[Pages H8686-H8691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1757, FOREIGN RELATIONS
AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999, AND EUROPEAN SECURITY
ACT OF 1997

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on
the bill (H.R. 1757), to consolidate international affairs agencies, to
authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related
agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and to ensure that the
enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] proceeds
in a manner consistent with United States interests, to strengthen
relations between the United States and Russia, to preserve the
prerogatives of the Congress with respect to certain arms control
agreements, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Callahan moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1757 be
instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in title
XXI of the House bill (relating to United States policy with
respect to forced abortion and foreign organizations that
perform or promote abortion).

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H8687]]

Mr. Speaker, this issue was thoroughly debated yesterday when the
Congress chose to instruct the conferees on the foreign operations bill
to include Mexico City language.
I support Mexico City language, although I opposed, in a way, the
Congress telling us that we ought to be forced to do authorization
business in an appropriation bill. Generally, the arguments that take
place on the floor are just the opposite.
But since the Congress saw fit, by a great majority, to instruct the
conferees on the Committee on Appropriations, sitting and languishing
for a couple of weeks in conference is the authorization bill where
this issue should be addressed.
It is our understanding that even since yesterday, when the Committee
on Appropriations was instructed to act on a policy matter, Senator
Helms has indicated and some of the Members of the House Committee on
International Relations indicated that they are not going to be able to
maintain this in the conference on the bill that it should be in. So
what this does is just simply transfer the responsibility to the party
of responsibility.
I do not think there is much need this afternoon to go into the
merits and demerits of the pro-life issue or pro-choice issues or the
population-control issues. The issue has already been addressed by this
House, voted on by this House. All we are doing is making certain that
the committee of responsibility act in a responsible manner according
to the wishes of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the committee.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Gejdenson] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered
by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. I believe the motion is
unnecessary. It delays the House from more productive work. The House
has already voted five times on the Mexico City policy, and the result
is always the same. Mr. Speaker, another vote today repeats the
obvious. This will be our sixth vote on the Mexico City policy this
very year.
Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed in this motion. Until yesterday's
motion, I was unaware of any motion to instruct to be offered by a
member of the majority during this Congress. I appreciate the interest
of the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs, and the work of our Committee on International
Relations as it relates to our conference and the issue addressed by
this motion.
As the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] knows, the resolution of
this issue is being addressed by our leadership, by the administration,
and by others; and that is an ongoing attempt to resolve the issue.
Our House conferees are not trying to circumvent that process.
Indeed, the House, during consideration of H.R. 1757, voted to defeat
the Campbell substitute and support the Smith amendment. Our
committee's conferees have been trying to do our job under that clear
instruction of the House.
Notwithstanding the motion of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan], which I just learned of yesterday during his announcement, I
believe that our conferees have been doing their work and doing it in
line with the wishes of the House. I share the frustration of the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. I believe both committees are
working within the same constraints.
Given these constraints, it serves as no useful purpose to imply that
our committee is not doing all it can to resolve that issue. I do not
believe that the House should have instructed the Committee on
Appropriations yesterday on this issue, and I opposed the motion.
Likewise, I do not believe we should instruct the committee on this
issue.
Accordingly, I oppose the motion, just as I opposed the motion
yesterday. I urge our Members to reject the motion by the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I forewarn the Members who are interested
in speaking, since this issue has been thoroughly debated, even though
we have an hour, I do not see a great sense of need to take a full
hour, because we have still the motion to adjourn before the House, and
I know that we want to adjourn relatively early tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Callahan motion. I do not do
that because I fully agree with everything in the Smith amendment. I do
not. I agree with about half of it. I do not support the gentleman's
amendment to impose Mexico City policy. But I do want to see funding
cut off to the United Nations population program so long as they remain
in China, because I think that they have a coercive abortion policy in
China.
But that is not the main reason that I support this amendment. I
support it because if this amendment is to be attached anywhere, it
should be attached to an authorization legislation and not an
appropriation bill.
My favorite philosopher, as I have said many times on this floor, is
Archie, the Cockroach. One of the things Archie said was that, ``Now
and then, a person is born who is so unlucky he runs into accidents
that started out to happen to somebody else.''
That is the way our Committee on Appropriations feels on this issue,
because this is an authorization issue. It is an issue which ought to
be dealt with in that committee, and yet we are now told that the
authorizing committee may be dropping this amendment because they think
it will make it impossible to pass their bill.
Well, boys and girls, if you think it is going to make it impossible
to pass an authorization bill, what do you think it is going to do to
the appropriation bill? It does not belong on the appropriations bill.
It belongs on the authorization bill, if it belongs anywhere. So, at
least to get this debate in the proper venue, I would urge the House to
support the motion of the gentleman.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], will understand
if I, along with most Members who are not on the Committee on
Appropriations, do not show him great sympathy for his present plight.
We in the authorization committee feel that appropriations members seem
to do quite well around here in lots of areas. And I think Archie's
little saying may not be as applicable as my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], would like us to think.
It is easy to get caught up in the process of what we do here, but
the substance is also terribly important. I would say, for both
procedural reasons and substantive reasons, we should reject the
proposition of my colleague that is before us today.
The substantive reasons are more important than any other, because,
after all, we work in this process and process is important, but
substance is what brings us to Congress. It is substance that we fight
for in the policies, and the substance here is very clear.
As we have been able to expand family planning, we have not only
improved the economic situation of the poorest of the poor in this
world, we have not only been able to reduce death and injury to the
mothers of the children of this world, but we have also reduced
abortion, reduced abortion across the globe where U.S. family planning
funds were able to exercise freely and compete in the globe.
America's influences in family planning were long before Mexico City,
long before this debate tied up the Foreign Assistance Act, long before
it tied up State Department authorizations and appropriations reduced
abortion globally.
For the people who look at this issue and who care about abortion,
take a look at some of the statistics. They will see across this
country, across this planet, family planning has reduced abortions. In
Kazakhstan, it has reduced abortions about 40 percent. All

[[Page H8688]]

the debate on this floor about banning abortions and making them
illegal has not reduced as many abortions as family planning has in
Kazakhstan in the Soviet Union and across this planet.
So I would plead with my colleagues that we ought to reject this
proposal from the Committee on Appropriations, we ought to reject it
both in substance and in process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support
of the Callahan motion. Just let me take a moment to digress.
Some of the leading appropriators in this House never lose the
opportunity to admonish and even scold the rest of us and to tell us to
look elsewhere when offering terms and conditions on policy. The
appropriators just do the money, or so the thinking goes; the
authorizers do policy.
All of that sounds neat and tidy, a true division of labor. But
appropriations bills are stuffed to the hilt with policy. It may be
useful to note that in years past, this ``not on my appropriations
bill'' approach has been invoked in attempts to deter the offering of
pro-life amendments or, once adopted, to try to strip out the pro-life
language on appropriations bills, including the Hyde amendment on the
health and human services bill.
The notion of ``do it on the authorizing bill'' has surface appeal.
But had pro-lifers heeded that advice, the overwhelming majority of
pro-life riders would never have become law, including the Hyde
amendment, including the bans on taxpayer funding for abortion under
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I first offered that
back in 1983, and everybody was telling me, ``Do not do it on the
appropriations bill,'' the D.C. appropriations bill, the Federal
prisons ban, and other riders. If pro-lifers had bought into that line,
the U.S. Government today would be paying for abortion on demand in
most of the programs that we subsidize.

{time} 1645

In the real world, appropriators are more equal, more essential, if
you will, than the rest of us. In the end, their bills must pass, even
if those bills are rolled into an omnibus bill or a CR. Authorizers,
especially on the Committee on International Relations, are doubly
disadvantaged.
First, we bring relatively unpopular bills to the floor, and who here
has constituents who are clamoring for more foreign aid? And, second,
appropriators often render our work product moot or redundant or
superfluous by simply waiving the need for an authorization bill.
The simple fact of the matter is that the White House, be it Democrat
or Republican, knows this and needs only to wait until the eleventh
hour for the appropriators to waive authorization. The real world
consequence of this waiver-of-authorization drill is to closely
undermine Members on the authorizing committees in negotiations with
the administration on tough issues like population and abortion.
The administration calculates, and I believe wrongly this time, that
they can get a better deal by pushing the process to the zero hour,
which is why we offered the pro-life Mexico City policy to both the
foreign operations bill and the State Department authorization bill,
which I would remind my colleagues is the bill that I wrote.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and
Human Rights, the State bill, not the reorganization, which was the
part of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and not some of the
other policy considerations, but the State Department bill is my bill,
and I chair the subcommittee that oversees it.
We put it on that bill and we also put it on the foreign operations
bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] and the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], as everyone knows, moved yesterday to instruct the
conferees to retain the Mexico City and will hopefully do the same
today on the authorizing bill.
This year, the majority of us in the House who recognize the fact
that abortion is violence against babies will not give in, nor will we
accept bogus compromises like metering, or counterfeits like the
Gilman-Pelosi amendment. This year we will simply not allow the
approximately $400 million U.S. taxpayer dollars to enrich those who
dismember and chemically poison unborn children.
Abortion is violence against children. Abortion is child abuse, and
this year we are prepared to zero out U.N. arrearage payments, cut
foreign aid and take any action necessary to ensure that the Hyde
amendment for foreign aid, which is the Mexico City policy, is enacted.
Yesterday's vote to instruct conferees to insist on the Mexico City
policy was no frivolous vote. We simply will not cave, not now, not
next week, not the week after, or ever, because millions of children
and the well-being of their mothers are at stake.
I can assure the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] that as
chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights, I will fight any effort to bring the State bill back to the
floor without the Mexico City policy. If through some means, and I do
not think one exists, my bill lands on the floor without the Mexico
City policy, I give my colleagues my vow, I will lead the fight against
my own bill on the floor of this House.
I can only ask the same of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]
on foreign operations. I urge support on the Callahan motion.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of our full
committee.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by the
gentleman from Alabama to instruct the conferees on this bill.
Yesterday, I reluctantly rose to indicate to the membership that I was
going to vote ``present,'' and I would like to explain that vote. The
fact: I have always supported the Mexico City policy. I believe very
strongly that wherever possible, the United States needs to discourage
abortion. I am concerned that members of our society are actually
encouraging abortion around the world.
The fact is, I happen to have the role, the dual-hatted role of
running the Committee on Appropriations. Thirteen bills of the
Committee on Appropriations have to get out every year in an appointed
time and hopefully without shutting down the government, and the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs is just one of those subcommittees which must report every
single year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been a reluctant or an unfortunate reality
that the Mexico City language has been the source of debate year after
year after year since we took office as the majority party in 1994. In
three other separate cycles, it was the last issue resolved, not just
in the foreign operations subcommittee interchange with the Senate in
conference, but in fact, the last issue resolved in each separate
session of Congress.
Mexico City, and whether or not we should induce family planning
operations around the world to refrain from advocating abortion, is an
authorization issue. It belongs in the authorization bill, and that is
why I am very pleased to stand before my colleagues in this body to
implore my colleagues, vote for the gentleman's motion, vote for the
motion to instruct the conferees of the authorization committee to do
the job that must be done in order to convince the Senate to accept
this language, to change this language, and to do whatever is necessary
to change policy so that abortion will be discouraged with family
planning operations all around the world. If one gets settled in the
authorization committee, one does not have to come to the Committee on
Appropriations, and we can go ahead and finish our appropriations bills
on time and get out without closing down the government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this proposal.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I will not use all of my allotted 2
minutes. We had this debate yesterday.
The only two things that I would like to say in reflection over the
last 24

[[Page H8689]]

hours is this: People need to understand that the argument that people
have raised about family planning money would be jeopardized with the
addition of the Mexico City policy, need to understand that the Mexico
City policy language that says that no taxpayer funds will go to
organizations that fund abortions with any of their money, that that
language was, in fact, the law of the land until 1993, when President
Clinton rejected the Mexico City policy with an administrative order.
So, family planning money was not jeopardized under the Mexico City
policy for 12 years prior to 1993, so the argument is a fallacious
argument.
The second thing that I would like to say is that the reason that the
motion to instruct conferees was added to the appropriations bill is
that I was fully confident that under the leadership of the gentleman
from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, in conference, that it would only be
over his dead body that that Mexico City policy language would be
stripped from the authorizing bill before it came out.
So the appropriate vehicle was on the Committee on Appropriations,
and I am in favor and voting in favor and urge all of my colleagues to
support this motion to instruct as well, because as many times as we
can reinforce doing the right thing, we should be for that.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to
support this motion to instruct conferees and support the Mexico City
language.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], for yielding me this time and for his
leadership on this issue, as well as a number of other colleagues who
are trying to make the point that we are really at a point of absurdity
on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time now in 2 days to instruct
conferees on the reinstatement of the Mexico City policy provisions.
Yesterday we talked about the appropriations bill. Today we are talking
about the authorization.
The fact is, it does not really matter what we are talking about
here, it should be debated in conference. We have already debated it ad
nauseam on the House floor, and to begin to offer a motion to instruct
on every controversial issue that comes before this body and is not
reconciled before conference is a waste of time and it is an assault on
the legislative process. We cannot get our work done if we keep acting
in this manner.
I urge my colleagues to allow the conferees on the foreign
appropriations bill and the foreign relations authorization act to do
their job in debating this issue, without these unnecessary and
intrusive motions to instruct. Leave it to them. They know the issue.
They are doing the best they can. They will come up with the best
resolution. This is not a good use of our time. We need to defeat this
instruction.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
This is not absurd. We are talking about saving the lives of unborn
human beings here. And for those that are critical of us that are
supporting this measure to instruct the conferees on the authorizing
side, I would just like to point out a couple of weeks ago that those
that felt frustrated and unable to offer their own amendment, and I
speak of the Gilman-Pelosi amendment, they held this House hostage for
several days in offering motions to adjourn or motions to this or
motions to that.
I do not see this as absurd. We are talking about human beings. That
is why the people of this country, by and large, have elected people
that support protecting the vulnerable children, whether they are in
the United States or any other place in the world, and I stand proudly
supporting the chairman's motion to instruct.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I may not use the 3 minutes, but that is not a promise, I say to
my colleagues.
I think the issue is clear, the same issue as the one we debated
yesterday, although I think a much more appropriate vehicle here, and I
am very glad the gentleman is offering this motion to instruct.
The issue is this. We do not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions
here in the United States. We should be clear and certain that we do
not do so abroad as well, and that is what we are talking about here,
making crystal-clear what I think is, people claim is implicit in the
setup: making it crystal-clear that American taxpayer dollars are not
going to be used directly or indirectly to subsidize abortion or
subsidize organizations that provide abortions, and if everybody agrees
that we ought to do that, I cannot see the objection to making it clear
with this particular language.
I am glad the gentleman offered the motion to instruct. I think it
shows respect for the millions of people in this country who believe
deeply as a matter of conscience, as I do, that this practice is wrong,
and hope some day that we can eliminate it not just here, but around
the world as well.
I want to say a word, also, about the particular vehicle for
resolving this kind of issue. I know that there are many people in the
House and many in the Senate who believe just as deeply and just as
passionately on the other side, and they do not want to see this
language go on. I am deeply concerned that if we fight this issue out
on the appropriations bill, it may end up jeopardizing some other very
important appropriations that do not have anything to do with this
issue, and I do not see why we should do it.
The issue should be fought out on the authorization bill. We should
take the whole issue, the whole issue of the population control money,
the whole issue of this proposed language, take it out of the
appropriations bill, resolve it in the authorization process where it
belongs.
I know that my long-suffering friend, the gentleman from Alabama, who
offers this motion to instruct, would much prefer not to have to deal
with this in his appropriations bill, and he is right. Let us support
this motion to instruct and let us all support taking this issue, the
money, the policy, all of it off, effectively getting it off the
appropriations process, onto the authorization bill, and then I hope
come to a compromise. If not, fight it out in good faith and as between
honorable people there.
I thank the gentleman for offering his motion. I intend to support
it.

{time} 1700

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would close for our side by simply saying that I
understand the frustration of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan], but there is a substantive issue here and a process one.
In substance, if the individuals who seek to impose this straitjacket
on the authorizing committee win, it is less likely that we can move
forward. The administration has taken a very clear position. This is a
very tough issue. Passing this instruction will not be helpful to
achieve the goal that most people here have expressed.
I think also from a policy perspective it is important to recognize
that if the proponents win with the Mexico City language, more
abortions will occur. It is all a function of where we draw the circle.
The Mexico City language now tries to take in entire organizations. I
guess we could take continents or countries and draw the circle that
broad.
But at the end of the day, if the proponents of the Mexico City
language on family planning are successful, more abortions will occur
across the globe. There is no debate on that.
I urge my colleagues to reject this motion.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the Members of this
body that I strongly support the Mexico City policy, and I am going to
support it because it is the will of the House and the conference, to
the best of my ability.

[[Page H8690]]

But the proper avenue for addressing this is through this vehicle,
through the authorizing committee. Because if we do not do it
permanently in the authorizing committee, we are going to be faced with
this battle year after year after year. The proper place to debate this
is in that committee. Most of the proponents, such as the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], are on that conference committee.
Unfortunately, Mr. Helms in the Senate has given strong indication
that he is willing to drop the language in the Senate. I do not know if
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] can hold the votes. If indeed
he can hold the votes, then we will not have to debate this issue on an
appropriation bill in the near future. That is exactly what this
resolution is intended to do.
That is exactly what we are encouraging the authorizing committee to
do. It is exactly what the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] wants
to do. We are going to probably receive a larger vote to have this done
in a responsible manner than they did through the appropriations
process yesterday.
I beg the Members to vote for this measure. Let us send it to the
committee of jurisdiction and responsibility, and I am sorry to tie the
House up this late in the evening.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect and the highest
esteem for the maker of this motion, Chairman Callahan. However, while
I agree with him on process, I cannot agree on the substance of this
motion.
We debated a motion to instruct on this identical issue on an
appropriations bill just yesterday. We have had at least seven votes on
this issue on three or four separate bills this year. Although I oppose
the gentleman's motion, I respect his desire to keep this issue in the
appropriations bill. This authorization bill, not an appropriations
bill, is the proper and appropriate place to discuss this difficult and
contentious issue.
I oppose this motion because I oppose the Mexico City policy. Mexico
City restrictions will cripple international family planning
organizations in providing family planning and reproductive health
services that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions
performed worldwide.
This is not a pro-life issue. This is not a pro-choice issue. This is
a women's reproductive health issue. During yesterday's debate, one of
my colleagues who supported the Mexico City gag rule also stated that
he supports responsible organizations that do engage in family
planning. Yet he was one of 147 Members of this body who are on record
voting to completely eliminate international family planning funding.
I agree with my colleagues who said yesterday that threat of a
Presidential veto on a bill filled with other important issues should
not be the sole basis for voting down this issue.
However, if some of my colleagues believe so passionately in the
Mexico City gag rule provisions, and I respect that they do, I
challenge them to introduce separate, free-standing legislation to do
what you will effectively do with this language--to eliminate all
international family planning.
The Mexico City provisions will crush our successful international
family planning efforts, which work to reduce the number of abortions
performed worldwide--in Russia, in Chile, in Colombia, in Hungary, the
list goes on and on.
My message today is very simple. Family planning reduces abortions.
Family planning saves lives. Mexico City restrictions gag family
planning efforts. I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to
instruct.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236,
noes 190, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 506]

AYES--236

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Torres
Traficant
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--190

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klug
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--7

Clay
Coburn
Gonzalez
Hilliard
Lewis (KY)
Schiff
Schumer

[[Page H8691]]

{time} 1722

Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________