. I believe the American people 
want us to debate the issues. And, therefore, because the Gejdenson 
amendments were not adopted yesterday, it would allow that opportunity. 
That is why we put it on the table, why this $1.4 was deducted, why the 
slush fund initially was incorporated, and why today we have before us 
another investigation.
  The Labor Department is a fine department, and its employees do good 
work. It is unfortunate that we are here today to oppose the rule. It 
is unfortunate that we as elected representatives of the people cannot 
debate the question. Why? America, speak out. Do not let this Congress 
get away with again going after investigation and investigation. Let us 
get back to the people's work.
  Mr. Speaker, oppose the rule, oppose the previous question.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall] for yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to this rule because I believe when this 
House debates the legislative appropriations bill, each Member has a 
right to question the expenditures of this House. I believe that the 
prolonged investigation of the election of our colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] is an issue that confronts 
the integrity of this House.
  For the first time in the history of this Nation, voters, legitimate 
voters, have been put on a list and run through the INS register simply 
because they have ethnic last names, Hispanic, Asian. I think that is 
an affront. And that practice has been more or less authorized by this 
House if we do not inquire into it. It is a very, very specious way to 
conduct an investigation. And I believe the House has a right to go 
into it, inquire on the practice of this committee, and root out those 
that are beginning this kind of racist inquiry.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me offer my respect for 
the respective chairman and ranking member of this committee. Many of 
us hate to have to come before this body and oppose the rule and oppose 
the bill. Primarily we think that it is a question of dignity and 
respect. Already we understand that many of our Members on the side of 
the minority have not been allowed to address the attack on one of our 
Members, a Member who has been duly elected by her constituents, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].
  In an instance where it was one of the largest victories that the 
Federal Election Contest Act has ever had to review, where a task force 
looking into it has said Dornan, who lost, really has no credible 
evidence that there has been any violations.
  Independent scholars have already challenged Mr. Dornan on the 
constitutionality of his subpoenas. And, yes, a Los Angeles newspaper, 
the Los Angeles Times, said, ``Yet a close review of Dornan's 
contentions shows them to be overstated and riddled with 
uncertainties.''
  What do we do in this House? Continue to comfort and pamper Mr. 
Dornan, while a working Member, a Hispanic woman, is attacked by the 
Republicans. I wish we would vote against this rule and vote against 
this bill.

                              {time}  1015

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back onto the issue here 
if I could. I rise in very strong support of this rule. The gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] was talking a few minutes ago about the 
number of people here who have a great deal of pride and reverence for 
this institution. I clearly consider myself to be among them. I am very 
proud of the work that the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] has 
done to try and deal with reform of an institution which spent most of 
its time on legislative branch work simply trying to ensure the 
reelection of its Members. I am very proud of the work of the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Walsh] and of so many others who have focused on 
ensuring that this institution expands the deliberative nature and that 
we are in fact accountable to the people who sent us here. I am very 
saddened to see this debate deteriorate to, as the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh] has said, a case of waving the bloody shirt of racism. 
I happen to like the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. She 
agrees with me on a number of issues like cutting the capital gains tax 
rate. I think she is a very decent, hardworking person. And I am very 
concerned about the prospect of seeing us in any way discriminate 
against Hispanic-Americans. I come from Los Angeles, CA. I am very 
sensitive to this issue. But the fact of the matter is there are many 
Hispanic Americans in my State who have said to me, we have to ensure 
that that very precious franchise, the right to vote, is not in any way 
jeopardized.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I think that the work that is being done to 
ensure that every single vote counts is correct work, and I believe 
that this rule is a very fair and balanced rule. As the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Walsh] has said, it ensures that the consideration of 
both Democrats and Republicans is brought into the mix here. Let us 
support the previous question, let us support the rule, and let us 
support what I am convinced will be a very, very good legislative 
branch appropriations product that will emerge from this House.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Velazquez].

[[Page H5790]]

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. 
The Republican leadership is trying to fund its own partisan attack on 
their enemies while they are trying to deny Democrats the right to 
bring amendments to the floor. The Republicans are using the Committee 
on House Oversight to fund an unprecedented attack on the election of 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. They have spent over 
$300,000 of taxpayer money to attack a Hispanic woman and to intimidate 
Hispanic voters.
  This is a clear attack on the voting rights of minorities and an 
utter abuse of power. The Republicans have even subpoenaed the INS to 
try to dig up dirt on immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership must not be allowed to trample 
the rights of Latinos. They must not be allowed to use their power to 
prevent Democrats from bringing important amendments to a vote. Vote 
``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, what has developed here over a number of 
years is class warfare. It is exhibited in almost every action taken by 
the Republican majority on the Sanchez matter. It did not start with 
Sanchez. In 1980, we watched men wearing black armbands descend upon 
polling places that have large minority populations trying to dissuade 
them from voting.
  Any of us who are immigrants, who come here without all the 
guarantees of freedom and protection of law, know how easy it is to 
intimidate the poor and the new Americans from participating, how they 
can easily remember the fears of the countries they fled. The 
Republican majority opposes motor-voter and particularly opposes poor 
people having systems where the poor can get registered.
  One of the members of the Committee on Appropriations in a discussion 
last week said that the real motive behind the Sanchez contest was not 
simply Sanchez, the reason for pursuing it was to get motor-voter. We 
have a right and an obligation to review elections. But the extent, the 
lack of due process that has occurred in this review is outrageous.
  On the money side, $30 to $50 million of investigations have been 
initiated by those who claim to be careful with dollars. The outrageous 
slush fund and its use, to add over $1 million, $1.4 million to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce is as if we have an in-house 
counsel, we had a lawyer that worked for our company and then when the 
lawyer actually did something, he said, ``Wait, I've got to be paid 
again, I'm a lawyer.''
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce, all of what they have 
asked for is in their original jurisdiction. But it is one more attempt 
to get labor, to politicize the legislative process. We have a 
responsibility here to do our work, to try to stay in budget, but to 
make sure that what we do here really serves the best interests of the 
American people.
  We have had sufficient funds appropriated to that committee so that 
we do not need to dip into this slush fund. This slush fund ought to be 
abandoned. It is a political tool directed by the Speaker to get people 
that are in his way.
  When we take a look at what this committee has been doing, it has 
left the minority without rights. But we are not going to argue 
process. It has held meeting after meeting without notice. Let me tell 
my colleagues when I was a committee chair, my ranking Republican Toby 
Roth, we gave him everything as soon as we had it. We notified meetings 
weeks in advance.
  When we take a look at what has happened here, we walk in, we do not 
see the language until we sit down to vote. But all that is secondary. 
The issues that are here and outrageous are the continued harassment of 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and the continued use of 
funds for political purposes out of this slush fund.
  The Speaker basically gets to decide who he is going to go after by 
tapping into $7.9 million. The House does not get to look at those 
funds. You snuck that through early, got a nice party line vote to make 
sure you could have a slush fund to continue your political and 
partisan wars.
  We are here today to say that is enough. Let us join together and 
reject this rule and go forward with a process that gives every Member 
of this House the right to cleanse the funding of that slush fund.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars for a partisan 
investigation into campaign finance abuses, millions of dollars for an 
investigation intended to intimidate organized labor, hundreds of 
thousands of dollars to harass and intimidate a Hispanic woman Member 
of Congress.
  It is not right, it is not fair, it is a shame and a disgrace. Defeat 
the previous question and defeat this rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I think the Republicans are trying to 
do their very best job here. We heard a lot of screaming and yelling. I 
do not know if my colleagues remember exactly what happened, but when 
the Democrats were in charge, they were not exactly perfect. We had a 
lot of complaints, too. I think some of the complaints that we had were 
very legitimate. When I first came here, Jim Wright was the Speaker and 
Jim Wright had to leave and there were some problems there. We had a 
House bank scandal. We had a House post office scandal. We had all 
kinds of things going on. Republicans were screaming and yelling about 
it.
  Today I have to tell my colleagues, after all these years, and with 
all due respect to my colleagues, I think we are working better 
together right now than we were back in those days. I will have to 
admit I was frustrated in those days. I was very frustrated and I was 
probably screaming. In fact most of my colleagues can remember me 
screaming and yelling in those days. But I think that we are actually 
working better now than we did when I first became a Member of the 
House. There is always room for improvement and I hope we will.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the 
previous question to make in order the amendment by the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] which was defeated in the Committee on 
Rules yesterday. The amendment would cap funds for committee expenses 
at the level identified for them in the committee funding resolution 
for the 105th Congress.
  This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a 
special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
  A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the 
Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least 
for the moment, to offer an alternative plan.
  It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
  The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive 
policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those 
who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative 
plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

       This vote on whether to order the previous question on a 
     special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against 
     ordering the previous question is a vote against the 
     Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the 
     opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative 
     plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's ``Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives,'' (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''

[[Page H5791]]

       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership ``Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives,'' (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's ``Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives,'' the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Bakersfield, CA [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the 
Committee of House Oversight.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio very much 
for yielding me this time. I want to start by complimenting the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh]. As the new chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, he is, in this 
proposal, building on the excellent record laid down by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Packard], which showed between the Democratically 
controlled 103d Congress and the Republican-controlled 104th a dramatic 
reduction in expenses. After the dramatic work of Mr. Packard, the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, follows him by additional 
reductions.
  Anyone who needs to know what the Democrats did when they ran this 
place simply has to go out and look at the Botanical Gardens. It was 
falling apart for years. They would not fix things. What we have done 
is come in and in a businesslike way know that deferred maintenance is 
going to eventually cost us. It cost us. There is no roof on the 
Botanical Gardens. They were here for 40 years and the building 
collapsed. Come back in 3 years and under Republican control, you will 
see a rebuilt Botanical Gardens. We go to the foundation and build it 
back up. I want to compliment the gentleman from New York for doing 
that.
  In terms of amendments, first of all, let me say that I am very, very 
saddened by the comments of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. 
He has an amendment that has been made in order by the Committee on 
Rules. The gentleman's amendment seeks to cut staff. I will have to 
tell Members that in the years the gentleman from California was 
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, he never ever 
offered an amendment to cut staff. In fact, he is known as a champion 
of making sure that there are enough helping hands around here to do 
the job. His amendment clearly is out of character. The reason, of 
course, is because his status changed from majority to minority. But I 
cannot understand, unless it is the demands of leadership and the 
pressure put on him by the outrageous elements within his party for him 
to come to this well and use the ethnic card, to try to argue that the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and her election is being 
investigated because her name is Sanchez.
  I would ask my colleagues to reflect on the fact that the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Sanchez] is a Member of the House of 
Representatives. She had a certificate of election. When the Democrats 
ran the place, if your name was McIntyre and you had a certificate of 
election, you were not allowed to be seated.

                              {time}  1030

  What the Democrats did was go in, set up a phony way of counting 
votes and then did not even follow the way they said they were going to 
count the votes to make sure that they stole that election.
  What are we doing right now in the contested election? My colleagues 
heard all the racist comments from the Democratic side of the aisle. I 
will tell my colleagues what is going on. In Orange County today the 
District Attorney of Orange County is carrying out a criminal 
investigation preparatory to a trial against an organization called 
Hermandad Nacional because these people abused and misused Americans 
who wanted to become citizens. Legal aliens were used in illegal 
activities. That is the basis for our requiring by subpoena the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service to take those core names that 
Hermandad used for illegal purposes and put on the voter rolls without 
complying with the law.
  The labor card was played once again. I just find it ironic that if 
one's party affiliation is Democrat, somehow you are with working 
people. Contrarily, if one's label is ``R'' you are somehow against 
working people.
  My father, his lifetime job was a plumber. He belonged to Local 582, 
Plumbers and Pipefitters, and he went out and worked as a plumber his 
entire life. I was the first member of my family to complete college.
  My colleagues should look at some of their backgrounds. What they do 
is exploit the labor union movement. These people never belonged to 
labor unions. All they do is play that cheap labor card over and over 
again.
  Let me tell my colleagues about this investigation, this oversight 
vote that we are looking at. It was voted in committee. We have a 2-
year budgetary process. When needs come up, we will vote the money, 
this time, $1.4 million. They get $433,000 out of that money. They have 
not mentioned that. We play a fair share game, $2 on our side, $1 on 
their side.
  Mr. Speaker, they get $1 for every $2 that we have. When they ran the 
place, we got 10 cents on the dollar. But what they need to do is to 
hide behind racial epitaphs and abuse-of-class arguments to try to 
carry the day.
  I know those people are upset they are not the majority anymore, but 
come on, grow up. More important, do not let the American people think 
that the way we are supposed to win is to not deal with facts, not face 
reality, but hide behind scapegoats and epitaphs which may allow them 
to get elected when they can sway people in their district but should 
not be allowed to be the basis for discussion on the floor of the House 
of Representatives.
  So I would tell my colleagues as we examine this rule and the vote 
for the legislative branch appropriation that the work that the new 
majority is doing to continue to build to make sure that roofs are on 
buildings, that people who obtain the franchise illegally are not able 
to use it. Black, white, red, yellow, Hispanic, Welsh; illegal voters 
should not be on the rolls. If illegal voters participate in an 
election, the American people have a right to know that their legal 
vote counts and illegal votes have to be removed from the rolls.
  Support the rule, support the legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following 
proposed amendment:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section.
       Section 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of the 
     resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider the following amendment by Mr. 
     Gejdenson.
       Page 8, insert after line 5 the following new section:
       Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the expenses of any committee of the House of 
     Representatives during any session of the One Hundred Fifth 
     Congress in excess of the amounts specifically identified for 
     and allocated to such committee under primary and 
     supplemental expense resolutions, or to pay the salary of any 
     officer or employee of the House of Representatives who 
     certifies, approves, or processes any disbursement of funds 
     from any reserve fund for unanticipated expenses of 
     committees established pursuant to clause

[[Page H5792]]

     5(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a rule and an 
appropriations bill which permits continued funding for a wasteful, 
spiteful, and pointless challenge to the duly-certified election of our 
colleague, Loretta Sanchez.
  I faced a similar challenge in the last Congress. After 9 months and 
taxpayer expenditures of approximately $100,000, that challenge was 
finally withdrawn.
  The Sanchez challenge should be ended now before more taxpayer money 
and more Members' time is wasted. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, those of us 
from California--a State where a majority of our population will soon 
be Hispanic--should condemn the effort to intimidate legal Hispanic 
voters which is, in my view, a central goal of the ongoing Sanchez 
challenge.
  The right way to challenge Loretta Sanchez is the 1998 election. The 
wrong way is to use funding in this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 (b)(1) of rule XV the 
Chair may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for any electronic 
vote on the question of passage of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 201, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               YEAS--222

     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
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     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
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     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
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     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
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     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
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blumenauer
     Crane
     Gonzalez
     Martinez
     Miller (CA)
     Molinari
     Nussle
     Schiff
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1053

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida and Mr. CLEMENT changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CUBIN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  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 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the Chair's previous 
announcement, this will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 203, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 325]

                               AYES--218

     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
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     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
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette

[[Page H5793]]


     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     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
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     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)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     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)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blumenauer
     Crane
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, E.B.
     Linder
     Martinez
     Miller (CA)
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1106

  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.

                          ____________________