[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 80 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4957-H4962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4609, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2001

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I 
call up House Resolution 529 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 529

       Resolved, 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. 4690) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2001, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except as follows: page 102, lines 15 through 17. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until

[[Page H4958]]

     a time during further consideration in the Committee of the 
     Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) 
     reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
     on any postponed question that follows another electronic 
     vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum 
     time for electronic voting on the first in any series of 
     questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), my 
colleague and my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time is 
yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is an open rule that will 
allow us to have a full and open and fair debate of the issues 
contained within H.R. 4690, the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and 
Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for Fiscal Year 2001.
  This open rule waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate to be equally 
divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by 
paragraph.
  The rule waives clause 2 of the rule XXI against provisions in the 
bill, except as clarified by the rule. Clause 2 of rule XXI prohibits 
unauthorized or legislative provisions or transfers of funds in an 
appropriations bill.
  The rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record.
  The rule permits the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is very important. H.R. 4690 
provides funding for the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and State, 
as well as funding for the Federal Judiciary.
  Very briefly, the Department of Justice is tasked with providing 
American citizens protection through effective law enforcement.
  The Department of Commerce has four basic missions: promoting the 
development of American business, increasing foreign trade, improving 
the Nation's technological competitiveness, and encouraging economic 
development.
  The State Department has a mission to advance and protect the 
worldwide interests and assets of the United States.
  Finally, appropriations for the Judiciary cover the Supreme Court as 
well as lower Federal district courts.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule and the underlying legislation will 
ensure our Government has adequate funding to fight the war on drugs 
and crime.
  This Republican Congress has a record of success on drug and crime 
prevention programs contained within this legislation. Under the 
funding priorities set by these yearly appropriations, our Nation's 
violent crime rate has decreased for 5 straight years.
  In fact, the bill provides an increase of $1.75 billion over last 
year's level for the Department of Justice. That is $128 million more 
than the President requested.
  The total funding for the Department of Justice under this 
legislation is more than $20 billion. That number is far too large for 
us to comprehend. However, each one of us is affected by these programs 
that are funded by and within this Department.
  The program within the Department of Justice that immediately comes 
to my mind is the ``weed and seed'' program. Through this program, law 
enforcement officers receive community-policing training with a special 
emphasis on mediation skills. Officers are taught to literally pull the 
weeds, the troublemakers, out of communities and replace them with 
seeds, law-abiding citizens, which will help a community grow and 
prosper.
  Vicki Martin, a friend of mine, who heads the Ferguson Road 
Initiative in Dallas, Texas, is our team leader using the weed and seed 
dollars provided by the Department of Justice. By using this Federal 
money, Vicki Martin and the Ferguson Road Initiative have successfully 
increased the quality of life for persons within my congressional 
district.
  Not only does this legislation fund the agencies that make Americans 
safer at home, it also provides security for Americans serving abroad.
  All of us were troubled by the bombings of United States embassies in 
Africa just a few years ago. A report after those bombings revealed 
severe security lapses at other U.S. Government facilities abroad also.
  This legislation will demonstrate Congress's commitment to protect 
our overseas posts and employees by providing $1.06 billion for 
worldwide security improvements.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take 1 minute to comment on one issue 
within this bill that is also very important to me.
  In light of recent attacks to private sector Web sites, I have become 
increasingly aware and concerned about the vulnerability of the Federal 
Government's computer systems to terrorist attack. Tragically, the 
current administration has failed to address this as a significant 
threat.
  Recently the United States General Accounting Office reported that 
almost every Government agency is plagued by poor computer security. 
Specifically, the GAO reports that weaknesses in computer security at 
the Defense Department provide computer hackers the opportunity to 
modify, steal, and destroy sensitive data. The Department of State 
mainframe computers for domestic operations are also very susceptible 
to cyber terrorists according to the GAO.
  In my view, the lack of attention paid to cyber security by the 
Clinton-Gore administration is one of the biggest and most glaring 
examples of mismanagement and is a threat to our national security.
  I had wished to offer an amendment to this appropriations measure to 
address this issue of cyber security. I had hoped that at least $10 
million of the money allocated to the State Department for security 
improvements would be directed to tighten information security at the 
Department.
  I understand this amendment would constitute legislating on 
appropriations and would first need to be considered by the appropriate 
authorizing committee. This being the case, I chose not to offer this 
amendment to the appropriations bill. However, I am pleased that the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has agreed to work with me to 
see that that important issue is addressed in the coming year.
  By avoiding controversial legislative provisions on appropriations 
bills, the House leadership has moved appropriations bills in a manner 
consistent with finishing properly by the end of this fiscal year.
  Accordingly, I encourage other Members who intend to offer amendments 
to this appropriations that are legislative in nature to join me in 
supporting this rule and working to address other issues in their 
proper context and through the regular order of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, with this Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary 
appropriations bill, the Committee on Appropriations has once again 
managed to balance a wide array of interests and make tough choices 
with limited resources. This legislation funds important programs to 
reflect our national priorities while keeping within the confines of a 
balanced Federal budget.
  I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their work on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue the careful manner in 
which this legislation was crafted and to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4959]]

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule and it will allow for consideration 
of H.R. 4690.
  As my colleague from Texas has explained, this rule will provide for 
general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  This allows germane amendments under the 5-minute rule, which is the 
normal amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the 
aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments that do not violate 
the rules for appropriation bills.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in a time of unparalleled economic growth. Never 
before has any nation experienced the prosperity this country now 
enjoys. We can afford investing in our future.
  However, once again, we are faced with an appropriations bill which 
does not adequately fund critical Government programs for law 
enforcement, international diplomacy, civil rights, and scientific 
research.
  This bill cuts the President's request for international peacekeeping 
by $241 million. This is shortsighted because money for peacekeeping is 
an investment in avoiding a more tragic and expensive war.
  Provisions in the bill will prevent the United States from paying its 
full dues in the United Nations. This undercuts our position as a world 
leader.
  The bill reduces the President's request for the Federal Trade 
Commission by $30 million. This is at a time when the FTC is launching 
an investigation, and we are asking them to do this, into the high 
prices of gasoline in the Midwest at the request of many of us.
  The FTC is also in the middle of an investigation of the high prices 
of prescription drugs. Now is not the time to jeopardize these critical 
issues.
  The bill underfunds Community Oriented Policing Services, gun 
enforcement initiatives, antitrust enforcement and consumer protection, 
counterterrorism, antidrug campaigns, and civil rights enforcement.
  The bill underfunds Violence Against Women programs. I am especially 
familiar with the effects of cuts in these programs. In my district, 
the Artemis Center for Alternatives to Domestic Violence has 
successfully used these grants to assist victims and reduce domestic 
violence in the Dayton, Ohio, area. However, cuts in the last few years 
have threatened the effectiveness of this group.
  The list goes on and on.
  The Committee on Rules considered a number of Democratic amendments 
that would increase funding for programs covered under this bill. The 
Republican-controlled Committee on Rules rejected every one.
  Now is the time that we must use the national wealth to invest in the 
future.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the rule and the 
underlying funding of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. 
This bill simply does not provide enough funding for one of the most 
important crime prevention programs we have today, the COPS program, 
and it weakens several other important programs, as well.
  I remember standing here just last October to speak against last 
year's CJS appropriations bill because it underfunded the COPS program. 
It is amazing to me that we must once again have this fight about 
funding what is a proven, effective, and necessary program to fight 
crime in our communities. With pork barrel projects funded year after 
year, I cannot understand why we cannot agree on full funding for the 
COPS program.
  A number of amendments to increase funding for the COPS program will 
be offered today, and I hope everyone will support them. Because the 
main principle behind the COPS program is to put officers in this 
Nation's communities and on the streets, fighting crime in our cities, 
our suburbs, and our towns.
  Currently, over 80 percent of law enforcement agencies employ the 
community policing philosophy making it the predominant crime fighting 
strategy in America. I am sure my colleagues have all heard of the 
excited response from their local police departments when we tell them 
that they have just received one of the COPS grants.
  This program works. On May 12, 1999, the United States Department of 
Justice and COPS funded the 100,000th officer ahead of schedule and 
under budget. That is 100,000 officers working on the front lines to 
protect our communities and our citizens, making a visible difference, 
and contributing to the drop in crime that has lasted 8 consecutive 
years.
  I support the President's plan to continue the COPS program for an 
additional 5 years to add up to 50,000 more police officers on the 
beat.

                              {time}  1330

  I support the COPS programs that fund additional prosecutors, cops in 
schools and training and technology equipment for law enforcement. I 
cannot support this appropriations bill because it falls far short of 
the President's request of $1.3 billion to fully fund the COPS program.
  I am a former police officer, a cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus 
and of the Democratic Crime and Drugs Task Force. I have spent years 
working on law enforcement and crime-related issues, and I am here on 
the floor today to tell my colleagues that this bill does not do 
enough. It does not do enough for the COPS office; it does not do 
enough to fund crime prosecutions, for violence against women grants, 
or crime fighting technologies. It weakens the Federal Government's 
important role in protecting civil rights by cutting funding for the 
EEOC, the Legal Services Corporation, and the civil rights division. I 
will vote against this bill because I know we can and we should do 
better to ensure our communities are safer, our police departments are 
better equipped, and our individual rights are better protected.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member 
very much on the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. I know 
the hard work that is done by all the Members in this body. It is 
unfortunate that in this process there could not be more collaboration 
on the appropriations that could lend themselves to bipartisan support.
  This appropriations bill, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, 
does not do justice and it is supposed to have oversight over those 
agencies that are to render justice. It does not do justice. It does 
not recognize that we are in the most prosperous times of our life, 
more prosperous than we were ever in the 20th century and now at the 
beginning of the 21st century we have much to offer the American 
citizens.
  I said just a few days ago that we spend a lot of time talking about 
tax cuts, but we do not realize that the moneys that we appropriate are 
really an investment in America's future. They are an investment in 
America's security. Why for the life of me would we cut this particular 
appropriations $2.5 billion less than the President's request? Why 
would we take a very popular program, one that has worked, one that 
does not discriminate whether you are in a large inner city or whether 
you are in a rural hamlet or a village. The Cops On the Beat program 
overall has proven to be very successful. Over time in the Committee on 
the Judiciary we have heard testimony after testimony of officers who 
have come forward from different communities and said, We could not 
have the kind of patrol and security and outreach to the community if 
we did not have the Cops on the Beat program. Yet that program is 
underfunded almost to the extent of extinction.
  Then the bill cuts the Legal Services Corporation. Mr. Speaker, I was 
on the board of the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation in my own community. 
What those Legal Services Corporation lawyers do around the Nation is 
they affirm and confirm that all of us are created equal, working 
families who are

[[Page H4960]]

low income, who need child support or need help in their family law 
matters, who need rental assistance or landlord-tenant issue 
assistance. These are the kinds of clients that every year we come to 
the floor and we bash them and we in essence say, ``Go get yourself a 
Fifth Avenue lawyer.'' And if you can't afford it, forget it. Paupers 
don't need to come into the courtroom because we're not worried about 
poor people. I do not understand what the purpose in of cutting the 
Legal Services Corporation.
  This rule, of course, is an open rule, so I guess one would say you 
should support it. I do not, because frankly we have a situation that 
promotes a bill that does not answer the concerns of the American 
people and point of orders against Democratic amendments have not been 
waived. The digital divide is not taken care of. I for one believe that 
this was an excellent opportunity that we could provide those 
resources.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a long and vigorous debate on this 
legislation. I intend to offer amendments dealing with late amnesty. I 
think we need more dollars to deal with the border patrol. I do 
appreciate the work of the ranking member and as well the chairman. 
These issues that we have dealt with and have not been resolved, I hope 
the Republican majority will waive the points of order and deal with 
this important crisis that we are facing dealing with thousands of 
individuals who have been in this country working, but they are still 
considered illegal immigrants because the INS has not seen fit to 
remove these problems that have prevented them from applying for legal 
citizenship. We will have that debate, and I hope that we will have a 
vigorous debate. I would like my colleagues to support me in those 
amendments.
  Finally, let me say the great disappointment that I have additionally 
found with this bill along with the other issues that I have cited that 
although America promotes peace in this Nation and we know that there 
is strife on the continent of Africa. In fact, I met with the 
ambassador to the United States from Uganda. I was in the Security 
Council just a few days ago at the United Nations. Yet this body is 
cutting $240 million from the peacekeeping efforts in Sierra Leone. 
This is wrongheaded and misdirected. We are going in the wrong 
direction, Mr. Speaker. I hope we can correct this as we move this 
appropriations process forward.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the former chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, now the ranking minority member.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons why I am going to vote 
against this rule and against this bill. First of all, we just voted on 
an amendment that was a nongermane amendment that the Committee on 
Rules put in order which was offered by a member of the majority side. 
But now on this bill every single Democratic amendment that was 
requested to be made in order by the Committee on Rules was denied. 
That is the procedural reason why I am voting against it.
  Secondly, it just boggles my mind. If you take a look at this bill, 
this Congress just voted to give the 400 richest families in America a 
$200 billion tax cut. Now it has to squeeze out all other programs in 
order to try to keep that commitment to the wealthiest 2 percent of 
people in this country.
  For instance, it says that it is going to slash the Legal Services 
Corporation, which is the corporation that helps poor people have legal 
defense when they have a lawsuit. It is insufficient in the area of 
civil rights. It is certainly destructive in the area of peacekeeping 
with its budget cuts. We have all Members of this House crying all over 
the floor about what is happening with gas prices. Yet this bill cuts 
$50 million below the request for Justice Department and Federal Trade 
Commission programs to pursue antitrust actions and other 
noncompetitive actions in the marketplace.
  I would especially like to focus for one moment on that latter issue. 
On the agriculture subcommittee bill when it was before the Committee 
on Appropriations, I offered an amendment to try to do something about 
the monopolistic practices that occur in the food industry, where you 
have just literally a handful of companies, four or five, who control 
the majority of processing for poultry, for beef, for pork and for 
other food products in this country. That works to make farmers serfs 
rather than farmers; and it does not do anything very helpful for 
consumers as well. In this bill, we see the same problem.
  The primary obligation we have in the capitalist system is to see to 
it that for consumers and for every business in this country, we have 
truly competitive marketplaces. You do not have those marketplaces if 
you do not have the ability of government to check out what practices 
are endangering those free marketplaces, whether they occur in the 
computer industry, in poultry processing, you name it.
  Yet this bill has whacked the Justice antitrust division; it has 
whacked the Federal Trade Commission and in the process has made it 
very difficult for those agencies to pursue their job of keeping the 
American marketplace a truly competitive marketplace. We have to 
understand that with this changing economy, we have these huge new 
corporate entities that are being created overnight, and not just on 
the Internet. You have got one company that has become so big in the 
last year, its increase in market capitalization, its increase, I am 
talking about Oracle, is larger than the combined market capitalization 
for Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors combined. We need to have the 
Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission with sufficient 
resources to attack those problems.
  And when we see the oil industry gouging people as they are gouging 
them today in the Midwest on gasoline prices and we see Members of 
Congress stumbling over each other to get to the nearest microphone to 
rise in protest against that, what do we see this body doing? We see 
them cutting the President's request for the Federal Trade Commission, 
the agency charged with the responsibility to review not only those 
anticompetitive market practices but dozens of others by dozens of 
other companies in the economy.
  This bill is totally inadequate to defend the rights of consumers, it 
is totally inadequate to assure every corporation in America that they 
are competing on a level playing field, and it is antibusiness when it 
does that. There is nothing more pro-business than seeing to it that an 
American entrepreneur or an American corporation has the ability to 
compete in a real marketplace. This bill denies that. We ought to vote 
down both the rule and the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule to correct a 
misconception that may be going around the House. I had requested a 
waiver from the Committee on Rules for an amendment to increase the 
Legal Services Corporation. I did that because I am troubled every year 
by the fact that we come to this floor with a very low amount for Legal 
Services, fully understanding that in the House the amount will go up 
and in conference the amount will even go higher. So I wanted to avoid 
us that pain by asking for a waiver from the Committee on Rules. That 
did not take place. So I will still be presenting an amendment.
  However, the amendment, and this is what I want to clarify, will be 
offsetted. It will have offsets and it will bring us up to $275 
million. So there is a misconception going around the House that we 
will be presenting an amendment that Members cannot vote for in a 
bipartisan fashion. That is not correct. The amendment that I will be 
presenting will allow us to bring for the time being the Legal Services 
Corporation up to $275 million, and there will be offsets that I will 
be presenting.
  Also, Members should know that that particular amendment will be part 
of the early process of the discussion rather than later on.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There are a few things that obviously I need to respond to that have 
been discussed here in the discussion of the rule. First of all, I do 
recognize that

[[Page H4961]]

there are people in Congress who want to spend more and more and more 
and more and more money. My years in Congress have taught me that 
virtually every single vote is about more spending or less spending, 
more rules and regulations or less rules and regulations, and about 
whether we are going to have a balanced budget or not. I learned a long 
time ago that you cannot please everybody in this House of 
Representatives.
  But to hear my colleagues say that COPS was underfunded to the point 
of extinction is an exaggeration that cannot go without an explanation. 
In fact, the COPS, which is the Community Oriented Policing Services, 
is funded to the tune of $595 million. I do not consider that to the 
point of extinction. I consider that to the point of there was a 
realistic discussion that we have to live within a balance of how much 
money we are going to be spending.
  We had a vote earlier in the year to determine what the budget would 
look like. As I recall, not one member of the minority party would even 
offer the President's budget for consideration or vote on the floor of 
the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1345

  Yet what they want to talk about over and over is the President's 
budget, what the President's budget does; and yet not one Democrat 
would even sponsor the President's bill on this floor.
  We do have a Republican bill that passed, and that is the budget that 
we are working within; and proudly we are going to say that we would 
not spend a penny of Social Security, and we would make sure that we 
balance the budget.
  Secondly, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had an opportunity 
to state that the Federal Trade Commission must have sufficient 
resources to attack problems like the growing market capitalization of 
Oracle.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just been through another vigorous debate in 
this country about how another large company like Oracle was treated; 
they are Microsoft.
  Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will not yield.
  Mr. OBEY. That is not what I said.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will quote: ``To attack the problems like the growing 
market capitalization.''
  Mr. OBEY. Market capitalization, but not Oracle. I was using Oracle 
as an example of increased market capitalization.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) controls the time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will accept the gentleman's explanation that perhaps 
he did not mean Oracle, what the gentleman was talking about was a 
large company like Oracle when he said that, and I will accept the 
gentleman's explanation. I do accept the gentleman's explanation.
  What I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republican Congress is 
proud of these large companies that employ millions of Americans, and I 
do understand that. I think these companies get it that this Justice 
Department would sooner have people like Bill Gates and others to be 
Germans or Chinese or from another country; they do not want them here 
in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say that I believe that they add not only to the 
confidence of this country but also the might and the strength that we 
have of the capitalization, of jobs, of the technology, of e-commerce 
and are solving problems in our country. I am proud of what this rule 
does.
  I am proud of the balance that we have had in this bill, and I would 
remind my colleagues that this is an open rule allowing any Member of 
Congress to offer any germane amendment; and this being the case, I 
urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  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 ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. 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 225, 
nays 188, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     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 (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--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     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)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)

[[Page H4962]]


     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Barcia
     Brown (FL)
     Cannon
     Clement
     Cook
     Cubin
     Dooley
     Engel
     Filner
     Hyde
     Kleczka
     Kuykendall
     Linder
     McCollum
     Meek (FL)
     Murtha
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun (KS)
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  1407

  Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SHOWS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________