[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16245-16249]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2490, TREASURY AND GENERAL 
                  GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 246 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 246

       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. 2490) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 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 or rule XCI are waived. 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 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 of final passage without 
     intervening motion

[[Page 16246]]

     except on emotion to recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1445

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. 
Speaker, during consideration of this amendment, all time is yielded 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is an open rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 2490, making appropriations for the Treasury 
Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of 
the President and certain independent agencies for fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
  This open rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill. It waives House rules prohibiting consideration of unauthorized 
or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill. The rule accords 
priority in recognition to Members who have their amendments preprinted 
in the Congressional Record.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone votes and 
reduce the voting time on a postponed vote to 5 minutes so long as it 
follows a regular 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
  H. Res. 246 presents this appropriations bill for House consideration 
under the normal processes by which appropriations bills may come to 
the floor. It is an open rule that permits Members to offer any 
amendments they wish, provided they are germane.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation makes the appropriations for 
the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the 
Executive Office of the President, and certain other independent 
agencies. This is very important legislation. Nearly 90 percent of the 
activities funded under this bill are devoted to the salaries and 
expenses of approximately 163,000 employees who are responsible for 
administering programs such as drug interdiction, collection of 
revenues, presidential protection, violent crimes reduction, and 
Federal financial management.
  Through a judicious bipartisan process of hearings and testimony, the 
Committee on Appropriations arrived at the funding levels contained in 
the legislation. The funding levels are consistent with this Congress' 
policy of fiscal discipline, yet provide sufficient funding for 
agencies within the bill's jurisdiction to carry out their statutory 
responsibility.
  Specifically, this legislation allows increased funding to provide 
for more diligent enforcement of gun control laws, making it more 
difficult for convicted felons to obtain weapons. This legislation also 
appropriates funds necessary to carry out IRS reforms that were passed 
by the last Congress and stand to benefit all taxpayers across America.
  The road to the House floor for this legislation has been very 
bipartisan indeed. In fact, it passed the Subcommittee on Treasury, 
Postal Service, and General Government with a unanimous vote under the 
stewardship of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), ranking member.
  In his testimony before the Committee on Rules yesterday, the 
gentleman from Maryland was excessively gracious in his praise for the 
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the bipartisan manner in 
which this legislation was crafted.
  The rule, like the underlying legislation, deserves strong bipartisan 
support. Again, it is an open rule that permits any Member with germane 
amendments to have them considered by the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue this bipartisan effort 
in this legislation and to make sure that we support this fair rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
yielding me the customary half-hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule providing for the 
consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. However, I am 
very disappointed with the substantial cuts that this bill makes. This 
bill came out of the subcommittee as a good bipartisan effort, but 
unfortunately the full committee markup changed all that.
  Mr. Speaker, during the markup, my colleagues slashed $239 million 
from this bill and, Mr. Speaker, those cuts will not be without 
repercussions. I am concerned that these drastic cuts will make it hard 
for some of our important agencies to function. Agencies that provide 
for 30 percent of our Federal law enforcement, including stopping the 
flow of drugs across our borders, enforcing gun and tobacco laws, 
enforcing United States customs laws and counterterrorism efforts. 
These are not small issues, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot afford to 
undercut them.
  The agencies funded by this bill perform an invaluable service, and I 
hope that there will be a chance to restore their funding. Otherwise, 
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that they will have a hard time functioning 
under these very drastic cuts.
  I am also disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make in 
order the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) 
to limit handgun purchases to one per month, or the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) to study the use of 
antique firearms used in crimes. These two amendments are excellent 
initiatives towards reasonable gun safety. I am sorry my Republican 
colleagues refused to consider them.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the rule passes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tucson, Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I will not use that time; however, I 
appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) yielding it to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I am very pleased with the rule 
that we have before us today which brings this appropriations bill for 
Treasury-Postal and General Government to the floor. It is a rule that 
I do not think anybody could possibly object to. It is an open rule, 
allows any striking amendment or any amendment dealing with 
appropriations matters to be offered.
  The rule protects those items which are already in the bill, as we 
normally do, from being stricken on a point of order. And, quite 
frankly, a number of the agencies that this subcommittee funds are not 
authorized agencies because authorizing committees have not been able 
to get legislation to the floor for year after year after year to 
authorize those agencies. So this legislation, this resolution does 
exactly what it ought to do on an appropriation bill, allow it to be 
considered as an appropriation matter.
  Any amendment dealing with appropriations may be offered and what is 
in the bill will be protected, and it does not include the offering of 
extraneous legislative matters that have not previously been considered 
in the subcommittee or the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good resolution. This is a good rule. It 
deserves the support of every Member in the body, and I hope that when 
we come to the question of the previous question, Members will support 
the previous question and they will vote ``aye'' on passage of this 
rule so that we can move on today to consideration of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
yielding me this time, and I urge adoption of this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 16247]]


  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), ranking member, soon to be chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
noting my comments with respect to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman 
Kolbe). In the first instance, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and again 
repeat, as I will when we get to the debate on the bill, my 
appreciation of the handling of this bill by the gentleman from 
Arizona. He has been extremely cooperative and bipartisan and open in 
his handling of this bill. And, as I said earlier, I appreciate the 
gentleman from Texas bringing those remarks of mine to the Committee on 
Rules to the attention of the body, because I believe them very 
sincerely. The gentleman from Arizona is not only chairman of the 
subcommittee on which I serve, but also my good friend and an 
outstanding representative.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak on this rule. There are times, of 
course, when we rise and oppose rules because we do not believe they 
are fair. In this instance, however, I rise in strong support of the 
rule. I think the Committee on Rules has issued a rule which is fair to 
both sides. I am sure in its protection of certain provisions of the 
bill and items within the bill that have not been technically 
authorized, that is appropriation accounts that have not had 
authorizing bills passed, that there would obviously be individuals who 
might want to object and they might object to the rule for that reason. 
But the Committee on Rules has been fair in treating both sides 
equally.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Dreier) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the other 
members of the Committee on Rules for passing a rule that I think 
provides for a fair and free and open debate on this bill. Therefore, I 
am going to urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to strongly 
support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I would observe that when we come to debate on the bill 
itself, as I did in the Committee on Rules, I will express reservation 
about the cuts that have been recommended by the committee. I think 
those cuts are unfortunate, and I think they will have an adverse 
impact. But as we know, this is not the final step on the process of 
passing and adopting this bill. Therefore, we will have other 
opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Lucas), my colleague who is coming into the Chamber.
  Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to ask for the 
yeas and nays on the previous question when the question is called 
because it is my understanding that if the previous question is 
defeated, then an amendment will be in order to preclude a COLA 
adjustment in Members' pay. I support doing that.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman from Kentucky. He has discussed this matter with me. I 
understand his view. And while he and I disagree on this issue, I 
certainly respect his right and his appropriate action in bringing this 
matter to the attention of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, strong support of 
the previous question, and thank the gentleman for Texas for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lexington, Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, although I have utmost respect for the Committee on 
Rules and the work they do, I rise to express my opposition to the 
previous question to the rule on the Treasury-Postal appropriations 
bill. As the rule is currently written, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) to disallow the Members' COLA is not 
included. If the previous question is defeated, Members will have an 
opportunity to change the rule to allow a vote against the COLA.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my intention, if the previous question is 
defeated, to offer an amendment to the rule that would disallow the 
Members' COLA. For that reason I intend to vote against the previous 
question and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The proposed amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     contained in section 3 of the resolution. The amendment may 
     be offered only at the appropriate place in the reading of 
     the bill, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject 
     to amendment or demand for a division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
     against the amendment are waived.
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.  . Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization 
     Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 601. (a) Until adjusted under section 225 of the 
     Federal Salary Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 351 and following) or 
     other provision of law, the annual rate of pay for--
       ``(1) each Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, 
     and Delegate to the House of Representatives, and the 
     Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico,
       ``(2) the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority 
     leader and the minority leader of the Senate, and the 
     majority leader and the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives, and
       ``(3) the Speaker of the House of Representatives,

     shall be the rate payable for such position as of the date of 
     enactment of the Treasury and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 2000.''.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Surfside, Texas (Mr. Paul).

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with some bit of ambivalence with this 
rule, but I will support the rule. I was concerned about a special 
issue with the Post Office and was hoping that we could address this in 
detail, and that has to do with the regulations that I consider very 
onerous and very maliciously placed on private mailboxes, the 
Commercial Receiving Agencies. I was very hopeful that we could deal 
with that. But it appears we will have another chance to do that at a 
later date.
  I have a House joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act, 
H.J. Res. 55. If that were to pass, we could rescind all those 
regulations. Currently, it is my understanding that these regulations 
have been put on hold. They will not go into effect soon. But the 
problem still exists, and I see it as a serious problem.
  First, let me talk about the Post Office. The Post Office is a true 
monopoly. In the free market, there are no true monopolies. Only 
government can allow a true monopoly.
  We do have enough freedom in this country to some degree to offer 
competition to even this monopoly of the Post Office. By doing this, 
the private post offices have been set up to give additional service 
and privacy to many of our citizens, and they are well used.
  But now the Post Office sees this as a competition because they are 
providing services that the Post Office cannot or will not provide. So 
instead of dealing with this, either providing legalized competition in 
the Post Office or providing these same services, instead, the Post 
Office has issued these onerous regulations to attack these customers.
  They are forcing these private mailbox operators to develop profiles 
on every customer, have double identification, and then make this 
information available to the public and to the Post Office for no good 
reason.
  When I first got involved in this, I did not know which 
constituencies would be interested in this issue. But one thing that I 
have discovered is that many of those women who need privacy will use 
private post offices to avoid the husband or some other individual who 
may be stalking them. They have

[[Page 16248]]

been writing to me with a great deal of concern about what these 
regulations will do.
  Also, it is a great cost to these operators as well as to all the 
customers. The Post Office would mandate that a special address be 
placed on each piece of mail, indicating that they are receiving mail 
at one of these private post offices. This costs a lot of money. There 
will be a lot of mail returned. If these regulations had gone into 
effect this week, as had been planned, a lot of mail, to the tune of 
hundreds of thousands of pieces, if not millions, would have been 
returned to the senders, and they would not have been permitted to be 
delivered.
  I think this is tragic. I think it has to be dealt with. I am 
disappointed that we cannot do much with it today, but I know there is 
a growing support in this country and in this Chamber for doing 
something about this problem.
  We as a Congress have the ability, and the authority, to undo 
regulations. For too long, we have allowed our regulatory bodies to 
write law, and we do nothing about it. Since 1994, we have had this 
authority, but we never use it. This is a perfect example of a time 
that we ought to come in and protect the people, try to neutralize this 
government monopoly and help these people who deserve this type of 
protection and privacy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas 
that I think he raises the question that is a good question; and it 
should be raised, should be looked at.
  It will not come as a surprise to him that we do not agree on all the 
aspects of what he has said, but he certainly raises an issue that 
ought to be focused on. I know in talking to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Chairman Kolbe) that he shares that concern. I want to assure the 
gentleman that both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and myself 
will be looking at this.
  Furthermore, as the gentleman may know, the Postal Department has 
made very substantial changes to its initially sponsored resolution 
through the efforts of the organizations that the gentleman from Texas 
talked to and himself and others who raised these issues with the 
department, so that they are moving to ensure greater privacy and 
protection to the individuals of which the gentleman spoke.
  The gentleman from Texas raises a legitimate issue. I certainly 
intend to, along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), look at 
that further. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Maryland.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In furtherance of this discussion, as has been discussed by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), I would like to also say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 
and to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) that I would like to 
thank them for bringing this issue up.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) have also been a part of working with the 
Postmaster General, General Henderson, on reasonable changes as a 
result of the marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pease) 
announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLETCHER. 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 276, 
nays 147, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 300]

                               YEAS--276

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--147

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Cook
     Costello
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lazio
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Ose
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky

[[Page 16249]]


     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Chenoweth
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Latham
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  1526

  Messrs. SANDERS, GALLEGLY, DEUTSCH, JENKINS, DeFAZIO, TALENT, 
STEARNS, BARCIA and BECERRA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CLAY, CALVERT, MARTINEZ, METCALF, and COX changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________