[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.

                          ____________________