The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2883, GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 1998” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H1117-H1121 on March 12, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2883, GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND
RESULTS ACT TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 1998
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 384 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 384
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2883) to amend provisions of law enacted by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to improve Federal agency strategic plans and performance reports. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI 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 Government Reform and Oversight. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 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 6 of rule XXIII. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Stearns) to speak out of order.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to proceed out of order for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Olympic Committee's 5th Olympic Dinner
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration of the Members. I want to call the Members' attention to an upcoming event, the United States Olympic Committee's fifth Olympic dinner.
As co-chair of this dinner, I can assure the membership this will be a great event. The President and Vice President usually attend, along with Members of the House and Senate. Dozens and dozens of Olympic athletes, many making their first appearance since performing in Nagano, will be there so that we all can honor them.
The day of the dinner, many of the Olympians will visit areas schools as part of the Champions in Life program, as athletes get a firsthand opportunity to instill the values of the Olympic movement in the minds and hearts of young people in this community.
The United States is one of the few countries in the world whose government does not support its Olympic athletes financially. Our athletes are supported by the American people, volunteers and contributors. The least we can do is endorse their efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the dinner is April 29 and I hope all my colleagues will attend.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentelwoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that once again the Committee on Rules has reported a completely open rule. H. Res. 384 will provide for fair and thorough debate of House Resolution 2883, the Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments of 1997.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill.
Under the rule, any germane amendment may be offered and any Member of this House who wishes to improve upon the bill may do so. However, priority recognition will be given to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.
After the amendment process there will be another opportunity for those who oppose the bill to be heard through the motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule provides only one waiver which pertains to a 3-day layover requirement for the committee reports.
Finally, to facilitate consideration of H.R. 2883, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes as long as any postponed question follows a 15-minute vote.
Mr. Speaker, as the custodians of our Nation's purse strings, Congress has an incredible responsibility. We have been entrusted to safeguard the hard-earned money that the taxpayers send to Washington. It is our responsibility to see to it that those dollars are spent wisely and that the American people get the biggest bang for their buck, and that is what today's debate is all about.
With passage of the Government Performance and Results Act in 1993, we took an important first step toward fulfilling our responsibility. Very simply, the Results Act requires Federal departments and agencies to set measurable performance goals in an effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government, a common sense request to achieve a very important goal.
However, it appears that many Federal agencies do not feel quite the same sense of responsibility to the taxpayers that Congress does. Many agencies were reluctant to develop the strategic plans required by the act. And finally, when they did submit their initial drafts, the results were disappointing at best.
For example, very few agencies linked their mission statements to the actual statutory authority under which they operate. This suggests that agencies do not set their goals and priorities based on what the agency has been designed and mandated to do.
Another troubling pattern among the agencies was their insufficient attention to fundamental problems, such as management weaknesses, reliability of data, or duplicative functions. These are essential issues that must be examined by any organization that hopes to be even remotely effective.
But even though these agencies earned failing grades for their plans and appeared to be way off course in terms of fulfilling their primary functions, they were still unwilling to exert the extra effort required to make the grade. Congress asked the agencies to go back and improve upon their plans, but under existing law the agencies do not have to submit any additional information for three more years.
H.R. 2883 addresses this roadblock to progress by requiring the submission of revised agency reports by the end of this fiscal year. These reports must provide the fundamental information lacking in the previous reports to ensure that an accurate picture of the agencies' operations is painted.
Now, some oppose this bill, claiming it would be too burdensome for the agencies, but this is not about the bureaucracy's hardship, this is about the unjustifiable financial burden we place on American taxpayers. If Congress takes its responsibilities to the taxpayers seriously, we cannot just talk about a smaller, smarter, common-sense government, we must back that rhetoric with action. And it is not enough to simply pass a bill to require accountability among agencies if we do not enforce it. We must demand compliance, and if the law proves too weak it is incumbent upon Congress to strengthen it.
Mr. Speaker, we must be relentless in our pursuit for complete and honest information that will allow us to make wise decisions and prudent investments of taxpayers' dollars. H.R. 2883 takes us to the next step in our quest for efficient, effective government by requiring agencies to fill in the gaps and glaring omissions in their strategic plans sooner rather than later. The taxpayers deserve no less.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would remind my colleagues that this is a fair rule providing a wide open amendment process and thorough debate on the issue at hand. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and support all our Nation's taxpayers by voting ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the proposed rule would allow all germane amendments to be offered, and while I support the open rule, I am somewhat dismayed that the Committee on Rules chose not to allow a related amendment which would have implemented one of the first promises in the majority's Contract With America.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Dennis Kucinich), the subcommittee ranking member, brought to the Committee on Rules an amendment he had offered at the full committee. The amendment would have fulfilled the Contract With America's pledge that Congress should abide by the mandates it places on others. His amendment would have applied the Government Performance and Results Act to the committees of the Congress.
It does seem inconsistent that the majority chose not to allow a vote on applying the act's requirements to Congress. If we are serious about holding government accountable and improving its efficiency and effectiveness, we should certainly start in our own back yard.
I also have concerns about the underlying bill. I strongly supported the Government Performance and Results Act when it became law in 1993. The goal of GPRA was to make agencies undertake strategic planning and performance evaluations to streamline their operations and to make them more efficient. And I am a firm believer that the government needs to be accountable and continually strive to improve its economy and efficiency.
However, H.R. 2883 contradicts this spirit. A central requirement of this bill is the resubmission of strategic plans by all covered agencies by September 30, 1998. The premise of this new requirement is that the plans submitted less than 6 months ago were all so unusable as to be worthless. This is simply not true. The General Accounting Office has concluded that the current strategic plans provide a workable foundation for Congress to use in helping to fulfill its appropriations, budget, authorization and oversight responsibilities.
Instead of starting over at square one, the GPRA process should continue under the oversight of the appropriate authorization and appropriations committees of jurisdiction.
{time} 1030
It is inefficient and uneconomical to require all agencies to repeat work that they have just completed no matter whether their plan was prepared well or poorly. Let us move ahead with the Reinventing Government initiative rather than going backward.
Mr. Speaker, while I have reservations about the underlying bill, I do not oppose this open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express strong support for this wide-open rule and for H.R. 2883, the Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments.
President Reagan used to say that the most frightening greeting was,
``Hello, I'm with the Federal Government and I'm here to help you.'' I think a close second would be, ``I'm with the Federal Government, and you can trust me to spend your money wisely.''
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to common-sense decision making and spending money wisely, the grades on performance by Federal agencies are in. Unfortunately, the average score has risen only from 29.9 to 46.6. I think most American children could imagine the reaction of their parents if they brought home report cards that looked like these. This is, unbelievably, an improvement, but it is still obviously inadequate.
We must insist on a smaller, smarter, common-sense government. That is why this legislation sends a message to agencies to come up with a more solid strategic plan that allows us to monitor performance clearly and directly. Congress passed the Results Act to hold Federal agencies accountable for efficiency and achieving results. This bill can be a tremendous tool to eliminate waste and fraud in the government, and today's legislation is designed to maximize the use of this tool.
The Federal Government spends trillions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money, and it is very important for all of us to remember that it is not the Federal Government's money. On the first day, an American citizen pays a cent in taxes, that citizen becomes a shareholder in the Government and wants to see a healthy return on their investment.
I support reinforcing the Results Act, because I cannot believe that any shareholder in any company would every tolerate mismanagement, waste, or illogical planning. In our commitment to hold the Government accountable to those who pay for it, this bill creates the framework for the American people to judge how their money is being spent.
Mr. LINDER. As for those who express concern that this bill does not include in it oversight of committees of Congress, let me remind them that this bill was passed in 1993, when the Democrats were in the majority, and they chose not to include oversight of the committees of Congress that they were at the time sharing. This is merely a technical amendment to that act, following their lines.
I strongly support enhancing this performance-based management system in order to ensure that this government achieves results-oriented goals and reacts to serious management problems. The American people expect smarter decisions based on common sense and they want to see results as soon as possible.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote in favor of this very important legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate as the ranking member of the committee. And I am pleased to be here with my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), to speak about our concerns about the bill.
But first of all, I want to say I support the rule, but I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not shield from a point of order an amendment that I think would be quite significant, which I want to speak about in a few seconds. But first of all, I am a little bit concerned at the outset, as we are starting this debate, about this persistent attack on government itself. I mean this is our government. This is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people; and I think that these attacks on government that are occurring here ought to be exposed for what they are. They are really attacks on the democratic process itself and on the people's right to self-determination, to have a government, administration, and the Congress have direct control over this government.
So I think that is going to be part of the issue that is going to be debated here today. And, also, we are going to debate whether or not we are truly accomplishing efficiency by asking 100 Federal agencies to have to do reports all over again, reports that took months and months to prepare, reports that we are now told all of them are trash, government agencies which are working for the people in this country, after they spent long hours being accountable proving what the performances were, proving what their plans are, and then having all those things thrown out on the basis of a grading system that no one has even explained. We need to debate that today, too, even as we can say well, we accept the rule.
Mr. Speaker, when I testified before the Committee on Rules yesterday, I asked the rule to protect an amendment from a parliamentary point of order. However, the honorable opposition apparently does not wish to have any debate about whether the committees of Congress ought to be subject to the same sound management practices which are required from Federal agencies. And that is a shame, because it is clear to me, after only a year in this Congress, that our congressional committees need greater accountability and efficiency. And I think it would be of great benefit to the congressional committees, which are operated honorably and with great skill by our friends on the other side of the aisle, I think this would be a great benefit to have those committees be accountable to the Government Performance and Results Act in the same way that the administration should be. If we are serious about holding governmental agencies accountable, I think we should show by example and start right here in the Congress.
When we passed GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act, our goal was to make the government more accountable not only to the Congress, but to the American people. We wanted agencies to set out clear goals and to set a plan for reaching those goals. And that is important. That was the right thing to do. And by requiring agencies to know where they are going and how they are going to get there, we hope to make government more efficient and to eliminate waste and duplication and add something. That is something I think all of us can agree on; we all agree that Government should be more efficient and that we should eliminate waste and duplication.
In the beginning of the 104th Congress, Mr. Speaker, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act; and then, for the first time, Congress was asked to abide by the same laws everyone else has to abide by. And that is what my amendment would have done. And I said it then and it was said then and I agree that Congress writes better laws and it has to live by the laws that it imposes on the executive branch and the private sector.
The goal of a more efficient government is just as important for Congress as it is for the executive branch. Congressional committees, like executive agencies, should set out a clear plan on what they hope to accomplish and how they hope to accomplish it. We in Congress should be held accountable for eliminating waste and duplication.
So, Mr. Speaker, today I am hopeful that we will have an opportunity to apply GPRA to Congress, which would undoubtedly give Members of Congress better insight into strategic planning and performance-based management and would help us write better laws, which I know we are all here to do.
The bill came out of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I think that, when we look at the campaign finance investigation, we could see that, if we had strategic planning concepts involved there, that would make for some better investigations and probably eliminated a lot of the duplication, and this would help the committees, the Congress and the country.
For example, the Commerce Department received 64 requests for documents in connection with campaign finance inquiries from nine different congressional committees. As of last September 1997, the Commerce Department submitted almost a million, 1 million pages of documents in response to these requests at a total cost of $2 million.
So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if we apply GPRA to Congress and committees, I think we could eliminate some waste and duplication that has characterized even the most sincere efforts to try to investigate things in this administration as well as across the country.
We would save the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. Requiring Congress to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act is just common sense. I am hopeful that, when we get to that process, we will get that amendment approved.
Again, I am supporting the rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me say to my colleague who just spoke, the gentleman from Ohio, that I am sorry his amendment will not be made in order because of the Rules of the House. What I would like to do is inform the gentleman that we do have accountability in the Congress. It is not necessary to put it in this particular bill.
In every session, an oversight plan has to be filed with the Committee on House Oversight by February 15. Every committee in the House does that. So we already do that.
If the gentleman would refer to page 427 of the Rules of the House, and I would like to read it to him, he will find that not later than February 15 of the first session of the Congress, each standing committee of the House shall, and we do, in a meeting that is open to the public, and with a quorum present, adopt its oversight plans for that Congress.
Such plans shall be submitted simultaneously to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, our committee on which the gentleman and I serve, and to the Committee on House Oversight, the committee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
In developing such plans, each committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, and then it goes on and lays out very clearly what we are supposed to do. That changes from time to time with each session of Congress.
Let me just say that we have oversight plans from each committee of Congress. All we want to do with the bill we have before us today is to apply businesslike standards and requirements for every agency of government so that the taxpayer who pays the bills for all this gets the bang for the buck that they want.
We get that in the Congress. The rules of the House spell it out very clearly. I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio, the very distinguished former mayor of Cleveland, take a good look at the rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who I am very honored to serve with in this Congress, I would say that, if there is a sense in which we are already doing it, then, perhaps, there should not be any objection to the amendment that I am offering, which simply asks that Congress has to respond in the same way that the executive agencies have to through the Government Performance and Results Act.
While I, too, agree with my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Burton), that there ought to be businesslike standards involved, I do not know any business that could survive having to do the same plans over and over.
We have the largest business in America here. It is the United States of America. We have 100 different agencies that did strategic planning. We did the plans. The plans were complete. Now, we are told that every one of those plans, somehow every single one of them are not worth anything. They should be thrown out. We have to start all over again.
I would say that is not very businesslike and that is not very efficient. I say that with all due respect to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I will save substantive remarks on the proposal as a whole for the debate. But I would like to say a few things in response to my fine colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the new ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology.
Number one, in 1993 the original Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 was bipartisan and overwhelmingly supported by this Chamber. One agency in the bill that was specifically exempt was the General Accounting Office. Why? Because it is part of the legislative branch. We do not have jurisdiction in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and its Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, which I chair, on matters in the legislative branch or the judicial branch. We have jurisdiction over what happens in the executive branch.
We are coming here today to make sure that the plans that were passed on a bipartisan basis in the 103d Congress controlled by the Democrats will be brought up to date. It is not a case of dumping plans. It is getting them right in the first place. That is what we are talking about.
Since I am reminded of 1993, when the base legislation was passed on a bipartisan basis, I would merely like to observe that the House spent
$1 million in that Congress on a reform group chaired by two of our most distinguished colleagues who are still in Congress, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), Democrat, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), Republican. They did an outstanding job.
Most of us wanted those reform proposals to come to the floor in the Democratic Congress. Yet, neither the Speaker at that time--the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley)--nor the Majority Leader at that time--the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt)--would let that reform proposal come to the floor. That is what is wrong.
When we took over in the 104th Congress, we did the first audit since 1789. This place had never been audited. Every Member received a copy of that audit. So for the first time in the history of the Congress, Members knew where the money was going around here.
{time} 1045
Number two, the Speaker substantially reorganized committees on our side. Hundreds of people that were not necessary were let go. We honed the subcommittees to get the job done.
We are still doing that. We are very conscious of it. As the chairman of the full committee said, we have our basic jurisdiction set out in the rules. We have looked at the Rules of the House. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight receives the oversight plan from every other committee, and if they have a hole in their proposal, our committee can get into the issues involved with relation to the executive branch.
But that is the issue. It is not Congress. It is the executive branch.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak more on this bill when we get into the general debate, but I did want to take this opportunity to clarify the record. The GPRA legislation, the underlying bill that we are considering today, did pass the House by a bipartisan majority. It was overwhelmingly approved. The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) has made that statement. But he and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Burton) have both told us that we cannot now apply the same standards to the Congress because, one, it is not within the jurisdiction, the House rules would prevent it, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
These are excuses. They are the kind of excuses that I am surprised to hear from the other side. Because one of the things the Republicans did, for which they deserve a great deal of credit, is when we organized the Congress in 1995, they said that the rules that are going to apply to everyone else should also apply to the Congress. It was a reform that was long overdue. We all supported it. I was even amazed why we had not thought of it earlier. But the fact of the matter is, it made sense.
But now we are hearing excuses about why we cannot have the same rules that this legislation sets up for the executive branch apply to the Congress. There is no reason for it. The House rules do not prevent it. It is not unprecedented.
Let me give my colleagues an example. Congress passed legislation dealing with unfunded mandates, requirements on other levels of government. We said, if the executive branch develops a proposal or regulation that is going to provide for an unfunded mandate, they are going to require special isolation of that issue so that it is clear that is what they are doing; and the same would apply to the Congress.
Both the Congress and the executive branch were covered in that legislation, appropriately. Why should we say that they cannot pass unfunded mandates, but we can; or we should not give any special consideration to unfunded mandates on either the executive branch or the legislative branch?
Let me give my colleagues a second example. Our very committee has a bill dealing with standards for child care. Very appropriate. In that legislation they talk about standards that would apply to child care that would be administered by the executive branch. But in that same bill, they require the same standards to apply to child care run by the legislative branch. It makes sense.
Let us not hear excuses why in the rule we are not going to permit an amendment that would apply the same standards to the Congress that we are asking of the administration, and that is that we develop a reasonable plan.
I will have more to say about this when we get into general debate, but I did not want anybody watching this debate to be fooled by all of these excuses.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, to close, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule. This is what I requested on behalf of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
It is an open rule. It provides opportunities for various Members of the House on both sides of the aisle to offer constructive amendments and suggestions.
We have had a lot of people on the staff of this committee and the subcommittee and the majority leader's office, who have done very helpful things. I will acknowledge them and their splendid work at the conclusion of the debate. But I want particularly to note at this time the work of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) who chairs the Results Caucus. I hope he will have a lot to say on the substantive aspects once this rule is adopted.
I also particularly thank at this time the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney), the retiring minority ranking member who has had some very constructive amendments; and we have worked out most of those details, and we will deal with that in the substantive debate. She has been a constructive member of this subcommittee for the last three years, and we are sorry she is leaving to be the Ranking Minority Member on the Census Subcommittee.
Again, we have an excellent bill. It is a good rule. I urge our colleagues in both parties to support both.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I remind this body that this is an open rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady). The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Without objection, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on approving the Journal on which proceedings will resume immediately after this 15-minute vote on adopting the resolution.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 412, nays 0, not voting 18, as follows:
YEAS--412
AbercrombieAderholtAllenAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBermanBerryBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBradyBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenClayClaytonClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditConyersCookCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCrapoCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFawellFazioFilnerFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFoxFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreenGreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHefnerHergerHillHillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoekstraHoldenHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee (TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJonesKanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKilpatrickKimKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLoBiondoLoweyLucasLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMetcalfMicaMillender-McDonaldMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNealNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensOxleyPackardPallonePappasParkerPascrellPastorPaulPaxonPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRegulaReyesRiggsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyunSaboSalmonSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerScarboroughSchaefer, DanSchaffer, BobScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanShimkusShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, AdamSmith, LindaSnowbargerSnyderSolomonSpenceSprattStabenowStarkStearnsStenholmStokesStricklandStumpStupakSununuTalentTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThompsonThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyTorresTownsTraficantTurnerUptonVelazquezVentoViscloskyWalshWampWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygandWhiteWhitfieldWickerWiseWolfWoolseyWynnYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
AckermanCraneFurseGonzalezHarmanJohnJohnson (CT)LivingstonLofgrenMcHughPoshardRedmondSanchezSaxtonSchiffSchumerSouderTanner
{time} 1111
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii and Mr. BARTON of Texas changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
