Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 6 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H206-H216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SESSIONS). Pursuant to House Resolution
42 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 54.

{time} 1043

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 54) to amend title 31, United States Code, to provide reasonable
standards for congressional gold medals, and for other purposes, with
Mr. LaHood in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, I rise in support of H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold Medal
Enhancement Act of 2005, authored by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle), and urge its immediate passage. The legislation is a
commonsense effort to maintain the prestige of this award.

{time} 1045

As the Members know, the gold medal is the highest civilian honor
bestowed by Congress. It has been awarded to a long and distinguished
line of individuals who have made significant contributions to this
country, beginning with General George Washington even before the
Declaration of Independence. Recipients have included civil rights
leaders, cultural icons and leaders in science.
But a disturbing trend has emerged since the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle) sensibly reformed the commemorative coin program a decade
ago. Until that point, Congress approved the awarding of only a few,
usually one or two, gold medals each Congress, but approved as many as
a dozen commemorative coin programs, often at great cost to taxpayers.
Chairman Castle's reforms eliminated the cost to the taxpayers,
restoring the dignity to the commemorative coin program. He also
instituted a requirement that two-thirds of the House should sponsor
legislation for either commemorative coins or gold medals before
consideration could take place so that support would be broad and
bipartisan.
Those reforms have been successful, but denied the opportunity to
enact numerous commemorative coin programs, Congress increasingly has
turned to the gold medal program, and we now find ourselves in a
situation of having fewer honorees for commemorative coins than we do
from gold medals. During the last Congress, only three commemorative
coins were struck, and we approved five medal programs honoring seven
individuals. By comparison, in the first 123 years of the gold medal,
only 45 people were so honored.
Mr. Chairman, all medal honorees to date have been good choices and
well deserving of the honor. However, we could be faced with a
quandary: Either approve a medal for an individual who has had some
accomplishment, but probably is not at the same level as a General
Washington or a Jonas Salk, or else decline to approve the legislation.
We should not let ourselves get into that situation, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Castle's common-sense limit of two gold medals a year, and
limiting the recipients to individuals rather than groups, maintains
the prestige and honor of receiving a Congressional Gold Medal.
Combined with the requirement of a minimum cosponsorship level of two-
thirds of the House is the best way to preserve the integrity of the
gold medal.
At the appropriate time, I will offer a manager's amendment that
seeks to change the effective date of this legislation from December 31
of this year to immediately upon enactment so that the rules for
awarding medals would remain the same throughout this Congress and not
change midsession.
Mr. Chairman, I urge immediate passage of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my disappointment that this
legislation is not being offered under an open rule. In fact, the
chairman of the full Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who holds jurisdiction over this legislation,
even requested during his Committee on Rules testimony last night a
more open process for debate on this bill, and I thank the chairman for
those comments.
I would also like to take a moment to specifically thank and welcome
our new Committee on Rules ranking member, my friend and colleague, the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who will serve as a true and
tireless fighter for Democrats and our rights in the minority on the
Committee on Rules over the next 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 54, the
Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005, while introduced in
the previous Congress, was never debated in committee because no
hearings were convened, and no markup was held. And given that the
Committee on Financial Services has yet to even hold its organizational
meeting for the 109th Congress, the committee has obviously not yet had
an opportunity to consider this issue carefully. In my view, we are
rushing to act on an issue that does not represent a problem.
Having said that, Democrats are open to debating and voting on this
legislation. In the last several Congresses, Congressional Gold Medals
have been considered in the House under a well-established and a
bipartisan process that works well. Regular order for consideration of
gold medals involves the need, under the rules of the Committee on
Financial Services, to gain the cosponsorship of two-thirds of the
House before the legislation is considered in committee, a full two-
thirds sponsorship of the House before it is considered in committee.
The bar for consideration for gold medals is set relatively high for
a reason: Gaining a two-thirds cosponsorship ensures that a solid
bipartisan majority of the House is in full support of honoring a
particularly noteworthy individual or individuals.
Under the rule today, I plan to offer two amendments. The first
amendment would raise the number of gold medals from two per calendar
year to six per Congress, or an overall increase of two medals per
Congress. This is especially key, as in the 108th Congress we awarded
five Congressional Gold Medals. They went to Tony Blair, the Prime
Minister of Great Britain; Dr. Dorothy Height, president of the
National Council of Negro Women; Jackie Robinson, the first black
player in Major League Baseball; the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King,
posthumously, and his widow Coretta Scott King, the civil rights icons;
and the posthumous awarding to Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and
Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson, the leaders in our Nation's efforts to
desegregate public

[[Page H207]]

schools that led directly to the case Brown et al. v. The Board of
Education of Topeka.
My second amendment would provide for equitable distribution of gold
medals between the majority and the minority.
My amendments seek to maintain the spirit and process of
bipartisanship that has characterized the House's consideration of gold
medals, the highest honor that this Congress can bestow on an
individual or group of individuals. It is my hope that the House will
adopt these amendments to make this bill a better bill.
Stating that, though, I am dismayed that the Committee on Rules
refused to allow consideration of a key amendment that would strike a
section of the bill that only permits the granting of Congressional
Gold Medals to individuals. While I tend to agree with the notion that
distributing what is an exceptional honor to too many individuals could
devalue the symbolic worth of a gold medal, there are occasions when
more than one person is justified to receive the medal for their
honorable actions in tandem with others.
In the last Congress, we enacted into law legislation awarding the
Congressional Gold Medal posthumously, as I mentioned before, to
Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson in
recognition of their contributions to the Nation as pioneers in the
effort to desegregate public schools that led directly to the landmark
desegregation case of Brown v. The Board of Ed.
In previous Congresses, the House has awarded gold medals to other
groups, such as Native American Code Talkers, who were critical to the
safety of allied communications during World War II; to the Little Rock
Nine, the civil rights pioneers who led to the integration of our
public schools; and to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, in honor of their
contribution to our country.
I fear that limiting gold medals to only individuals would also limit
certain people from consideration who are most deserving of receiving
one of our Nation's highest honors.
For example, my good friend and Republican colleague, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. King) offered an amendment in the previous Congress,
which the House passed, to honor the officers, emergency workers, and
other employees of the Federal Government and any State or local
government, including any interstate governmental entity, who responded
to the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and who
perished in that attack on September 11 with a Congressional Gold
Medal. This would not be possible if this bill passed. And I would hope
that my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), will oppose
this bill, because if it were to pass, it would put an end to any
opportunity to present the Congressional Gold Medal to any of those
heroes.
Again, while I urge my colleagues to support my two amendments that
were made in order, I am dismayed that this third amendment was not
made in order. If this bill were already law, Congress would not have
been able to issue the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Little Rock
Nine or to the Reagans. I feel this is a serious oversight in the base
of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley)
for his support of the legislation as well as his managing of it here
today, and his general goodwill for all people in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold
Medal Enhancement Act of 2005, and I do urge its immediate adoption
after consideration of the amendments today.
Congress created the Congress Gold Medal honor in 1776 to recognize
military leaders, and awarded the first medal to George Washington for
his heroic service in the Revolutionary War, as the chairman indicated
earlier. Since then, the gold medal has evolved to become the highest
civilian honor Congress confers to express gratitude for distinguished
service, to dramatize the virtues of patriotism, and to perpetuate the
remembrance of a great event. The legislation we consider today seeks
to maintain the prestige of the medal by limiting the number that may
be awarded in any given year.
To understand the need for such legislation, a little history of the
medal is in order. As I mentioned, the first Congressional Gold Medal
was struck in 1776, in Paris, for America had no appropriate facilities
at that point, at the behest of the Continental Congress, which had not
yet declared independence from Great Britain. The recipient was General
George Washington, and the act that inspired the medal was his
leadership of the Continental Army in driving the British from Boston.
In the next dozen years, Congress awarded six more gold medals to
individuals for heroic action in the Revolutionary War. That is an
average of one medal every Congress. By comparison, in the 108th
Congress we authorized five medal programs honoring seven individuals
and one couple. In the 106th Congress we authorized seven medal
programs, but because of multiple recipients, the number of medals
totaled more than 300.
Mr. Chairman, all of those medals were deserved, and I supported
their authorization. My concern, and a concern shared by many Members,
is that the luster and the importance and the meaning of a
Congressional Gold Medal will be tarnished if we do not limit the
number we award. Reversing this trend will protect the medal's
prestige.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple piece of legislation with great
meaning. It will ensure the future integrity and true honor of the
award. It is my goal that each recipient, President, civil rights
leader, military hero, inventor, or noted healer, who receives the
Congressional Gold Medal will remain part of a unique honor bestowed by
the United States Congress.
As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, we had a similar problem a decade
ago with commemorative coins. While commemorative coins are not as
prestigious as Congressional Gold Medals, both are used to recognize
moments in history. These coins have also helped raise money through
surcharges for a worthy cause. A decade ago, the commemorative coin
program had gotten out of control, with many coin programs approved
each year, and many of the programs costing taxpayers money. One
blatant example is the 1996 Olympics coin program that the GAO
estimates cost taxpayers $26 million.
In response, Mr. Chairman, I authored and Congress approved the
Commemorative Reform Coin Act. Now coin programs are limited to two a
year and demand full cost recovery for taxpayers before any surcharges
are paid. Additionally, before Congress can consider a coin or medal
program, two-thirds of the House, 290 Members, must cosponsor the
legislation to demonstrate broad bipartisan support. And having done
that, I can tell you it takes broad bipartisan support to get the 290
Members.
I believe that the reforms to the commemorative coin program have
been extraordinarily successful. Since these reforms were enacted in
the 104th Congress, commemorative coins have not cost the taxpayers a
dime. Instead, the programs have raised millions for worthy causes,
provided valuable collections, and, importantly, restored prestige to
commemorative coins.
But something disturbing happened when we reformed the commemorative
coin program. The number of Congressional Gold Medals saw a dramatic
increase. From 1776, when Congress created the medal, to 1904, Congress
approved 47 medals. In the last 100 years, Congress awarded 86 medals,
including 20 in the past decade, since the commemorative coin reforms.
And this number jumped even higher, over 300, when including multiple
recipients for each medal.
Mr. Chairman, over the years, Congressional Gold Medals have gone to
the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson,
Mother Teresa, Elie Wiesel, Pope John Paul II, British Prime Ministers
Winston Churchill and Tony Blair, Jonas Salk, John Wayne, and Robert F.
Kennedy, among others. Reading the list of all the medal recipients and
the deeds that earned the medal is quite inspiring. To maintain these
medals as the highest of honors, the legislation before us would limit
the number of medals that may be awarded to two a year, and clarify
that recipients are individuals and not groups.

[[Page H208]]

I understand there is concern by the minority that one bill per year
should be designated for each party.

{time} 1100

I feel it is important to note that proposals in the past have been
sponsored in about equal numbers by Republicans and Democrats, and I do
not really recall any discussion of the recipients' or the sponsors'
party affiliations. In my view, any such discussion would be
inappropriate, as these awards should be awarded in true bipartisan
fashion.
In practice, however, not through statute, the Committee on Financial
Services requires a two-thirds cosponsorship before considering
proposals to award medals, a practice that the Senate has now adopted.
I believe by the adoption of these simple changes, we can preserve the
prestige and the integrity of the Congressional Gold Medal Program,
something I believe all Members support.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in maintaining the integrity of
the Congressional Gold Medal by supporting this measure. I urge
immediate and unanimous passage of H.R. 54 with no amendments but the
manager's amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 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. Chairman, the angst that I have with
H.R. 54 does not speak to the eloquence that we have heard on the floor
about our commitment to honoring our heroes and sheroes. Let me make it
perfectly clear, despite all of the accolades that we have spoken
today, if this legislation were in place, President Reagan and Mrs.
Reagan would not receive the Congressional Gold Medal; neither would
Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott King; neither would the Indian Code
Talkers who helped save thousands of lives in World War II. I think
that is the crux of this debate, not whether or not we have
restrictions or nonrestrictions because I believe it is a given that
the Committee on Financial Services has done a commendable job in its
oversight.
As I look back on the numbers in the last four Congresses, how
interesting it is and the good sense of the Crowley amendment because
those that have been passed by this body only equal to five or six
credible, rational and reasonable reasoning for awarding, for example,
those who were intimately involved in Brown v. Board of Education that
changed the lives of millions of Americans and today even is a standard
for equal education in America.
Mr. Chairman, I am confused by the necessity of this legislation and
why we would not be able to enthusiastically support the very precise,
as I said previously, and thoughtful amendments by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley), particularly those dealing with the idea of the
number of gold medals, increasing them to six per Congress. That is 2
years, that means three and three possibly, or however it is broken
down, and then the fairness of equal distribution between Republicans
and Democrats, all of us, of course, being Americans.
What is to argue the case or why would we argue the case that there
were those who contributed together who are not worthy. I do not take
this as any kind of personal act by my Republican friends, but I do
think it is a misstep in judgment and that we would have benefited from
a more bipartisan overview, review of this legislation. For example, we
would not have been able to honor, as some Americans perceive as very
important, Ruth and Billy Graham.
So this narrow or narrowing or this interpretation of one hero when
there may be an adequate partnering that may be important that would
symbolize the greatness and goodness of America puzzles me and, in
fact, disturbs me. Frankly, the civil rights movement was a group
effort and it might be likely that one would want to honor the group of
civil rights activists, the unknown, the unsung heroes that we are able
to bring to the attention of the United States Congress. How many
really knew Harry and Eliza Briggs? How many knew Levi Pearson? But
once we debated and found out the facts, we knew that they were in fact
heroes and sheroes. I think we do ourselves an enormous disservice by
coming down hard-handed on who has given so much for America.
And then I would say why start with divisive legislation. Yes, there
are only a few of us on the floor of the House, but we obviously are
not able to speak for all of those unsung heroes yet to be brought to
the attention of this House. All of us come in our course of life to
meet people in our districts and around the country where we claim that
we want to bring them to the attention of the American people not
frivolously; but after we have looked at the history, we know they are
truly worthy of a Congressional Gold Medal.
So why we need this restrictive law that has not already been
satisfied by the oversight of a bipartisan Committee on Financial
Services and the requirement, Mr. Chairman, the requirement of over 290
signatures, and most of these received close to 400. And that is the
test, whether your colleagues will support you.
Mr. Chairman, in support of the gentleman's two amendments, I am
querying as to the amendment offered which would really balance this
legislation which would speak to protect President Reagan and Dr. and
Mrs. Billy Graham and others who came together.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, an amendment was offered yesterday evening
before the Committee on Rules that would have asked groups as well as
individuals. We struck a portion of the language dealing with limiting
this only to individuals. I would have asked, if that amendment had
passed, would have enlarged the pool to groups as well. That was not
passed in the Committee on Rules, and therefore we are here today
working a bill that does not have that provision in it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
leadership and simply say that is the spirit of bipartisanship. That
would have been reflective of Members having an opportunity in their
wisdom to present their case before the United States Congress and the
Committee on Financial Services. That would have been fairness to the
unsung heroes. That would have been in respect to President and Mrs.
Reagan, Dr. King and Mrs. King, Dr. Graham and Mrs. Graham, as well as
many others.
I ask my colleagues to vote against this legislation, allow us to
work in a bipartisan manner and do not take away from those as yet
unrecognized the honor of a Congressional Gold Medal.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before the Committee
of the Whole because it is unreasonably restrictive. Its passage will
result in the preclusion of our ability to pay tribute to Americans in
the most respectful manner.
The central amendment that would have made this legislation palatable
at the very least and not so disrespectful to the heroes that we strive
to honor with the congressional gold medal has been effectively blocked
by partisan stubbornness. If the import of this legislation is good,
why not allow the representatives of this august body to openly debate
it before the American people? Are we so ashamed of its true
legislative intent that we feel the need to hide behind obstructionist
rules? I say that legislation with bona fide purpose should have
nothing to fear--at the very least should it fear honest and open
debate.
The underlying legislation that is before this House seeks to
``provide reasonable standards for congressional gold medals'' but will
essentially limit the bestowal of honor to American icons. One of the
main reasons that the medal is bestowed is to make the highest
expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and
contributions. H.R. 54 will summarily restrict this goal and prevent
many honored heroes from receiving proper recognition.
Section 2, paragraph (e)(2)(A) of H.R. 54 would limit the striking of
a congressional gold medal to ``only an individual.'' Such
``unreasonably'' restrictive legislation would preclude the bestowal of
this award collectively to the 9 students who ``voluntarily subjected
themselves to racial bigotry during the integration of Central High
School in Little Rock, Arkansas, otherwise known as the ``Little Rock
Nine.''
Similarly, under this restrictive provision, the Secretary of the
Treasury cannot lawfully strike a congressional gold medal to honor
former President Ronald Reagan and his wife

[[Page H209]]

Nancy Reagan in recognition of their services to America or to honor
former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn Carter.
Furthermore, H.R. 54 would make it illegal for Congress to cause the
Secretary to strike a congressional gold medal to honor the monumental
contributions made to the civil rights movement by Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. and his widow, Coretta Scott King, or the brave employees and
others who responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon and perished and to the people aboard United Airlines Flight
93 who resisted hijackers and caused the plane to crash.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and ask that my colleagues
join me to defeat it unless the overly restrictive provisions are fixed
or removed.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In listening to the sponsor in terms of the need for this
legislation, one could intimate by the introduction that possibly
medals were given out in a haphazard manner. I mentioned before it
takes two-thirds of the Members of the House, the entire body, to
introduce a gold medal for its consideration in the Committee on
Financial Services, a bar that I believe is a very, very high bar and
one that is not easily attained.
I would also point out that limiting this to individuals, and again
to reiterate, Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King were both
issued the gold medal. They would not have gotten that medal under this
legislation. Harry and Eliza Briggs, Levi Pearson, and Reverend Joseph
Armstrong DeLaine were all issued the medal in one provision. As
mentioned before, Nancy Reagan, along with President Reagan, would not
have been eligible. Under the provisions today, they would have to get
it individually. Betty and Gerald Ford, the Little Rock Nine, and Dr.
Graham and Ruth Graham would not have received it either. I think
therein lies a tremendous flaw.
It also intimates that there may be too many of these gold medals
given out. Who that received this medal in the past was not worthy of
it? Was it Dr. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King; was it
Reverend DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson; was it
Jackie Robinson; was it Dorothy Height; Tony Blair in the last
Congress?
In the 106th Congress was it Nancy Reagan; was it Pope John Paul, II;
was it Charles Schulz, the great cartoonist? Was it Rosa Parks? Who
amongst those was not qualified, who do we believe was not deserving of
this medal. Therein lies the flaw in this bill. It actually limits us
from giving to those who I believe are most deserving of recognition of
this gold medal.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by first indicating to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley) that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) as
well as myself acknowledge that the folks who received the medal in the
past were most deserving.
I would point out, in fact, that the medal that was awarded, for
example, to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, was one medal, and the same thing
with Dr. King and Coretta Scott King, and Betty and Gerald Ford.
Couples are treated much differently from a group. I guess perhaps what
I found in studying this, perhaps the most egregious example of going
beyond what the initial scope of the medal was was in the 106th
Congress where we awarded five medal bills, one of them was for the
Navajo Code Talkers which did not go in regular order. It was attached
at the last minute to an appropriations bill. It not only covered the
29 original code talkers but also an additional 275 of those who
qualified as code talkers.
I guess, and I do not want to speak for the sponsor of the
legislation, but I think it points out the need to tighten these
requirements. That is what the purpose of this legislation is all
about.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, would it be safe to say under regular
order if this legislation were passed that the code talkers, under
regular order, and that was an extraordinary provision made in the
appropriations process, under regular order would they be eligible to
receive this medal in the future if this bill were to pass?
Mr. OXLEY. If the bill were passed, the answer is no, they would not.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
that is the point I am trying to make. To say that the code talkers,
and I am not saying the gentleman is suggesting this, but to suggest
that they did not deserve the ultimate award, even as a group, for what
they provided to the service of this country during World War II is
just ridiculous. They certainly deserved as a group. Any one
individual, no. There were multiple individuals who provided an
incredible service to us.
I would also point out that two is not individual. Two individuals
makes up a group, to my understanding, and that would include Nancy and
Ronald Reagan. That would include any husband and wife, including Dr.
King and Coretta Scott King. That would preclude them from getting this
medal in the future. That is my understanding of the legislation before
us.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me point out in the case of the Navajo
Code Talkers, there were other tribes also that had code talkers, not
just the Navajo. Again, the issue is where do we start and where do we
finish in this area.
Again, going back to the history of the medal, and the first
recipient was George Washington, it was to an individual and was to an
individual for a very, very long period of time.
The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out correctly,
historically the gold medal was given out quite rarely, 45 in 123
years, to individuals. The change ironically was brought about with the
change in the Commemorative Coin Program that did in fact move the
Congress to adopting more gold medals.
This is an effort to try to get back to where history started us,
awarding that medal to an individual and awarding it not to a group, no
matter how small or how large, and that really was the intent of the
legislation.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

{time} 1115

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the significance of
this medal, that it is not given out willy-nilly; that, as I mentioned
before, it takes extraordinary measures to get enough support to get
this medal passed. I recognize that the first person who received this
medal was General George Washington, prior to him becoming President of
the United States, when the country was brand new, when we did not have
the richness of diversity and of events that have taken place
throughout the history of our country ever since this first medal was
given to George Washington; that we have grown as a Nation, in size and
in stature; and that there have been many events that have occurred
throughout our history since the striking of the first medal that have
inured greatly to the advancement of our country that from time to time
need to be recognized. That is what this medal gives an opportunity to
do, both to individuals and to groups.
Certainly General Washington was an incredible individual, someone
who was deserving of the first medal that was ever produced, and I
think he accepted that on behalf of all those men and women who fought
for independence from Great Britain back during the War of
Independence. But certainly we have grown in size, both in States, from
Thirteen Colonies and States to 50 States, and the number of people in
this country have grown incredibly since the founding of this Nation,
and the events that have occurred throughout our history has certainly
changed the shape of the distribution of this medal as well. I think
that needs to be recognized and taken into consideration.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to my friend from Delaware, the sponsor of the
legislation.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, not to prolong the discussion, because I think the
gentleman from New York is making some very valid points that should be
debated, one of them which is an amendment which is not included here
today, and

[[Page H210]]

that is the issue of the groups. We have checked the history of this.
To the best of my knowledge, and the gentleman may have some different
evidence, I do not think it is different because it is fairly clear who
has received these medals, it has always been individuals historically.
It was never couples. That is only something that has happened in the
more recent couple of decades, perhaps a couple of times. As far as the
groups are concerned, there have only been three altogether.
Certainly I am not suggesting any of them are not deserving, for
goodness sake. They all are. The Navajo Code Talkers clearly are
deserving. That obviously created some problems because of the volume
of the medals, and it was done in sort of an unusual procedure. The Red
Cross is another very deserving, and so are the veterans of the Civil
War, which is the other group we found, although that was done much
after the Civil War. There are all kinds of groups out there.
The Congressional Gold Medal of Honor has always been bestowed upon
an individual in a very special ceremony to honor that individual. It
is not easy to get done. I do not know if the gentleman has done it. As
I said before, I did it. It is difficult to get 290 signatures on
anything around here. So it is difficult to get done. So obviously it
is going to be somebody who is deserving. It is going to be as
bipartisan as could be. You cannot do it with one party or the other.
You have got to get everybody. That is what the history of it is.
We tried to develop this legislation to have a great recognition of
what we consider to be the greatest honor this Congress can give to a
limited number of individuals, which was always what the intent of it
was. There are a whole lot of ways of recognizing groups. You and I
could sit here and name groups for hours at a time that could be
honored. But the Congressional Gold Medal was never really created for
that purpose. That is the intent of what we are trying to do in the
legislation. I just wanted to make that point in the history of it.
Mr. CROWLEY. If the gentleman will yield further, let me just make a
point. I appreciate what the gentleman from Delaware has said. The
reality is, though, a country of 300 million people, only 20 medals
have been awarded in the past decade. That is not an awful lot of
medals. The point that the gentleman is making is that it has been
extraordinary when we have actually issued this medal to groups. Why
are we now limiting ourselves; when it is extraordinary, recognized as
extraordinary, why are we now officially and legally limiting the
ability of Congress to issue this medal to groups? I do not understand
that.
We understand the process is hard. The gentleman has just said
himself to get two-thirds of the Members of this House truly requires
bipartisanship to get this done. This is not done, as I mentioned
before, in a willy-nilly manner. There is great effort involved. I
understand it.
I remember when my friend from New York (Mr. Fossella) was doing this
for John Cardinal O'Connor and the effort that it took to get both
sides to get enough Members to sign onto that. I do understand the
difficulties in that, but I hope the gentleman understands the
appreciation that has been set forth by my testimony here today as well
as my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that sometimes, not
ofttimes, it is not just individuals, but it is groups who are
responsible for incredible, incredible events in this country and I
believe are deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal. I hope that the
gentleman would agree with that and we will have a motion to recommit
that will, if passed, put this back to committee and will strike that
language limiting it only to individuals.
Mr. OXLEY. Reclaiming my time, and the gentleman may want to respond.
Let me just comment. There is an avenue, I would suggest to my friend
from New York, to honor large groups. That would be the commemorative
coin. It is somewhat ironic that after the reforms that were made by
the gentleman from Delaware where we tightened the restrictions on
commemorative coins, and for good reason, that we then had this
increase in the gold medal. I think we can safely say that the gold
medal traditionally supports the concept of honoring an individual for
service to the country, and that the commemorative coin, which has been
essentially put on the back burner, presents a very appropriate avenue
for recognizing groups that heretofore have not been honored.
I think that the reforms in the past and the ones that the gentleman
from Delaware is now propounding in this bill makes excellent sense. I
think once the Members understand the changes, that they are going to
gravitate toward the concept of a commemorative coin as opposed to the
gold medal. That is precisely what the gentleman from Delaware proposes
in this legislation.

Mr. CROWLEY. Not to prolong the debate, either, because I know we
want to move on, but since 1999 when we passed the Coin Act, there have
been some concerns on our side of the aisle. I know that one of the
amendments your side has accepted, or that was accepted in the Rules
Committee, it remains to be seen whether it passes or not, that would
evenly divide the number of gold medals, that did not exist in the coin
bill that passed. Overwhelmingly it has been one side. In terms of
bipartisanship, it has not been very bipartisan in terms of coins that
have been established. According to our records, 15 out of the 16 coin
bills that were passed were sponsored by Republicans. I do not think
that is just going to happen under this legislation. That is also, I
think, some of the fear in terms of changing the rules, for lack of a
better word, on the gold medal has stirred up consternation on our side
of the aisle. I offer that as well.
I recognize that the minting of a coin is a way that we can bring
recognition to individuals and to groups. I just do not think that we
should be limiting ourselves as the House of Representatives and as a
Congress in reducing our leverage or our ability to honor groups of
individuals who have done incredible, incredible works on behalf of
this Nation. I think that is what that provision of the bill will
actually end up doing is limiting, tying our hands from honoring groups
in the form of the Congressional Gold Medal. That is why I stand in
opposition to that.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I do
not mean to reiterate or repeat too much. Looking at the history of
these Congressional Gold Medals, though, I think is very telling in
terms of what we are doing because the history has always been to
individuals for outstanding achievement. So in terms of the groups, I
really think we should honor that. That is not disrespectful of any
group that has gotten it or all the other groups who are potentially
eligible out there if you use them in that criteria of measurement.
But the other issue is interesting, and that is how many of these
should we be able to have? First of all, the history of the gold medal
has been very bipartisan. I think, as we all know, when we are dealing
with that many signatures, it is going to be bipartisan. There is no
question about that. But my sense is that the two a year is not as
limiting as one might think when you really again look at the history
of this. In fact, if anything, it would be an expansion over what the
total history of it has been. By the time you go through a legislative
session and you gather 290 signatures and you go through committee and
you go to the floor, and I have handled these bills, they often happen
the last day, by the way, so it is always very confusing in terms of
what we are doing, I think you are going to find this is not as
limiting as one might think.
Again, I recognize the fact that it is a bigger country, that there
is much more going on in the country and that kind of thing, but we are
really trying to make sure that this is truly an honor for somebody who
does something extraordinary in science or the arts, or an elected
official or somebody of that nature, usually a President, I think the
only elected official who has ever been honored; people in religion,
people who have just absolutely stood out in their circumstances.
My sense is while we can argue here on the floor that it is limiting,
I think the bottom line is it is not going to end up being as limiting
as one might think. Hopefully it would not be. Obviously if that
happened to be the case, it is something that could always be
revisited, but I just do not think it is going to be the case.
I believe that straightening this out is actually going to make these
gold

[[Page H211]]

medals much more of a distinction than perhaps they would be if we
allowed this to continue, particularly with the commemorative coin
changes, increasing the pressure to try to do so many of these.
Mr. OXLEY. Let me, in closing, Mr. Chairman, indicate, first of all,
my respect for the Members who have undertaken the responsibility of
going out and getting 290 signatures. Virtually everyone I have talked
to said, never again, because of the difficulty. I said, well, think of
it this way. You get a chance to meet a lot of new friends. Every time
you walk over or ride over for a vote, every time you see a Member in
the dining room, wherever it may be, you are getting their support. But
it is a difficult process.
I think the gentleman from Delaware was right in raising that bar to
where it is now, because it really does focus one's attention on how
difficult that process is. It does make it, by definition, a bipartisan
process. That is a fact of life that we deal with time and time again.
The legislation before us, I think, does restore the medal to what it
was envisioned to be way back in 1776.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 54 is as follows:

H.R. 54

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Gold Medal
Enhancement Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REASONABLE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR CONGRESSIONAL
GOLD MEDALS.

Section 5111 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Congressional Gold Medal Standards.--
``(1) Maximum number.--During any calendar year beginning
after December 31, 2005, the Secretary of the Treasury may
strike not more than 2 congressional gold medals for
presentation pursuant to an Act of the Congress.
``(2) Program requirements.--The Secretary may strike
congressional gold medals only in accordance with the
following requirements:
``(A) Recipients.--Only an individual may be a recipient of
a congressional gold medal.
``(B) Timing.--No gold medal may be presented posthumously
on behalf of any individual except during the 20-year period
beginning 5 years after the death of the individual (unless
the Act of Congress authorizing the striking of such medal
was enacted before the death of such individual)''.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in House Report 109-1.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, 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.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in House 109-
1.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oxley

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oxley:
Page 2, beginning on line 2, strike ``During any calendar
year beginning after December 31, 2005,'' and insert
``Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Congressional
Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005,''.
Page 2, line 6, insert ``in any calendar year'' before the
period at the end.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 42, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment changes the effective date of the
introduced version of the bill from after December 31, 2005 to instead
make the new limitation on the number of congressional gold medals
effective on enactment of the bill. The change will be made so that
uniform guidelines governing the medal program will be in effect for
the whole 109th Congress and beyond and not change in the middle of the
Congress. If we were to pass the bill but leave the effective date
until the end of the session there would be a land rush to enact bills
on gold medals that would place Members in an awkward position.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Something that is not often highlighted outside the hall is that
there are actually friendships between Democrats and Republicans, and
Mr. Oxley and I share that. I would like to point out for the record
though that he is extremely partisan when it comes to congressional
baseball, and I hope that next year he gives the Democrats an
opportunity to have a win.
Having said that, I have no objections to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 109-1.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Crowley:
Page 2, strike line 2 and all that follows through line 6
and insert the following new paragraph:
``(1) Maximum number.--During the 2-year period comprising
each Congress (beginning with the 109th Congress), the
Secretary of the Treasury may strike not more than 6
congressional gold medals for presentation pursuant to an Act
of the Congress.''.

[[Page H212]]

King, the civil rights icons, and posthumously awarded to the Reverend
Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson, the
leaders in our nation's efforts to desegregate public schools that led
directly to the case of Brown versus the Board of Ed.
Additionally, we granted six medals in the 106th Congress and six in
the 105th Congress. In the 106th Congress we passed into law three
Democratic sponsored bills and three Republican sponsored bills. They
went to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Charles Schulz,
John Cardinal O'Connor, Theodore Hesburgh, Rosa Parks.
And in the 105th Congress two Democratic sponsored bills and four
Republican sponsored bills for medals became law. Gerald and Betty
Ford, the Little Rock 9, Nelson Mandela, to the patriarch Bartholomew,
to Mother Teresa of Calcutta and to Frank Sinatra, introduced by my
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

{time} 1130

This amendment is about flexibility for Members, the ability to
debate and consider legislation over the entire Congress just as we do
with every other piece of legislation. It will not cheapen but rather
enhance this most prestigious of American honors. In fact, the existing
Committee on Financial Services rule requiring two-thirds cosponsorship
of the House for a gold medal, which by definition represents broad-
based bipartisan support, prevents the awarding of frivolous and
undeserved medals to groups of individuals. I trust that two-thirds of
the House represents a solid bipartisan consensus of the will of the
House and therefore believe that this acts as a check on any effort to
award medals to any groups of individuals who in the opinion of the
House do not deserve such award. I urge the acceptance of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is really in
many ways contrary to the reforms that are already enacted, led by the
gentleman from Delaware and the one that is now before us. The
institution of two-thirds of the Members was very important, and the
reforms in the Commemorative Coin Reform Act, which was adopted almost
10 years ago, instituted a two-coin-per-year maximum. The reforms in
that program have worked perfectly. Congress has not passed more than
two programs for issue in any year since the law passed in 1996. One
year, in 2003, only one coin was issued. The reforms have restored the
dignity of the commemorative coin program, which had spun out of
control; and similar reforms will do the same for a Congressional Gold
Medal. So it seems to me a natural progression in the reform process.
And, indeed, the Founding Fathers found the need to award only 45
medals in the first 123 years of our country, but over the last decade
Congresses have awarded nearly 10 times that many in just 10 years. I
think those numbers are critical in understanding why the necessity for
this reform effort, and for that I am opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am disappointed that the chairman will not support this amendment.
I think it is a reasonable amendment, one that I do not think in any
way disrupts what the intention of the bill by the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor, is, that is, to limit the number.
We certainly are limiting the number in this amendment to six as
opposed to what the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) would do per
calendar year, which would be four. We are still limiting it to six. I
think in the most recent history, we have not done more than six within
a Congress. This again will help to free the hands of Members to
introduce gold medal legislation for people who they believe are worthy
of that great honor.
I would just like to point out again that the Founding Fathers in
their wisdom did not have as many people that they had to honor during
that time. We have grown more than tenfold since the founding of this
Nation. There have been many more events that have taken place since
the Founding Fathers initially granted those initial gold medals, and I
think that once again if we do not pass this, we will further be
limiting our ability to ensure that those who are most deserving will
receive this great honor.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. First of all, this is not
a killer amendment. This is not an unreasonable amendment, and the
sponsor has certainly always been a very reasonable Member of Congress,
and we are arguing at the margins here in terms of what we are doing,
and I recognize that. And I recognize these arguments because they are
compelling to a degree.
Having said all those things, I still oppose it. And let me explain
why. It is not a lot different from what I have already said, Mr.
Chairman, and that is essentially we are trying to make this a medal of
true distinction for true heroes of the United States of America. I
also believe, by the way, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
said something I thought was interesting, and that is it is difficult
to get the names on the legislation. So the first year becomes a little
more difficult, and that is true. We sort of learn techniques in this
when we have done it.
One is we take it to conferences or big gatherings of people and pass
it out that way. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) will always
be a hero in my mind because he took it amongst the Democrats and got a
lot of signatures when I was struggling with it on a bill that I did
last year, and I appreciate that a great deal. But I have learned when
one really applies oneself, they can do it reasonably rapidly; and
hopefully the committees will be able to be responsive to it and will
be able to do two a year if that is what we decide to do. But my
judgment is four in total in the course of 2 years is sufficient.
And I am worried about the influx that is going on. The chairman
cited the numbers. I do not remember the exact numbers. It was
something like 45 medals in the first 120 years and now 10 times that
many in the last 10 years. That means that this has increased, I think,
at a rate that is too rapid, and again I do not in any way belittle
anyone who has received this because they are all very distinguished
people. But having said that, we want this to be the highest honor
possible. So my judgment is we should defeat the amendment. If at some
point it proves we need to expand this, we would certainly consider
that. But I think we should try to restore this program to where it was
before.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the sponsor made compelling arguments that the
amendment is reasonable. Therefore, one would conclude that if it is
reasonable and compelling arguments are made that there would be
bipartisan support for the amendment. Unfortunately, that is not going
to be the case. I hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, though, do recognize that not only are there compelling
arguments, that they are reasonable and that it is a reasonable
amendment and therefore deserves to be voted in favor of. And I hope
that my colleagues on the other side as well as my side of the aisle
view it the same way.
Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 in House Report 109-1.

[[Page H213]]

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Crowley:
Page 2, line 6, insert ``and the Secretary may not strike
any congressional gold medal, notwithstanding an Act of the
Congress providing for the striking and presentation of such
congressional gold medal during a period referred to in this
paragraph, if at least half the total number of congressional
gold medals permitted to be struck under this paragraph
during such period were already authorized to be struck
during such period pursuant to Acts of the Congress that were
originally introduced as bills or joint resolutions by
Members associated with the same political party as the
political party with which the Member is associated who
introduced the bill or resolution that resulted in the Act of
the Congress that authorized the striking of such
congressional gold medal'' before the period at the end.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 42, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I hope that this amendment would also be received as reasonable and
with cogent arguments. My second amendment made in order under the rule
would allow for the equitable distribution of these medals between the
majority and the minority. Since the 104th Congress, 24 gold medal
resolutions became law. Using the process currently in place that has
worked so well for us, the two parties in the House have evenly split
sponsorship of these medals. Republican Members have sponsored 10
medals and Democratic Members have also sponsored 10 medals. In fact,
this amendment probably makes more sense with Republican support in it
than Democrats, as in the 108th Congress, five congressional medals
were awarded and four of those were sponsored by Democrats, only one by
a Republican.
But I offer this amendment out of basic fairness for both sides. I,
therefore, believe if we are to limit the number of gold medals and if
we are to obtain the bipartisanship that has characterized the process,
my amendment should be passed by the Chamber, my fear being that if we
limit it to only four, then leadership will decide who will sponsor
those four, and we in the minority may find ourselves on the short end
of that stick. And that is why I offer this amendment. I hope that the
Members will agree to accept this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do oppose the amendment. I have some empathy for the first
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, but certainly not
this one. Clearly, if there is a bipartisan element to this whole idea
of getting two-thirds of the people supporting it, it is the
Congressional Gold Medal, and I think the gentleman somewhat undercuts
his own argument by giving us the figures that he did because, in fact,
I do not think most Members, when they are approached by a Member
carrying that bill, really are concerned about whether it is a
Republican sponsor or a Democrat sponsor. They are concerned about who
that individual being honored is. And just by the definition of having
two-thirds sponsor would indicate a strong bipartisan support and
historically that has always been the case.
And I think that the amendment would tend to compartmentalize the
authors of these gold medal resolutions that would be difficult to
enforce and perhaps would cause some kind of a rush to try to get the
necessary signatures prematurely. So I think it is really difficult for
the committee, for example. As the gentleman knows, who has served on
my committee with great distinction, we pride ourselves on the
bipartisanship of the committee and the leadership of the committee,
and we have continued to do so. So I think this is superfluous at best
and, as a result, would oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the chairman of the
committee. Just to add that, yes, we do work in a very bipartisan way.
If the chairman and I were making decisions as to who would receive the
gold medal, I think we would work it out amongst ourselves to make sure
that it was done in a very bipartisan way. That, unfortunately, has not
been the history of the House, and I just point out, for instance, as I
mentioned earlier, back when we created the commemorative coin
legislation in 1999, out of the 16 coins that have been created, 15
have been introduced by Republican Members, only one by the minority.
The majority has had 15 of the 16. The minority has had one. I do not
think that is a very fair and balanced way in which we can collectively
and bipartisanly recognize those who have made tremendous sacrifices or
achievements or contributed to this country.
And I believe that we are limiting it to, in this case, this
legislation, if passed the way it does, four congressional gold medals
that we in the minority may very well find ourselves in a very
difficult position in that we may not have any of our honorees awarded
the medal even though we go through the process of collecting the two-
thirds. It then becomes a political decision as to which honorees will
get the gold medal in that particular year and which will not. For
instance, if there are 16 individuals who are sponsored by Members of
the House and those individuals get two-thirds of the signatures
required, which of the 16 will get the four medals? Which of those 16?
That decision will be made based on a political decision that is made
within the House, and I dare say that outside influence would also come
to bear on that decision that was made as well.

{time} 1145

That is why I am asking for this fair and balanced approach; that if
we are going to limit it to just four, that it will be two per year. I
do not think it is unreasonable to ask that it is done in this way.
Quite frankly, if there is someone that the Democratic side of the
aisle, if we have used up our one per year and we have another
extraordinary person, I think we can work with each other to ask a
Republican Member of the House to sponsor that bill. And vice versa. If
we somehow find we have run out of opportunities on our side to
introduce legislation, I do not think it is unusual to ask a Member of
the other side of the aisle to sponsor the bill.
That is the spirit in which I think we can work in a bipartisan way
to ensure that every person who receives this gold medal, besides
getting a two-thirds vote, it is done in a bipartisan way. I do not
think this is frivolous, and I do not think this trivial.
That is why I offered the amendment, and I hope we pass it.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I made a couple of these points before, and
again I will not repeat too much here, but first and foremost is the
290 signatures. I do not know if one party is ever going to have 290
Members or not, I sort of doubt it, at least in the time most of us are
around here, and you need both parties in order do this.
I learned with the coin that I did, which was Benjamin Franklin. I
cannot tell you, and hardly anyone can tell you, whether Benjamin
Franklin was or would have been a Republican or a Democrat in his
history. We do not know the politics of people like George Washington,
and certainly the people who have been from other countries, a number
of individuals who received medals here in the Congress of the United
States.
In the history of the gold medals, as I believe the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley) pointed out, it has been as much Democrats, even
more so than Republicans. Even on the business of the commemorative
coins, a number of the sponsors in the Senate have been Democrats as
well.
I just have never noticed a lot of politics in this, I guess is my
point. It seems to me I have been asked to sign these, and I generally
sign them, unless it is something I think is spurious, by Democrats and
Republicans. I do not

[[Page H214]]

think about it. Certainly, if a party feels it is being slighted, they
can say we are just not going to sign on to something.
I do not think this needs a political balance. What it really needs,
I think, is to find out, if we are going to do two, who the two most
distinguished individuals are who should be recognized and go ahead and
recognize them, apart from whatever the politics may be. I do not think
it is going to fall down along political lines.
So I do rise in opposition to this. I just think it is sort of a
necessary strain on having a political balance on something which is
not essential.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I
know that the gentleman does not approach this in any other fashion but
a bipartisan fashion.
But the question I have is if we are going to limit this to two per
year, it could be that five Members on our side of the aisle have five
individuals they want to recognize. There could be five individuals on
the Republican side of the aisle who have five individuals they want to
recognize. That is 10 people, 10 bills, 10 instances where Members have
garnered two-thirds.
Who then will decide who gets the medals? It then becomes a very
political decision as to who gets each of the medals. Will it be the
five on the majority side? Will it be two from the majority side? Will
it be two from the minority side? Will it be one each? Who of the 10
deserving will get it, and who will not get it?
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I will be glad to
yield further in a moment, it typically has not worked that way.
Typically, the way you do it is, somebody comes to you with the idea,
maybe it is a Thomas Edison or somebody of that ilk, of that nature,
and you generally will then go to your leadership or to the leadership
on the other side or to the chairman of the committee and say, Look, I
am interested in getting this done. If I am going to go out and get the
290 signatures, I want some idea that it is going to be considered.
I would be dumbfounded if you had five on one side and five on the
other. In fact, I would be dumbfounded if you had two on one side and
two on the other. You generally sort of pre-clear it; and, generally
speaking, politics has just not entered into it. Before you go through
all that effort and work, you want to get a pretty good idea that the
bill is going to be able to get at least through the House. Then, by
the way, getting it through the Senate is another whole other issue
that you have to deal with as well.
So, typically, we have not had a surplus of these. Generally
speaking, when we have gotten to the 290, it has already been pretty
well agreed upon by leadership.
As the gentleman knows, on commemorative coins, they can be done in
out years. We are doing coins already for 2007 and years beyond that, I
believe, at this point. But almost always you work it out in advance.
As the gentleman knows from our committee work, I do not know of any
time where we have actually had to pick and choose at the committee on
these coins. It is almost always worked out in advance and agreed upon.
Mr. Chairman, I truly do not worry about this from a political point
of view. I really do not think this is a necessary amendment to deal
with that, based on what I have seen. I do not think limiting it to two
is going to change that at all.
I certainly would support the best people, which is what we are
trying to do. Frankly, most of these bills, while there may be a
Democrat sponsor or a Republican sponsor, almost always has a cosponsor
from the other side. You cannot really do it without sponsors from both
sides. So there is much more bipartisanship in this process than almost
anything I know about in this Congress.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the
rules will have changed once we pass this bill, whereas right now it is
unlimited. Granted, where it is unlimited, there has not been this rush
to introduce bills. As the gentleman mentioned before, this is not done
in a very quick fashion. This is done in a bipartisan way.
But when we limit it to two per year, we are putting a cap on it, I
think we can in the future find ourselves in a situation where, all
right maybe five on each side is a little much, maybe two on each side.
Then which of the four? Who makes that decision as to which of the four
gets the medal? And therein lies the politics.
Unfortunately, I think you are creating more politics in this bill. I
do not think that is your intent. I think you are doing this because
you want to enrich the value of the gold medal. I understand that. But
I think inherently by the changes being proposed, you are bringing more
politics into the decisionmaking as to who obtains this medal. That is
what I am trying to in a sense, avoid by evenly dividing between
Democrat and Republican, majority, minority, the ability for both sides
to equally participate in this process.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, technically, as the
gentleman and I both know, we have seen a lot, the majority is always
going to control ultimately what is going to happen on the floor. It
will go through the committee and go to the floor.
I still go back to a whole history. I have been here for 12 years. I
have watched these medals. I have never seen a bit of politics in these
medals. I just have not seen it.
I do not think the limiting of the numbers is really going to alter
that. I think a large part now is because you need all those
signatures, you just cannot do it in a partisan sense.
So I do not think this amendment is necessary. I think it brings in
an element of politics that frankly we just do not have in the
legislation. So I will oppose it. I understand the gentleman's
arguments, but I would oppose the amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Unfortunately, I think that in the past there may have been some
politics involved. I understand that one of my colleagues on this side
had achieved the requisite number of signatures for a commemorative
gold medal for the Columbia 107 in the last Congress, in the middle of
the last Congress, and that was never awarded.
So I do not know why. I do not know if there was any reason for that,
when the requisite number of signatures were given, that that bill was
not taken up in the committee and that Member was not successful in
getting that award to the Columbia 107. Why that was not done, I do not
know. I do not know if politics was part of that. Maybe someone can
answer that question.
But therein lies the problem, that from time to time, quite possibly
there is politics involved as to why some individuals receive the gold
medals and others do not.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, to close, and again in opposition, I think it is
unfortunate and really not necessary to put Republican-Democrat in the
statute. That is really what we are trying to do; that is what the
gentleman from New York is trying to do. This is an issue that needs to
be worked out at the leadership level, which traditionally has been the
case.
The last example that the gentleman mentioned, I do not know what all
that had to do with, but I think it was above our pay grade. But at the
same time, that is how it works, and to encase Republican and Democrat
in the statute I think at this time would certainly not be in the best
interests of the process, and that is why I continue to oppose my
friend's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague on the other side. It is the
pay grade issue I am concerned about, as the gentleman mentioned, as to
who makes these decisions and as to why some individuals are successful
in garnering a gold medal for an individual or group, and maybe another
is not. There is some political judgment that is made as well, I
believe.
As the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) said, there is a process
that

[[Page H215]]

will begin after this legislation is passed, nuances that Members will
work through. I would just offer, if this amendment were to pass, they
would work through these nuances.
As I mentioned before, if two gold medals were enacted into law by
Democrats and I had a third that I wanted to get passed, I would go to
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and say, Mike, we do not have
any more room on our side. Here is an opportunity; someone is
deserving. Would you consider sponsoring this and passing it? I think,
quite frankly, if there was a compelling argument, the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) would say, Certainly, Joe Crowley. We will do it.
That is a nuance to work through as well in terms of working in a
bipartisan way. This simply ensures that both Republicans and Democrats
are working in a bipartisan way, beyond the two-thirds vote; that
medals are not being used for political purposes, but are being given
because the individuals deserve them. That is what we are trying to do
with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 2 offered by Mr.
Crowley of New York and Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Crowley of New
York. The first vote will be on Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Crowley
of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Crowley

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 212, not voting 32, as follows:

[Roll No. 10]

AYES--189

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--212

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--32

Baird
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bono
Boustany
Burton (IN)
Costa
Cox
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Ehlers
Feeney
Foley
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gibbons
Granger
Graves
Israel
Jenkins
Lantos
Manzullo
McCotter
Moran (VA)
Portman
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Shays
Simpson
Sullivan

{time} 1222

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. SOUDER, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut
and Mr. DOOLITTLE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 10 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Crowley

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page H216]]

The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 211, not voting 40, as follows:

[Roll No. 11]

AYES--182

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--211

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--40

Baird
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bono
Boustany
Burton (IN)
Costa
Cubin
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Ehlers
Foley
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gohmert
Granger
Graves
Grijalva
Harman
Hayes
Israel
Jenkins
Lantos
Manzullo
McCotter
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Shays
Simpson
Sullivan
Waters

{time} 1229

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 11, Crowley No.
3, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________