[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.

                          ____________________