[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 135 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9255-H9262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4104,
TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 563 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 563
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed rule for the conference report to accompany
H.R. 4104, the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government
Appropriations bill for the fiscal year 1999, waives all points of
order against the conference report and against its consideration. The
rule provides that the conference report will be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, which makes the
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, the
Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies for
the fiscal year 1999, is very, very important legislation. Nearly 90
percent of the activities funded under this bill are devoted to the
salaries and expenses of approximately 163,000 employees who are
responsible for administering programs such as drug interdiction,
Presidential protection, violent crime reduction, and Federal financial
management. I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule as well
as the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank my dear friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis),
for yielding me the customary half-hour.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny Hoyer)
for their very hard work on this bill and congratulate them on nearing
the finish line.
This year's Treasury, Postal appropriations conference report
provides $13.44 billion, which is slightly more than last year's bill.
This conference report will provide substantial funding for Federal law
enforcement, the Customs Service, the United States Mint, the Secret
Service, the General Services Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms. It is money that is much needed and will, to a
large extent, be put to very good use.
It also fully funds the Office of the National Drug Control Czar,
which is so critical to curbing the tide of illegal drugs that is still
endangering our country's economy and our constituents' safety.
Today's conference report also fixes the problem with pay for Federal
fire fighters. And without this language, Mr. Speaker, Federal fire
fighters would continue to be paid much less than their municipal and
civil service counterparts.
After watching Federal, local and State fire fighters battling the
huge fires of Florida and elsewhere, to the point of exhaustion, I can
say without hesitation, Mr. Speaker, these people do deserve a raise.
And if we cannot give them that, the very least we can do is make sure
that all fire fighters are paid about the same money. They all risk
their lives for our safety, whether the truck on which they ride has a
State seal or a Federal seal. This bill will fix that inequality, which
I am very happy to see.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are some more serious problems with this
conference report, and one of the most troubling aspects of this bill
is its provision which will basically fire the general counsel of the
Federal Election Commission. It does so, Mr. Speaker, by imposing term
limits, but the effect is to fire somebody who has been working very
hard to protect the integrity of the American electoral process.
Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that common wisdom is that this person
is being fired because he investigated GOPAC and the Christian
Coalition and, in doing so, has angered some very high ranking
Republicans. I do not need to tell anybody here, Mr. Speaker, that the
Treasury, Postal appropriations conference report is no place to exact
political vengeance, particularly against someone who was only doing
his job.
The Federal Election Commission is the agency that watches over
elections. It polices Federal campaigns, making sure that candidates
and interest groups are raising and spending money within the bounds of
the law, regardless of which party they represent. The Federal Election
Commission and its employees are charged with making sure that our
campaigns are fair and that the American people are heard, and its
employees should be protected from partisan attacks.
So a partisan firing of upper level staffers could have widespread
ramifications for fair elections all across these United States, and I
will oppose the bill for that reason.
Also, Mr. Speaker, two members of the other body feel so strongly
about this issue that they have promised to filibuster if it is not
resolved.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is the third rule which we have done for
some version of this bill. And with every rule, my Republican
colleagues promise to address the pending computer meltdown known as
Y2K.
{time} 1945
Well, here we are again, Mr. Speaker. It has been three months and
still
[[Page H9256]]
there is no emergency supplemental appropriation bill funding the $2.25
billion we need to begin solving this problem.
Mr. Speaker, if we ignore this, it is not going to go away. Most
Americans believe it is our government's job to deal with this problem.
And Mr. Speaker, for us that time has come. If we do not act soon, all
sorts of calamities could befall us.
The stock market may drop. Air traffic control systems may falter.
Our national defense monitors could lapse. Social Security checks and
Medicare payments may not go out. There could be electrical blackouts
and brownouts. Telephone bills could be filled with mistakes. Mutual
funds and money markets could fail. Medical equipment might not work.
The list just goes on and on and on.
Mr. Speaker, the money to address this problem was in here once.
There was $2.25 million in this bill to prevent that chaos that might
reign from the airports to the hospitals, from the stock market to the
grocery stores, when that ball drops in Times Square on December 31.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the House even voted for a motion to instruct
conferees which directed them to have the money for Y2K, but still the
money is not there. In fact, they even went so far as to take it out,
Mr. Speaker. They took it out of this bill. They took it out of the
defense bill.
However, Mr. Speaker, I do commend my colleagues on the Treasury,
Postal conference committee for their hard work. They have had to
juggle a lot of competing programs in many ways. In many ways this
otherwise could be a very good bill.
But, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill for its
attacks on our electoral integrity, and its failure to address the
computer problem which is threatening to bring every aspect of American
life to its knees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I see we are off to a energetic evening here with the nice buzz words,
``term limits'' and ``Y2K.'' Of course those are words that the
American public understands.
But let us clarify exactly what we are talking about here. First of
all, we are not imposing term limits. What we are saying is, hey, every
4 years their job performance is going to be reviewed, and if they have
4 votes in the majority that say they are doing a good job, they keep
their job. If they do not, they are out of work.
Now, the average person that is watching us today, the average person
that we represent out there goes through a job performance review. And
we are saying, with the Federal Election Commission, they are going to
go through a job performance review. Just because they oversee our
elections does not mean that they are immune, that they somehow get
tenure over there. We are not for granting them tenure. We are saying,
do their job and they keep their job. So do not say it is term limits.
Now this Y2K problem, Mr. Speaker, come on. In my opinion that is a
cheap shot. It is in the emergency funding bill. The Democrats over
there know it is coming. They have not exactly scrambled to help us
out. It is coming in the emergency funding bill. It is not being
ignored, my opinion, by any side of the aisle. It is a significant
problem in this country. And for one side of the aisle, the Democrats,
to jump up and start parading around that the Republicans are ignoring
this is unfair. It is patently unfair for they to make a statement like
that.
Both of us have a problem. Let us not spend our time attacking each
other, saying the other party is not doing anything about it. Let us
focus on it. We are putting the money in the emergency funding bill. Be
fair with the people here and let them know. Sure, it is not in this
rule, but it will be here in two days.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in a few moments, after we have heard from some others,
I am sure I will have a few things to say about some of the negative
things that are going to be said about this rule and this conference
report. But I would like to start off, I hope, on a constructive note
and one in which I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
conference report because I believe that it should be passed.
This is a good piece of legislation. Even the ranking Democrat of the
Committee on Rules agreed that this is an important bill that funds
vital, necessary parts of the Federal Government. Let me just highlight
a few of these.
As agreed by the conferees, we have $13.4 billion in discretionary
spending for the coming year. That is an increase of $700 million in
budget authority over the current fiscal year. The conferees, working
together in a bipartisan way, have fashioned this bill to target three
critical areas: enhancing the drug efforts of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy and the U.S. Customs Service; second, supporting
ways to reform the way IRS interacts with the taxpayers; and third,
ensuring that our judicial system can respond to its increased work
load by making sure that we have secure and adequate space by providing
courthouse construction.
In the interest of time, let me just highlight a few of the key
provisions in the bill. One, we provide $1.59 billion for drug-related
activities. That is an increase of about 1 percent over 1998 levels.
Included in that is $185 million for the second year of the National
Media Campaign to prevent youths from using drugs, something that we
know is vitally important. We have $20 million for the Drug Free
Communities Act, which Member after Member has told us how important
this is for their communities.
For the Customs Service, we provide $1.8 billion. That is down
slightly from the President's request. It includes $54 million for new
narcotics detection technologies for both sea and land ports of entry,
as well as $15.2 million to address badly needed maintenance needs of
the air and marine interdiction program, including, Mr. Speaker, $14.2
million to return 3 Blackhawk helicopters to operational status, to
increase flight hours for the entire Customs Blackhawk fleet from 18
hours to 30 hours per month. We need to get those Blackhawks up and
flying. We need to use them in this interdiction effort, and this bill
provides the funds to do that.
We provide $7.9 billion for the Internal Revenue Service. This body,
by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote earlier this year, voted to reform
the IRS, and we provide the funds to make that reform work so that it
will be more user friendly, more consumer friendly, more taxpayer
friendly.
We have $128 million over the current fiscal year for the IRS.
Included in that is $21 million for ongoing efforts to revamp the IRS
computer system, which is so badly in need of being upgraded; $25
million to restructure the way the IRS does business with taxpayers;
$103 million for improved customer service activities; and, as my
colleague from the Committee on Rules said earlier, the money for Y2K
will come in a separate bill.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot say how many Members have spoken to me about
their new courthouse construction projects. This is not pork barrel
construction. This list comes right from the list provided to us by the
Judiciary. We do not add any projects. We take just the first 14
courthouses that they have ranked as the most important ones in the
United States to construct.
Last year we had a moratorium on construction. We just did not have
the money in the building fund. We have been able to find it this year
and we have been able to support the requests of the Judicial
Conference for the coming year.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do have a number of legislative provisions in
our bill. We have a restriction on the use of funds for abortion. That
has been in this legislation for a long time. We have a requirement for
the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program to provide coverage for
contraceptives. We have a new title on child care services within
Federal agencies. We have a new title granting lawful permanent
resident status to current Haitians and, yes, as the first speaker on
the
[[Page H9257]]
other side has already said, we have revisions to the appointment and
reappointment authority of the general counsel and staff director of
the FEC.
We will have more time to discuss that, and I hope that there will be
some more discussion about the good provisions in this bill and why we
should get this conference passed so that we can provide for the vital
functions of the government to go forward.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if my dear friend, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) thought I implied that the Republicans were
ignoring Y2K. I know they have not ignored it, because they knocked it
out of one bill and did not protect it in the other, so I know they are
not ignoring it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this rule should not be before us tonight and
neither should this bill. The conference report was just signed about
an hour ago, and now under a martial law approach it is before the
House. No Member has had a chance to examine what is in that conference
report, and there is one provision in the conference report which is
absolutely outrageous. The best way to deal with that is to simply
defeat this rule.
This bill, pure and simple, if this rule is approved, will put the
general counsel of the Federal Elections Commission out of business
come January. Section 514 of the bill establishes term limits for the
general counsel and the staff director of the Federal Elections
Commission by requiring an affirmative vote of 4 of the 6 commissioners
every 4 years. This is a blatant Republican political maneuver aimed at
removing the Federal Elections Commission's current general counsel,
Lawrence Noble.
Why? Because during his tenure, Mr. Noble has aggressively sought to
enforce election laws and has been willing to punish violators of the
law from across the political spectrum. The Federal Election
Commission's general counsel, Mr. Noble, suggested that the FEC crack
down on soft money, because he has had to take some of these cases to
court recently; for example, GOPAC and the Christian Coalition.
Section 514 would undermine the bipartisan nature of the Commission
by requiring the Commission to reappoint the staff director and the
general counsel every 4 years by an affirmative vote of 4. That means,
in plain English, a vote along party lines would enable the
commissioners of either party to dismiss the senior staff. That is
wrong, and that is why editorial boards and reform minded organizations
throughout the country have rightly attacked this provision as an
attempt to further weaken the Federal Elections Commission and ensure
that the election laws go unenforced.
The New York Times recently stated, ``This change is nothing more
than an attempt to install a do nothing enforcement staff.''
In my judgment, what this would do is simply require the counsel to
deal with kid gloves in dealing with either party, because if they did
not satisfy both parties they would not stand a chance of being
reappointed.
The best way to satisfy both parties, obviously, is to do nothing,
and that is not what we need in the Federal Elections Commission. We do
not need a pussycat. We need a tough tiger. We do not need a paper
tiger at the FEC, but this is a prescription for creating just that.
The recent Washington Post editorial comment was correct. It said
that this FEC provision is, ``In keeping with the rest of the record on
campaign finance this year. The unifying theme has been hypocrisy.''
Section 514 is an unwarranted retaliatory provision aimed at
undermining the professionalism and independence of the Federal
Election Commission general counsel's office. It ought to be rejected.
This Congress ought to be standing for election reform. It should not
be putting impediments in the way of further election reform, and that
is what it does when it disarms the Federal Election Commission.
There are many good provisions in this bill, but this is not one of
them. The best way to correct the problem is defeat this rule, and have
the committee go back to conference and eliminate this and other
egregious provisions that Members may be concerned about. I urge a
``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) has 22 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the previous comments go without some call
to question about those kind of comments. First of all, let us clarify
it for the American public. It is not a term limit. It is a job
performance. These people will keep their job if they pass their job
performance.
The gentleman over here who just previously spoke is up for election
every 2 years. Under his term, under his logic, because he has to face
election every 2 years, he calls it a term limit. It is not a term
limit. It is like what we ought to do a lot more of in this Federal
Government, and that is say to our employees, your performance has to
be up here. If you do not have job performance, you can lose your job.
{time} 2000
That is exactly the point we are making here. You can sure tell in my
opinion it is an election season when you start throwing ``job
performance'' around, calling it a ``term limit,'' and then turning it
around and saying ``Gosh, you are trying to get rid of the Federal
Election Commission.''
I think we all have an obligation when we stand up here. Let us be
accurate with the terms we use. We are not saying term limit. We are
saying job performance. Job performance. If you do not perform, you are
out. I want to remind the previous speaker that the majority of
constituents that he represents face job performance review. If they do
not perform their job, they are out. That is what you ought to face.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves: This does not have
diddly-squat to do with term limits. What you want to do is to make
sure that you can dismiss whoever is the general counsel of the FEC by
a simple party line vote. That is what the proposal does.
The only way the general counsel can stay in office under those
conditions is if he rolls over and place kissy-face with both political
parties. We do not need an Election Commission that does that. We need
an Election Commission that is going to police both parties, not one
that is going to cave in to both parties, and you know very well that
is exactly what this provision does. Quit kidding people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado has said on two
occasions that this is just like every employee. It is not. This bill
terminates the employment of Mr. Noble. That is what this bill does. It
has a provision in it that he can be rehired by a vote of four to
three. The commission is made up of three Republicans and three
Democrats.
Do not kid anybody. This bill fires a Federal official for doing
something that you did not like, and that is going after GOPAC and the
Christian Coalition.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is right, we need to be
accurate on what this bill does. That provision should not be in this
bill. There are three Republicans and three Democrats, and you are
correct, if four of them believe that Mr. Noble is not performing, they
ought to remove him from office. But it ought not to be done on a
partisan vote. That is the reason for this provision in current law, to
protect the counsel and the executive director from partisan attack.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the other gentleman there said
this does not have, I forget what kind of
[[Page H9258]]
word he used, ``diddly-squat'' he says, about term limits, and he spent
five minutes talking about how it is term limits. So I am glad that the
gentleman has acceded to my point.
I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), this is not
about term limits or about anything. It is about tenure. And I am
saying, by gosh, these guys, I know they look at what we do for
elections, but that does not entitle them to a lifetime of employment.
When do we have job performance? How do you question what these people
are doing?
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I both face our job
performance here in about five weeks. By the way, we have to get an
affirmative vote in about six weeks for the gentleman and I to be back
here in January. And what makes him any different? We are saying you
have to be like other employees, just like the working Joe and working
Jane out there. You have to come up with some job performance.
It does require one Democrat or one Republican, depending on the
makeup, to come over and say your job performance is such that you
should retain your job.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor today to support the rule on the
Treasury conference report. I rise in strong support of it. There has
been a lot of work that has gone into this bill. It is not going to
satisfy everyone. It is not going to satisfy everyone on this floor.
But I say to you, a lot of work has gone into this. It has touched some
very important points.
Number one, the money that has been allocated for drugs. They are
overrunning our communities and it is time we continue to do something
about it. Customs in the area where I come from is extremely important.
If we do not have Customs officials, then we do not guard our borders
and guard our water, and certainly our quality of life will be
decimated by the wrong people coming in through Customs.
For example, I rise also because for the first time since I have been
in the Congress the Haitians receive some kind of recompense in this
bill. They did not receive everything that everyone wanted, but they
did receive some recognition, and about 40,000 of them, perhaps, if
this bill goes through, will get a chance to get equal rights in this
country and get green cards and be able to work.
I say to you that this particular rule is one that we should stand up
for, and I stand here not unafraid to say that this Treasury report is
one that we need. We need it to be able to pay our government workers,
we need it to be able to have our borders protected, as we have always
wanted, and I want to say to the rest of my colleagues, sometimes you
have to vote for a thing because it is right to vote for it.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, it has saddened me to see issues unrelated to the
funding of the Postal Service and the Treasury Department, those two
extraordinarily important Federal agencies that must be funded, and
that is our responsibility. Before we get out of Washington, we must
fund the Federal Government. I am saddened to see collateral issues put
in jeopardy this rule. If this rule goes down, the underlying
legislation will not be able to be reached tonight.
As my colleague from south Florida stated, there are 40,000 political
refugees in this country, most of whom fled Haiti after the 1991 coup
there because of political persecution, and they are looking at us
tonight with an extreme amount of hope and faith, and I would urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember those 40,000 human
beings who are watching us tonight.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and I want
to thank all of those who have worked on this legislation. I want to
thank Jeb Bush in my state of Florida who has called our leadership
time and time again and made it a top priority of his to get this
legislation for justice for those 40,000 human beings passed.
I would say to Members, let us not bring this rule down and not be
able to get to the underlying legislation. It is a fair rule, it is
fair legislation. There are 40,000 human beings looking at us that need
this legislation to pass. Please support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the conference
report because it permits Congress to micro-manage the very agency that
is charged to police our elections.
It takes an organization, the Federal Election Commission, that has
been called a toothless tiger, and turns it into a helpless kitten. It
allows the accused to become the jury.
The provision permits just three commissioners or just one party in a
partisan way to fire the top officers at the Federal Election
Commission. That means that the staff at the FEC had better not annoy
anyone of either party or they are going to find themselves in an
unemployment line.
I believe that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are just plain going after general counsel Lawrence Noble because he is
doing his job, investigating GOPAC, investigating many campaign finance
abuses.
It is very frustrating to speak out against this appropriations bill
because I am pleased that we won a victory for women's contraceptive
rights, and I am pleased that the FEC will be fully funded. But how can
the FEC go about its business of investigating campaign finance
violations with a sledge hammer being held over its head?
Mr. Speaker, we spent a great deal of this spring and summer months
debating campaign finance reform. It passed the House; it was
filibustered and killed in the Senate. Instead of moving forward with
changes that would aid reform, this House leadership is rolling back
reform. It is working to fire the one person who is actually trying to
enforce the law in a bipartisan manner, and it is being done under the
cover of night in this rule and this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I truly do believe that there is a vendetta by the
leadership on the other side of the aisle against the FEC, and many,
many editorial boards across this country agree. The Washington Post
accuses Republicans of giving Mr. Noble ``the brush-off.'' The New York
Times calls it ``an arrogant attack.'' The Minneapolis Star Tribune
calls Noble a ``watchdog about to be muzzled by the Republican
attack.''
I urge my colleagues to leave the FEC with the small amount of bite
it has left by voting against this conference report and voting against
this rule that would muzzle and defang the Federal Election Commission.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
first of all to address the previous comments made up there. I always
get enjoyment out of hearing those buzzwords, ``under the cover of
night.'' I would concede that the hours are moving quicker now towards
darkness, it is dark outside, but I would remind the previous speaker
that obviously we are televised throughout the country. There is no
secrecy going on there.
We have the Committee on Rules, and, obviously, all these newspapers,
the three or four that the gentlewoman cited, that have been busy in
their editorial pages. This is not something ``sneaking by.''
This is a good rule. I think the gentleman from Florida has a very
pertinent point, Mr. Speaker, and that is there are a lot of good
things that this bill will fund. This rule is important so that we can
get to that; Postal, Treasury, drug interdiction and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman probably should not yield me
any time, because I guess sometimes I tell it too much like it is.
I am upset with some Republicans. Usually I am upset with you
Democrats. But when I first came here 20 years ago, I was so
principled, I just
[[Page H9259]]
thought there was not such a word as ``compromise.'' You had to have it
your own way, and, if you did not, you voted against it.
Well, you know, we had a President of this country elected in 1980
who was a great man, and he was a great compromiser. His name was
Ronald Reagan. He vetoed very few bills. He had a Democrat Congress to
work with, most of the time a Democrat Senate and always a Democrat
House, but, you know, to govern he knew you had to sit down and you
could not always have it your own way, and he vetoed very few bills.
Well, I am standing up here tonight, and I am hearing Democrats over
there, and they are complaining because there is one thing in this
massive bill, hold up that bill over there, would you. There is one
little paragraph in this bill, and they are so upset they are going to
vote against this bill.
Then I hear my Republicans over here, and they are going to come on
this floor and they are going to vote on this rule, and they are going
to try to vote the rule down, our Republicans, because they do not have
it their own way.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if they ever served in the military. Not many
of them did, but that is not a criteria. I wonder if they ever played
on a football team, and the quarterback called a play where the wide
receiver was going to go out and make a sharp left. Well, the play
takes off, and the wide receiver says, ``I don't like that play; I am
going the other way.'' The quarterback throws the pass, there is nobody
out there, and they lose the game.
That is what you Republicans are going to do, my friends, because I
can tell you that five years ago the Democrats were divided over here,
and we defeated five or six or seven of their rules in the last two
years they were here and they fell apart.
Do you remember that, guys? That is why you are in the minority.
Do you want to be in the minority over here? That is exactly what is
going to happen. We have got a conference report here that the other
body has agreed to, we have agreed to, and nobody got their own way.
But there is no conference to go back to. You defeat the rule, the bill
is dead.
Mr. Speaker, we have to compromise around here. If I catch one
Republican coming over here and voting against this rule, I am going to
invite you to go outside, because you are not a team player. This is
what it is all about. So come over here and talk to me about it, but
you do not vote against rules of your party.
{time} 2015
One votes to bring the bill to the floor, and if one does not like
the bill, then one votes one's conscience. One votes any way one wants
to, but one does not disrupt the House and kill the legislation. Think
about that, I say to my colleagues. I love you all.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was very astounded to find out how my chairman felt about
Republicans. If he wants, he can bring his football and play on our
side of the team.
I would just like to read at this time, Mr. Speaker, just the first
sentence of a Washington Post editorial of September 28. ``Powerful
Republicans are still trying to twist the appropriations process to
oust longtime general counsel of the Federal Election Commission,
Lawrence Noble, whom they regard as too aggressive an enforcer of the
law.''
Now, that is not the Democratic committee saying that, that is not
the President of the United States, that is not the leadership of the
minority, that is the Washington Post.
Sure, many people may vote against this bill because of a couple of
little things like this, but why did they put a couple of little things
like this in the bill in the first place? They do not belong there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule on the Treasury Postal
Conference Report, because the conference report includes an important
women's health provision: the requirement that FEHB plans which cover
prescriptions also cover prescription contraceptives.
The language passed the full Committee on Appropriations with support
from Democrats and Republicans, pro-life and pro-choice. The Committee
on Rules stripped it out of the bill, but I offered a rewritten
amendment on the House floor, which passed. Then the same coalition of
pro-choice and pro-life Democrats and Republicans defeated an attempt
to weaken the language by my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith).
Unfortunately, the conference report also includes a politically
vindictive attack on the bipartisan Federal Election Commission, and I
think this is disgraceful, has no place in this legislation, and I do
hope this will be eliminated in the Senate. However, because of the
importance of contraceptive coverage for women across America, I will
vote for the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, we are all in agreement that we want to reduce the
number of abortions. Close to half of all unplanned pregnancies end in
abortions. Many of these unplanned pregnancies could be prevented with
better access to contraception. Contraception is basic health care for
women. It allows couples to plan families, have healthier babies when
they choose to conceive, and it makes abortion less necessary, which is
a goal I thought we all shared.
Yet, 80 percent of FEHB plans do not cover all of the 5 most widely
used contraceptives. Ten percent cover none of the 5 most widely used
contraceptive methods. Meanwhile, all but one of the FEHB plans cover
sterilization. Is it not clear that women and men who want to have
families, who want to plan pregnancies, need better options?
It is important to understand, I say to my colleagues, what we are
talking about when we talk about contraceptive methods. We are not
talking about abortion, we are not talking about RU486 or any other
abortion method. No abortions will be covered by this amendment. This
is, in fact, clearly stated by the language in the conference report.
I just want to make it very clear to my colleagues that we are
talking about providing women with the full range of contraceptive
options. Women need the full range of options because not every woman
can use one form or another form of birth control. Many women cannot
use the pill. Its side effects, such as migraines, can be truly
disabling for some. Other women choose not to go on the pill because
they may be at special risk for stroke or breast cancer or something
else.
So I urge my colleagues to support this rule, support this bill, and
I hope we can change it in the Senate.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I guess there are a couple of points that I would like to make about
the previous speaker. First of all, she very eloquently and correctly
supports the rule. That is what is important here. We have lots of time
to debate the bill this evening or whenever that debate takes place.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a partisan split on this bill, there is
support. This bill covers drug use, supporting law enforcement efforts,
and so on.
The other point I would like to make is that I hope the Democrats
that are over there that are giving a lot of weight to these editorials
of recent, I also hope they have that same kind of enthusiasm on the
other editorials out of these newspapers, a couple hundred of them that
have come out in the last couple of weeks on another subject.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this
time.
I am pleased that here on the first day of the new Federal fiscal
year we are debating one of the appropriations bills, but the tragedy
is this is the first day of the new fiscal year and we do not have a
concurrent budget resolution in place.
How does it happen that this body, which has committed itself to
abiding by its own rules and by the legislation in the Budget Act, has
not been able to work with the body at the other end of the building
and develop a concurrent budget resolution? We do not have a road map
for the budget process. It is a failure of leadership.
[[Page H9260]]
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in the 24 years that we have had
a Budget Act on the books that we have not produced a concurrent
resolution. Last Saturday, we stayed in session and we debated and we
voted on tax cuts. I think virtually every Member in this body would
like to see tax reductions. The question was, do it now or defer it
until we have balanced the budget without using Social Security. It was
an important debate. But it certainly would have been helpful, again,
if we had had a concurrent budget resolution to provide some guidance
as to how we are to make decisions regarding Federal fiscal policy. It
is unfortunate that we are debating appropriations bills for 1999
without a budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that each Member of this body press upon the
leadership the importance of our having a budget resolution. Hardly a
week goes by that we are not telling State and local governments, the
United Nations, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or others
that receive Federal funds that they ought to have a sound budget
process, and here in Congress, we do not even have the wherewithal to
adopt a current budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we proceed with these appropriations bills
and do the best we can under the circumstances, but hopefully we will
not repeat this tragic situation in 1999, but instead, we will move
forward and have a budget resolution and provide guidance for where we
are headed with this country and its fiscal policies into the next
century.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I cannot help but note the gentleman's comments about failure of
leadership. I would challenge the gentleman: let him try and get
together a body that has 535 different Members from 535 different
locations around this country with 535 different philosophies, with
thousands and thousands of different projects, whether it is Social
Security or highways or military or the Y2K funding, and let him try
and pull them all together. It takes some challenge.
I think we have leadership out there, the fact that we are here at
this point. Of course it tests leadership.
The key here is that we always get into this kind of crunch time on
an appropriation process. It is just like a family budget. In my
family, my wife exercises her leadership pretty toughly, I might add,
towards the end of a month when it gets to crunch time, but that is not
a failure of leadership, that is a presentation of leadership.
The key here is the rule, and that is what we have to come back and
focus on. The gentleman from Florida and the chairman of the Committee
on Rules said, look, I thought his football example was excellent. We
are going to throw I mean a bill that has a lot of good things about
it, a lot of merit in it. There are Democrats and Republicans that
support this bill. But if we kill this rule, which some people are set
on doing this evening, we set those needs and those issues for a lot of
those districts and a lot of people in this country back a few steps.
It is not necessary. Let us go through this rule, let us pass the rule,
and let us have fair debate following the rule, and that is what
passing the rule will give us the opportunity to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to emphasize that here we
are in the 24th year of a process in which we have required of
ourselves a concurrent budget resolution, and this is the first time in
24 years that we do not have one. That is why we have a failure of
leadership.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time for
my dear friend from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and myself?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from
Colorado how many speakers he has remaining?
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, at this point it would be myself and the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I intend to yield him the last
5 minutes, so it depends on the number of speakers on the other side.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just have one speaker, so if the
gentleman would yield to one of his speakers, and then I will yield to
my speaker.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, what I would prefer instead is for the
gentleman to go ahead with a speaker, and then I will comment and we
can wrap it up with yielding the balance of the time to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. MOAKLEY. But, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman from
Colorado has only himself and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think I understand.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult being a ranking member on a
committee where the bill that confronts us is a good bill. I said that
in the Committee on Rules, I said that to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe), I said it to others, and I will say it when we consider
the bill. It is a good bill because as the Committee on Appropriations
is required to do, if it is responsible, it gives the necessary
resources to agencies to accomplish the objectives that the American
people expect of them; and indeed, that this Congress expects of them.
In particular, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe), the chairman of our subcommittee, for his tenaciousness in
ensuring that agencies can effectively carry out their
responsibilities. That is particularly the case as it relates to law
enforcement and the fighting of the drug scourge on our borders and
within our communities.
Mr. Speaker, this bill almost, I believe, is the best bill that this
committee has reported out in the last 3 years. In part that was
because we had sufficient resources to fund agencies. Not all they
wanted, but sufficient.
{time} 2030
Mr. Speaker, therefore, it is with a great deal of regret that I
rise, because we have included in this bill a number of extraneous
provisions. All of them, without fail, were argued in a bipartisan
fashion. That is to say that there were some Republicans for them and
some Democrats for them, some Republicans against them and some
Democrats against them.
One provision, however, is, I believe, without exception opposed on
our side of the aisle because it is, I believe correctly, perceived as
a totally partisan, inappropriate attack on the FEC.
I have heard my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis) say that this was just like any other employee. He and I
disagree on that proposition. In point of fact we have an individual,
Lawrence Noble, a staff member, not a commissioner, who can take no
action without having four votes, which means that he needs at least
one Republican to authorize action of the Commission, because there are
only three Democrats, and four votes are required.
Mr. Noble has taken some actions which have annoyed just about
everybody on both sides of the aisle. In fact, more complaints have
been made against Democrats, 38 percent, than Republicans, 32 percent.
In fact, 80 percent of the Democrats have paid their fines, 51 percent
of the Republicans have paid their fines. So in point of fact, it ought
to be Democrats from that perspective who ought to be more annoyed at
Mr. Noble, because he apparently has been tougher on us.
But in the performance of his duties, he concluded that actions were
appropriate to be initiated against GOPAC and against the Christian
Coalition for campaign actions which they had undertaken, just as he
would take it against the Clinton campaign or the Bush campaign or
other Republican and Democratic campaigns.
It is our belief, notwithstanding the fact we have been told we are
in error on this, but it is our belief that this bill and the provision
regarding Mr.
[[Page H9261]]
Noble, which terminates Mr. Noble's tenure, because by this bill his
tenure is terminated as of January 1, 1999, 90 days from today, I do
not recall a bill firing a Federal employee before. Perhaps there has
been, but I do not recall it. I do not recall it.
We would have hoped that during the consideration of this bill, that
some compromise could have been reached. I brought to the attention of
the conference that one of the Senators in the other body has indicated
that he is going to filibuster this bill if this provision is in there,
so the conference report probably cannot pass the other body.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this rule. I regret that, but
I see no other way to indicate my opposition to this provision. I do
not know what I am going to do on final passage, because the chairman
has worked very hard, and I repeat again, this is a good bill. I would
hope that my colleagues would join me, and that this provision would be
taken out of this bill before, again, it is offered to us for passage.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is an
exceptionally bright, very capable gentleman, but I would point out
that he says that he cannot think of another Federal employee who has
ended their tenure like that. There are 435 sitting on this floor. In
30 days, every Member in this House has to, by affirmative vote, prove
to the constituents that he or she has done the kind of job performance
that would allow them to continue. We do the same thing. We go out to
our judges.
What we are saying here, the gentleman can pull out of the air the
Christian association or some of these other examples. That is not
this. We are saying here, hey, one party, by the way, with three votes
could get this guy a job for the rest of his life, or some gal a job
for the rest of their lives. We are saying, job performance. If they
perform, they keep the job. That is what we have to say. Right now,
there is no accountability, in my opinion, from the Federal Election
Commission. We are asking for accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding time to me. I want to especially thank the chairman of the
Committee on Rules for the comments that he made earlier. I think he is
right on target.
Mr. Speaker, this is about getting a bill to the floor. This is about
the necessary compromises that have to be made in the legislative
process that all of us learn very painfully as we go through this
process. We do not get everything we like. There are things in here
which I would prefer not to see in here.
Mr. Speaker, this is about compromise. It is about teamwork. But as I
listened to the arguments from the other side for the last hour, I
think the comment that was made by the distinguished ranking member of
the Committee on Rules at the outset put it right into perspective. He
said, this is really about firing one person. This is about one person.
This whole bill, this whole rule, is about one person.
Who here tonight is going to say that this one individual, this
general counsel of the Federal Elections Commission, is not a powerful
person? Here we are, threatening to take down a $27 billion
appropriation bill that supports 163,000 good working men and women in
the Federal Government. We are going to take it down because we do not
like what it is doing to one single person. We want to save the job of
one career bureaucrat.
We are willing to take down this bill, this appropriation bill,
because one person, the minority says to us tonight, may not be able to
muster up four votes to save his job; a majority, that is how we pass
bills around here, a majority of the Federal Elections Commission, to
save his job. That is what this debate tonight is all about.
Mr. Speaker, we are willing to defeat this bill, that gives the
Customs Service another $15.2 million to put 16 Black Hawk helicopters
in the air, to increase their flying time from the current 18 hours to
more than 30 hours each month. We need those Black Hawks along the
border, I can tell Members that. I represent one of those areas. We
need those in the drug interdiction fight. This bill gives us the money
to put those helicopters back in the air, to give them the time to fly,
to help them interdict against the drugs.
Who says the general counsel of the FEC does not have power? He can
ground the entire Customs Service fleet of Black Hawk helicopters in
order to save his job.
The Democrats are willing to sacrifice $7.9 billion for the Internal
Revenue Service, including $103 million for customer service
initiatives, $25 million in restructuring and reform, to keep one man
in his job. By a huge bipartisan vote earlier we passed IRS reforms on
this floor. This gives us the money to put those into place, to make
the IRS a more taxpayer-friendly, a more consumer-friendly place. But
no, some people are willing to sacrifice this bill and the money it has
for IRS reforms to save the job of one career bureaucrat.
The fact is, we do not fire the current general counsel, we simply
require that he has to get a majority of the votes from the Federal
Election Commission in order to stay on the job every 4 years. The FEC
is supposed to be a bipartisan group. If the general counsel cannot get
a bipartisan vote in order to stay on this job, then why should he stay
on for a lifetime? Why should he not find other employment? The fact
is, the House of Representatives here is debating the job security of
one single person in the United States government who apparently cannot
get four out of six people to think he is doing a fair job. That is
unconscionable.
What else are we going to sacrifice? Are we going to sacrifice $3.4
million to stop cybercrime and the smuggling of child pornography? We
are talking about giving up $3.2 million for the support of the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, $20 million for
drug-free communities. Letter after letter I have had from the majority
and minority side saying how important this money for drug-free
communities is.
There is $185 million for the second year of a national media
campaign to keep our kids off of drugs. We have a good start on that
program this year, but no, we are willing to give that up to save the
job of one career bureaucrat if he cannot get four votes, a majority of
votes, the same thing we have to have to pass any bill in the House and
Senate, the same thing we have to have to confirm any person in the
cabinet or in the Federal government, when he is confirmed by the
United States. No, we are willing to give that up to keep that one
person.
There is $183 million for high-intensity drug trafficking areas, in
areas like Dallas and Fort Worth, and a new one that is very important,
central Florida; Washington and Baltimore; Miami; the Midwest, for the
methamphetamine reduction. All of these are in danger.
In Southern California, Mr. Speaker, in Los Angeles, in San
Francisco, in Detroit, in Chicago, in El Paso and Arizona, and yes,
along the Arizona and southwest border, all of those high-intensity
drug trafficking areas could be endangered, and certainly the new ones
will be endangered by not passing this rule and this bill.
And oh, yes, to save this career bureaucrat's job, we are willing to
give up low-income taxpayer clinics we provide for in the IRS
legislation, so that low-income taxpayers can get some service from the
Internal Revenue Service; and yes, provisions that Members of this body
have come to me about for land transfers in Racine, Wisconsin, and a
very important one in Dade County, Florida. That, too, will be lost as
a result of defeating this rule tonight.
A 3.6 percent pay increase for Federal employees could be in danger
as a result of defeating this rule.
Finally, we are willing to zero out the funding for courthouses, not
courthouses put in here as pork barrel projects, but courthouses that
come from the Federal judiciary, as their list of priorities. I am
looking down here, and I see that the majority of them are in
Democratic districts. These are the ones that the Federal judiciary
have said are important in Little Rock, Arkansas; in San Diego; San
Jose; Denver, Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; Orlando, Florida;
Springfield, Massachusetts; Biloxi, Mississippi; Cape Girardeau,
Missouri; Brooklyn, New York; Eugene, Oregon; Greenville, Tennessee;
Laredo, Texas; Wheeling, West
[[Page H9262]]
Virginia. All of those could be in danger by failing to do this.
We could lose the money for the anti-gang grant program, $13 million
for that, and $27 million for the youth crime gun interdiction
initiative. These are just some of the things, Mr. Speaker, that are
jeopardized by the failure to pass this rule this evening.
Mr. Speaker, we should not let this rule go down, because we should
not let this conference report go down. It is, as my good friend, the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) just said, a good
bill that we have worked hard on. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule, support the conference report. Pass this tonight.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McINNIS. 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 106,
nays 294, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 475]
YEAS--106
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bass
Bateman
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Brown (FL)
Burr
Burton
Camp
Campbell
Castle
Coble
Collins
Conyers
Cox
Davis (VA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dreier
Dunn
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hobson
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lowey
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Olver
Owens
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Porter
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Ros-Lehtinen
Salmon
Scarborough
Schumer
Shays
Solomon
Spence
Stump
Taylor (NC)
Upton
Weller
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--294
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Buyer
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Quinn
Rahall
Redmond
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--34
Callahan
Clay
Clement
Deal
DeFazio
Fawell
Fowler
Goss
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Harman
Kennelly
King (NY)
Klug
Largent
Livingston
Martinez
McDade
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Oxley
Packard
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Roukema
Shuster
Smith (OR)
Stark
Tauzin
Thomas
Towns
Walsh
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 2107
Mr. MICA, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Messrs. WAMP, EHLERS,
HILL, CRANE, METCALF, PEASE and PICKERING changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, and Messrs. LAZIO of New York, PASTOR,
UPTON, SCHUMER, and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________