H 4974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

fund do not have any knowledge about

how to fix the program. Perhaps the

gentleman, in his wisdom, forgot that

one of the trustees was the Secretary

of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin. Perhaps he

forgot one of the trustees was the Secretary of Health and Human Services

who oversees the entire Medicare program. She is one of the trustees. Perhaps the gentleman, in his rhetorical

splendor, forgot that Shirley F. Chater,

Commissioner of Social Security, is

one of the trustees. Those are all President Clinton’s appointees who are

charged with running the program, besides statutorily being trustees of the

trust fund. They have responsibility.

In their report they suggested in a

general way legislative changes. Read

the conclusion of the trustees’ report.

They said generally we should take

programs that are in effect and extend

them to other areas. What H.R. 1590

asks is to be specific in the recommendations that those trustees

made, including the Secretary of

Health and Human Services.

In addition, there has been great

weight placed on linking fixing Medicare with tax cuts and arguing that our

attempt to fix Medicare is because we

want to spend it on taxes. Where were

you folks a couple of months ago when

the House of Representatives voted out

tax cuts that were fully funded? Was a

piece of Medicare funding used for

those tax cuts? Yes. What was it? The

only Medicare cuts suggested by President Clinton in his fiscal year 1996

budget. They totaled a munificent $10

billion, and they were extenders of current limitations. That is all the Democrats have offered from the Clinton administration. We accepted those and

included them in the fully funded tax

cuts.

What is in front of us is the bankruptcy of Medicare. Listen carefully:

‘‘Today Medicaid and Medicare are

going up at 3 times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at 2

times the rate of inflation. Today Medicare beneficiaries get $4,700. In 2002,

we propose $6,300.’’ That is going up,

that is not going down. Who said,

‘‘Today Medicaid and Medicare are

going up at 3 times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at 2

times the rate of inflation?’’ President

Clinton 2 years ago.

How interesting when you see an opportunity to make political hay with

seniors. You refuse to give responsible

suggestions for change.

H.R. 1590 is a responsible suggestion

for change, and we urge its passage.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

BARRETT of Nebraska). The question is

on the motion offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. THOMAS]

that the House suspend the rules and

pass the bill, H.R. 1590.

The question was taken.

Mr. GIBBONS. 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 247, nays

170, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 330]

YEAS—247

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brewster

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Davis

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Fox

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Green

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hoekstra

Hoke

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kim

King

Kingston

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Livingston

LoBiondo

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martini

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Molinari

Moorhead

Morella

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Petri

Pombo

Porter

Portman

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Roth

Roukema

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Torricelli

Traficant

Upton

Visclosky

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NAYS—170

Abercrombie

Andrews

Baldacci

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bevill

Bishop

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Browder

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Clay

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Costello

Cramer

Danner

de la Garza

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Dooley

Doyle

Durbin

Edwards

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Filner

Frank (MA)

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Gibbons

Gonzalez

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hamilton

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hefner

Hilliard

Hinchey

Holden

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Klink

LaFalce

Lantos

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moran

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Peterson (MN)

Pickett

Pomeroy

Poshard

Rahall

Rangel

Reed

Richardson

Rivers

Roemer

Rose

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sawyer

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Skaggs

Skelton

Slaughter

Spratt

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Tanner

Tejeda

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Towns

Velazquez

Vento

Volkmer

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

NOT VOTING—17

Ackerman

Barcia

Berman

Collins (IL)

Coyne

Flake

Foglietta

Ford

Hobson

Istook

Kleczka

Lipinski

Peterson (FL)

Reynolds

Rogers

Torres

Tucker

b 1148

Mr. KANJORSKI changed his vote

from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’

So (two-thirds not having voted in

favor thereof) the motion was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER

AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 995

fMr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that my name be

removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 995.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

BARRETT of Nebraska). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman

from Colorado?

PERMISSION FOR ALL COMMITThere was no objection.

TEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES TO

fSIT TODAY AND BALANCE OF

THE WEEK DURING 5-MINUTE

RULE

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a

privileged motion.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4975

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. ARMEY moves, pursuant to clause 2 of

rule XI, that all the standing committees

and subcommittees of the House be permitted to sit today and the balance of the

week while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-

minute rule.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. ARMEY] is recognized for 1 hour.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I have a

parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BONIOR. May I inquire as to

whether the minority will get the customary 30 minutes under this motion

that we have historically been entitled

to and have received?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair indicates that this is the prerogative of the majority leader.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Texas [Mr. ARMEY].

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, we have

important work that we are trying to

finish on the floor today. It has taken

us longer than many of us thought

would be necessary because we have

tried to be as accommodating as we

can to so many Members that have

been interested in the Clean Water Act.

Nevertheless, it is necessary for this

motion to be voted on, and I really do

not think it is all that controversial a

matter.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 15 minutes to the

gentleman from Michigan [Mr.

BONIOR].

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of

my time.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this motion may not be

all that controversial on the gentleman

from Texas’ [Mr. ARMEY] side of the

Chamber, but it certainly is controversial on our side. Let me just make this

point. No. 1, I would have hoped we

would have gotten the customary 30

minutes for debate, half of the time

that is allotted under the motion that

the gentleman from Texas makes. But

given that we are not, let me make

some points with respect to what the

majority is trying to do to the minority.

Mr. Speaker, for the first few months

of this Congress, we have had a process

of consultation between the majority

and the minority with respect to the

issue of committee meetings during

the 5-minute rule. And in almost every

case, with few exceptions, we have been

able to agree on this issue. But today

the Republicans have gone too far.

Today they are proposing a blanket

waiver of the rule for an entire week,

the very week that this House will be

debating an historic budget resolution

on this floor.

Under this motion, Mr. Speaker,

Members will be tied up in committees,

they will be voting on unrelated bills

while the budget is being considered on

the floor of the House. Why are they

doing this? Why are they taking Members away from the action of the year,

this budget, and placing them in committees to listen to hearings, to mark

up other bills when the most important

piece of legislation we could be doing

this year will be on the floor?

Well, I guess, Mr. Speaker, if I were

defending this budget resolution, which

by the way in a poll in the Washington

post today we saw 60 percent of the

American people indicated they were

opposed to this resolution, a resolution

that devastates Medicare and Medicaid

and education and the proper investments we need in this country, I would

not want a lot of debate either. I would

not want a lot of debate either.

We just finished a resolution that

deals with the question of Medicare,

$300 billion cuts in Medicare in order to

give a tax cut to the wealthiest few in

our society. The point here is that

every Member in this body should be

available on the floor to participate in

this historic debate.

That is why they want Members to be

tied up in committee, Mr. Speaker, because they are concerned that the

membership will rebel against what is

clearly in the eyes of the American

people and those who have watched

this process one-sided, one-sided on behalf of the wealthiest people in our society; tax breaks, if you make $230,000

a year, get a $20,000 tax break. If you

are a senior who is struggling, like Iris

Doyle who I represent in my district,

who lives under Social Security, and a

small pension she has, if you are living

on a small pension, on Social Security,

you are going to be paying an extra

$1,000 by the year 2002 under this proposal.

We want to speak out on that, and we

want to speak out with all our voices.

We do not want one, two, or three, or

four people on the floor while we debate this bill. We think every Member

of this institution ought to be here.

This is an historic bill.

I was here in 1981 when we did the

budget and we did the tax cuts. This is

every bit, probably more significant in

the impact it will have on Americans.

There is a provision in here that is

going to cost my students in Michigan

an extra $4,000 a year to go to college

because of what they are doing to student loans, not to speak of all the

other educational cuts.

Every Member on this floor ought to

be here.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot hide the

facts from the American people, and

this heavy-handed motion that is before us today to take Members away

from this institution, this floor, will

not help.

Now, the first problem is occurring

today in the Committee on Commerce,

and I am going to yield in a second to

the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] to outline that problem, but it is

not just the Committee on Commerce.

This motion allows all House committees to hold markups for the rest of the

week as I pointed out. On Wednesday

we begin voting on this budget. On

Thursday we hopefully will finish it

and vote on it.

Why can we not allow Members to be

in one place at one time to focus in on

one issue, in fact the most important

issue we will have to deal with probably in this session, debating this, in

my view, an outrageous Republican

budget resolution?

I think we know why: because it is

indefensible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the

House is going to make a decision on

the budget for 7 years. Every year between now and the year 2002 is going to

be affected by the actions that are

going to be taken on the House floor.

We are going to deal with policy. We

are going to deal with economics. We

are going to deal with interest rates.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to deal

with employment. We are going to deal

with Social Security. We are going to

deal with economic issues. We are

going to deal with the level of Federal

expenditures. We are going to affect

the rights and concerns of every American, from the very young to the very

oldest and from the unborn to the dead.

I think to have these kinds of discussions and these kinds of decisions made

while the committees and the subcommittees are marking up important

matters, but matters nowhere near as

important as that which we will be discussing today, is absolutely wrong. I

would tell my colleagues that this resolution should not be agreed to for that

reason.

I will also point out something else:

This is one example of high-handedness.

b 1200

Another example of high-handedness

we will be seeing in the Committee on

Commerce very shortly. A member has

been added to that committee without

a word of consultation with the leadership on this side of the aisle. Very

shortly, without any consultation with

the leadership on this side of the aisle

within the committee, members will be

having their concerns and their interests in the structure of the committees

and subcommittees of the Committee

on Commerce rearranged.

It is an interesting game that the Republican leadership is playing. What it

says is that any time the Republican

leadership chooses, they can change

the composition of the teams on the

field. If they do not like playing football with 11 men, they can put 12 or 13

men on the field, simply because they

changed the rules, without adding another member on this side of the aisle.

That is an example of arrogance,

high-handedness, and quite honestly, a

series of practices which are totally inconsistent with the traditions and

practices of this House, where the business, when the Democrats were in the
H 4976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

majority, was always done in consultation with the minority, and when we

were always exquisitely careful, both

on the leadership level in the House

and on the leadership level in the committee, to consult and to afford the Republicans full opportunity to be fairly

treated and to be heard before actions

affecting the structure of committees,

subcommittees, and of the House, was

taken.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to

rise up against heavy-handedness,

high-handedness, and arrogance on the

part of my Republican colleagues in

connection with two matters: First,

consideration of the budget resolution;

and second, the structuring of committees and subcommittees.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, let me

just buttress the arguments made by

my colleague, the gentleman from

Michigan.

Republicans have put a new member

of their party onto the Committee on

Commerce. We are entitled to another

member on that committee. However,

when our requests are made, they are

met with silence. There is no response

given to us. Business as usual.

That is what we have here, business

as usual. They pass a resolution on the

first day of the session on committee

ratios, saying that we can only have

two full committees, yet they have 38

Members that serve on more than two

committees. That question needs to be

addressed, and we intend to address it

in due time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he

may consume to the gentleman from

California [Mr. MILLER].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan, the minority

whip, for raising this issue.

I want to say to my colleagues that

not only is it a question of members of

one committee deciding to participate

in debate on the floor on the budget or

on the Clean Water Act or other measures, but we also have the situation

where members of the Committee on

Resources will be engaged in markup

on the bill while at the same time their

committee will be engaged in offering

bills on the floor of the House under

the current schedule.

That disenfranchises members of the

committee from one of those two debates. They cannot participate and represent their constituent views in committee, or they cannot participate on

the floor and represent their constituent views on those bills presented on

this floor.

The same holds true for each and

every member. This disenfranchises

Republicans and Democrats alike, because if we have to go to committee to

participate, we cannot be heard on the

budget debate, we cannot be heard on

the clean water debate. These are

major, controversial, important actions, taken by this Congress.

I think the minority whip has it

about right, that they seek to submarine this debate. The reports are

coming in from the precincts. The

American people are terribly upset by

what the Republicans are doing to

Medicare, what they are doing to student loans, and as we saw, what they

were doing to student nutrition.

The fact of the matter is, the public

does not like this plan, so what is their

proposal? To disenfranchise Members

of Congress from participating in this

debate, from echoing the views of their

constituents back home, and to try to

keep them locked up in committee activity that is nowhere near as urgent

or as important as the budget debate

and or the clean water debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman

for raising this issue.

Mr. BONIOR. I thank my colleague

for his remarks, Mr. Speaker. He is

right on target.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he

may consume to the gentleman from

Massachusetts [Mr. FRANK].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, let me make clear we are not

talking about abstractions here. Last

week, Mr. Speaker, we had in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services the single silliest day in the history, I believe, of the House of Representatives.

We voted in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services the week

before to pass out a deregulation bill,

but while we were having the rollcall

on that bill, a rollcall was in progress

on the floor of the House, because the

committee was meeting simultaneously with the floor proceedings.

In fact, the chairman, an honorable

man, trying to do his best under a set

of silly rules, had called a rollcall on

an amendment, and he announced that

there would be a rollcall right after

that on the bill. Many members, mostly Republicans who voted first on the

amendment, did not hear that, so they

left. They came to the floor.

As a result, last week, all the members of the Committee on Banking and

Financial Services interrupted what we

were doing, those who had gotten the

notice, and we sat in the Committee on

Banking and Financial Services and we

pretended to vote on the banking bill.

The only reason we had that meeting

to vote on the banking bill was that

the week before we had a simultaneous

rollcall in committee and a rollcall on

the floor. Some of the Republican

Members were distressed because, having left to vote on the floor rollcall,

they missed the rollcall in committee.

That is what we are inviting when we

have simultaneous rollcalls on both

levels, we get this kind of problem.

Mr. Speaker, it was the Republicans

who insisted that the chairman of the

committee have this phony meeting.

We all sat there, it was like a play, and

we all voted. It was the silliest waste of

time ever. Why? Because of this kind of

tactic.

Therefore, what we have here is that

the Republicans took power in January

and announced this wonderful contract

and all these rules changes, but we

should have checked the warranty on

the contract, because apparently, on

the rules changes, it was good only

until inconvenient. I have never seen

people profess good intentions, as they

define them, and so little live up to

them as we have seen here.

The kind of burlesque that we had in

the Committee on Banking and Financial Services last week, where we had a

rollcall vote, a solemn rollcall vote

solely because some Republican Members had missed the previous rollcall

vote because there was another rollcall

vote going on was silly, but what the

Republican leadership wants to do is to

create the circumstances in which that

silliness will recur.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, to conclude, let me just ask my friends and

colleagues today, please do not put

themselves in the situation where they

are not here defending the interests of

their constituents by being away, by

being at another markup, by being at

another hearing, on the most important piece of legislation that we will

consider perhaps this year, the budget

of the United States of America, that

will have serious consequences for seniors, for students, for middle-aged children who have to support seniors; an

important bill.

Let us not play Casper the Ghost and

have people participating in one or two

different places at the same time. Let

the sunshine pour through these Chambers so every Member can be here, can

participate, and can be a full participant in the democratic process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to

vote against this motion, and to give

themselves the affordability and the

comfort of being able to participate in

the budget debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance

of my time.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if I can just take a moment to put back into perspective a

point that has been stretched beyond

belief, what we are doing here is asking

the Members to vote to enable the

committees to sit during the 5-minute

rule while we continue to work on the

Clean Water Act.

In particular, the work that we want

to see continue in committees while we

are on the Clean Water Act on the floor

is the hearings of the Committee on

Commerce on telecommunications,

which has been the only objection that

has been raised.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance

of my time, and I move the previous

question on the motion.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the motion offered by

the gentleman from Texas [Mr.

ARMEY].

The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore [Mr. BARRETT of

Nebraska] announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I object to

the vote on the ground that a quorum
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4977

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.

This will be a 15-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 235, nays

181, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 331]

YEAS—235

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Davis

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Fox

Franks (CT)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Goodlatte

Goodling

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Jacobs

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kim

King

Kingston

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Livingston

LoBiondo

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martini

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Molinari

Montgomery

Moorhead

Morella

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Petri

Pombo

Portman

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Roth

Roukema

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Skeen

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (NC)

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Traficant

Upton

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NAYS—181

Abercrombie

Andrews

Baesler

Baldacci

Barcia

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bevill

Bishop

Bonior

Borski

Brewster

Browder

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Chapman

Clay

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Costello

Cramer

Danner

de la Garza

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Dooley

Doyle

Durbin

Edwards

Engel

Eshoo

Farr

Fattah

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Ford

Frank (MA)

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Geren

Gibbons

Gonzalez

Gordon

Green

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hamilton

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hefner

Hilliard

Hinchey

Holden

Jackson-Lee

Jefferson

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Klink

LaFalce

Lantos

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Moran

Murtha

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Peterson (MN)

Pickett

Pomeroy

Poshard

Rahall

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roemer

Rose

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sawyer

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skelton

Slaughter

Spratt

Stark

Stenholm

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Tanner

Taylor (MS)

Tejeda

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torres

Towns

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Williams

Wise

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

NOT VOTING—18

Ackerman

Berman

Boucher

Collins (IL)

Cooley

Cox

Coyne

Evans

Franks (NJ)

Hoyer

Istook

Johnston

Kleczka

Lipinski

Peterson (FL)

Porter

Torricelli

Tucker

b 1227

So the motion was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unaniGENERAL LEAVE

fmous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days within which to

revise and extend their remarks, and

include extraneous material, on H.R.

1590, the bill previously considered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

BARRETT of Nebraska). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman

from Florida?

There was no objection.

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.

4, LINE-ITEM VETO ACT

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on

Rules, submitted a privileged report

(Rept. No. 104–121) on the resolution (H.

Res. 147) providing for consideration of

the bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the

President to reduce budget authority,

and for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.

f219, REGULATORY TRANSITION

ACT OF 1995

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on

Rules, submitted a privileged report

(Rept. No. 104–122) on the resolution (H.

Res. 148) providing for consideration of

the bill (S. 219) to improve the economy and efficiency of Federal Government operations by establishing a moratorium on regulatory rulemaking actions, and for other purposes, which

was referred to the House Calendar and

ordered to be printed.

ESTABLISHING TIME LIMITATIONS

FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADDIfTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO H.R.

961, CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS

OF 1995

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that on the clean

water bill which we will be considering

in the next few moments that we establish time limits as follows:

In title VIII on wetlands:

One hour on the Boehlert substitute

to title VIII; 30 minutes on the

Gilchrest amendment to delete wetland

delineation; and 20 minutes on all

other amendments which will be considered, excluding title X for which no

time limit will be set, and specifically

the amendments to which I refer,

which will have 20-minute time limits,

are as follows:

The Gilchrest-Dingell amendment on

migratory waterfowl; the

Frelinghuysen amendment on delegated programs; the Wyden amendment

to prohibit compensation; the Minge

amendment with regard to permits for

the Department of Agriculture; the

Riggs amendment on certain

wastewater treatment facilities; the

Taylor amendment to require consideration of beneficial uses of dredged material; the Pallone amendment, which

will be two amendments en bloc; and

the Franks amendment to limit

changes in title IX, with the time to be

equally divided by the proponent and

opponent of the amendments.

b 1230

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

BARRETT of Nebraska). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman

from Pennsylvania?