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.
“ENSURING EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE HOUSE IN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY” mentioning the Federal Reserve System was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H1298-H1302 on Feb. 7, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ENSURING EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE HOUSE IN EXPENDITURE OF
PUBLIC MONEY
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 57) to preserve the constitutional role of the House of Representatives to provide for the expenditure of public money and ensure that the executive branch of the U.S. Government remains accountable to the House of Representatives for each expenditure of public money, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 57
Whereas rule IX of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides that questions of privilege shall arise whenever the rights of the House collectively are affected;
Whereas, under the precedents, customs, and traditions of the House pursuant to rule IX, a question of privilege has arisen in cases involving the constitutional prerogatives of the House;
Whereas section 8 of Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to ``coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins'';
Whereas section 9 of Article I of the Constitution provides that ``no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law'';
Whereas the President has recently sought the enactment of legislation to authorize the President to undertake efforts to support economic stability in Mexico and strengthen the Mexican peso;
Whereas the President announced on January 31, 1995, that actions are being taken to achieve the same result without the enactment of legislation by the Congress;
Whereas the obligation or expenditure of funds by the President without consideration by the House of Representatives of legislation to make appropriated funds available for obligation or expenditure in the manner proposed by the President raises grave questions concerning the prerogatives of the House and the integrity of the proceedings of the House;
Whereas the exchange stabilization fund was created by statute to stabilize the exchange value of the dollar and is also required by statute to be used in accordance
[[Page H1299]] with the obligations of the United States under the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund; and
Whereas the commitment of $20,000,000,000 of the resources of the exchange stabilization fund to Mexico by the President without congressional approval may jeopardize the ability of the fund to fulfill its statutory purposes: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Comptroller General of the United States shall prepare and transmit, within 7 days after the adoption of this resolution, a report to the House of Representatives containing the following:
(1) The opinion of the Comptroller General on whether any of the proposed actions of the President, as announced on January 31, 1995, to strengthen the Mexican peso and support economic stability in Mexico requires congressional authorization or appropriation.
(2) A detailed evaluation of the terms and conditions of the commitments and agreements entered into by the President, or any officer or employee of the United States acting on behalf of the President, in connection with providing such support, including the terms which provide for collateral or other methods of assuring repayment of any outlays by the United States.
(3) An analysis of the resources which the International Monetary Fund has agreed to make available to strengthen the Mexican peso and support economic stability in Mexico, including--
(A) an identification of the percentage of such resources which are attributable to capital contributions by the United States to such Fund; and
(B) an analysis of the extent to which the Fund's participation in such efforts will likely require additional contributions by member states, including the United States, to the Fund in the future.
(4) An evaluation of the role played by the Bank for International Settlements in international efforts to strengthen the Mexican peso and support economic stability in Mexico and the extent of the financial exposure of the United States, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, with respect to the Bank's activities.
(5) A detailed analysis of the relationships between the Bank for International Settlements and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and between the Bank and the Secretary of the Treasury, and the extent to which such relationships involve a financial commitment to the Bank or other members of the Bank, on the part of the United States, of public money or any other financial resources under the control of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
(6) An accounting of fund flows, during the 24 months preceding the date of the adoption of this resolution, through the exchange stabilization fund established under section 5302 of title 31, United States Code, the manner in which amounts in the fund have been used domestically and internationally, and the extent to which the use of such amounts to strengthen the Mexican peso and support economic stability in Mexico represents a departure from the manner in which amounts in the fund have previously been used, including conventional uses such as short-term currency swaps to defend the dollar as compared to intermediate- and long-term loans and loan guarantees to foreign countries.
{time} 1200
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] wish to be heard briefly on whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in the past few days a dozen Members of Congress, ranking from people on the ideological right, like the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], all the way to people on the ideological left, like the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], have asked the question of whether or not the role of Congress has been shortchanged in the decision by the President to use this fund to guarantee the loans to Mexico.
We have come to the conclusion that it is privileged under the Rules of the House of Representatives, under rule IX, Questions of Privilege. It states, ``Questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the House collectively.'' Obviously, the fact that every Member of this body was denied a vote on the matter is a matter of the House collectively.
Furthermore, in section 664 of rule IX, entitled ``General Principles,'' as to the precedent of questions of privilege, it states that ``As the business of the House began to increase, it was found necessary to give certain important matters a precedent by rule. Such matters were called privileged questions.'' Section 664 goes on and says, ``Certain matters of business arising under the Constitution mandatory in nature have been held to have a privilege which superseded the rules establishing the order of business.''
One provision of our Nation's Constitution that is most clearly mandatory in nature is article I, section 9, clause 7. It states, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.''
Mr. Speaker, this Congress cannot stand idly by and avoid our constitutional duty, a duty mandatory in nature.
I request that the Chair rule immediately on this resolution, and in making that ruling abide by section 664 of rule IX, General Principles, as to precedents of question and privilege.
Once again, it states that ``Certain matters of business arising under the provisions of the Constitution mandatory in nature have been held to have a privilege which has superseded the rules establishing the order of business.''
Obviously, 31 U.S.C. 5302 is unconstitutional because it allows the executive branch to exercise powers exclusively given to the Congress in the Constitution. Therefore, it is a matter which directly affects a provision of the Constitution mandatory in nature. This resolution is therefore a privileged resolution as defined by rule IX of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, since there were a dozen cosponsors of this resolution, each of us with an equal input, I would like the Chair to oblige those other Members who would like to speak on the matter.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is willing to hear other Members. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
Mrs. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise as an original sponsor of this legislation and in full support of our bipartisan efforts to get a vote on this very serious matter. Our resolution is very straightforward in attempting to reassert our rightful authority under the Constitution of the United States.
Our resolution simply requires that the Comptroller General report back to the Congress within 7 days, particularly with regard to a detailed evaluation of the terms and conditions of the commitments and agreements entered into by the President or any officer or employee of the United States acting on behalf of the President.
This is not an insignificant amount of money. From our study of this particular section of the law that the President claims he used in presenting this particular arrangement for Mexico, never, never in the history of the United States has that fund been used to such a large extent, over $20 billion, and it appears to be growing as the days go on, and never for this particular purpose.
As one looks down the road at the conditions in Mexico and the fact that inflation is out of control----
The SPEAKER. If the Chair may interrupt, the Chair is recognizing the gentlewoman from Ohio for the purpose of explaining why the resolution is privileged, not for the purpose of explaining its merits. The only question at stake at the moment is whether or not this meets the test of being privileged.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, let me say, is it the Chair's understanding that when any matter comes before the House for a vote, each Member's vote has equal value in standing? On any vote we might take?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will rule presently on the resolution under rule IX. The Chair at the moment is simply as a courtesy recognizing Members to explain why they believe it is a matter of privilege. The Chair will then rule on this resolution fitting into the rules of the House.
Ms. KAPTUR. We believe that this is a question of privilege of the House because of the constitutional role of the House of Representatives to provide for the expenditure of public money and ensure that the executive branch of the U.S. Government remains accountable to the House for each such expenditure of public money.
The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] referenced the section of the Constitution, article I, section 9. Let me reference article I, section 8 of our Constitution to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins.
[[Page H1300]] We believe this is a matter that involves every single Member of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it states, ``Questions of privilege shall arise whenever the rights of the House collectively are affected,'' and, further to the point, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
The issue is whether or not the authority previously extended by the House in a 1933 statute has been exceeded, and if it has been exceeded, then certainly the House is collectively affected, and most certainly we see a violation of section 9, article I of the Constitution.
Further, as the Speaker knows, appropriations are to originate in the House. In this instance we are dealing with large sums of money to be drawn on the U.S. Treasury which have not been appropriated by this House. So we feel that it is essential that the House assert its prerogative.
To tell the truth, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we can come to a final and dispositive determination whether or not there is a violation of the constitutional prerogatives of the House unless we have these questions answered, and unless the resolution goes forward they will not be answered.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, you and I or the President of the United States and I may disagree with the wisdom of the Mexican bailout, but I think very clearly the American people are wondering about what is happening to our Constitution and to the ability of Members of Congress to represent them.
Mr. Speaker, every single day Members come up here and they question this appropriation, whether this $50,000 is well spent, whether this
$200 million is well spent. It seems to me that the people of Vermont and the people all across this country are wondering about the Constitution when we are talking about putting at risk $40 billion of taxpayers' money without serious discussion and debate on the floor of the House.
It seems to me what the Constitution is about is that if the Members of the House and if the Members of the Senate want to approve this $40 billion bailout, OK. But it is incomprehensible, and it seems to me unconstitutional, that that bailout can take place without debate, without discussions, and without a vote.
So, Mr. Speaker, I very much support this privileged resolution, and hope that the Members will vote for it.
The SPEAKER. Having heard now from five Members, the Chair is prepared to rule on this. The Chair would first of all point out that the question before the House right now is not a matter of the wisdom of assistance to Mexico, nor is the question before the House right now a question of whether or not the Congress should act, nor is what is before the House a question of whether or not this would be an appropriate topic for committee hearings, for legislative markup, and bills to be reported.
What is before the House at the moment is a very narrow question of whether or not the resolution offered by the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Taylor] is a question of privilege. On that the Chair is prepared to rule.
The privileges of the House have been held to include questions relating to the constitutional prerogatives of the House with respect to revenue legislation, clause 1, section 1, article I of the Constitution, with respect to impeachment and matters incidental, and with respect to matters relating to the return of a bill to the House under a Presidential veto.
Questions of the privileges of the House must meet the standards of rule IX. Those standards address privileges of the House as a House, not those of Congress as a legislative branch.
{time} 1210
As to whether a question of the privileges of the House may be raised simply by invoking one of the legislative powers enumerated in section 8 of article I of the Constitution or the general legislative ``power of the purse'' in the seventh original clause of section 9 of that article, the Chair finds helpful guidance in the landmark precedent of May 6, 1921, which is recorded in Cannon's Precedents at volume 6, section 48. On that occasion, the Speaker was required to decide whether a resolution purportedly submitted in compliance with a mandatory provision of the Constitution, section 2 of the 14th amendment, relating to apportionment, constituted a question of the privileges of the House.
Speaker Gillett held that the resolution did not involve a question of privilege. His rationale bears quoting. And I quote.
This whole question of a constitutional privilege being superior to the rules of the House is a subject which the Chair has for many years considered and thought unreasonable. It seems to the Chair that where the Constitution orders the House to do a thing, the Constitution still gives the House the right to make its own rules and do it at such time and in such manner as it may choose. And it is a strained construction, it seems to the Chair, to say that because the Constitution gives a mandate that a thing shall be done, it therefore follows that any Member can insist that it shall be brought up at some particular time and in the particular way which he chooses.
If there is a constitutional mandate, the House ought by its rules to provide for the proper enforcement of that mandate, but it is still a question for the House how and when and under what procedure it shall be done. And a constitutional question, like any other, ought to be decided according to the rules that the House has adopted. But there have been a few constitutional questions, very few, which have been held by a series of decisions to be of themselves questions of privilege above the rules of the House. There is the question of the President's veto.
Another subject which has been given constitutional privilege is impeachment. It has been held that when a Member rises in his place and impeaches an officer of the government, he can claim a constitutional privilege which allows him at any time to push aside the other privileged business of the House.
Later in the same rule, Speaker Gillett made this observation, again I quote:
But this Rule IX was obviously adopted for the purpose of hindering the extension of constitutional or other privilege. If the question of the census and the question of apportionment were new questions, the Chair would rule that they were not questions of constitutional privilege, because, while of course it is necessary to obey the mandate of the Constitution and take a census every ten years and then make an apportionment, yet there is no reason why it should be done today instead of tomorrow. It seems to the Chair that no one Member ought to have the right to determine when it should come in in preference to the regular rules of the House but that the rules of the House or the majority of the House should decide it. But these questions have been decided to be privileged by a series of decisions, and the Chair recognizes the importance of following precedence in obeying a well-established rule, even if it is unreasonable, that this may be a government of laws and not of men.
The House Rules and Manual notes that under an earlier practice of the House, certain measures responding to mandatory provisions of the Constitution were held privileged and allowed to supersede the rules establishing the order of business. Examples included the census and apportionment measures mentioned by Speaker Gillett. But under later decisions, exemplified by Speaker Gillett's in 1921, matters that have no other basis in the Constitution or in the rules on which to qualify as questions of the privileges of the House have been held not to constitute the same. The effect of those decisions has been to require that all questions of privilege qualify within the meaning of Rule IX.
The ordinary rights and functions of the House under the Constitution are exercised in accordance with the rules of the House, without necessarily being accorded precedence as questions of the privileges of the House.
Consistent with the principles enunciated by Speaker Gillett, the House considered in 1941 the joint resolutions to declare war on Japan, Germany and Italy by way of motions to suspend the rules. On July
10, 1991, again in consonance with these principles, the House adopted a special order of business reported from the Committee on Rules to enable its consideration of a concurrent resolution on the need for congressional authorization for military action, a concurrent resolution on a proposed policy to reverse Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, and a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq pursuant to a United Nations Security Council Resolution.Finally, the Chair observes that in 1973, the House and the Senate, again
[[Page H1301]] consistent with Speaker Gillett's rationale, chose to exercise their respective constitutional powers to make their own rules by including in the War Powers Resolution provisions according privilege to specified legislative measures relating to the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to hostilities. It must be noted the procedures exist under the rules of the House that enable the House to request or compel the executive branch to furnish such information as it may require.
The Chair will continue today to adhere to the same principles enunciated by Speaker Gillett. The Chair holds that neither the enumeration in the fifth clause of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of Congressional Powers ``to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins,'' nor the prohibition in the seventh original clause of section 9 of that article of any withdrawal from the Treasury except by enactment of an appropriation, renders a measure purporting to exercise or limit the exercise of those powers a question of the privileges of the House.
The resolution offered by the gentleman from Mississippi recites the enumerated powers of Congress relating to the regulation of currency and the general legislative ``power of the purse,'' and resolves that the Comptroller General conduct a multifaceted evaluation of recent actions taken by the President to use the Economic Stabilization Fund in support of the currency of Mexico and to report thereon to the House.
It bears repeating that questions of privileges of the House are governed by rule IX and that rule IX is not concerned with the privileges of the Congress, as a legislative branch, but only with the privileges of the House, as a House.
The Chair holds that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Mississippi does not affect ``the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, or the integrity of its proceedings'' within the meaning of clause 1 of rule IX. Although it may address the aspect of legislative power under the Constitution, it does not involve a constitutional privilege of the House. Were the Chair to rule otherwise, then any alleged infringement by the executive branch, even, for example, through the regulatory process, on a legislative power conferred on Congress by the Constitution would give rise to a question of the privileges of the House. In the words of Speaker Gillett, ``no one Member ought to have the right to determine when it should come in in preference to the regular rules of the House.''
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The chair has ruled that this is not a privileged resolution.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that there be a reconsideration on the ruling of the Chair, because I believe that the precedents so cited do not apply. This is not, in the opinion of the drafters, simply to be an infringement by the executive branch.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman's parliamentary inquiry is moot. The Chair has, in fact, ruled that this resolution, as drafted, does not meet the procedures required for being a question of privilege and that is based upon very thorough study by the Parliamentarian of the precedents of the House.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker has gone to great pains to research the precedents of the House, I would like to point out to the Speaker that in the past whether or not the ceiling tiles were properly affixed to the ceiling of this Chamber has been ruled as a privileged resolution.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would respond to the gentleman from Mississippi, that relates directly to the safety of the House.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that the original custom of this body was to present any question of a privilege of the House to the Members and let the Members decide whether they felt it was a privilege of the House that was being violated. Is the Speaker willing to grant the Members of this House that same privilege?
The SPEAKER. The Chair would simply note that the Chair is following precedent as has been established over the last 70 years and that that precedent seems to be more than adequate. And in that context, the Chair has ruled this does not meet the test for a question of privilege.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry: What is the procedure for----
The SPEAKER. The only appropriate procedure, if the gentleman feels that the precedents are wrong, would be to appeal the ruling of the Chair and allow the House to decide whether or not to set a new precedent by overruling the Speaker.
{time} 1220
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I would like Members of Congress to be granted the 1 hour that the House rules allow for to speak on this matter.
preferential motion offered by mr. armey
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Armey moves to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.
parliamentary inquiry
Ms. KAPTUR. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman will state the parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, am I correct in understanding that the motion to table this appeal is not debatable?
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman is correct.
Ms. KAPTUR. And thus, Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress will be deprived by this vote without any type of a debate on the authority vested in our constitutional rights to vote on this issue?
The SPEAKER. The Chair would say to the gentlewoman that the motion is not debatable.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ``ayes'' appeared to have it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
This vote will be 17 minutes total.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 288, nays 143, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 96]
YEAS--288
AllardArcherArmeyBachusBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BaldacciBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerraBeilensonBentsenBereuterBermanBilirakisBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBoucherBrownbackBryant (TN)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCardinCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenChryslerClingerCoburnColemanCollins (GA)CombestCooleyCoxCraneCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDavisde la GarzaDeLauroDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDixonDoggettDooleyDoolittleDreierDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnsignEverettEwingFawellFazioFields (TX)FlakeFlanaganFogliettaFoleyForbesFordFowlerFoxFrank (MA)Franks (CT)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGerenGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGreenGreenwoodGundersonGutierrezGutknechtHamiltonHancockHansenHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHeinemanHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHokeHornHostettlerHoughtonHutchinsonHydeInglisJackson-LeeJeffersonJohnson (CT)
[[Page H1302]] Johnson, SamJohnstonJonesKasichKellyKennedy (MA)KennellyKimKingKingstonKnollenbergKolbeLaFalceLaHoodLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLinderLivingstonLoBiondoLongleyLucasMaloneyMantonManzulloMarkeyMartiniMatsuiMcCarthyMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMeehanMetcalfMeyersMfumeMicaMiller (FL)MinetaMoakleyMolinariMoorheadMoranMorellaMyrickNealNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodNussleOlverOrtizOxleyPackardPastorPaxonPayne (VA)PelosiPetriPickettPomboPorterPortmanPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaReynoldsRichardsonRiggsRobertsRogersRos-LehtinenRothRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushSalmonSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSchumerSeastrandSensenbrennerSerranoShadeggShawShaysShusterSkaggsSkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceStenholmStockmanStuddsStumpTalentTateTejedaThomasThornberryThorntonTiahrtTorkildsenTorresTorricelliUptonVentoVolkmerVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWardWatersWatts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)WellerWhiteWickerWilliamsWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)ZeliffZimmer
NAYS--143
AbercrombieAckermanAndrewsBaeslerBarciaBarrett (WI)BevillBilbrayBishopBorskiBrewsterBrowderBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)Bryant (TX)ChapmanClayClaytonClementClyburnCobleCollins (IL)Collins (MI)ConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerDannerDealDeFazioDellumsDeutschDingellDoyleDuncanDurbinEngelEnglishEshooEvansFarrFattahFields (LA)FilnerFurseGibbonsGonzalezGordonHall (OH)Hall (TX)HarmanHastings (FL)HayesHefnerHilliardHincheyHoldenHoyerHunterIstookJacobsJohnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKennedy (RI)KildeeKleczkaKlinkKlugLantosLargentLincolnLipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMartinezMascaraMcDermottMcHaleMcKinneyMcNultyMeekMenendezMiller (CA)MingeMinkMollohanMontgomeryMurthaMyersNadlerOberstarObeyOrtonOwensPalloneParkerPayne (NJ)Peterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PomeroyPoshardRahallRangelReedRiversRoemerRohrabacherRoseSaboSandersSchroederScottSisiskySlaughterSprattStarkStearnsStokesStupakTannerTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThompsonThurmanTownsTraficantTuckerVelazquezViscloskyWatt (NC)Weldon (PA)WhitfieldWilsonWiseWoolseyWydenWynn
NOT VOTING--3
DornanFrostYates
{time} 1240
Messrs. SPRATT, SABO, MASCARA, and WYNN, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. COYNE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. HOEKSTRA, EWING, TIAHRT, HEINEMAN, JONES, DICKEY, FUNDERBURK, KENNEDY of Massachusetts, and OLVER, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. SMITH of Washington, Mr. TORRES, and Mr. SANFORD changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
