[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 82 (Thursday, June 10, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4095-H4106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1905, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall),
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, House Resolution 190 is a structured rule that governs
the consideration of H.R. 1905, the Legislative
[[Page H4096]]
Branch appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. This type of rule has
become customary for legislative branch spending bills due to the
controversy that often surrounds them. Last month, when the Committee
on Rules held a hearing on this bill, we heard from very few Members
who took issue with the provisions in the bill, but there are some
unrelated issues that may disrupt today's debate. Therefore, a
structured rule that ensures an orderly yet adequate debate is wholly
appropriate and fair.
Under the rule, 1 hour of general debate will be equally divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The rule waives a limited number of points of order
against consideration of the bill to address some minor issues related
to the compensation of specific employees which fall under the
Congressional Budget Act. The rule also waives points of order against
some provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule
XXI which prohibits unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general
appropriations bill.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the Subcommittee on Legislative for
their hard work to bring this legislation to the floor in a timely
manner. As a testament to their good work product, only seven
amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules. Of the seven, two
were very similar. Both would allow Members who do not use their entire
budget allowance to return any unused portion to the Treasury. The
savings would then be devoted to deficit or debt reduction. This
concept, which has earned broad support in the past, encourages Members
of Congress to lead by example and be frugal in the use of taxpayers'
dollars. The Committee on Rules encouraged the cosponsors of these
amendments to combine their efforts and made in order a Camp-Roemer-
Upton amendment which is printed in the Committee on Rules report. That
amendment will be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided between a
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment.
Further, the rule waives points of order against the amendment for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.
Four other amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules which
addressed juvenile crime and gun laws. Obviously these issues are not
even remotely related to funding for the Legislative Branch. Therefore,
the amendments which are not germane to the bill or appropriate in the
context of this debate were not made in order under the rule, and, as
my colleagues are well aware, we will have the opportunity to address
Youth Violence issues next week. Under the rule, the minority will have
an additional opportunity to make changes to the bill through the
customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
The Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill continues
our efforts which began in 1994 to scale back the Federal Government
and balance the budget by cutting spending first. As reported by the
Committee on Appropriations, the funding in H.R. 1905 is 6.6 percent
lower than the total legislative spending provided in fiscal year 1999.
The bill cuts some $135 million as well as a total of 98 positions
throughout the legislative branch.
We have come a long way since the first year of the Republican
majority. Since 1994 more than 4,400 positions have been eliminated;
that is, 16 percent of the legislative work force, and with enactment
of H.R. 1905 the House would save a total of $1.2 billion over 5 years.
However, many of my colleagues think that we should go even further
than H.R. 1905 to reduce spending on the legislative branch. Therefore,
I will seek to amend the rule prior to its adoption by the House to
make in order an amendment that will further reduce spending on the
legislative branch by $54 million. The amendment will be debatable for
20 minutes, and it will include cuts from the House's salaries and
expenses as well as reductions in spending for the Architect of the
Capitol, the Library of Congress and the General Accounting Office.
This amendment is in line with the Speaker's updated appropriations
strategy announced earlier this week which will ensure that we allocate
our scarce resources in an equitable manner among our many spending
priorities while abiding by the limits agreed to in the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997.
It is important to keep in mind that the Legislative Branch
Appropriation bill is about more than funding Members' offices and
their staffs. H.R. 1905 ensures that the United States Congress runs
efficiently as a professional institution, and at the same time the
bill supports the Capitol Building as a tourist attraction and national
landmark that plays host to thousands of visitors each year. The
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill provides funding for the
maintenance of the Capitol building and grounds through the Architect
of the Capitol; it finances the security provided by the Capitol
Police, and it ensures access to government documents through the
Government Printing Office. These organizations serve the public as
much as they serve the people's elected representatives.
This rule will provide for sufficient consideration of the substance
of the legislation in a fair and orderly manner, and with the amendment
I will offer to the rule the House will have the opportunity to vote to
further reduce spending on the Legislative Branch by $54 million.
Our efforts today prove that Congress is willing to look in its own
backyard and do its part to cut spending to reach our balanced budget
goals. If the rest of the federal budget had been reduced at the same
rate as the Legislative Branch, we would have an additional one
trillion, one hundred billion dollar budget surplus.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule for a reasonable Legislative Branch
spending bill which continues our commitment to a smaller, smarter
government that works for the American people. I urge my colleagues to
support this rule and my amendment to it so that the House can move
forward to debate and pass a responsible Legislative Branch
Appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume and, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for
yielding me the time.
This is a structured rule. It will allow for consideration of H.R.
1905, which is a bill that makes appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the year 2000. As my colleague has described, this rule
provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
The rule permits only one amendment. That amendment assures that any
unspent funds in a Member's representational allowance will be returned
to the Treasury and used to reduce the national debt. If this amendment
passes, any Member who feels that his or her office allowance is too
high can in essence make a cut by not spending that money. This rule
will allow the House to consider funding for the operations of the
House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget Office, the
Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress and Congressional
Research Service, the Government Printing Office and the General
Accounting Office. The money provided in this bill funds the office of
every Member of this body.
{time} 1930
Each Member's office provides service to our constituents and
represents their interests in Washington, and we depend on CBO and the
Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service to assist in
the representational duties assigned to us by the Constitution.
The Government Printing Office does an extraordinary job by printing
the bills and reports that are essential to our work and turning out
the Congressional Record so we have a printed copy of our proceedings
the day after they happen.
We also depend on the Government Accounting Office to conduct
professional nonpartisan reports and analysis of issues facing the
Congress, and the Architect of the Capitol ensures that this
magnificent building which we are so privileged to work in is
maintained, cleaned and preserved.
I would like to point out that there are a number of serious fault in
this
[[Page H4097]]
rule. One, the rule waives all points of order against all legislative
provisions of the bill except for one. That provision was added by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) during the Committee on
Appropriations markup. The Farr language requires that the Architect of
the Capitol institute an effective waste recycling program and an
environmentally sound and perhaps financially rewarding goal. Yet the
Committee on Rules refused to waive points of order against this
provision in spite of the fact that the waiver was requested by the
Committee on Appropriations.
For that reason and for this amendment that we just heard about in
the last 15 minutes that is going to be added, if it passes, we will
urge our colleagues certainly on this side and in the whole body to
defeat the previous question, and, if the previous question is
defeated, there will be another amendment offered to the rule to
protect the provision requiring an effective recycling program in the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of our colleagues know that most
of us in this chamber work very hard in committee, we work on a
bipartisan basis in many committees and subcommittees. I am shocked at
what I have seen tonight with motions to adjourn when we still have a
lot of business that needs to be done.
As I look at our Democratic friends on the other side, 103 voted for
the motion to adjourn, 92 voted against the motion to adjourn and
joined the unanimous majority Republican vote of 210, for a total of
302 versus 104. I would hope those 92 Democrats would send a message to
the 104 on the other side. They were the half who want to go home.
Almost half of them do not want to go home. They want to work with us
to carry on the Nation's business.
Many know that I am not a partisan type of subcommittee Chair. During
my four years as chairman, I have had full cooperation of three
outstanding Democratic ranking Members. All three of them voted against
the motion to adjourn. That would be typical, because they have been
hard working Members in the committees. Despite that bipartisan
relationship at the committee level somehow a few things can go awry on
the floor.
We have heard for months that some Democrats planned to disrupt the
place, so we could not get the appropriation bills through the floor
process. The ones in opposition seem to feel that slowing down the
process will enable them to attack this ``do-nothing'' Congress.
Well, that is just nonsense. This is a ``do'' Congress. It has done
many good things. When the chips are down, a lot of the Democrats vote
with us on final passage. The President signs many of those bills, into
law despite a lot of antics along the way sometimes.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should get back to work and not have these
motions to adjourn that just put the whole chamber behind time in the
schedule. I am glad we are pursuing this appropriations bill tonight.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is important that the previous speaker
understand that what has been happening in this House tonight on these
motions to adjourn has nothing whatsoever to do with whether any of us
want to work or do not want to work. They do have everything to do with
procedural fairness and treating the average Member of this House the
same way the leadership is treated.
For three out of the four appropriation bills which have been brought
to the floor this year, we have had the Republican leadership
unilaterally rewrite committee products with no consultation with the
minority party.
The first of those occurred on the original hurricane supplemental,
where the leadership unilaterally decided to rewrite that bill after it
had left the committee.
The second was the agriculture appropriations bill. Again, we had a
bipartisan bill as it emerged from the committee. It was rewritten
unilaterally by the leadership of this House, and that caused
considerable problems, as you know.
We now had a third bipartisan bill, the legislative appropriations
bill, and again today the House leadership unilaterally rewrote that
bill, without any consultation with the minority and without any
consultation with the Committee on House Administration, which has
authorization jurisdiction over House accounts.
Now what we are asked to do is to approve a rule which will allow for
only one amendment. The practical result of that will be that the
majority whip will be protected in his 30 percent increase in his
office account, other leadership Members will be protected with their
increases in their office accounts, committees will be protected from
significant reductions, but the rank and file Members of this House
will have their office accounts frozen. That will mean that the average
member will have a very difficult time providing a cost-of-living
increase for their employees in their offices, even though they work
just as hard as committee employees, but the committees will have no
trouble providing cost-of-living increases for their staffers, and the
leadership certainly will have no problem providing cost-of-living
increases for their staff. That is reason number two why we have had
these actions.
Thirdly, at this point this bill has become so politicized that in my
view it should not be considered until we know how other branches of
government are treated. This Congress has no right to be treated any
better than any other branch of government, and it has no obligation to
be treated worse. We should be treated precisely the same. But at this
point we have no idea what is going to happen to other agencies of
government, and so, until we do, in my view, we should not be
considering this bill at all.
Fourthly, we have no idea what is going to happen to the American
public in terms of the programs that affect them. We do know that we
are going to see substantial cuts in Head Start, we are going to see a
substantial squeeze on education, we are going to see a substantial
squeeze on the Environmental Protection Agency budgets, and yet the
Congress itself is being treated rather modestly in this legislation.
It seems to me that that is not fair to our constituents.
So, for a lot of reasons, we feel that this bill should not be before
us tonight. I do not care when you bring it up, but it should not be
brought up until we know how other branches of government are going to
be dealt with and until we know how we are going to treat our own
constituents with respect to programs that are of vital concern to
them.
We will not be able to amend tonight the account of the General
Accounting Office. We will not be able to amend the account for the
Speaker's office or for the majority leader's office or the minority
leader's office or the whip's office. We will not be able to amend the
budget for the Government Printing Office, for the Congressional Budget
Office or a variety of other offices on the Hill. We will only be
allowed to vote on that one amendment.
Last week we had amendment after amendment on the agriculture
appropriation bill. All of those accounts were subject to cuts. But
under this rule tonight, very few accounts will be subject to
reductions under the rule. That, to me, does not seem to be a fair way
to do business.
Now, I apologize to the House because taking a stand on principle is
inconveniencing Members tonight. I am sorry about that. It is also
inconveniencing me personally. Yesterday was my 37th anniversary. My
wife and I did not get a chance to celebrate it last night. We expected
to do it tonight. My wife is not a very happy person right now, and she
has every right to be unhappy. But there are some matters of principle
that we need to deal with whenever they arise.
I knew the Republican leadership believed in trickle-down economics
for the public. I did not know that the Republican leadership believed
in trickle-down economics when it came to the House leadership versus
the way they treat every other Member of the House. I find it
interesting; I also find it not very healthy for the House.
So I would say again in closing, this bill should not be before us
until we
[[Page H4098]]
know how we are going to deal with other bills that affect our
constituents, and it certainly should not be before us until we know
how we are going to treat other departments of government. We should be
treated no worse than any other branch of government and we should be
treated no better, and certainly we will have no way of measuring that
if this bill is brought up on this ill-advised schedule this evening.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think most of us
respect mostly on this floor is someone that we may disagree with but
fights for principle, and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), even though we disagree on some issues, one thing he does, he
stands up for what he believes in. I respect that very, very much, and
part of me understands what the gentleman is doing.
But let me give you just another side of some of our feelings. I did
not know what they were doing on this particular bill. I am not in the
leadership. I do not have a staff. I am just a small cog in this whole
membership. But each year I turn back about 20 percent of my own office
budget. I try not to put in extra newsletters, do all the things that
many of the Members do, and try to turn back money to the government to
set an example, yet I try and take care of my staff very well.
There are 13 appropriation bills, Mr. Speaker, and there are many of
us that, when it comes down the line, things like Labor-HHS, I chaired
a committee hearing for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). I had
to shut down the hearing twice because the hearing was about children
that had diseases and their only hope was Labor-HHS and medical
research. I had to stop. I had so many tears coming down my eyes. I
will never sit in another one of those hearings. I cannot do it.
Where we think there are some tough choices, it may be in our own
accounts, it is a place where we can add money, things like medical
research and Labor-HHS. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said
the other day he said he did not think we could double medical
research. I would sure like to try. I think the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would too.
I think where we are taking small amounts of each committee, when you
have got billions of dollars out of each one of these appropriations
bills, including defense we just did for peacekeeping, then I think if
we can shift over some of those amounts, and many of us feel the reason
we want to get out of Kosovo is I think we are spending too much, not
that that is the only reason, but spending too much money.
I would say to my friend that, yes, we do want to help Social
Security and we do want to help Medicare. Education, I want to reform
it, and I do want to increase medical research. I honestly do as a
Member.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask one question: If we
are going to cut Members' accounts, why should the majority whip
receive a 30 percent increase in his account, while the average Member
of this House has his account frozen?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I cannot answer
that, other than with a 5 vote margin, quite often it is very, very
difficult to bring Members on your side to our way of thinking, and
sometimes your thinking and the whip organization that tries to bring
all of this together. Granted, we do not always do that in the best
way.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
{time} 1945
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, part of why I am in Congress is because I believe that
the Federal government has an opportunity to be a better partner with
the rest of America to promote livable communities.
This is a very small item in the large scheme of things in the debate
that is going on tonight, but I think it speaks volumes to the level of
hypocrisy that goes on in Washington, D.C.
There was a provision that was inserted in the Committee on
Appropriations by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) that would
require a meaningful recycling program to be developed for the House of
Representatives.
I have been stunned at what we do not do in the House. We have the
worst performance of any agency in the Federal government. I have Boy
Scout troops in my district that have made more money recycling cans,
bottles, and Christmas trees than the House of Representatives has done
in the last 3 years that I have been in Congress. There are homeless
people within the sight of this Capitol that make more money in a day
than the House of Representatives was able to surplus for all the tons
of paper that pass through this place in the year 1997.
We are repeatedly assured that we have a recycling program. We have
the funny little blue cans and cannisters, but it simply does not work.
The Committee on Appropriations stepped forward to try and help
encourage it in this bill.
I note that under this rule, the only provision that is not protected
is this requirement that we get serious about recycling. It seems to me
that we have an opportunity to lead by example, to try and promote more
livable communities. This does not cost any money. In fact, if we would
grow up and do what we ask the rest of America to do, it would mean
tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of
increased money that we make to this House, and it would save disposal
costs.
A little thing? I do not understand what is going on tonight with
some of this folderol. Somebody will explain it to the reporters and I
can read about it tomorrow. But I do know that it is embarrassing that
we do not have a recycling program, that the House of Representatives
is the worst performer in the Federal government; that we are being
outperformed by homeless people and Boy Scout troops. We deserve to do
better.
I would ask that people not play games with this provision, that it
be not struck down under a point of order. I think that it would be an
important signal for us to send to the rest of America that we are
serious about promoting livable communities, and we are willing to lead
by example and not be hypocritical about it.
If Members are going to do this, then for heavens sakes get rid of
all the things that pretend to be recycling, throw them out. Do not
have staff waste the time and money.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, a couple of different points that I want to
make here.
One is that this is a very difficult process. We have a budget
agreement that the President says he supports, that all of us in
Congress say we support, that calls for very difficult appropriations
levels, and quite bluntly, none of us are really happy with it.
We want to keep the budget caps. We are trying to stay with the
budget agreement. We all go out home and say we want to save all this
money for social security. But when it comes to each bill, it is
always, well, we really need this, we really need that.
We have been trying to save a little bit of money in each one because
a number of us strongly felt that while everybody talks about the need
to stay within the budget agreement, the fact is that the money we had
on the table for Labor-HHS, for Interior and Veterans, was not
sufficient, and that every side was kind of doing a wink-wink and
saying, well, we are trying to try to stay within the caps and within
the budget agreement, knowing we were not working towards that.
Every dollar we save in this appropriations bill, the agriculture
appropriations bill, is going to be able to be used for those programs
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others have said they
are concerned about and will help us preserve social security. That is
the real trade-off.
Yes, it will be difficult for Members' offices to live under a
freeze, which is in effect a reduction. But we also gave each Member of
Congress flexibility to move their funds around, and most Members do
not even spend their full account.
[[Page H4099]]
Furthermore, this is another round, in my opinion, of ``pick on the
majority whip.'' The plain truth of the matter is that the majority and
minority are both getting the same amount of money in this. We reduced,
in this agreement, the amendment that will be offered, the money going
to leadership; not by a lot, but by some. This amendment does not
really please anybody, but at least it moves the ball forward and
reduces some funds overall.
The minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) gets
the same amount as the majority whip. He can either give it to the
minority whip or do it elsewhere. The fact is that early on, for many
different reasons, in the majority side the whip's office was
disproportionately cut in its budget. That is why the majority is
choosing to put the money in the whip's office.
The minority has the same amount of funds. What is good for one side
is good for the other. We have also reduced the committee spending. We
need to lead by example. Every dollar we can save in the operations
that support Congress, in our own operations, in all of the many
organizations here we can put into educating our children, into the
health concerns raised by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham), in the difference diseases. We can put it into our
national defense.
That is one of the problems here. We have just seen all of our
secrets in our military, offensive and defensive, potentially be at
risk to China. At the same time, unless we spend more money in defense,
we are completely vulnerable. If we spend more money there, it squeezes
elsewhere.
I believe this amount of sacrifice is minimal on our parts, and it is
courageous, because normally Congress does not allow any amendment on
the leg branch. I think there should be more, but normally we do not
allow any. Tonight we are taking a very important step that no other
Congress has done.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, do we really want to take care of ourselves first before
the rest of the country? This is the bill that takes care of us, of our
internal operations. When we finish with this, 97 percent of the
appropriations process is still undone. Legislative branch may be the
first appropriations bill. It could be the only appropriations bill
enacted.
Do we really want that? Do we really want to be increasing the
majority whip's organization by 35 percent when we cut Head Start by 20
percent, when we cut Meals on Wheels for the elderly by 20 percent? Is
that really the situation that we want to present to our constituents?
If in fact we are going to increase House operations, is it really
appropriate to be putting the money into the leadership offices, into
the committee offices, as deserving as they may be, when we know that
the people who are most underpaid are the people who work directly for
us for our constituents, the people who answer constituent letters, the
people who deal with constituent problems, the people who are out face-
to-face with the people we represent?
They are the most underpaid of all of the people that work within
this organization. We can show the Members the statistics. Yet, their
allocation is frozen so that we can provide the money for the
leadership, for the whip's operation, primarily. If I am wrong, if the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) can tell me that the office of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does not get a 35 percent increase in
this budget. I would be more than happy for that to be explained on the
floor.
My understanding is that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does
get 35 percent.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the whip's office took a $300,000 cut the
first year the majority took over because of differences internally.
This will put them, inflation-adjusted, about where they would have
been. The minority is actually getting more than the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), but it goes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Would the knowledgeable gentleman from Indiana
tell us on the floor how much the whip's organization is funded, and
how many personnel work for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?
Mr. SOUDER. This I think would put them roughly at $1.4 million. It
was at roughly $1.3 million in 1994 when the Democrats were in. That is
not much of an increase in the whip operation.
Furthermore, the Democrats are getting more money for the leader's
office than the Republicans.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is it
not correct that the operation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
will get a 35 percent increase in this legislative branch
appropriations bill?
Mr. SOUDER. It is because they took a 35 percent cut earlier.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. To put that in context, when the majority took over, they
promised that every agency in the Congress was going to have had a 25
percent cut.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I appreciate the gentleman putting that
information on the Record.
The fact is that all of us, we are going to have to tell our staffs
that we have to swallow a cost of living increase, which means that we
are going to probably have to make cuts across-the-board.
This bill freezes what we are going to be allocated for our personal
staffs. I do not think that is what we want to do, and I do not think
this is the proper allocation of very limited resources that are
available to us.
I do not think we want this bill to be the first and perhaps the only
appropriations bill that actually gets enacted. I think we ought to be
taking care of Health and Human Services first; of State, Justice,
Commerce.
FBI gets a 10 percent cut. Do we really want to deal with that when
we have already provided significant increases for the leadership of
this body? I do not think so. I do not think this shows that our
priorities are in the right place.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge a no vote on the rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
this rule. I do so because the Committee on Rules specifically singled
out one little provision in the bill and subjected it to elimination.
The whole rest of the bill is safe. Any points of order against any
problems in this bill are waived, except for one, just one. It is about
whether this House ought to recycle.
The Committee on Rules arbitrarily and with little regard simply
waved their hand and said, no, the House will not recycle. This is what
the effect of the rule is: We cannot adopt a mandatory recycling
program.
There is no recognition that the House already has a recycling
program, and that it did not work. There is no recognition that the
Committee on Appropriations accepted this language, and they accepted
this language because they realized that it did not work, and they
accepted this language in a bipartisan way because they realized that
this is one part of the bill where we can make some money.
The debate here tonight is about how we cut the costs. This is the
one part of the bill that allows us to earn something for the trash
that we produce. There is no recognition that everyone else in America
has to recycle except the House of Representatives.
What is so hard about recycling? What is so threatening about
recycling, that this body has to strike it from this bill? What is it
about recycling that scares the majority party about separating paper
waste? You would think we were trying to talk about a tax increase, the
way they are reacting on it.
All we are asking is to recycle trash so that the House can conserve
resources, reduce costs, and earn some money. The language in question
says that the money earned, that the money earned from this will go to
help underwrite the activities and operations of the House day care
center.
[[Page H4100]]
So by leaving this language exposed, we not only admit our reluctance
to recycling, we deny our children access to better quality care. The
rule stinks, and I ask for a no vote.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, Will Rogers once said, you can be moving on
the right track, but if you are not moving fast enough, you are going
to get run over.
The budget process right now is such that we have a badly biased
budget process that is headed for a train wreck, and that train wreck
is going to crash into our children. The education and labor bill that
we are going to eventually take up in this body I hope, if we can get
to it, is about $12 billion shortfunded, $12 billion. That is not my
particular figure, that is the figure of the Republican chairman, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
Why is that important? Why should we try to handle this budget
process now, rather than wait for this train wreck for our children
later? That particular subcommittee funds NIH, health care, grants to
help with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and breast cancer.
That particular $12 billion underfunded bill funds Head Start, where
we only have 36 percent of our eligible children enrolled.
{time} 2000
That bill funds Pell Grants to get our Nation's high school students
into college and help them pay for it. That bill funds TRIO programs
for the poorest of the poor for after-school programs and summer school
programs.
Now, why is that important if it is not important for very obvious
reasons for education? Well, we have got a juvenile justice bill coming
up next week. We have got gun provisions on that particular bill.
Now, that gun provision will not be in my first three or four
immediate solutions to the shooting in Littleton. I think families are
important, media, violence, school safety.
School safety. What about TRIO programs? What about Head Start for
our young people? That is the program in Labor HHS that is $12 billion
underfunded.
My good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), I think
makes some good points. He wants to put some more into defense. He
wants to make some cuts. Well, we have cut $102 million from the
agriculture appropriations bill, $54 million from this bill. My figures
give that $156 towards a $12 billion shortfall. Whether one wants to
put it into defense or education, let us get to it. Let us have the
debate now.
I try to work as much as anybody with the Republicans, and I thank
the Committee on Rules for the rule for my amendment with the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) to
return money that we do not spend. I have approached $1 million that I
have not spent in my office account. That is a decision I made.
I voted for the agriculture appropriations bill even though it took a
$102 million hit, even though my farmers are at depressionary prices in
the Midwest on hog, wheat, corn prices. But let us work in a bipartisan
way to solve this education problem.
Let us fix the budgetary problem now and not shut down government
later. Let us fix the budgetary process now and not let this train
wreck hit our children later.
Let us work together across the aisle to try to fix this process and
not do it piecemeal on this legislative branch bill on a Thursday night
and let this train wreck happen. We have a juvenile justice bill coming
up. We have an education bill with NIH and Head Start and preschool
programs. Let us fix the budgetary process.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), whose amendment
was made in order by the Committee on Rules, is absolutely right.
Dollars are short, and that is one reason that the amendment to cut the
$54 million out of our own account should be approved by this body so
that we can make that apply across the board, down the line further
when we do not have the dollars for Labor HHS and some of the other
very important priorities of this Congress. So I urge us to adopt that
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is getting late, and we have
had a lot of votes, not only tonight, but earlier nights as well.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my friend and colleague on the other side of the
aisle in celebration of his 37th anniversary. I would like to note that
we are circulating a card, and all Members can sign this to my friend,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to congratulate him and his
wife, Joan. We are glad that he is here tonight, and we hope to get him
back soon.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could wax eloquent about the 37
years that Joan has put up with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), but I will refrain from that and simply say that those of us who
have the opportunity to serve with him and know Joan know them to be
one of the most loving, caring couples that we know. We join the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) in congratulating them on their 37
years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to
this bill. I say to my colleagues in the majority, I do not know in
whom you are repositing responsibility, but I do know this: There has
been a lot of talk about working together. There has been a lot of talk
about a family-friendly Congress.
We went to Hershey, Pennsylvania, to talk about working together.
That was apparently an objective of the majority. Well, I happen to
serve on the Subcommittee on Legislative, which is chaired by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor). I do not suppose there is
anybody on the other side of the aisle that believes that the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is a profligate spender. Is there?
Apparently not.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) looked at this
bill and I presume made a judgment, a judgment as to what this
institution needed to run responsibly. In that process, of course we
adopted a budget that was promulgated by the Republicans, the budget of
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and his Senate counterpart..
Now, very frankly, I voted against that budget. My belief is there
are an awful lot of people who voted for that budget who know it will
not work and know it is going to crash, period, paragraph, 30.
Now we pursue a charade, and that charade is that we are going to
nickel-and-dime. This entire bill is four-tenths of a percent of the
discretionary spending that the appropriators will spend pursuant to
the budget resolution.
There is no Budget Act point of order that would lie against this
bill. Why? Because it is within the budget resolution. This is not
something that we went outside the constraints of the budget resolution
and the 302(b) allocations to our committee. We are within the
allocation.
But there is now this pretense that somehow we are going to save
education. We are going to put $2 billion, that is what the chairman of
our subcommittee wants to do, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter),
2 billion extra dollars in NIH by somehow reconfiguring these figures
at the last minute.
The gentleman from North Carolina and I do not always agree, but I
will tell my colleagues this, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) sat down with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), the
ranking member on our subcommittee, in a bipartisan fashion and said,
how do we make this bill work?
Guess what, Mr. Speaker, their bill passed out of our subcommittee
unanimously. Then it went to full committee. In a bipartisan fashion,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) conducted the debate. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made his comments, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and the gentleman
[[Page H4101]]
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) made their comments, and it passed by
voice vote unanimously out of the committee.
This was not a bill that had great controversy to it. But then, as I
said the other day on this floor, that happened on the agriculture
bill. All of a sudden, arising from the bosom of the Republican
Conference came a hue cry, ``This is not enough''; and without any
consultation with our side of the aisle at all, totally destroyed the
bipartisanship that had created a consensus on this legislation.
We are confronted with these amendments which, yes, do undermine the
ability of Members, in my opinion, to represent appropriately their
constituents and to recognize the effort of our employees.
This will not save education, which, as the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Roemer) pointed out, is $12 billion under what my colleagues say
we need, what the chairman says we need, not us on our side of the
aisle, but what my chairman says is necessary to fund adequately
education and health care in the Labor HHS bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is, as I said earlier, a charade to serve some
rhetorical argument about fiscal responsibility while, at the same time
we say we want to save education, we in fact underfund education.
This is very early in the process. This is an extraordinarily easy
proposal to make. But the hour will come when the proposals will not be
so easy, the rhetoric will not be so symbolic, and when the
consequences will be much more severe. Let us reject this rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hall) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 14\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the rule, but just want
to express tremendous reservation that this House that passed the
congressional accountability bill to get Congress under all the laws we
impose on the rest of the Nation would not shield the requirement that
the House have mandatory recycling.
I think it is a terrible mistake that this House, this Congress, is
not setting the example for the rest of the country; and I hope that we
resolve this issue quickly, given it will probably be declared out of
order in the bill itself.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, if the majority party
leadership wants to save $50 million, all they have to do is to sit
down with us and ask us to participate in shaping that cut so that it
could be fair and balanced and real.
I would urge them, do not unilaterally take actions that belie their
claim to want bipartisanship and do not play games with rank and file
Members and squeeze their budgets while insulating the power centers of
this body.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I do have great respect for the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I do believe he is a man of principle. But I
think that the reason we are at this position is that there is a bigger
principle, and the bigger principle, in 1997, this Congress and the
President of the United States agreed to spend a certain amount of
money; and this is the year that the hard, tough cuts come in that.
Now, for many years, Congresses have said, we will make a deal and
wink, and we know 2 or 3 years down the road we are not going to honor
that deal. Well, we have a new dilemma before us, and the new dilemma
before us is every penny that we spend above that agreement we take
from the seniors in this country, we take from the working men and
women in this country, and we take from the children who are going to
work, because every one of those dollars is going to be stolen from
Social Security.
Now, in Oklahoma, we think $54 million is a whole lot of money. We
think $54 million added to Labor HHS might make the difference in
somebody's life. I am sorry that the people on the other side do not
think that that is a significant sum. But I would tell you that $54
million will make a difference. It is money that we are not going to
spend now so that we will have it available to take care of those
people in this country that are depending on us.
We claim a surplus. The only surplus we have is the excess of the
payments that are coming into the Treasury over the Social Security
payments that are going out. It is not our money to spend. We have an
absolute obligation to make every effort to try to live up to the
agreement between the Congress of the United States and the President
that we made in 1997.
It is unfortunate that it is happening this way, but the fact is that
every senior out there believes that we should not touch their Social
Security money. Most people who are paying 12.5 percent FICA believe we
should not be touching their Social Security money. The children that
are coming up are either going to have to pay 25 percent FICA or they
are not going to have any Social Security.
So we can say this is a partisan debate. What the real debate is is
whether or not we can lead by example.
Now, the average Member of Congress has $1.5 million, almost $1.6
million, to spend a year; and that is more than enough to adequately
represent our districts.
I noticed that the two gentlemen that I have great respect for, who
really made a statement that that was not enough, happened to represent
the bureaucracy in Washington. $1.6 million to employ somewhere between
18 and 22 people and adequately represent that constituency is far
greater than what we need.
{time} 2015
But that is where we are. We can live within that budget. If we
cannot live within that budget, then we ought to have a better
understanding of what the Social Security recipients out there are
doing when they get a COLA of 1.3 percent.
So the real principle is, if we have been elected to represent a
group of people in this Congress, the least we can do is lead by
example in our own offices. We do not have to pay high rents in our own
offices. We can find something less. There will not be one person who
does not get an increase that is earned by us freezing our Members'
representational allowance.
I would ask the Members of this body to support this rule. We are
spending adequate amounts on the legislative branch. And let us lead by
example and let us save the money for the Labor-HHS that is coming up
later.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
and would just say that I would urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we will offer
an amendment to the rule that extends waivers provided in this rule to
language in the bill which requires an effective recycling program in
the House.
Furthermore, if the amendment to the rule is approved, we will oppose
the rule. We are taking up a major change in the rule. Our side
received almost no advanced notice. Occasionally we pass a technical
amendment to a rule, once in a while it is substantive, but in the
past, as long as I have been on the Committee on Rules, we have always
had consultation and we have always had an agreement with the minority.
This is the first time I can remember that we have passed a rule like
this.
For these reasons we will oppose the rule and certainly ask for a
vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the text of the amendment we
will offer if the previous question is defeated:
On page 2, line 12, strike ``except'' and all that follows
through ``15'' on page 13.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Pryce of Ohio:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1905) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch
for the
[[Page H4102]]
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with section 306 or 401 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as
read. Points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except
as follows: page 18, line 19, through page 19, line 15. No
amendment shall be in order except the amendment printed in
House Report 106-165, the amendment printed in section 2 of
this resolution, and pro forma amendments offered by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate.
The amendment printed in the report may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, and the amendment printed in
section 2 may be offered only by a Member designated in
section 2. Each amendment shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. All points or order against the amendment printed in
the report and the amendment printed in section 2 are waived.
The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone
until a time during further consideration in the Committee of
the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and
(2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed question that follows another
electronic vote without intervening business, provided that
the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any
series of questions shall be 15 minutes. After a motion that
the Committee rise has been rejected on a legislative day,
the Chairman may entertain another such motion on that day
only if offered by the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations or the Majority Leader or their designee.
After a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill
(as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been rejected,
the Chairman may not entertain another such motion during
further consideration of the bill. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
``Sec. 2. (a) The amendment described in the first section
of this resolution is as follows:
Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida
On Page 38 before line 4 add the following new section:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
appropriations under this Act for the following agencies and
activities are reduced by the following respective amounts:
House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses, $29,135,000,
from which the following accounts are to be reduced by the
following amounts:
House Leadership Offices, $142,000;
Members' Representational Allowances Including Members'
Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and Official Mail,
$28,297,000;
Committee on Appropriations, $213,000;
Salaries, Officers and Employees, $483,000 to be derived
from other authorized employees;
Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds,
Capitol Buildings, Salaries and Expenses, $1,465,000;
Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds,
House Office Buildings, $3,400,000;
Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds,
Capitol Power Plant, $4,400,000;
Libary of Congress, Congressional Research Service,
Salaries and Expenses, $315,000;
Government Printing Office, Congressional Printing and
Binding, $4,127,000;
Library of Congress, Salaries and Expenses, $685,000;
Library of Congress, Furniture and Furnishings, $5,415,000;
Architect of the Capitol, Library Buildings and Grounds,
Structural and Mechanical Care, $4,372,000; and
General Accounting Office, Salaries and Expenses,
$1,500,000: Provided, That the amount reduced under House of
Representatives, House Leadership Offices, shall be
distributed among the various leadership offices as approved
by the Committee on Appropriations: Provided further, That
the amount to remain available under the heading Architect of
the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, Capitol
Buildings, Salaries and Expenses, is reduced by $1,465,000;
the amount to remain available under the heading Architect of
the Capitol, Capitol Buildings and Grounds, House Office
Buildings, is reduced by $3,400,000; and the amount to remain
available under the heading Architect of the Capitol, Library
Buildings and Grounds, Structural and Mechanical Care, is
reduced by $4,000,000.
(b) The amendment printed in subsection (a) may be offered
only by Representative Young of Florida or his designee.''.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will provide for
consideration of another amendment which would cut $54 million in
legislative spending. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or his
designee will offer the amendment and it will be debatable for 20
minutes. In addition, the amendment prevents further dilatory tactics
during consideration of H.R. 1905 so that we can finish tonight.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on ordering the
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. 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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213,
nays 198, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 194]
YEAS--213
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
[[Page H4103]]
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--23
Bass
Bentsen
Bono
Brown (CA)
Clay
Conyers
Cooksey
Engel
Frelinghuysen
Graham
Green (TX)
Hilleary
Hunter
Kasich
Largent
Lofgren
Luther
Nethercutt
Oxley
Payne
Petri
Rangel
Smith (NJ)
{time} 2045
Messrs. NADLER, JOHN, and MARTINEZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. LEWIS of California, COX, ARMEY, and Mrs. JOHNSON of
Connecticut changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Motion to Reconsider Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion
to reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Motion to Table Offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to
reconsider on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to lay on the
table the motion to reconsider offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Pryce).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 194, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 195]
AYES--218
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--23
Bentsen
Bono
Brown (CA)
Clay
Conyers
Cooksey
Engel
Gephardt
Graham
Green (TX)
Hilleary
Hunter
Hyde
Kasich
Largent
Lofgren
Luther
Nethercutt
Oxley
Rangel
Scarborough
Stark
Wexler
{time} 2053
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 182, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 196]
AYES--232
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
[[Page H4104]]
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--182
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Bentsen
Bono
Brown (CA)
Clay
Conyers
Cooksey
Engel
Gephardt
Graham
Green (TX)
Hilleary
Houghton
Kasich
Largent
Lofgren
Luther
Neal
Nethercutt
Oxley
Rangel
{time} 2102
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Motion to Reconsider the Vote Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was just adopted.
Motion to Table Offered By Ms. Pryce of Ohio
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to
reconsider on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to lay on the table
the motion to reconsider offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 180, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 197]
AYES--230
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--180
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
[[Page H4105]]
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wise
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--24
Bentsen
Berman
Bono
Brown (CA)
Clay
Conyers
Cooksey
Crowley
Engel
Gephardt
Graham
Green (TX)
Hilleary
Kasich
Largent
Lofgren
Luther
Neal
Nethercutt
Oxley
Rahall
Rangel
Weygand
Woolsey
{time} 2109
So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 194, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 198]
AYES--216
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--25
Bentsen
Blumenauer
Bono
Brown (CA)
Clay
Conyers
Cooksey
Engel
Graham
Green (TX)
Hilleary
Johnson (CT)
Kasich
Largent
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (NY)
McDermott
Neal
Nethercutt
Oxley
Porter
Rahall
Rangel
Weygand
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
{time} 2116
Motion To Reconsider Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
resolution was adopted.
Motion to Table Offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to
reconsider on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion
to table offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5 minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 197, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 199]
AYES--218
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
[[Page H4106]]
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Bentsen
Bono
Brown (CA)
Clay
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Engel
Graham
Green (TX)
Hilleary
Kasich
Largent
Lofgren
Luther
Neal
Nethercutt
Oxley
Rahall
Rangel
{time} 2124
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________