[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 154 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10113-H10122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 4(b) OF RULE XI WITH RESPECT TO 
 CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON RULES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the 
membership, giving credit to the Democrats that more Democrats voted to 
stay here and work than voted to go home. I wanted to make that point, 
and we thank them.
  Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the very distinguished 
gentlewoman [Ms. Slaughter], pending which I yield myself such time as 
I might consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to complete our work in a timely 
and expeditious manner and send us back to our districts this weekend. 
I would like to quote a very distinguished former Member of this House. 
His name was Tip O'Neill, and we all revered Tip. He was a great guy. 
But he said, quote, ``If you stay in session, a lot of things can 
happen, and all of them are bad.''
  Well, I say to my colleagues, we are rushing to adjournment. We are 
going to get out of here this Sunday if we all cooperate with each 
other, and that is why we have this resolution before us today.
  House Resolution 305 is a customary rule for considering legislation 
at the end of the legislative session. The first part of this rule 
waives provisions of clause 4(b) of rule XI, requiring a two-thirds 
vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the 
Committee on Rules, and it is waived against certain resolutions 
reported from the Committee on Rules before November 10, 1997, or 
rather between today and actually next Monday.
  The waiver applies to any special rules providing for consideration 
of a bill or a joint resolution that makes appropriations for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, any amendment thereto, any 
conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement 
from a conference thereon. This will enable the House to expeditiously 
conclude the remaining appropriation bills for fiscal year 1998, 
hopefully by this Sunday, and perhaps even sooner.
  The waiver also applies to any special rule providing for 
consideration of a bill for a joint resolution making continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, any 
amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, or any amendment 
reported in disagreement from a conference thereon. As the current 
continuing resolution is scheduled to expire on Friday, tomorrow, 
November 7, this will allow the House to consider any needed short-term 
extension as efficiently as possible so that the Government does not 
shut down and all of the agencies and bureaus and departments can 
continue to serve the American people.
  Section 2 of the rule provides that the Speaker may entertain motions 
to suspend the rules at any time before Monday, November 10, 1997, 
provided that the object of the motion is announced from the floor at 
least 1 hour before the motion is offered, and that deals in layman's 
language for suspensions after the minority is given at least 1 hour's 
notice.
  In order to accommodate the schedule in the interests of all Members, 
this rule also provides that the Speaker will consult with the minority 
leader regarding any bills scheduled under the authority to suspend the 
rules.
  The final section of the rule provides that during the remainder of 
the 1st session of the 105th Congress, the Speaker may not recognize a 
Member, other than the majority leader or the minority leader, to offer 
from the floor or to announce an intention to offer a resolution as a 
question of the privileges of the House.
  This section of the rule further provides that the Speaker may 
postpone the consideration of any noticed resolution as a question of 
the privileges of the House prior to the adoption of this resolution 
during the remainder of the first session of the 105th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the procedures for calling up a rule on the same day 
that it is reported from the Committee on Rules are familiar to the 
House. It is customary for the appropriation measures at the end of the 
session. Also, providing for motions to suspend the rules on days other 
than Mondays or Tuesdays is very useful so that bipartisan, 
noncontroversial legislation can move rapidly at the end of the 
session.
  We have a particular problem in the borders with Canada where there 
are problems with people coming back and forth. There is some 
bipartisan legislation that we hope to move under this kind of a 
procedure. Adequate provision for notice to the minority are provided, 
as has been the case in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, in the furtherance of our target adjournment date, this 
rule also addresses the dilatory tactics and abuse of the House rules 
we have seen in recent weeks on the floor. As the House is well aware, 
certain Members have utilized the procedure under House rule IX, 
questions of the privilege of the House, to force debate and votes on 
the contested election in the 46th Congressional District in 
California. Under that rule, Members may give notice of their intention 
to raise a question of privilege of the House and the Speaker then sets 
an appropriate time within 2 legislative days for the consideration of 
the question of the privilege. Certain minority Members' repeated and 
dilatory use of these questions of privilege to filibuster the 
legislative process I believe creates a privilege in itself, and that 
is why we are here today with this rule.
  The disposal of these near identical notices under rule IX consumes 
precious hours as well as requiring an astounding number of votes. The 
use of the rule relating to the questions of the privilege of the House 
in a frivolous and political manner is unbecoming, I think, to this 
institution, and that certainly is verified by the literally hundreds 
of phone calls that I have received because people know that I am 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, calls from all over the country, 
wanting to know why we are wasting our time with these repeated 
repetitious requests for questions of privilege.
  Mr. Speaker, for several weeks the majority and the minority 
leadership have attempted to reach an accommodation regarding these 
dilatory questions of privilege. On October 23, the distinguished 
minority leader, who I have great respect for, rose to a question of 
privilege on this issue. Instead of simply tabling the matter with no 
debate, the House considered the resolution, debated it for an hour and 
defeated it, under regular order of this House. The majority leadership 
allowed it to be debated out of deference to the minority leader and 
voted on it. The House worked its will and defeated that resolution.
  In exchange for allowing this issue to be debated and voted on, the 
minority provided the following: October 29, one question of privilege 
tabled. October 30, eight questions of privilege tabled. October 31, 21 
questions of privilege noticed. November 4, 7 questions of privilege 
noticed, and yesterday, November 5, another 13 questions of privilege 
were noticed, delaying us bringing up very important matters dealing 
with the United States-China relationship by about an hour and a half, 
another hour and a half that we were delayed from working the will of 
this House.
  Last night, Mr. Speaker, in efforts to mollify the situation, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader, allowed yet 
another question of privilege on the same subject to be separately 
debated and voted on. It was a good debate, I think from both sides of 
the aisle, whether one agrees with it or does not. A unanimous-consent 
request was then propounded which would have considered the question of 
privileges as read and would have shortened the voting time on each, 
again in an effort to try to accommodate the minority. This reasonable 
request was objected to.
  Mr. Speaker, in still another example of good faith, the Committee on 
Rules reported two rules last night, the rule I have just called up and 
we are debating now, which contains this limitation on questions of 
privilege, and another without this provision.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, the committee's intention was to empower the very 
serious legislators on both sides of the aisle and to marginalize the 
partisan obstructions. This has not happened, and

[[Page H10114]]

that is why I was forced today to rise with this unfortunate rule 
today.
  I do not like to bring this rule before the House. I said so last 
night during the debate exchange in the Committee on Rules. But, Mr. 
Speaker, many Members on both sides of the aisle with a very strong 
interest in getting legislation considered by the House before we 
adjourn have approached me and asked for the Committee on Rules to 
intervene and to restore order on this floor, so we can expedite these 
very, very serious measures that we have to deal with before this 
Sunday.
  Mr. Speaker, because the rule suffering such abuse has been rule IX, 
I have been reluctant, again, to intervene. The deliberate use of this 
fundamental House rule for a flagrant political and dilatory purpose 
has forced the majority to assert its right to set the legislative 
schedule.
  On behalf of the overwhelming majority of both parties who are 
interested in serious legislating, we must insist that our friends will 
not filibuster the people's House with an abuse of these rules.
  Having said that, I hope we can pass this rule and get on with the 
people's business. There is precious little time between now and Sunday 
to find the windows of opportunity on this floor to deal with the 
measures that are so important to Members on both sides of the aisle, 
as well as the other body, and as well as President Clinton himself, 
who has a number of requests pending before this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this 
tyrranical rule. For the first time in the 218-year history of the 
House of Representatives, we will be voting to deprive all but two 
Members of this body the right to assert their constitutional 
prerogatives as Representatives elected by their constituents. House 
rule IX gives each and every Member of this House the right to raise 
before the whole body questions of privilege affecting the rights of 
the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its 
proceedings.
  The House adopted rule IX in 1880, defining what had been long 
established in the practice of the House before then. Thomas Jefferson 
begins his Manual on Parliamentary Procedure, which has governed the 
House procedures since 1837, with section 1, titled ``The Importance of 
Adhering to Rules.'' It quotes a former Speaker of the House of 
Commons' views on the neglect of, or departure from, the rules of 
proceeding.
  I quote:

     That these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as 
     a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that 
     they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the 
     minority against the attempts of power.

  Jefferson then continues:

       As it is always in the power of the majority, by their 
     numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed by their 
     opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can defend 
     themselves against similar attempts from those in power are 
     the forms and rules of proceeding which they have adopted as 
     they have found necessary, from time to time, and are become 
     the law of the House, by a strict adherence to which the 
     weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities 
     and abuses, which these forms were intended to check, which 
     the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to 
     large and successful majorities.

  Mr. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, surely 
would have opposed the wantonness of power displayed by the majority in 
offering this rule. Rule IX is the heart of Members' individual rights 
within our rules. It guarantees that each Member has the right to move 
to guarantee the integrity of House proceedings. That right is so 
central to our idea of representative government and liberty itself 
that in all of the 104 Congresses before today, the House has never 
voted to suspend this paramount right.
  Even in the depths of the Depression and in the struggles against the 
tyranny of Nazi Germany, when the House's legislative decisions might 
truly have changed the course of the Nation and the world, they did not 
suspend this prerogative of the individual Member.
  Yet, in this era of relative prosperity and world stability, the 
majority proposes to suspend this fundamental right guaranteed in our 
rules. This majority would give itself the power for the rest of this 
session to not recognize any Member except the majority or minority 
leader to offer a motion affecting the rights of the House 
collectively, its safety, its dignity, and the integrity of its 
proceedings.
  What is the national crisis that has brought about this unprecedented 
attempt by the majority to usurp Members' powers to protect the 
integrity of this House? Are we at war and a defense funding bill is 
urgent? Is there mob violence in the streets? Are we in the throes of a 
great economic depression? No. The interest this unprecedented attack 
on one of the fundamental checks and balances built into our House 
rules is getting Members out of town a day or two early.
  Mr. Speaker, I can only say, shame. At last night's Committee on 
Rules, the chairman of the committee did indeed state that he hoped 
this rule would not come to the floor, and I joined him in that hope. I 
am appalled and saddened that this majority would seek to suspend this 
bulwark of Members' abilities to ensure full representation to their 
constituents.
  What kind of issues are raised under rule IX, the rule that will be 
effectively suspended? The Annotated House Rules gives us examples of 
the fundamental nature of issues that are raised under the rule. They 
are questions relating to the House's constitutional prerogatives in 
respect to revenue legislation and appropriations; impeachments; the 
constitutional prerogatives of this House with respect to bills pocket-
vetoed during an intersession of adjournment; the House's power to 
punish for contempt, whether of its own Members, of witnesses who are 
summoned to give information, or of other purposes; questions relating 
to the House's organization and the title of its Members to their 
seats; questions relating to the conduct of officers and employees, in 
addition to that of Members; questions relating to the integrity of its 
proceedings, including the processes by which bills are considered.
  Clearly, the rule IX procedure for making motions regarding the 
privileges of this House is the keystone of a Member's ability to bring 
to the House's attention the most serious and fundamental matters 
affecting the integrity of this House. Yet this rule, proposed by the 
majority for the first time in the House of Representatives' 218-year 
history, squelched that right, and for what historic, precedent-worthy 
reason? So that we might leave Washington a couple of days early.
  Mr. Speaker, I have not yet touched on the second infamous and again 
unprecedented clause in this rule. It would allow the Speaker to 
postpone indefinitely the full House consideration of any question of 
the privileges of this House that he had deigned to allow.
  Currently, rule IX gives the Speaker the authority to schedule 
consideration within the next 2 legislative days. I was responsible 
myself for drafting this rule change in the 103d Congress. It was done 
to ensure that privileged resolutions could not disrupt consideration 
of time-sensitive legislation, such as continuing resolutions. Prior to 
that rule change, a resolution raising questions of the privileges of 
this House had immediate precedence over all other questions except 
motions to adjourn. However, it was never within the contemplation of 
that rules change to prevent any Member from having the chance for the 
full House to vote on a privileged resolution.
  As drafted, this part of the rule we are debating would essentially 
give the Speaker carte blanche to continue to indefinitely postpone 
consideration of any motion regarding privileges of the House until the 
end of the session. Unfortunately, last night we got a taste of the 
real world consequences of such postponements. The majority could 
merely move to adjourn sine die, and thereby prevent consideration of 
these fundamental motions to protect the House's safety, dignity, and 
the integrity of its proceedings.
  Mr. Speaker, these two rules changes are a despotic attack on 
Members' constitutional rights to protect their constituents. This may 
be one of the most

[[Page H10115]]

important votes that we take as Members of Congress. As I mentioned 
earlier, Thomas Jefferson, who defined through the Declaration of 
Independence our notions of freedom and liberty, put the rules' 
protection against the tyranny of the majority as the very first 
section of Jefferson's rules which govern us today in the House of 
Representatives.
  I will be ashamed for the House and afraid for its integrity should 
this misbegotten rule be adopted. The danger of this precedent cannot 
be overstated. I urge in the strongest possible terms that this attempt 
to restrict the fundamental rights and liberties of House Members be 
defeated.
  In addition, I will urge Members to defeat the previous question, and 
if it is defeated, I will offer an amendment to strike the provisions 
of the rule pertaining to the privileged resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
will appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from San Diego, CA, Mr. Duke Cunningham.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, many of us heard about the harassment at 
the voter polls in California for the first time last night. At the 
time I was flying fighters for the U.S. Navy. I thought, if this is 
true, it is truly un-American for anyone to harass any ethnic group or 
any American or non-American at the polls, if they are here legally.
  So I checked last night. Individuals wore brown shirts, INS shirts, 
at the polls carrying signs saying, noncitizens cannot vote here. The 
wearing of the brown shirts, I agree, would be mean-spirited, and they 
were fined for that. That should not be tolerated. But I agree with the 
idea that noncitizens should not vote.
  Why did they carry those signs? It is because individual liberal 
activist Democrats were taking illegals to that particular precinct to 
vote. It was not an allegation; they were charged, they were arrested, 
and they were sent to jail. My colleagues do not tell us about that on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, who were these mean-spirited Republicans that wrote the 
signs in Spanish? Two Hispanic Americans, Carlos Rodriguez and Thomas 
Fuentes. What did they say? They said, we are proud of our ethnic 
backgrounds, and we are proud to be Americans, and we reject the 
blatant intentional abuse by Democrats to take away our basic rights 
that we worked hard for as American citizens and immigrants: first, our 
American citizenship, and then the right to vote as an American 
citizen.
  I challenge my colleagues on the other side to spend one-tenth of the 
time looking at violations of voter fraud. It must be sad for them, 
after 3 years, because they have got nothing else to stymie and delay 
tactics on the House floor.
  They fought against, many of them, the liberal Democrats, against a 
balanced budget, and we are now talking about a surplus in the deficit. 
They fought against tax relief for working families. They fought to 
save Medicare, and the President signed the same Medicare that they 
demonized in this balanced budget. They fought against welfare reform, 
when the average was 16 years, and they fought against anticrime 
measures.
  It must really be sad that this is all they have left. It must be sad 
that the President said Americans are selfish for not wanting to pay 
taxes, and that a Member of the Senate said Americans are not paying 
enough taxes.
  Over 400 Democrats have switched over to become Republicans. Do 
Members want to look at the future? Look at the races in Virginia. In 
Democratic districts, a clean sweep in New Jersey for Governor in a 
Democrat district; a clean sweep in New York, a targeted Democrat 
district; and now we have Vito Fossella as a Member of Congress in the 
Molinari seat.
  It must be really bad for them that the signs did not say, for some 
liberal Democrats, noncitizens vote here, and vote for me, or else they 
would be out there working just as hard to fight against illegal 
voting.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me commend the gentlewoman 
from New York for her fine statement and history of the rule that we 
are about, unfortunately, to overturn.
  I just used the word ``unfortunately.'' I think it fits my view, 
although that word that I take from my friend, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, is too mild and 
too soft to really be used with any degree of accuracy in this 
situation.

                              {time}  1145

  I rise today to protest this rule, a rule which the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the committee, referred to as 
an unfortunate rule. Indeed, this is nothing less than a bold attempt 
by the Republican majority to silence, to muzzle, the elected 
representatives who speak for literally millions of people in this 
country. This is a gag rule. It is a rule that effectively denies every 
Member of Congress their right to free speech.
  Over my right shoulder, etched above a door just to my right above 
the gallery, is ensconced the image of Thomas Jefferson, and which the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] eloquently quoted in her 
remarks earlier this morning. He must be looking down upon the 
Republican majority with displeasure this morning, because what they 
are indeed about to do is squelch the free expression of Members of 
this House on issues of privilege for the first time in this Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule has one goal, to silence the criticism, the 
Republicans ugly campaign for harassment and intimidation against our 
colleague, the honorable gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].
  This gag rule is part of a pattern. It began when the Republicans 
decided they did not like the choice of the Orange County voters, many 
of them women and Hispanic, the choice that they made in electing the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] over Bob Dornan.
  First they tried to silence these voters to deny them their choice. 
They did this by making wild allegations and launching into an 11-month 
investigation, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, that has 
turned up no evidence to suggest that the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Sanchez] is anything but a duly elected Congresswoman.
  Last night, the Republicans voted to adjourn specifically to vitiate, 
to kill, the privileged resolutions of 21 Members, all of whom were 
women or Hispanics, who are exercising their rights as the elected 
voice of their constituents. To silence the voice of their 
constituents, these 21 women who were denied the ability to speak about 
something that is not frivolous, as the majority referred to earlier in 
this debate, but is serious, it is about the election of a 
representative for 600,000 people.
  In the House of Representatives, a body that is America's principal 
forum for debate, Republicans are trampling on the freedom of speech. I 
ask them, what are they afraid of? Are they afraid of free and open 
debate? Are they afraid of people who disagree with them? Are they 
afraid of the truth?
  This gag rule effectively silences millions of Americans, and it runs 
against the very spirit of the Constitution that we were sworn to 
uphold. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as Ronald Reagan used to say, ``Well, here we go 
again.'' Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman and the minority whip have made a 
point that this procedure has never been used before. And they are 
correct. But I would point out that no other small group of Members 
have ever, ever in the history of this Congress, ever abused the system 
by using rule IX.
  The truth is, the group using these dilatory tactics admit that the 
repetitious offering, and I have got a whole list of them here, some 47 
or 45, and I can assure my colleagues that the viewing audience agrees 
with us, because they are calling in and complaining about these 
repetitious offerings of the same resolution over and over, even to the 
point that one gentlewoman on the other side of the aisle

[[Page H10116]]

has now two pending, two of the same resolution. That is dilatory, my 
colleagues.
  The truth is that this group using the dilatory tactics admit that 
these repetitious offerings of the same motions are dilatory and, in 
effect, are doing it to force their will on the House by using this 
repetitious system, which interrupts all of the other proceedings of 
the House.
  Let me just read my colleagues the beginning of rule IX. And they 
ought to get it out, because they quoted Jefferson and Jefferson's 
Manual. Rule IX says, No. 1, ``Questions of privilege shall be first 
those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety,'' and 
here comes the two important words, ``its dignity, and the integrity of 
its proceedings.''
  Now, we are charged under the Constitution of the United States to 
operate under our rules. And this is the last thing we would want to 
do, but it is being forced on the vast majority of this body. We just 
had more Democrats vote to stay in session and work and deal with the 
proceedings of this House with the measures that are pending before 
this body than we did Democrats voting yes to adjourn. I think that 
speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker.
  Again, I do not want to use up all our time over on this side of the 
aisle, but there is very important legislation which is pending before 
this body. We must get on with it. The majority leader has made every 
effort to recognize on any given day the right of any one of my 
colleagues, including the minority leader, to offer this resolution 
that they are interested in. But that is not satisfactory. They want to 
do it over and over and over again. And that just cannot be allowed, 
because we cannot accomplish the work of this House if we do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume, if I might just take a moment to address my colleague from New 
York, Mr. Solomon.
  It is the integrity of this House that we are fighting this morning 
to uphold. I believe that the majority of Americans would want us to do 
just that and that their elected representatives, sent here in their 
behalf, would have the opportunity to speak as they are given under the 
rules of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, to my dear friend from New York, Mr. 
Solomon, who was obviously not here in the era of Mr. Bauman from 
Maryland, when he used every delaying tactic that we can imagine to 
call for votes and this sort of thing. But this is a right for any 
Member in this House. And I have been here longer than all the 
leadership in this House, both Republican and Democrat, and I represent 
500 people in my district.
  I have not offered a privileged resolution, but I have that right to 
offer that privileged resolution.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], I wish he could have 
been here, because he made a point that some of the folks that were 
carrying these banners were Rodriguez and these sorts of names. But 
yet, on their investigation, they are assuming that all the bad votes 
and all the illegal votes are Hispanics.
  Obviously, some of these people were Mr. Dornan's supporters over the 
years when the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] was not even 
running for office. Local people that were running for office got some 
of the same votes that she got, but they are not being contested.
  But this is a gag rule. And it is unfair to me, as an American 
citizen and a representative of the people's House in the sovereign 
State of North Carolina, to say to me that the leadership of this 
House, both Democrat and Republican, can tell me that I am not allowed, 
under the privileges and the rules of this House, to offer a 
resolution.
  That is against my privilege as a Member of this House, and I highly 
resent it. I would think that Members on this side that call themselves 
very conservative would resent this, also.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter] for yielding me the time. I rise to oppose this intent to 
create martial law in the greatest democratic institution in the world.
  Yesterday, unfortunately, history was made in a negative sense when 
the House, using the majority party's power to adjourn, ended all of 
the rights of those individuals of the Women's Caucus to seek to 
provoke a debate through privileged resolutions rising to the dignity 
and integrity of the House, and their rights were extinguished by 
having a motion to adjourn.
  I would say to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, that the dignity and the 
integrity of the proceedings of the House are in question when they 
permit to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for an 
investigation that has yielded absolutely no fruit.
  And 1 year later, democracy in this House is not protected unless the 
rights of the minority are protected. And what Republicans are doing 
today is nothing less than turning their back on this principle by 
denying the minority an important tool we have to represent our 
communities and our constituents.
  The procedural tools of the House are not there to be used only so 
long as they are convenient for the majority's scheduling goals or that 
they benefit the majority's agenda. They are there to be used when they 
benefit the minority as well.
  The rights of Members are not here to be parcelled out and then 
abolished at the majority's whim. Make no mistake, by denying us 
justice and fairness today by taking away the protections afforded to 
the minority, my colleagues put in peril their own protections in the 
future.
  This is an unprecedented denial of privileged resolutions by Members 
of the House, and that is outrageous. Several of the resolutions, I 
know my own that I introduced yesterday, are materially different, they 
have different aspects to it. And maybe my colleagues did not read 
them. But mine is materially different.
  It is interesting to note, who do my colleagues seek to abolish the 
rights of, who presented the privileged resolutions yesterday? The 
members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Is that not just a 
coincidence?
  Those of us whose families fled from persecution, from dictatorship, 
view this as nothing more than gestapo tactics. When we take away the 
right to oppose those in power, when we abolish the rights of the 
minority, when we take away those protections, that is the beginning of 
tyranny. And when no one in the majority speaks up to defend them, that 
is when they put their own rights at risk.
  Democracy is only safe when all views have a right to be heard. That 
is what the rules of the House are designed to allow. And they do not 
want any more privileged resolutions on the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Sanchez]. But what they are doing in the rule is, they are 
extinguishing the right of any Member to bring up a privileged 
resolution on any other matter, and that is outrageous.
  If I had the incident with Mr. Dornan that this House voted to 
suspend his rights to be able to come in here, if that happened during 
this time period, I would not be able to introduce that privileged 
resolution because they have extinguished my right to do so. And that 
would be wrong.
  My colleagues, do not turn your backs on the tradition of fairness, 
on the traditions of this institution, because you may find yourselves 
some day in the minority again. You are not just taking away a 
procedural tool, you are turning your back on a cherished principle of 
fairness. And while you may think you are just taking away our voices 
today, you are disenfranchising the voices of tens of millions of 
American citizens we represent.
  This, if it is permitted, would be a shameful day for the House and a 
shameful day for your party.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to go get the previous speaker to tell 
us the significant difference between his two resolutions. But he did 
not want to do that.

[[Page H10117]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for yielding me this time.
  Let me say that I am one who will acknowledge that that rule is 
clearly an extreme response. And it is an extreme response, 
unfortunately, for a very, very good reason. We have witnessed what I 
believe to be unprecedented and outrageous tactics over the last 
several weeks, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has said, 
jeopardizing the ability for this institution to do its work.
  Clearly, what we want to do is, we want to bring about a resolution 
to this struggle that exists over who actually was elected, and we are 
trying to recognize the very precious franchise that every American 
citizen has, and that is the right to vote.
  So, as we look at this, we have to look also at the pattern of 
elections that have been disputed over the past couple of decades, not 
one. Not one investigation that has taken place over the past couple of 
decades lasted less than 12 months. In fact, the average of those was 
14 months.

                              {time}  1200

  But the precedent that has been set here is constantly the attempt to 
bottle up the work of this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, when we look at what we are trying to do here, we know 
that we all have rights. The rights of the minority are something that 
I happen to treasure because I spent 14 years here as a member of the 
minority party. And in the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] and I do our darnedest to recognize the rights of 
the minority. But something that we learned as members of the minority 
is that with rights come responsibility. We have a responsibility to do 
the work of the American people. Because of this dispute, which 
clearly, based on the arguments that were provided here last night, 
could be settled, and I think it could be settled reasonably and 
agreeably, but because there is disagreement among a very few 
extremists in the Democratic Party, and the reason I say that is that I 
have had more than one Democrat say to me, ``My gosh, I wish that we 
would back off, let's get this thing over and done with, let's get it 
behind us.'' People do not like the idea of holding up the work of this 
institution. So with rights come responsibility. We are trying to 
recognize that, and we have been left with no alternative other than to 
pursue this rule. And so I urge strong support of it, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, a previous speaker here from California 
identified as Tom Fuentes a person dressed in a brown shirt holding up 
signs in Spanish to intimidate voters. I think it is important for the 
record to show that Tom Fuentes is the chair of the Orange County, 
California Republican Party, and his party paid a $400,000 fine.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan 
[Ms. Stabenow].
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to this House in January to get things done for 
my constituents. I have seen us when we worked together and respected 
the democratic process get positive things done. We have balanced the 
budget, we have provided tax relief, we have done positive work 
together. But we have done that respecting the democratic process and 
our rights to speak on behalf of our constituents.
  I also came here believing that I had a right as a Member to present 
privileged resolutions to this House. One of the resolutions under 
question is one that I introduced. I know that my constituents expect 
that I have the right to speak and to offer privileged resolutions and 
to have them debated with respect. What we have today is an effort to 
take away the democratic process. We have a proposal in this rule for 
martial law. I would suggest what we need instead is a Marshall plan, a 
plan that respects democracy, allows us to work together to solve these 
issues and move forward in a way that respects everyone's rights. 
Martial law does not work in a democracy. The Marshall plan worked in 
its time. I would suggest to Members, we would be better off working in 
that direction, rather than taking away the rights of those of us who 
came understanding that we had the full rights and privileges of every 
Member of this House to speak on behalf of our constituents. I strongly 
urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we have another new Member here. He comes 
from the State of a man I used to admire. I was a Marine guard when 
Harry Truman was President of the United States, and he was a good 
President. President Truman would not put up with these shenanigans 
either. He said, ``The buck stops here,'' and he would stop the buck 
from these dilatory tactics.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Strafford, MO 
[Mr. Blunt].
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be yielded time by the 
distinguished gentleman and to speak after he referred to Harry Truman, 
a Missouri President who understood responsibility. The responsibility 
of the House today and tomorrow and however many days it takes is to 
get our job done. The responsibility of the House is to do the work of 
the people of the country. We have heard these motions over and over 
again.
  I heard this morning that what the rule proposes to do is squelch the 
free expression of the Members of the House. I advance the idea that 
the free expression of the Members of the House is more squelched by 
consistently delaying the process of the real debate that needs to go 
on here. As the former chief election official of our State, I have 
looked at some of these motions that have been filed, and I think any 
reasonable person would be hard-pressed to argue that we are not 
debating and reading and seeing introduced the same motion over and 
over again while the real work of the country stands undone.
  This week should not be about dilatory tactics. This week should not 
be about motions to adjourn. This week should be about doing the job we 
need to do to direct the foreign policy of America, to have a defense 
bill that puts our defense in place, to decide the debate on national 
testing that 295 Members of the House said they did not want in the 
Labor-HHS bill.
  Certainly there was a motion last night at 11 o'clock to adjourn. The 
people in my district and I daresay the people all over America 
understand that there is a difference in 11 o'clock at night motions to 
adjourn and two motions to adjourn before 11 o'clock this morning.
  We need to do the work of the people of the country. It needs to 
happen. Obviously it is going to take this rule to make it happen. The 
people that sent me here sent me here to solve the big issues of the 
country, not to slow down the progress and change that is being made 
here.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I must say I was a little 
surprised to hear my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
say that one of the reasons we have to do this is that it makes for bad 
television. He said we have people calling up and complaining. I can 
think of some reasons to change the rules of the House, but ratings is 
not one of them. It does seem to me a grave error to say that because 
people are calling up and complaining that this has gotten boring, that 
we should change things.
  I also have to reject the notion that this is necessary because we 
cannot get the business of the House done. The House has been working 
at a very leisurely pace. We took off a week in the middle of October, 
an unscheduled recess, unscheduled from the beginning. We have on the 
majority side a preference for about a 2-day workweek as far as the 
House is concerned. We come in on Tuesday night and we go home on 
Thursday night. There are other things besides being in session that 
count, but the fact is we have run things at a very slow pace. We have 
adjourned early for Republican fundraisers.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield if the gentleman promises to 
be

[[Page H10118]]

good television, because I do not want to be responsible for driving 
away the viewers.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I want to expand on the gentleman's statement. Yes, we 
have, and we have adjourned for Democratic fundraisers, too.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for helping. This 
shows how dedicated we are to getting the work done. Under the 
Republican leadership control of the schedule, we have adjourned early 
for Republican fundraisers, we have adjourned early for Democratic 
fundraisers. We adjourned early, according to one leadership Member, 
for a Rolling Stones concert. And of course those are separate because, 
as everyone knows, the Rolling Stones gather no cash. But what we have 
here is on the one hand an argument that, ``Oh, my God, you've got to 
stop these privileged motions, we're not getting our work done.'' But 
if we had not adjourned for Democratic fund-raisers and if we had not 
adjourned for Republican fundraisers and if we had not adjourned for 
the Rolling Stones concert and we had not taken a week off in October 
and if we worked on Tuesdays during the day and if we worked a little 
on Monday, we would not be in this spot.
  The point I want to make is that the assertion that we do not have 
time to get our work done is nonsensical. The reason for shutting off 
the privileged resolutions is that the majority understandably does not 
want to discuss what is being done to Loretta Sanchez. I want to say 
that cutting off the privileged resolutions is clearly not necessary. 
The rule is not necessary to get the House business done.
  By the way, there is no rule that says we have to adjourn this 
weekend. We could go another week or two. The notion that we are 
running out of time when we have time to adjourn for fund-raisers, 
concerts and other things obviously does not wash. What you are trying 
to do is divert attention from the Loretta Sanchez issue. Yes, they are 
repetitive privileged motions. They are, however, aiming at one of the 
most fundamental privileges of the House, a partisan decision by the 
majority to impeach election results without having a basis to do so. 
There has been a year in which all of the resources have been available 
to show that there was a problem. You have not been able to show that.
  Of course people should investigate. People have said, ``Don't you 
want to know if people who voted were illegal?'' I would love to know 
that. I also want to know why after a year of investigating you have 
not been able to come up with enough numbers to invalidate the 
election. No one has stopped you from investigating it. That is the 
phoniest of all arguments, that someone is trying to stop you from 
finding out if people voted illegally. Of course no one tried to stop 
that. No one tried to stop it when it was initiated. But a year after 
the election, if you have not come up with enough evidence, the time 
has come to stop.
  I want to say, I know there are partisan pressures here. In 1985, and 
people keep talking about the 1985 election that was brought up the 
other day when a Republican was unseated, I disagreed with my party in 
that regard. I thought it was impossible to tell after they counted. I 
voted for the motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Frenzel, to declare a new election. I did not vote to seat the Democrat 
and I did not vote to seat the Republican. I did not think you could 
tell. I was in the minority. I was asked how did the Speaker respond; I 
told people the Speaker was mad at me until I explained my position. 
Then he got furious.
  Yes, I understand partisan pressures. I think it is unworthy of 
Members to give in to them. I understand the impulse to say, OK, there 
is reason to look at this, even though a 984 majority is the largest 
majority I could ever remember being called into question. But after a 
year, after a year, give it up. After a year of using all of your 
powers to try to find a basis for overturning the election, you ought 
to give it up. You do not want to have that acknowledged, so that is 
why you are bringing in this rule.
  This rule is not necessary, this cutting off of privileged 
resolutions, to have the House function. Again, we have adjourned for 
all kinds of reasons. We have not worked very hard. We have taken 
October breaks for a week. We are going to get out earlier than anyone 
expected. The reason you are doing this is you do not want to have to 
try to defend in public what is happening to Loretta Sanchez. I think 
there is a dilemma. There is a wing of the Republican Party graphically 
represented by Mr. Dornan that says to you, ``Don't you dare let loose 
of this.'' It is a very important wing of the party. They do not want 
this dismissed. So there is a dilemma. Obviously, you do not have the 
evidence to overturn the election or you would have done it. On the 
other hand, there is not the political will to dismiss the challenge 
and let the elected Representative of the people serve. And then given 
this dilemma, you do not want it discussed. So that is what we are 
talking about today, a change in the rules of the House striking at a 
fundamental issue, a question of privilege, not just on Loretta Sanchez 
but in general because you do not want attention called to the fact 
that you are playing political games with an election. You do not want 
attention called to the fact that there is a challenge going on to an 
election that you have been unable to sustain after a year, a 984 
majority. Yet you do not have the political will to dismiss.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this rule is defeated so we can continue to 
discuss the Sanchez election.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. McInnis], another valuable member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, two points here. Point No. 1, already by 10 
o'clock this morning your side put up two motions to adjourn. I realize 
that there are some tempers that have gotten high over there because 
they do not get to take the day off to go attend those events that you 
wanted to go to. Folks, we have got to do work. I am sorry you had to 
cancel your golf game, I am sorry you could not go to the event. We 
have work to do here. People expect us to work. It is Thursday, not 
Saturday. It is Thursday. Let us do the work. Quit giving those motions 
to adjourn. You are not going to get the day off.
  Point No. 2. Somebody says it is within our rules for us to be heard, 
the minority. You are absolutely correct. The minority has the right to 
be heard but the majority has the obligation to rule. We have an 
obligation to move this House forward. What we are doing today is 
within the rules, and it is. Well, quit trying to do your stall 
tactics. Read the rules. My guess is that most of you have not even 
opened this book. I can point out those rules for you. You have been 
heard and heard and heard, and that is fine. I think you bring up, 
sometimes, some valid points. But the point has been made. Let us move 
on with our business.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], a gentleman that came with me to this body 
almost 20 years ago and is one of its most respected Members.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for the time, and I would like to spend a portion of the time 
to briefly respond to my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] because 
I do enjoy not only the content but the delivery of the information 
that he provides us, and I would like to point out just a couple of 
items within that delivery. He repeated several times that what we are 
doing is cutting off people in this particular resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the resolution is that it focuses, 
it in channels; that is, it does not cut off the right to offer 
privileged resolutions, it focuses the opportunity to offer a 
privileged resolution. And as a matter of fact, the focal point for the 
minority would be the minority leader. As I recall the debate on the 
contested election in California's 46th District, the first resolution 
that was fully debated for an hour and voted on, was offered by the 
minority leader.
  I understand, and I was not on the floor, but it has been represented 
to me, that there has been some criticism over this rule because we are 
attempting to cut off females and minorities from offering privileged 
resolutions. I find it interesting that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is able to divine

[[Page H10119]]

the motives of those on this side who want to perpetuate the contested 
election, as he divines, somehow based upon pressure from people who 
are supportive of the candidate who lost, and that we are not pursuing 
trying to get to the bottom line, but carrying out some other group's 
motives which are not of the highest intentions. I find it interesting 
he is able to divine those motives, but made no comment whatsoever 
about people who have picked particular people to offer those 
resolutions so that it would have the appearance of cutting off female 
Members and minorities.
  It seems to me that motives ought to go to both sides, and that if he 
is able to divine the motives on this side, yet unable to divine the 
motives on the other side that he is creating a false issue, that this 
somehow involves race or gender, I would tell the gentleman that there 
is either an overabundance of motives or an underabundance of motives 
on both sides, and I will yield to the gentleman with the final comment 
that it is not this gentleman who voted for a white male to be the 
minority leader.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would simply differ when 
he said why did I not talk about our decision to pick certain people to 
offer these resolutions. I must tell the gentleman people do not pick 
people on this side. When the women or members of the Hispanic Caucus 
decided those resolutions, I must tell him that that was their own 
voluntary choice. No one had to tell them to get angry at what was 
happening to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].
  Mr. THOMAS. I would guess then the gentleman would also say that the 
minority leader was not picked or was not self-chosen to begin the 
process, and I would end only by saying no one is cut off totally. The 
leadership is focused. It is the majority's responsibility to govern.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Snyder].
  Mr. SNYDER. If my colleagues do not mind, Mr. Speaker, I am going to 
speak from this side of the aisle. It seems to me sometimes we spend 
more time talking to those that agree with us than those that disagree 
with us. Let me just make two points in my 1 minute as a new Member 
here.
  First of all, last night when the privileged resolution came up and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] said it is an opportunity to 
present proof, I came down here in the front row to see the proof. I 
did not see proof. What I saw was accusations, heartfelt accusations, 
but there were numbers on a chart. I thought we were going to see 
blowups of voter registration cards; that is why I came down close.
  Seeing a number, 1,000 or 4,000 or 305, is not proof, and we need to 
be laying out in these resolutions proof that we can look at, the L.A. 
Times can look at, the people of the 46th District can look at and not 
just have a card with Magic Marker ink on it and say, this is proof; 
that was an accusation.
  Now, last point I would like to make, the reason we are so intent on 
bringing this to an end, it is Campaign 1998 is well underway. Mr. 
Dornan has announced for reelection, he is raising money for 
reelection, and the fear of us on this side of the aisle, on that side 
of the aisle, is that this whole process becomes part of the campaign, 
and that is wrong.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman like a little more 
time? I will yield the gentleman from North Carolina 15 seconds as 
well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for three-quarters of a minute.
  Mr. HEFNER. Wow. I thank the gentleman from New York very much for 
the time; I am indebted to him.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], my good friend, I guess 
it was a slip of the tongue, he said the gentleman who lost, so they 
know who lost the election there.
  But as my colleagues know, I got a letter a couple of weeks ago from 
the Speaker, and he sent me a card that I could wear. It is called 
Friends of Newt Gingrich, and since they are going to try to put a 
damper on our ability to offer these motions, I just may not send my 
check in now. And, of course, I do appreciate them addressing it to 
W.G. Hefner, U.S. Senator, Washington, DC, but I am just going to 
reconsider sending in my contribution since they are going to offer 
this kind of gag legislation. But I certainly want the Speaker to know 
that I have considered it very sincerely, but right now I am leaning 
toward not sending the check.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, two issues. First of all, to those who said we 
want to work from this side of the aisle, some of the previous 
speakers, we want to work, too. The trouble is we have not been working 
all the way up to here. Today's Wall Street Journal opinion by Al Hunt: 
A mediocre congressional session; points out that if this Congress 
adjourns this weekend, it will be the earliest in 32 years.
  The schedule that the Republican Party has just released to the 
Democrats for next year, all the ones in type are no votes. That means 
that the House does not come back until January 26 of next year, takes 
a week off in February, seems to work pretty much through March. We 
take this amount of period, about 2\1/2\ weeks, off in April; skip 
through to July, where the House then takes off from the 1st to the 
13th, one of the longest Fourth of July breaks I have seen; does take 
the traditional August 3-week period, that is traditional; and then 
takes another week and a half in September.
  So not a whole lot of work is being scheduled, and this House is 
adjourning this weekend without doing campaign finance reform, without 
doing a major highway bill and without doing a lot of significant 
legislation.
  Second point. I was one of the five who is still a remaining Democrat 
who also voted not to seat the Democrat in the McIntyre-McCloskey 
contest. It was the longest, most painful period in my legislative 
history. It was no fun, and so let me speak, Mr. Speaker, to those 
Republicans who are in trouble right now, too. They have got to do what 
is right.
  Mr. Speaker, what is right is to bring this contest to a close 
because it has been a year, the investigation has proven nothing, and 
it was not much fun back in the days of McIntyre-McCloskey for those of 
us who said we should go ahead and hold another election, and I know it 
is not much fun for them, but they have to do what is right.
  And let me say in that case there was four votes difference, not 984 
votes, and because of that uncertainty, a number of us said we should 
proceed with a special election. That is not the case in this election.
  I urge my Members to do what we had to do a few years ago, do what is 
right.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just urge Members to defeat the previous question, and 
if it is defeated, I will offer an amendment to strike the provisions 
in the rule pertaining to the privileged resolutions, and if the rule 
is adopted, it will strip the fundamental constitutional rights of each 
Member with regard to the integrity, the proceedings of the House, and 
I urge Members to vote no on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

       Text of Previous Question Amendment to H. Res. 305: Strike 
     section 3 of the resolution.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time and 
would just recall several notes I made during the debate.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] complains that we are 
too accommodating to groups of Members by adjusting the evening 
schedule. He complained about it. But as my colleagues know, all 
speakers, whether they be Democrat or Republican, have always tried to 
be accommodating. This Speaker, Speaker Gingrich, in the past 3 years 
has tried to accommodate the Women's Caucus for a dinner that they had, 
the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus and any number of different 
caucuses. So I would just hope

[[Page H10120]]

he would not protest too much on that subject.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] have also said give it up, give it up, give up 
this investigation. Well, my colleagues, if we had given up over the 
years, we would still have Tammany Hall rigging elections in New York 
City, we would still have dead people voting and rigging elections in 
Chicago. If we gave it up, my colleagues, this democratic electoral 
process would literally fall apart.
  As my colleagues know, we have such important legislation. There is a 
conference report that deals with the education of our children; it 
deals with labor issues, with health issues, with human services 
issues. That bill is out there. We have come to an agreement with the 
President of the United States. We want to bring the bill to the floor, 
but we cannot when these dilatory tactics continue here.
  As my colleagues know, it is about time we got on with the business 
of the House. The gentlewoman had said defeat the previous question, 
and that would actually repeal section 3 of this bill. Well, I have 
heard people stand up here and talk about a martial law rule. That 
would not repeal this so-called martial rule law. The other part, 
section 1 and 2, deal with the expedited procedures to allow that very 
important conference report on our children to come to this floor on 
this same day. So the gentlewoman does not repeal the martial law part, 
she repeals section 3.
  Now, having said that, let me tell my colleagues what the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] has said so many times on this floor. He 
says, no man's life, liberty or property are safe when this legislature 
is in session. Well, I plagiarized that. That was said 1866 by someone, 
and nobody in this room knows who it was. My colleagues probably think 
it was Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson. Do my colleagues know who it 
was? A good New Yorker. He was not very famous, he was just a simple 
man. He was a surrogate by the name of Gideon Tucker, believe it or 
not. We all thought that was somebody really important; that is who 
said that. So I like plagiarizing him.
  Let us get out of here and do the people's business.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV the Chair will reduce to a minimum of 
5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, 
if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 198, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 587]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     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
     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
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     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 (NJ)
     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
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     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
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     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
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Carson
     Cubin
     Dellums
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     McKinney
     Mica
     Moran (VA)
     Portman
     Riley
     Schiff

                              {time}  1252

  Mr. WISE and Mr. GUTKNECHT changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Motion to Reconsider The Vote Offered By Mr. Wise

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote just taken.


                 Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to lay on the table the motion 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] to reconsider 
the vote.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H10121]]

                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 200, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 588]

                               AYES--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
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     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
     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
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     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 (NJ)
     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 (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     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
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     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
     Stark
     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

     Carson
     Cubin
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Moran (VA)
     Portman
     Riley
     Schiff

                              {time}  1309

  So the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). 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. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 195, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No.589]

                               AYES--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     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 (NJ)
     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
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     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
     Ford
     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

[[Page H10122]]


     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     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
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     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--19

     Baldacci
     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     Leach
     McKinney
     Mica
     Moran (VA)
     Oxley
     Portman
     Riley
     Schiff
     Skaggs
     Watkins

                              {time}  1321

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Riley for, with Ms. McKinney against.

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 589, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``aye.''


  Motion to Reconsider the Vote Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I move to reconsider the 
vote just taken.


                 Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to lay on the 
table the motion offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] to reconsider the vote.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 201, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 590]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     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
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     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
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     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 (NJ)
     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
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     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
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     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--14

     Archer
     Carson
     Coburn
     Cubin
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     Leach
     McKinney
     Mica
     Portman
     Riley
     Schiff
     Smith, Adam
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1339

  So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________