[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1117-H1121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2883, GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND
RESULTS ACT TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 1998
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 384 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 384
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. 2883) to amend provisions of law enacted by
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to improve
Federal agency strategic plans and performance reports. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of
order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI 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 Government Reform and
Oversight. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. 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 15 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the
gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Stearns) to speak out of
order.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to proceed out of order
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Olympic Committee's 5th Olympic Dinner
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration of the
Members. I want to call the Members' attention to an upcoming event,
the United States Olympic Committee's fifth Olympic dinner.
As co-chair of this dinner, I can assure the membership this will be
a great event. The President and Vice President usually attend, along
with Members of the House and Senate. Dozens and dozens of Olympic
athletes, many making their first appearance since performing in
Nagano, will be there so that we all can honor them.
The day of the dinner, many of the Olympians will visit areas schools
as part of the Champions in Life program, as athletes get a firsthand
opportunity to instill the values of the Olympic movement in the minds
and hearts of young people in this community.
The United States is one of the few countries in the world whose
government does not support its Olympic athletes financially. Our
athletes are supported by the American people, volunteers and
contributors. The least we can do is endorse their efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the dinner is April 29 and I hope all my colleagues will
attend.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentelwoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that once again the Committee
on Rules has reported a completely open rule. H. Res. 384 will provide
for fair and thorough debate of House Resolution 2883, the Government
Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments of 1997.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in
order the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight amendment in the
nature of a substitute as an original bill.
Under the rule, any germane amendment may be offered and any Member
of this House who wishes to improve upon the bill may do so. However,
priority recognition will be given to those Members who have preprinted
their amendments in the Congressional Record.
After the amendment process there will be another opportunity for
those who oppose the bill to be heard through the motion to recommit
with or without instructions. The rule provides only one waiver which
pertains to a 3-day layover requirement for the committee reports.
Finally, to facilitate consideration of H.R. 2883, the rule allows
the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes and reduce
voting time to 5 minutes as long as any postponed question follows a
15-minute vote.
Mr. Speaker, as the custodians of our Nation's purse strings,
Congress has an incredible responsibility. We have been entrusted to
safeguard the hard-earned money that the taxpayers send to Washington.
It is our responsibility to see to it that those dollars are spent
wisely and that the American people get the biggest bang for their
buck, and that is what today's debate is all about.
With passage of the Government Performance and Results Act in 1993,
we took an important first step toward fulfilling our responsibility.
Very simply, the Results Act requires Federal departments and agencies
to set measurable performance goals in an effort to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government, a common sense
request to achieve a very important goal.
However, it appears that many Federal agencies do not feel quite the
same sense of responsibility to the taxpayers that Congress does. Many
agencies were reluctant to develop the strategic plans required by the
act. And finally, when they did submit their initial drafts, the
results were disappointing at best.
For example, very few agencies linked their mission statements to the
actual statutory authority under which they operate. This suggests that
agencies do not set their goals and priorities based on what the agency
has been designed and mandated to do.
Another troubling pattern among the agencies was their insufficient
attention to fundamental problems, such as management weaknesses,
reliability of data, or duplicative functions. These are essential
issues that must be examined by any organization that hopes to be even
remotely effective.
But even though these agencies earned failing grades for their plans
and appeared to be way off course in terms of fulfilling their primary
functions, they were still unwilling to exert the extra effort required
to make the grade. Congress asked the agencies to go back and improve
upon their plans, but under existing law the agencies do not have to
submit any additional information for three more years.
[[Page H1118]]
H.R. 2883 addresses this roadblock to progress by requiring the
submission of revised agency reports by the end of this fiscal year.
These reports must provide the fundamental information lacking in the
previous reports to ensure that an accurate picture of the agencies'
operations is painted.
Now, some oppose this bill, claiming it would be too burdensome for
the agencies, but this is not about the bureaucracy's hardship, this is
about the unjustifiable financial burden we place on American
taxpayers. If Congress takes its responsibilities to the taxpayers
seriously, we cannot just talk about a smaller, smarter, common-sense
government, we must back that rhetoric with action. And it is not
enough to simply pass a bill to require accountability among agencies
if we do not enforce it. We must demand compliance, and if the law
proves too weak it is incumbent upon Congress to strengthen it.
Mr. Speaker, we must be relentless in our pursuit for complete and
honest information that will allow us to make wise decisions and
prudent investments of taxpayers' dollars. H.R. 2883 takes us to the
next step in our quest for efficient, effective government by requiring
agencies to fill in the gaps and glaring omissions in their strategic
plans sooner rather than later. The taxpayers deserve no less.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would remind my colleagues that this is a
fair rule providing a wide open amendment process and thorough debate
on the issue at hand. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule
and support all our Nation's taxpayers by voting ``yes'' on the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio
for yielding me this customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the proposed rule would allow all germane
amendments to be offered, and while I support the open rule, I am
somewhat dismayed that the Committee on Rules chose not to allow a
related amendment which would have implemented one of the first
promises in the majority's Contract With America.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Dennis Kucinich), the subcommittee
ranking member, brought to the Committee on Rules an amendment he had
offered at the full committee. The amendment would have fulfilled the
Contract With America's pledge that Congress should abide by the
mandates it places on others. His amendment would have applied the
Government Performance and Results Act to the committees of the
Congress.
It does seem inconsistent that the majority chose not to allow a vote
on applying the act's requirements to Congress. If we are serious about
holding government accountable and improving its efficiency and
effectiveness, we should certainly start in our own back yard.
I also have concerns about the underlying bill. I strongly supported
the Government Performance and Results Act when it became law in 1993.
The goal of GPRA was to make agencies undertake strategic planning and
performance evaluations to streamline their operations and to make them
more efficient. And I am a firm believer that the government needs to
be accountable and continually strive to improve its economy and
efficiency.
However, H.R. 2883 contradicts this spirit. A central requirement of
this bill is the resubmission of strategic plans by all covered
agencies by September 30, 1998. The premise of this new requirement is
that the plans submitted less than 6 months ago were all so unusable as
to be worthless. This is simply not true. The General Accounting Office
has concluded that the current strategic plans provide a workable
foundation for Congress to use in helping to fulfill its
appropriations, budget, authorization and oversight responsibilities.
Instead of starting over at square one, the GPRA process should
continue under the oversight of the appropriate authorization and
appropriations committees of jurisdiction.
{time} 1030
It is inefficient and uneconomical to require all agencies to repeat
work that they have just completed no matter whether their plan was
prepared well or poorly. Let us move ahead with the Reinventing
Government initiative rather than going backward.
Mr. Speaker, while I have reservations about the underlying bill, I
do not oppose this open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Linder), distinguished member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express strong support for this wide-open rule
and for H.R. 2883, the Government Performance and Results Act Technical
Amendments.
President Reagan used to say that the most frightening greeting was,
``Hello, I'm with the Federal Government and I'm here to help you.'' I
think a close second would be, ``I'm with the Federal Government, and
you can trust me to spend your money wisely.''
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to common-sense decision making and
spending money wisely, the grades on performance by Federal agencies
are in. Unfortunately, the average score has risen only from 29.9 to
46.6. I think most American children could imagine the reaction of
their parents if they brought home report cards that looked like these.
This is, unbelievably, an improvement, but it is still obviously
inadequate.
We must insist on a smaller, smarter, common-sense government. That
is why this legislation sends a message to agencies to come up with a
more solid strategic plan that allows us to monitor performance clearly
and directly. Congress passed the Results Act to hold Federal agencies
accountable for efficiency and achieving results. This bill can be a
tremendous tool to eliminate waste and fraud in the government, and
today's legislation is designed to maximize the use of this tool.
The Federal Government spends trillions of dollars of the American
taxpayers' money, and it is very important for all of us to remember
that it is not the Federal Government's money. On the first day, an
American citizen pays a cent in taxes, that citizen becomes a
shareholder in the Government and wants to see a healthy return on
their investment.
I support reinforcing the Results Act, because I cannot believe that
any shareholder in any company would every tolerate mismanagement,
waste, or illogical planning. In our commitment to hold the Government
accountable to those who pay for it, this bill creates the framework
for the American people to judge how their money is being spent.
Mr. LINDER. As for those who express concern that this bill does not
include in it oversight of committees of Congress, let me remind them
that this bill was passed in 1993, when the Democrats were in the
majority, and they chose not to include oversight of the committees of
Congress that they were at the time sharing. This is merely a technical
amendment to that act, following their lines.
I strongly support enhancing this performance-based management system
in order to ensure that this government achieves results-oriented goals
and reacts to serious management problems. The American people expect
smarter decisions based on common sense and they want to see results as
soon as possible.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote in favor of this
very important legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate as
the ranking member of the committee. And I am pleased to be here with
my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), to speak
about our concerns about the bill.
But first of all, I want to say I support the rule, but I am
disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not shield from a point of
order an amendment that I think would be quite significant, which I
want to speak about in a few seconds. But first of all, I am a little
bit concerned at the outset, as
[[Page H1119]]
we are starting this debate, about this persistent attack on government
itself. I mean this is our government. This is the government of the
people, by the people, and for the people; and I think that these
attacks on government that are occurring here ought to be exposed for
what they are. They are really attacks on the democratic process itself
and on the people's right to self-determination, to have a government,
administration, and the Congress have direct control over this
government.
So I think that is going to be part of the issue that is going to be
debated here today. And, also, we are going to debate whether or not we
are truly accomplishing efficiency by asking 100 Federal agencies to
have to do reports all over again, reports that took months and months
to prepare, reports that we are now told all of them are trash,
government agencies which are working for the people in this country,
after they spent long hours being accountable proving what the
performances were, proving what their plans are, and then having all
those things thrown out on the basis of a grading system that no one
has even explained. We need to debate that today, too, even as we can
say well, we accept the rule.
Mr. Speaker, when I testified before the Committee on Rules
yesterday, I asked the rule to protect an amendment from a
parliamentary point of order. However, the honorable opposition
apparently does not wish to have any debate about whether the
committees of Congress ought to be subject to the same sound management
practices which are required from Federal agencies. And that is a
shame, because it is clear to me, after only a year in this Congress,
that our congressional committees need greater accountability and
efficiency. And I think it would be of great benefit to the
congressional committees, which are operated honorably and with great
skill by our friends on the other side of the aisle, I think this would
be a great benefit to have those committees be accountable to the
Government Performance and Results Act in the same way that the
administration should be. If we are serious about holding governmental
agencies accountable, I think we should show by example and start right
here in the Congress.
When we passed GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act, our
goal was to make the government more accountable not only to the
Congress, but to the American people. We wanted agencies to set out
clear goals and to set a plan for reaching those goals. And that is
important. That was the right thing to do. And by requiring agencies to
know where they are going and how they are going to get there, we hope
to make government more efficient and to eliminate waste and
duplication and add something. That is something I think all of us can
agree on; we all agree that Government should be more efficient and
that we should eliminate waste and duplication.
In the beginning of the 104th Congress, Mr. Speaker, Congress passed
the Congressional Accountability Act; and then, for the first time,
Congress was asked to abide by the same laws everyone else has to abide
by. And that is what my amendment would have done. And I said it then
and it was said then and I agree that Congress writes better laws and
it has to live by the laws that it imposes on the executive branch and
the private sector.
The goal of a more efficient government is just as important for
Congress as it is for the executive branch. Congressional committees,
like executive agencies, should set out a clear plan on what they hope
to accomplish and how they hope to accomplish it. We in Congress should
be held accountable for eliminating waste and duplication.
So, Mr. Speaker, today I am hopeful that we will have an opportunity
to apply GPRA to Congress, which would undoubtedly give Members of
Congress better insight into strategic planning and performance-based
management and would help us write better laws, which I know we are all
here to do.
The bill came out of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. I think that, when we look at the campaign finance
investigation, we could see that, if we had strategic planning concepts
involved there, that would make for some better investigations and
probably eliminated a lot of the duplication, and this would help the
committees, the Congress and the country.
For example, the Commerce Department received 64 requests for
documents in connection with campaign finance inquiries from nine
different congressional committees. As of last September 1997, the
Commerce Department submitted almost a million, 1 million pages of
documents in response to these requests at a total cost of $2 million.
So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if we apply GPRA to Congress and
committees, I think we could eliminate some waste and duplication that
has characterized even the most sincere efforts to try to investigate
things in this administration as well as across the country.
We would save the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.
Requiring Congress to comply with the Government Performance and
Results Act is just common sense. I am hopeful that, when we get to
that process, we will get that amendment approved.
Again, I am supporting the rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton) from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me say to my colleague who just spoke, the
gentleman from Ohio, that I am sorry his amendment will not be made in
order because of the Rules of the House. What I would like to do is
inform the gentleman that we do have accountability in the Congress. It
is not necessary to put it in this particular bill.
In every session, an oversight plan has to be filed with the
Committee on House Oversight by February 15. Every committee in the
House does that. So we already do that.
If the gentleman would refer to page 427 of the Rules of the House,
and I would like to read it to him, he will find that not later than
February 15 of the first session of the Congress, each standing
committee of the House shall, and we do, in a meeting that is open to
the public, and with a quorum present, adopt its oversight plans for
that Congress.
Such plans shall be submitted simultaneously to the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, our committee on which the gentleman
and I serve, and to the Committee on House Oversight, the committee of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
In developing such plans, each committee shall, to the maximum extent
feasible, and then it goes on and lays out very clearly what we are
supposed to do. That changes from time to time with each session of
Congress.
Let me just say that we have oversight plans from each committee of
Congress. All we want to do with the bill we have before us today is to
apply businesslike standards and requirements for every agency of
government so that the taxpayer who pays the bills for all this gets
the bang for the buck that they want.
We get that in the Congress. The rules of the House spell it out very
clearly. I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio, the very
distinguished former mayor of Cleveland, take a good look at the rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who I am very honored to serve
with in this Congress, I would say that, if there is a sense in which
we are already doing it, then, perhaps, there should not be any
objection to the amendment that I am offering, which simply asks that
Congress has to respond in the same way that the executive agencies
have to through the Government Performance and Results Act.
While I, too, agree with my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Burton), that there ought to be businesslike standards involved, I
do not know any business that could survive having to do the same plans
over and over.
We have the largest business in America here. It is the United States
of America. We have 100 different agencies that did strategic planning.
We did the plans. The plans were complete. Now, we are told that every
one of those plans, somehow every single one of them are not worth
anything. They should be thrown out. We have to start all over again.
[[Page H1120]]
I would say that is not very businesslike and that is not very
efficient. I say that with all due respect to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) a member of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I will save substantive remarks on the proposal as a
whole for the debate. But I would like to say a few things in response
to my fine colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the new
ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology.
Number one, in 1993 the original Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 was bipartisan and overwhelmingly supported by this
Chamber. One agency in the bill that was specifically exempt was the
General Accounting Office. Why? Because it is part of the legislative
branch. We do not have jurisdiction in the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight and its Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, which I chair, on matters in the
legislative branch or the judicial branch. We have jurisdiction over
what happens in the executive branch.
We are coming here today to make sure that the plans that were passed
on a bipartisan basis in the 103d Congress controlled by the Democrats
will be brought up to date. It is not a case of dumping plans. It is
getting them right in the first place. That is what we are talking
about.
Since I am reminded of 1993, when the base legislation was passed on
a bipartisan basis, I would merely like to observe that the House spent
$1 million in that Congress on a reform group chaired by two of our
most distinguished colleagues who are still in Congress, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), Democrat, and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), Republican. They did an outstanding job.
Most of us wanted those reform proposals to come to the floor in the
Democratic Congress. Yet, neither the Speaker at that time--the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley)--nor the Majority Leader at that
time--the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt)--would let that reform
proposal come to the floor. That is what is wrong.
When we took over in the 104th Congress, we did the first audit since
1789. This place had never been audited. Every Member received a copy
of that audit. So for the first time in the history of the Congress,
Members knew where the money was going around here.
{time} 1045
Number two, the Speaker substantially reorganized committees on our
side. Hundreds of people that were not necessary were let go. We honed
the subcommittees to get the job done.
We are still doing that. We are very conscious of it. As the chairman
of the full committee said, we have our basic jurisdiction set out in
the rules. We have looked at the Rules of the House. The Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight receives the oversight plan from every
other committee, and if they have a hole in their proposal, our
committee can get into the issues involved with relation to the
executive branch.
But that is the issue. It is not Congress. It is the executive
branch.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak more on this bill when
we get into the general debate, but I did want to take this opportunity
to clarify the record. The GPRA legislation, the underlying bill that
we are considering today, did pass the House by a bipartisan majority.
It was overwhelmingly approved. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Horn) has made that statement. But he and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Burton) have both told us that we cannot now apply the same
standards to the Congress because, one, it is not within the
jurisdiction, the House rules would prevent it, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera.
These are excuses. They are the kind of excuses that I am surprised
to hear from the other side. Because one of the things the Republicans
did, for which they deserve a great deal of credit, is when we
organized the Congress in 1995, they said that the rules that are going
to apply to everyone else should also apply to the Congress. It was a
reform that was long overdue. We all supported it. I was even amazed
why we had not thought of it earlier. But the fact of the matter is, it
made sense.
But now we are hearing excuses about why we cannot have the same
rules that this legislation sets up for the executive branch apply to
the Congress. There is no reason for it. The House rules do not prevent
it. It is not unprecedented.
Let me give my colleagues an example. Congress passed legislation
dealing with unfunded mandates, requirements on other levels of
government. We said, if the executive branch develops a proposal or
regulation that is going to provide for an unfunded mandate, they are
going to require special isolation of that issue so that it is clear
that is what they are doing; and the same would apply to the Congress.
Both the Congress and the executive branch were covered in that
legislation, appropriately. Why should we say that they cannot pass
unfunded mandates, but we can; or we should not give any special
consideration to unfunded mandates on either the executive branch or
the legislative branch?
Let me give my colleagues a second example. Our very committee has a
bill dealing with standards for child care. Very appropriate. In that
legislation they talk about standards that would apply to child care
that would be administered by the executive branch. But in that same
bill, they require the same standards to apply to child care run by the
legislative branch. It makes sense.
Let us not hear excuses why in the rule we are not going to permit an
amendment that would apply the same standards to the Congress that we
are asking of the administration, and that is that we develop a
reasonable plan.
I will have more to say about this when we get into general debate,
but I did not want anybody watching this debate to be fooled by all of
these excuses.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, to close, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule. This is what I
requested on behalf of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
It is an open rule. It provides opportunities for various Members of
the House on both sides of the aisle to offer constructive amendments
and suggestions.
We have had a lot of people on the staff of this committee and the
subcommittee and the majority leader's office, who have done very
helpful things. I will acknowledge them and their splendid work at the
conclusion of the debate. But I want particularly to note at this time
the work of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) who chairs the
Results Caucus. I hope he will have a lot to say on the substantive
aspects once this rule is adopted.
I also particularly thank at this time the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney), the retiring minority ranking member who has had some
very constructive amendments; and we have worked out most of those
details, and we will deal with that in the substantive debate. She has
been a constructive member of this subcommittee for the last three
years, and we are sorry she is leaving to be the Ranking Minority
Member on the Census Subcommittee.
Again, we have an excellent bill. It is a good rule. I urge our
colleagues in both parties to support both.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
I remind this body that this is an open rule. I yield back the balance
of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H1121]]
Ms. PRYCE 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.
Without objection, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum
time for electronic voting, if ordered, on approving the Journal on
which proceedings will resume immediately after this 15-minute vote on
adopting the resolution.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 412,
nays 0, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 48]
YEAS--412
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Ackerman
Crane
Furse
Gonzalez
Harman
John
Johnson (CT)
Livingston
Lofgren
McHugh
Poshard
Redmond
Sanchez
Saxton
Schiff
Schumer
Souder
Tanner
{time} 1111
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii and Mr. BARTON of Texas changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
____________________