[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5564-H5573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1945
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4104, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND
GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 498 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 498
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. 4104) making appropriations for the Treasury
Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive
Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with section 306 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against section 628 for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
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. 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. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
[[Page H5565]]
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley), pending which I will 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, H.Res. 498 is a second attempt by our Committee on Rules
to bring forward H.R. 4104, the Treasury, Postal Service and General
Government appropriation bills for fiscal year 1999.
As Members may recall, on June 25, before the break, this House
rather resoundingly defeated the first rule we brought forward, a rule
that attempted to balance all the competing demands of the many Members
with interest in this bill. We worked long hours at that time and
jumped through a series of complicated hoops, making every effort to
iron out the problems while remaining as faithful as possible to our
commitment to fiscal and legislative discipline. Given the wide margin
of defeat for that rule, however, we went back to the drawing board and
decided to let the chips fall where they may on the host of
controversial issues in this bill, finding our guide in the normal
standing rules and procedures of the House for consideration of annual
spending bills.
So this evening, Mr. Speaker, we bring H.Res. 498, a rule which, with
one exception, presents this appropriation bill for House consideration
under the normal process by which appropriation bills may come to the
floor.
Members who have been around here for a while may remember our
esteemed former colleague, in fact legend, the late Bill Natcher, a
wonderful gentleman and appropriations cardinal who prided himself on
bringing forward his annual spending bills without a rule. He willingly
subjected himself and his legislative product to the standing
procedures of House rules, letting the chips fall where they may and
making his case directly to the Members through open debate. Not only
was he respected, he was successful.
What we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker, comes very close to that
type of effort. H.Res. 498 is an open rule providing for the
traditional 1 hour debate equally divided between the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations with one
exception. The rule is silent on the many controversial provisions
within this bill that constitute legislating on an appropriation bill
or that provide funding for programs and activities that are not
authorized. I am told by the subcommittee chairman that, in fact, there
is something like 80 percent of the bill that would fall in that
category.
As Members know, Mr. Speaker, both of those things are violations of
rule XXI of House rules. We do not legislate on appropriation bills
normally, and without protection from the House Committee on Rules any
provision of the bill that falls into those categories is vulnerable to
being stricken by a point of order raised on this floor, should Members
wish to do that.
The only provision within this bill that this Committee on Rules has
felt compelled to protect from that fate of being stricken is the one
which precludes Members of Congress from receiving an automatic cost of
living increase, the congressional COLA. We all know that, without
action by the Congress, a COLA for Members would automatically take
effect. This year, as in the past, the Committee on Appropriations
erected a barrier to that COLA in this bill so that there would be no
such automatic increase for Members' pay. By waiving the point of order
under House rule XXI that otherwise would lie against Section 628 of
H.R. 4104, that is, the provision relating to the COLA, the Committee
on Rules has insured that a procedural maneuver cannot be used to bring
back to life the Members' COLA salary adjustment.
As one who continues to believe that the voters have not determined
that we in this Congress deserve a raise, I support this action.
Mr. Speaker, this rule also waives points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with Section 306 of the
Congressional Budget Act regarding the prohibition on consideration of
legislation within the Committee on the Budget's jurisdiction unless
reported by that committee. This is necessary because the appropriators
included within this bill funding for the year 2000 problem,
affectionately known as Y2K, under an emergency designation, which is
something traditionally in the province of the Committee on the Budget.
This whole Y2K issue and whether to call it an emergency or to find
offsets for the additional funding has been the subject of much debate
in this body, as Members will recall. This rule ensures that this
debate can continue allowing the matter to come to the floor while
allowing Members an opportunity to strike the emergency designation,
should they wish.
Mr. Speaker, the rule does several additional standard things:
Providing priority and recognition to those amendments that are
preprinted in the Congressional Record and providing that the chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any
amendment. It also allows the chairman to reduce voting time on
postponed questions to 5 minutes provided that the voting time on the
first in a series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Lastly, the
rule provides for 1 motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, there may be some Members who wish this rule had come
out differently, and some of those Members probably did not like our
first rule much either. But I would say to my colleagues that with this
rule we have come very close to approximating the standing rules of the
House in bringing forth a spending bill that actually meets the
requirements we have set out for ourselves in our normal government
procedures. In my view, that is a bit of a breath of fresh air, and I
urge Members to support the rule so we can get on with the business of
funding the agencies covered by H.R. 4104, Postal Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my dear
friend, for yielding this time to me; and, Mr. Speaker, I must again
oppose this rule. I would like to support the rule because it is open
and it does give Members an opportunity to offer amendments that are
germane and otherwise in compliance with the rules. However, Mr.
Speaker, the rest of the rule is even more egregious than the first
rule for the bill, and that rule was defeated by this House only 3
legislative days ago by an overwhelming vote of 291 to 125. The changes
from the previous rule certainly do not fix the problems that caused
the rule to fail, so presumingly, in fact, I think it even makes the
problems worse.
The bill itself is not the problem, Mr. Speaker. As before, I think
the underlying bill is generally fair, and it is worthy of support. It
provides $13.2 billion in discretionary budget authority, a slight
increase from last year's bill. This level of funds should adequately
support most of the programs and services that are covered by the bill.
The major exceptions, however, continue to be the Federal Election
Commission, which is funded significantly below the level necessary to
do its job properly and effectively; and, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the
bill contains authorizing language imposing term limits for the
Commission's staff directors and general counsel which will further
impede the FEC's ability to do its work objectively and impartially.
Mr. Speaker, I wish those in their offices would listen. This rule
would expose nearly all of this bill to a point of order including the
Office of Inspector General of the Treasury, the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, and most of the Customs Service, the Mint, the Bureau of
Public Debt, the Secret Service, the Federal Election Commission and
the General Services Administration.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also exposes to a point of order critical
legislative language to implement a new, fair and reasonable pay system
to adequately compensate the Federal firefighters for overtime. This
provision is necessary to correct a pay inequity between Federal
firefighters and their municipal and civil service counterparts. I
strongly support this language, and I am disappointed that it is not
protected in this rule.
We all saw the incredible work done by those firefighters, those
courageous
[[Page H5566]]
firefighters, to stop those terrible fires that plagued Florida in
recent weeks. We must ensure that those who risk their lives in
fighting fires are compensated fairly for their valiant efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed that this rule did not protect
from a point of order another provision in this bill that would have
helped implement Federal employee's pay reform which was in accordance
with legislation signed into law in 1990. Language in this bill, Mr.
Speaker, would have fixed the problems that have prevented this law
from being implemented.
Also, Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons that the first rule failed
is still a problem in the second rule. That is, of course, the failure
to protect the $2.25 billion in emergency designation that is
desperately needed to address the massive computer failure known as
Y2K. If we do not immediately begin efforts to fix this problem, it
could cripple our Nation's computers on January 1 in the year of 2000,
and, Mr. Speaker, that is less than 18 months away. If we continue to
ignore this problem, if we put it off for another day, we may well run
out of enough time to prevent the major chaos and confusion that is
certain to compromise our Nation's economic well-being and our national
security. Whether it is a crash in the stock market or a failure of our
traffic control system or a lapse of our Nation's defense systems, the
consequences are likely to be very, very grave.
We just cannot take this risk, Mr. Speaker. We must put aside
partisan squabbling and take the action and take that action now.
The Committee on Appropriations wisely included emergency funding for
the Y2K in this bill and in the defense bill also, but my Republican
colleagues have decided that this crisis just has to wait. They have
decided to remove the emergency funds from both of these bills. The
majority continues to say they will do it later, they will do it in
another bill. Well, it has been almost 3 weeks since the House
leadership decided to delete the emergency designation for Y2K first
from the defense bill and then from this bill. I still do not see any
action that any legislation will be on the schedule shortly.
{time} 2000
This problem is not going to go away, and we are wasting very, very
precious time.
Mr. Speaker, we are playing with fire by not dealing with the Y2K
matter immediately, and I hope, for all of our sakes, that my
Republican colleagues are genuine in their promise to make this a top
priority. This should not be a political issue, and we must act now.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it fails to protect this
critical funding and subjects much of the bill to being struck on a
point of order. I urge Members to join with me in voting no on this
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, New York (Mr.
Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, when I hear my good friend, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), who is the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules, stand up here and make the absolute opposite
argument that he has made in the past, I do not know whether to lose my
temper or just to smile. I guess I will just smile.
But I am just looking at the vote that took place several weeks ago
on June 25 when we brought a rule to the floor that fits the exact
description that the gentleman just outlined that he would vote for.
Now, as I look down at the vote that took place, I see my good friend,
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), did not vote. I do not
know why. He did not cast his vote. But I see that 135 Democrats voted
``no'' on that rule that the gentleman just described. The rule was
defeated with 125 yes votes and 291 no votes. The House overwhelmingly
spoke against it.
Now, what normally happens in a situation like that? If you are on
the floor and the rule does not pass, you generally bring these
appropriation bills back to the floor.
I remember Mr. Natcher from Kentucky, one of the most respected
Members of this body, a perfect southern gentleman, and he often sat in
that chair where you are, Mr. Speaker, and let me tell you, he knew how
to run this House. He ran it fairly. He also was the chairman of a
subcommittee on appropriations, and he did not bother coming to the
Committee on Rules. He brought his bill right to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that once this rule was
defeated, protecting all of these issues the gentleman has just
outlined, and there are a lot of them in there that I support. We have
a gun issue in there that is very important to those of us that stand
up for property rights and for gun rights of people. We have the
Federal firemen's pay issue. We have some FEC language in there. We
have some currency language. All of these things I support very
strongly.
But the truth of the matter is, there is no way to put together a
rule that anybody is going to support, because if we protected the
Lowey amendment, we are going to have all of the pro-lifers vote
against it. If we do not protect it, we will have another group vote
against it.
So what we have done is said, okay, let us bring this bill to the
floor without a rule, and then let the chips fall where they may, with
one exception, and that one exception is that in this bill is a ban on
a pay raise for Members of Congress going into effect.
Now, we cannot bring this bill to the floor under these circumstances
and allow that provision to be knocked out. That means that Members of
Congress are going to get their pay raise. I happen to be for pay
raises, but the point is that we cannot allow that to happen here.
So we have simply brought this bill to the floor without a rule,
except that we are saying that the ban on the pay raise from going into
effect shall be protected. Otherwise, the bill stands as is.
So for Members that want to come over here and vote this time, let me
just say once and for all: You come over here and you vote against this
rule and you are voting for a Member's pay raise. There is absolutely
no question about it. Because that is the only issue at stake here,
other than regular order, regular procedure, of bringing this rule to
the floor. Members ought to know that. So I want to make that perfectly
clear.
Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss this at any time with other
Members for the next hour.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my chairman's dissertation, but most of the
rules on appropriations that come out of the Committee on Rules, they
protect most everything. In fact, we just voted a rule today that
protected everything but two issues. This was beaten 3 weeks ago, Mr.
Speaker, because of some of these items that are not protected today.
We are just doing exactly what we did a couple of weeks ago. I am sure
this is going to meet the same fate.
About the pay raise being blocked, we could correct that in 1 minute,
and the chairman knows that. We could go back, on any rule coming out,
we could put that in there, we could stop it. So that is really a red
herring on this bill. This rule should not be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal
Service and General Government.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
At the outset, let me say that it is unfortunate that we find
ourselves in this position. The chairman of the Treasury Postal
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), as I said in the
committee markup, has forged a fair bill as it came out of
subcommittee. It was a bill that sought to address the problems that
confront the agencies that are our responsibility. It was a bill as
well that sought to fund a critical situation that confronts not just
our agencies but almost every agency of government other than defense,
and that critical crisis was, as we refer to it, the Y2K problem,
ensuring that computers would be compatible with the change of century.
Because if they are not, we will not be able to fly airplanes.
Indeed, we will
[[Page H5567]]
not be able to collect revenues. We will not be able to pay Social
Security. We will not be able to pay Medicare. The fact of the matter
is, government will come to a screeching halt, and commerce will come
to a screeching halt. That is not an acceptable alternative.
As a result, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), and it is
my understanding the Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), the minority leader, and the Committee on Appropriations,
all agreed that we would confront this issue forthrightly and designate
it for what it is, an emergency, one that cannot be delayed, one that
must be solved on behalf of every American, young and old. We did not
do that.
I tell my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, that his
rule does not protect that issue. It does not allow us to proceed as we
should. And the ranking member of the Committee on Rules is absolutely
correct, on this floor, on the debate, when this rule was last
considered 3 weeks ago on the 25th of June, it was represented that by
the time we got back, we will know how to solve this problem. We will
know where to get the $2.3 billion. That was represented to us on this
floor by the leadership on the other side of the aisle. As the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has correctly pointed out,
that has not happened.
Substantively, this was a good bill, as I said, as it came out of
subcommittee. It was not a perfect bill as it came out of the full
Committee on Appropriations from my perspective. There were matters in
it that I had concerns about, but they would not have led me to oppose
the rule. But as it came out of the Committee on Rules last time, it
was not acceptable.
Now, I say to my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, this
is not about a pay raise. Like the chairman, I am for a pay raise,
because it is effectively simply a cost of living adjustment, less half
a point that every other Federal employee gets, less a half a point. So
we get a half a point less, because we did not want to take a full pay
raise. We wanted to respect the American public's concern on that
issue.
I say to my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, our
committee reported out, as he well knows, the preclusion of the
acceptance of that pay raise, and that is the only matter the gentleman
has protected in his rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would help clarify
something in my own mind. The gentleman knows that he and I have worked
together on many issues dealing with Federal employees, and I have the
greatest respect for them, as does the gentleman, but the committee of
jurisdiction, the authorizing committee, as the gentleman knows, has
not dealt with this issue. There is a $7 billion price tag.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am talking about the
Members. The gentleman brought up the Members' pay raise. The gentleman
said this was about a Members' pay raise. My representation to the
gentleman is that, in fact, the committee included the preclusion, the
prohibition on the receipt by Members of a pay raise.
There is nothing in this bill about employees' pay raises, as the
gentleman knows, so that what I am saying to the gentleman is whether
this rule fails or whether this rule passes, Members will not get pay
raises, the reason being because, if we have to go back to the drawing
board, we will come back with the same provision. The gentleman knows
that, and Members ought to know that.
Mr. Speaker, if I might therefore conclude, I say to my friend, the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, his representation about a Members'
pay raise vote is, frankly, political tactics, not substance. It is
political tactics to try to scare Members into voting for or against
this rule.
What this is about is the failure of the Committee on Rules to
protect what are democratically adopted in the Committee on
Appropriations provisions, some of which I like, some of which I did
not like.
Now I will tell my friend, he says if he protects the Lowey
amendment, for instance, which provides for access to contraception,
which I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans believe is good
policy and good family practice, the overwhelming majority of Americans
in my opinion believe that, he says that people will vote against the
rule to prohibit a vote in the people's House on that issue. It does
not make sure that it happens. What it says is that the representatives
of the American public will be able to vote on that issue.
The gentleman has provided for a procedure, as the Chair well knows,
where one Member can come and strike out what the Committee on
Appropriations adopted in a democratic process.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the
gentleman is moving from one subject to the other so fast it is hard to
stay concentrated.
Mr. HOYER. One has so little time, one needs to deal with all the
subjects at one time.
Mr. SOLOMON. One Member can rise and strike, and that is under
regular rules of the House, so we do not want to change those rules.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, with all due respect, as
the gentleman from Massachusetts said, the gentleman changed it
yesterday on the rule. The gentleman protected everything except two
items that were in that bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is most important that this debate
continue, and I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me be very, very brief. What the
gentleman has been complaining about that this rule does not take care
of is the fact that we did not protect a change in the locality pay for
Federal workers. That is very important, and I agree with the
gentleman. But the truth is, there is a $7 billion price tag, which is
not paid for in this bill. Now, true, it does not take place until next
year, but we just cannot allow this kind of legislation to go through
without it being paid for. We are going to blow the balanced budget
deal that we have had.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have not mentioned that issue.
Mr. SOLOMON. Well, the gentleman mentioned it to me on many
occasions, including up in the Committee on Rules.
Mr. HOYER. That is correct. But I have not mentioned that as the
rationale for this opposition to the rule.
The gentleman mentioned that if the Lowey amendment was left
protected, that the gentleman could not get the votes of right-to-
lifers on his side of the aisle. My proposition to the gentleman is
that what the gentleman is saying is they would not want to bring to
the floor for a democratic vote up or down a resolution of that issue.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say I do
not understand why, when we brought the rule to the floor which
protected the Lowey amendment, 135 Democrats voted against it. We could
have passed that rule and this bill would already be over at the Senate
where it belongs. Now we are here today under a regular rule process,
and Members ought to come over here and vote for the rule.
{time} 2015
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this rule. Under this rule,
any Member can strip funding from this bill by raising a point of
order.
I am particularly concerned about the appropriations to repair the
year 2000 problem. Numerous computer programs will either crash or
generate errors when computing dates for the year 2000. People should
know that date-sensitive computer programs are everywhere. In desktop
and mainframe computers, in machines used in manufacturing, in simple
devices such as the computer chips in coffeemakers which have timers.
Consumers everywhere are going to be watching what we do here. Since
computers are so widespread, since software is time-sensitive, since
computer chips are in all kinds of devices, failures cause serious
repercussions.
[[Page H5568]]
In government, many areas are vulnerable to failure. Many government
agencies have made progress on the Y2K problem, and that is thanks to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and also thanks to President
Clinton and Vice President Gore. It has been bipartisan, but we have a
lot of progress that needs to be made. Removing the Y2K appropriations
from this bill cripples the agencies' ability to cope with this
problem.
Now, the President asked for $234 million for year 2000 conversion.
We will need another $138 million next year. If the IRS does not get
funding to clean up the Y2K problem, we are looking at failures in
customer service, failure to refund taxpayers' money, problems with the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, implications for the IRS restructuring
bill, delays in the 1999 filing season, effects on the 2000 filing
season, effects on the processing of refunds. The processing of refunds
will be delayed.
The IRS has 127 mission-critical systems. So far, 59 of these systems
have been repaired. The Customs Service is making progress on Y2K
repairs. Currently, only 25 percent of the mission-critical systems are
in the testing phase. The Financial Management Service in the Treasury
Department has not completed the assessment of all of their systems
yet. The Postal Service has many repairs to make. They expect to have
21 percent of their mission-critical systems ready for funding by this
September.
Sufficient Y2K funding is critical to ensure that our law enforcement
can operate, that government can collect taxes, write refund, tax
refund checks and deliver the mail. The Y2K problem is a management
challenge and a programming challenge. It must not become a political
football.
Again, I will say the progress that has been made so far I will
credit Chairman Horn, I will credit the President and Vice President
for moving quickly on this, but we cannot let this become a political
football. The American people are depending on us to make sure they
receive government services on and after January 1, the year 2000. Let
us not let them down.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this rule. It pains me to do so since we defeated it a few days ago,
but I believe there is a good rule that can protect the excellent work
of this subcommittee, and I do believe that the subcommittee reported a
fair and sound and thoughtful piece of legislation that would have
served the appropriations process very well and would have done honor
to this body.
This is a rule that exposes all parts of this bill with a small
exception of one section to points of order. It is also a unique
appropriations bill in the sense that most of the sections have not
been authorized, and for many years we have protected them against
points of order.
So it is true that under this rule the funding for the IRS could be
knocked out. We just spent months and months and months passing the
most significant reform of the IRS passed in the history of this body.
And why would we then want to bring this to the floor under an
appropriations bill that is not going to actually fund this important
agency?
Now, there is no need for this kind of rule. Honestly, we need to get
ourselves together, come back with a rule that addresses the critical
snarly areas of this bill that have caused the controversy.
I regret that the passage of an amendment in the subcommittee that
guaranteed Federal employees full access to contraceptives has caused
such a hullabaloo in this body. Frankly, this same bill denies Federal
employees access to abortion, which is a medical, legal procedure in
America. But we have made the decision that Federal employees should
not have access to this legal medical procedure.
Well, it is perfectly rational then to at least guarantee that our
own employees have access to the full range of contraceptives so that
they do not get pregnant unintentionally, that is all. If we disagree
with that, fine. Have a rule that allows a vote on that. We have
offered, have a rule that protects everything except the Lowey
amendment. Let that be struck on a point of order; just let that rule
allow us to offer an amendment to reinstate access to contraceptives
for Federal employees, and we will argue it here on the floor. Let it
take its course.
There is this controversy about the funding of the Y2K resources. Let
that be up or down. Let us talk about it. Let us debate it. I am for
how the bill does it. I think it is irrational to take the funding for
Y2K compliance for the whole government out of one budget and thereby
disadvantage all of the other important programs that that budget
provides for all the people of America and for our important Federal
functions.
So let us have a rule that brings the primary controversies to the
floor. My colleagues, vote down this rule. This is an overreaction to
an unfortunate lack of communication that caused the defeat of the
first rule. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. As
my colleagues know, this rule leaves unprotected the Lowey
contraceptive coverage language in the bill, language which provides
that Federal employees must have their contraceptives prescriptions
covered if, in fact, other prescription drugs are covered.
This language passed in the full Committee on Appropriations with
support from Democrats and Republicans, prolife and prochoice Members,
but the Committee on Rules has denied Members a chance to have a debate
and a vote on this critical issue and on the amendment of the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) which will give religiously-based plans an
opt-out from covering the plans of contraceptives if it conflicts with
their religious beliefs.
We have had vote after vote after vote on legislation that would
restrict women's access to abortion, but we are not allowed to have
even one vote on improving women's access to contraception, which will
prevent abortion.
The rule we are considering is a clear infringement on the rights of
Members to offer amendments in the House, and it is a slap in the face,
frankly, to more than 1 million American women who are covered by the
Federal Health Benefits Plan who stand to benefit if Federal health
benefit plans that cover prescription drugs are required then to cover
contraceptives as well.
Why is this language so important? We are all in agreement that we
want to reduce the number of abortions. Close to half of all unintended
pregnancies end in abortions, and although all but one of the FEHBP
plans cover sterilization, all but one cover sterilization, only 10
percent cover the five most basic, widely-used forms of contraception,
and over 80 percent of the plans do not cover all five methods.
Contraception, my colleagues, is basic health care for women. It
allows couples to plan families and have healthier babies when they
choose to conceive, and it makes abortion less necessary, which is a
goal we all share.
Currently, women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more in out-of-
pocket health costs than men, and part of the reason for this gender
gap in health care costs is the failure of health plans to cover
contraception. Plans refuse to cover contraceptives because they know
that this is a necessity for women and that if forced to, women will
pay for it themselves. On average, women using the pill pay $25 a
month, that is $300 a year for their prescriptions.
It is important to understand, my colleagues, what we are talking
about when we talk about contraceptive methods. We are not talking
about abortion, we are not talking about RU 486 or any abortion method.
No abortions will be covered by this amendment. We are talking about
the range of contraceptive options that women need, including the five
most popular methods, the oral contraceptive pill, the diaphragm, the
IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant.
It is crucial that plans cover the full range of choices because some
methods do not work for some women. For example, many women cannot use
any of the hormone-based methods such as the oral contraceptive pill
because it causes migraines or because they have been advised not to
because it may increase their risk of stroke or any other
[[Page H5569]]
reason that is peculiar to them and the advice from their physician.
Now, some of my colleagues may think that we should not be telling
FEHBP plans what they have to cover, that this is an insurance mandate.
Let us be clear. This is not a mandate on private plans. What we are
discussing here is what the United States as an employer should provide
to its employee. The United States Government should be a model for
other employers.
There was strong support for this provision in the Committee on
Appropriations. It has the support of the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe); it has the support of several
prolife Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations, and, in fact, a
myriad of health groups support the provision, including the American
Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the
American Academy of Pediatrics. It is also supported by the AFL-CIO,
the AFGE.
Let me say in closing that a recent Congressional Budget Office
analysis determined that this improved coverage for Federal employees
would not have any impact on the budget totals for fiscal year 1999, no
budgetary impact for fiscal year 1999.
This issue is absolutely essential. I would hope that the Congress
could come together to support contraceptive coverage and defeat this
rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise all
Members that the gentleman from Florida has 15 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Massachusetts has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I very reluctantly rise in opposition to this rule. I
rise in opposition because it endangers many provisions that are
important to Federal employees and their families, many of whom I have
the honor of representing.
{time} 2030
But before I give the reasons why, I do want to say that it is not
because of the fact that the money for the Y2K problem is not put into
this bill, because it is going to be put into a separate appropriations
bill, so we do not have division, one agency versus another agency. So
that is certainly not the reason I oppose the rule.
This rule actually does not protect an important provision regarding
insurance coverage of contraceptives for women. It requires Federal
Employees Health Benefit plans to cover prescription contraception,
just as they cover other prescriptions. The vast majority of FEHB plans
offer prescription drug coverage, but they fail to cover the full range
of prescription contraceptives which prevent unintended pregnancies and
reduce the need for abortion.
Congress has repeatedly voted to exclude abortion coverage from FEHB
plans. Contraceptives help couples plan wanted pregnancies and reduce
the need for abortion. Close to half of all pregnancies are unintended.
Currently, women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more in out-of-
pocket health costs than men. Treating prescription contraceptives the
same as all other covered drugs would help to achieve parity between
the benefits offered to male participants in FEHB plans and those
offered to female participants.
I also want to point out that the rule does not protect an important
provision affecting Federal employee pay. The bill would close a
loophole in the Federal Employees Compensation Act of 1990 that has
allowed the President to deny Federal employees their just raises
because of a severe economic condition, despite our booming economy.
The FEPCA was enacted to ensure fair pay raises for Federal
employees, but according to CRS, it has never been implemented as
originally enacted. The bill closes this loophole by defining a severe
economic condition as two consecutive quarters of negative growth in
the real Gross Domestic Product, which was the generally accepted
definition of a recession.
The rule also leaves vulnerable an important provision to bolster
firefighter pay, something for which I have been working for many
years. Within the Federal work force firefighters are paid less than
other Federal employees. A GS-5, Step 5, Federal Government worker
makes 44 percent more per hour than a GS-5, Step 5, Federal Government
firefighter.
The pay gap between Federal and non-Federal firefighters is largely
due to an unfair and convoluted method of calculating Federal
firefighter pay. They are dedicated civil servants, we have certainly
seen that with the disasters that have occurred in Florida and other
parts of the country, constantly risking their lives so our communities
can sleep at night with confidence that our safety and the safety of
our loved ones is protected.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule
strips the Lowey Federal employee family planning provision from the
bill so we cannot even debate this deeply important issue.
As a nurse, I believe that contraception is, first and foremost, a
health issue. The fact that close to half of all pregnancies in the
United States are unintended is astounding. The decision to have
children should be made by individuals in a family setting and in
consultation with doctors and within a religious belief context. We
need to support that in this House.
I believe that the Federal Government must set an example for the
rest of this country by providing our employees with full access for
health care for women. This includes opportunities for the whole range
of contraception methods. We in Congress must demonstrate that we
consider family planning a key health issue.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, and provide our
Federal employees with fundamental health care coverage, including
contraception, according to the Lowey provision.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I hate to see a good bill sacrificed on the alter of
contraception. That is what this rule does. We are seeing many
important provisions of this bill go up in smoke because of one
provision.
The notion that plans could pick and choose what contraceptive a
woman or man should use is or should be anathema to this House. I warn
this House, the Lowey amendment is one of seven priorities of the
Bipartisan Women's Caucus. We have chosen seven bills on which,
Democrats and Republicans alike, as women we regard as must-pass
provisions for this Congress. The Lowey amendment is one of those. We
had an entire hearing on contraceptive research because of the neglect
of contraception and what that has done to women over the past decade.
We have gotten to the point where if you are in service to your
country as a member of the Armed Forces or as a Federal employee, you
can guarantee to have your privacy invaded. We are talking about grown
women, and plans, health plans choosing what contraceptives they should
use.
The last thing a woman or a man should be subject to is somebody else
choosing or advising them which contraception is best for them. Some do
not work, some are absolutely harmful, some have side effects. We have
to have a choice here, because one size absolutely does not fit all,
and indeed, one size clearly endangers the health of many.
I am looking for anti-choice allies on this one. If we cannot come
together on this one, I am not sure where we will come together.
Members cannot go home and say they are against abortion, and also go
home and say they are against preventing abortion. Defeat this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the bipartisan Lowey amendment on
contraceptives and the funding to fix the
[[Page H5570]]
year 2000 computer problem to be struck by a point of order. What does
that mean? That means without even a recorded vote. The Lowey amendment
was adopted in committee. She did it fairly, she did it squarely, and
now the Republican leadership is ready to knock her out of the bill
without a vote.
We have heard just a second ago how important this is on expanding
insurance coverage on contraception. We also heard, Mr. Speaker, about
how important this is to prevent abortions. This process is a sham. It
is unfair. We will oppose this rule.
Because some on this side of the aisle want to play games with us now
and politicize the issue of Members' pay, they want to cover up and
hide their extreme proposals with respect to contraceptive insurance
coverage, so we are not going to let that happen.
We are going to move to defeat the previous question on this rule,
and if successful, we will do three things, three things. Number one,
we will make in order the Lowey and the Obey amendments on
contraception, we will preserve funding for the year 2000 computer
problems, and we will stop any increase in pay for Members of Congress.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and to vote
no on the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the great
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to explain what procedure we are going to pursue.
I believe it is very important to have every Member understand what we
are going to ask for. We are going to ask that the previous question be
defeated. That will then allow us to offer an alternative rule.
I want to represent to every Member in this Chamber and listening in
their offices what that rule will be comprised of. First of all, we
will continue the provision reported out of subcommittee, reported out
of full committee, that will preclude Members' pay from going into
effect.
Secondly, we will provide for the consideration of the Lowey
amendment, which was democratically adopted in the committee and
reported to this floor, but is unprotected. Not only would it be not
subjected to a vote, yea or nay, but one Member under the rules that
were proposed will be able to exclude that or any other item.
Thirdly, we will protect in our rule the Y2K funding, which everybody
in this House and in this Nation knows is an emergency, and which the
Committee on Appropriations, with the leadership of the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), designated an emergency, to his credit, and
frankly, to the credit of the Republican leadership that initially
agreed with that procedure.
So to remind Members, if they vote no on the previous question, they
will then be able to vote yes on a rule which will preclude a pay
raise, which will take it out of a political demagoguery situation;
that will allow a democratic vote in the people's House on whether or
not we ought to allow for access to contraception so we can preclude
more abortions; and thirdly, if Members vote no on the previous
question, they will be able to protect the provision which provides for
funding of the solution to the Y2K problem, and ensure the effective
operations of our computers and our governmental programs, as well as
commerce in this country in the next century.
I urge Members to vote no on the previous question to accomplish
these three objectives.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of inconsistent comment this evening
relative to just three legislative days ago, as our friends across the
aisle said, actually it was a little more than that, because it was on
the calendar a couple of weeks ago when we tried to come up with a rule
to protect the Lowey amendment, do the things they asked, and lo and
behold, 135 Democrats took a hike on us and did not support the bill.
We listened to them before, we tried to work it out in a deliberative
and I think nonpartisan way, and we did not get their support. So now
we are trying to do our job faithfully, and we have come back for what
is one of the important appropriations bills, and we have tried to
craft a way to let the deliberative body work its will.
There has been some mischaracterization, if not misrepresentation, of
the fact that the sky is going to fall automatically if we pass this
rule. That is not the case. If somebody, some Member, wishes to get up
and strike on a point of order, that is a privilege. That happens to be
a House rule. If somebody says that is unfair, what they are really
saying is the House rules are unfair.
If Members are saying that the rules that have served this House so
well for so long are unfair, then come on up to the Committee on Rules
and let us talk about changing them, and why Members think they are
unfair. But that is not something that is done lightly.
So I think there has been a series of mischaracterizations going on,
as I have listened to the concern about the people who have failed to
get the authorizations of measures that they want enacted. We all know
that we are not supposed to do a lot of authorization on appropriations
bills.
The failure of the authorizations process to get the work done now
has been picked up by the appropriators, trying to pick up what pieces
they could to do a good faith job, and the Committee on Rules tried to
do a good faith job to bring a rule forward that would get enough votes
to pass so we could have a debate. That went down by a big number. That
went down 291 to 125 three legislative days ago, so I remind Members of
that.
Now we are coming back with a different one and saying okay, let the
body work its will in a different way. We will have what is basically
an open rule. Now, open rules used to be something we spoke of around
here with a certain degree of reverence, that that is something we all
strive to achieve is the open rule. I know the number of times that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), when he was Chairman
Moakley of the Committee on Rules, we brought him to task because he
did not have enough open rules.
I know his colleagues on the other side regularly tried to do that to
Chairman Solomon and the rest of us in the majority. We understand
that. But we do strive for open rules and we do it in a good-natured
way.
The only thing that is different is that we did protect the issue of
the pay raise, so if Members are trying to shoot this rule down, they
are basically saying, let us get the pay raise back on the floor.
{time} 2045
At least some will characterize it that way. I think there is much
more at stake than the pay raise issue obviously. We had the
contraception question. We have had the question of Y2K.
On the contraception question, again, we had our chance, 135 Members
on the other side voted against the Lowey provision apparently because
it was protected in that rule.
We had the Y2K. It surprises me a little bit that we are talking
about Y2K as an emergency. It is not an emergency to those of us who
understand the consequences of Y2K. We have been for some time trying
to encourage the Clinton administration to get a grip on the fact that
the calendar is real, that the year 2000 is coming and that we do have
a problem. Most people in the world know that the year 2000 is on the
calendar, and they have a fairly approximate idea of when it is coming.
Even if one does not know much about the computer problem, one can at
least understand the calendar.
We have not done well with the Clinton administration. Some agencies
are ahead of others. Again, I will join with my colleague who
congratulated the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for the work he
has done trying to bring attention to that and trying to stimulate some
interest in the administration to get that job done.
The debate about whether or not is it an emergency payment or not an
emergency payment, therefore, if it is an emergency, we all know we do
not have to figure out a way to pay for it. If it is not an emergency,
then we have to figure out a way to pay for it. It is a little extra
harder because we have to actually designate the money from some
revenue source. So I would say
[[Page H5571]]
that that is a secondary debate to the debate that Y2K is very serious.
We all agree on that. We are not going to put off the solution because
we cannot decide whether to pay for it from here and designate what the
source of payment is going to be. I think that is a bit of a red
herring before us.
I think what is, frankly, out here is this, that the authorizers did
not get that their job done. The appropriators tried to pick it up. The
Committee on Rules has tried to work with everybody. Apparently it has
not happened.
The next step is, we can go the other route and say, fine. We can
bring a rule out here with no protection at all on it and let it go to
the floor.
I would urge all those listening to understand that this is a good
faith effort to try and bring forth some kind of a workable rule to get
this legislative appropriations bill on the floor. It is a legislative
appropriations bill, because it is about 80 percent legislation. We
know that. It is way overburdened. That is wrong, but that is what we
are presented with. We are presented with a schedule. We are presented
with a calendar of our own. We are presented with a budget we have to
deal with.
So if the question is, shall we go forward and deal with the business
of getting these agencies funded, the answer is yes. Vote for the rule.
Yes, vote for the previous question.
Voting no on the previous question, throwing this thing into a
controversy which is sure to destine it to another defeat, another
round of this, is not going to get this appropriations bill passed.
Some of those Members who live in the area and represent workers in the
area have a great concern, naturally, doing good jobs of representing
their districts, and the people in their districts are going to be
very, very concerned, if this thing goes down a couple of more times
because we cannot get it together.
I can guarantee Members that the provision that has been suggested
with regard to the motion on the previous question on Members pay and
the Lowey amendment and Y2K will appeal to some Members but it will not
appeal to enough because we did that. We already did that a couple of
days ago, three legislative days ago. We did some other things as well.
But you will not be allowed to bring a rule forth that will get
necessary majority support with just those provisions. It is not going
to happen.
The final point I would make on this is, there is not going to be a
better offer right now than voting yes on the previous question and
voting yes on the rule to get this piece of legislation on the floor.
If we do not pass it, it goes home.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:
House Rules Committee
The Previous Question Vote: What it means
The previous question is a motion made in order under House
Rule XVII and is the only parliamentary device in the House
used for closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect
of adopting the previous question is to bring the resolution
to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at
the conclusion of debate on a rule or any motion or piece of
legislation considered in the House prior to final passage. A
Member might think about ordering the previous question in
terms of answering the question: Is the House ready to vote
on the bill or amendment before it?
In order to amend a rule (other than by using those
procedures previously mentioned), the House must vote against
ordering the previous question. If the previous question is
defeated, the House is in effect, turning control of the
Floor over to the Minority party.
If the previous question is defeated, the Speaker then
recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous
question (usually a Member of the Minority party) to control
an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment
may be offered to the rule. The Member controlling the Floor
then moves the previous question on the amendment and the
rule. If the previous question is ordered, the next vote
occurs on the amendment followed by a vote on the rule as
amended.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
rule. Earlier today, we debated abortion again--for the 87th time since
1995--and this House passed a bill to criminalize abortion in yet
another way.
Now, we learn that this rule does not protect language already
included in this Treasury Appropriations bill to provide for
contraceptive coverage equity for federal employees.
Later today, we will vote once again on the issue of whether a
federal employee's health plan can choose to cover abortion. I find
this very contradictory.
If you want to prevent abortion, why not do everything we can to make
contraceptives more available and affordable.
The language left unprotected by this rule simply requires Federal
Employee Health Benefit plans that currently cover prescription drugs,
to also cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related
services to individuals and their families.
Mr. Speaker, women of reproductive age spend approximately 68% more
than men in out-of-pocket health care costs.
Much of this disparity can be attributed to the lack of coverage of
reproductive health care costs.
By improving insurance coverage of contraceptive care, we can reduce
or eliminate this unfair financial cost to women.
More than half of all pregnancies in the United States are
unintended, and half of these pregnancies end in abortion.
Currently, 10% of FEHB plans offer no coverage of reversible
contraceptives and, in some cases, plans cover only one method of
prescription contraception.
This lack of insurance coverage leads many women to choose less
expensive and less reliable methods of contraception.
So why not allow a vote on this provision? It won a bipartisan
victory in committee, and now this rule will make it easy to strip this
language.
That is unfair and undemocratic. We have a real opportunity today to
decrease the number of unintended pregnancies and the number of
abortions. And, the Republican majority says no. It is shameful. I urge
a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity
to speak today. I strongly oppose the Rule Committee's decision not to
protect Representative Lowey's amendment in the FY 1999 Treasury Postal
Service General Government Appropriations bill, H.R. 4101.
Representative Lowey's amendment required Federal employee health
benefits to cover contraceptive drugs and related services to
individuals and their families.
Currently the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan uniformly offers
prescription drug coverage, but the majority of such health plans
discriminate against women by failing to include coverage for the full
range of prescription contraceptives.
In fact, 10 percent of Federal employee health plans fail to include
reversible contraceptive. In some cases, plans only cover one method of
prescription contraception. Overall, 81 percent of Federal Employee
Health Benefit plans do not cover all five leading reversible methods
of contraception, which of course, prevent unintended pregnancy and
reduce the need for abortion.
The Federal program should be a model for private plans, and as an
employer, it is shocking that the Federal Government does not provide
this basic health benefit for women and their families insured through
FEHB.
Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more of their own money
for health care than men, with contraception and related health
services accounting for much of the difference.
Making the full range of contraceptive options available to our
Federal employees is not only an issue of fairness, but is an issue of
women's health and reproductive choice.
We must remember that increased access to contraceptives is critical
to the effort of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. Close
to half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.
Increasing access to contraceptives through insurance coverage will
help Federal employees obtain the methods and services they need to
plan their families.
Polls show that 90 percent of the American voting public supports
family planning. I hope that my colleagues will take this opportunity
to support family planning. Let's make sure every child is a wanted and
cared for child. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 185, not voting 18, as follows:
[[Page H5572]]
[Roll No. 283]
YEAS--231
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--185
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
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)
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
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
NOT VOTING--18
Allen
Clement
Dingell
Gonzalez
Hill
Kennelly
Kind (WI)
McDade
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Moran (VA)
Roybal-Allard
Schumer
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Sununu
Yates
{time} 2106
Mr. MOLLOHAN and Mr. KLINK changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. Foley changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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. HOYER. Mr. 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, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 284]
AYES--218
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--201
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
[[Page H5573]]
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Kolbe
NOT VOTING--14
Clement
Dingell
Gonzalez
Hill
Kennelly
McDade
McNulty
Roybal-Allard
Schumer
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Whitfield
Yates
{time} 2123
Mrs. NORTHUP changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
____________________