[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 80 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4957-H4962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4609, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE,
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I
call up House Resolution 529 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 529
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4690) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except as follows: page 102, lines 15 through 17.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until
[[Page H4958]]
a time during further consideration in the Committee of the
Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2)
reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting
on any postponed question that follows another electronic
vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum
time for electronic voting on the first in any series of
questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 1315
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), my
colleague and my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time is
yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is an open rule that will
allow us to have a full and open and fair debate of the issues
contained within H.R. 4690, the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and
Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for Fiscal Year 2001.
This open rule waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate to be equally
divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by
paragraph.
The rule waives clause 2 of the rule XXI against provisions in the
bill, except as clarified by the rule. Clause 2 of rule XXI prohibits
unauthorized or legislative provisions or transfers of funds in an
appropriations bill.
The rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record.
The rule permits the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is very important. H.R. 4690
provides funding for the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and State,
as well as funding for the Federal Judiciary.
Very briefly, the Department of Justice is tasked with providing
American citizens protection through effective law enforcement.
The Department of Commerce has four basic missions: promoting the
development of American business, increasing foreign trade, improving
the Nation's technological competitiveness, and encouraging economic
development.
The State Department has a mission to advance and protect the
worldwide interests and assets of the United States.
Finally, appropriations for the Judiciary cover the Supreme Court as
well as lower Federal district courts.
Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule and the underlying legislation will
ensure our Government has adequate funding to fight the war on drugs
and crime.
This Republican Congress has a record of success on drug and crime
prevention programs contained within this legislation. Under the
funding priorities set by these yearly appropriations, our Nation's
violent crime rate has decreased for 5 straight years.
In fact, the bill provides an increase of $1.75 billion over last
year's level for the Department of Justice. That is $128 million more
than the President requested.
The total funding for the Department of Justice under this
legislation is more than $20 billion. That number is far too large for
us to comprehend. However, each one of us is affected by these programs
that are funded by and within this Department.
The program within the Department of Justice that immediately comes
to my mind is the ``weed and seed'' program. Through this program, law
enforcement officers receive community-policing training with a special
emphasis on mediation skills. Officers are taught to literally pull the
weeds, the troublemakers, out of communities and replace them with
seeds, law-abiding citizens, which will help a community grow and
prosper.
Vicki Martin, a friend of mine, who heads the Ferguson Road
Initiative in Dallas, Texas, is our team leader using the weed and seed
dollars provided by the Department of Justice. By using this Federal
money, Vicki Martin and the Ferguson Road Initiative have successfully
increased the quality of life for persons within my congressional
district.
Not only does this legislation fund the agencies that make Americans
safer at home, it also provides security for Americans serving abroad.
All of us were troubled by the bombings of United States embassies in
Africa just a few years ago. A report after those bombings revealed
severe security lapses at other U.S. Government facilities abroad also.
This legislation will demonstrate Congress's commitment to protect
our overseas posts and employees by providing $1.06 billion for
worldwide security improvements.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take 1 minute to comment on one issue
within this bill that is also very important to me.
In light of recent attacks to private sector Web sites, I have become
increasingly aware and concerned about the vulnerability of the Federal
Government's computer systems to terrorist attack. Tragically, the
current administration has failed to address this as a significant
threat.
Recently the United States General Accounting Office reported that
almost every Government agency is plagued by poor computer security.
Specifically, the GAO reports that weaknesses in computer security at
the Defense Department provide computer hackers the opportunity to
modify, steal, and destroy sensitive data. The Department of State
mainframe computers for domestic operations are also very susceptible
to cyber terrorists according to the GAO.
In my view, the lack of attention paid to cyber security by the
Clinton-Gore administration is one of the biggest and most glaring
examples of mismanagement and is a threat to our national security.
I had wished to offer an amendment to this appropriations measure to
address this issue of cyber security. I had hoped that at least $10
million of the money allocated to the State Department for security
improvements would be directed to tighten information security at the
Department.
I understand this amendment would constitute legislating on
appropriations and would first need to be considered by the appropriate
authorizing committee. This being the case, I chose not to offer this
amendment to the appropriations bill. However, I am pleased that the
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has agreed to work with me to
see that that important issue is addressed in the coming year.
By avoiding controversial legislative provisions on appropriations
bills, the House leadership has moved appropriations bills in a manner
consistent with finishing properly by the end of this fiscal year.
Accordingly, I encourage other Members who intend to offer amendments
to this appropriations that are legislative in nature to join me in
supporting this rule and working to address other issues in their
proper context and through the regular order of the House.
Mr. Speaker, with this Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary
appropriations bill, the Committee on Appropriations has once again
managed to balance a wide array of interests and make tough choices
with limited resources. This legislation funds important programs to
reflect our national priorities while keeping within the confines of a
balanced Federal budget.
I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their work on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue the careful manner in
which this legislation was crafted and to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4959]]
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions)
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule and it will allow for consideration
of H.R. 4690.
As my colleague from Texas has explained, this rule will provide for
general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
This allows germane amendments under the 5-minute rule, which is the
normal amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the
aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments that do not violate
the rules for appropriation bills.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a time of unparalleled economic growth. Never
before has any nation experienced the prosperity this country now
enjoys. We can afford investing in our future.
However, once again, we are faced with an appropriations bill which
does not adequately fund critical Government programs for law
enforcement, international diplomacy, civil rights, and scientific
research.
This bill cuts the President's request for international peacekeeping
by $241 million. This is shortsighted because money for peacekeeping is
an investment in avoiding a more tragic and expensive war.
Provisions in the bill will prevent the United States from paying its
full dues in the United Nations. This undercuts our position as a world
leader.
The bill reduces the President's request for the Federal Trade
Commission by $30 million. This is at a time when the FTC is launching
an investigation, and we are asking them to do this, into the high
prices of gasoline in the Midwest at the request of many of us.
The FTC is also in the middle of an investigation of the high prices
of prescription drugs. Now is not the time to jeopardize these critical
issues.
The bill underfunds Community Oriented Policing Services, gun
enforcement initiatives, antitrust enforcement and consumer protection,
counterterrorism, antidrug campaigns, and civil rights enforcement.
The bill underfunds Violence Against Women programs. I am especially
familiar with the effects of cuts in these programs. In my district,
the Artemis Center for Alternatives to Domestic Violence has
successfully used these grants to assist victims and reduce domestic
violence in the Dayton, Ohio, area. However, cuts in the last few years
have threatened the effectiveness of this group.
The list goes on and on.
The Committee on Rules considered a number of Democratic amendments
that would increase funding for programs covered under this bill. The
Republican-controlled Committee on Rules rejected every one.
Now is the time that we must use the national wealth to invest in the
future.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the rule and the
underlying funding of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill.
This bill simply does not provide enough funding for one of the most
important crime prevention programs we have today, the COPS program,
and it weakens several other important programs, as well.
I remember standing here just last October to speak against last
year's CJS appropriations bill because it underfunded the COPS program.
It is amazing to me that we must once again have this fight about
funding what is a proven, effective, and necessary program to fight
crime in our communities. With pork barrel projects funded year after
year, I cannot understand why we cannot agree on full funding for the
COPS program.
A number of amendments to increase funding for the COPS program will
be offered today, and I hope everyone will support them. Because the
main principle behind the COPS program is to put officers in this
Nation's communities and on the streets, fighting crime in our cities,
our suburbs, and our towns.
Currently, over 80 percent of law enforcement agencies employ the
community policing philosophy making it the predominant crime fighting
strategy in America. I am sure my colleagues have all heard of the
excited response from their local police departments when we tell them
that they have just received one of the COPS grants.
This program works. On May 12, 1999, the United States Department of
Justice and COPS funded the 100,000th officer ahead of schedule and
under budget. That is 100,000 officers working on the front lines to
protect our communities and our citizens, making a visible difference,
and contributing to the drop in crime that has lasted 8 consecutive
years.
I support the President's plan to continue the COPS program for an
additional 5 years to add up to 50,000 more police officers on the
beat.
{time} 1330
I support the COPS programs that fund additional prosecutors, cops in
schools and training and technology equipment for law enforcement. I
cannot support this appropriations bill because it falls far short of
the President's request of $1.3 billion to fully fund the COPS program.
I am a former police officer, a cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus
and of the Democratic Crime and Drugs Task Force. I have spent years
working on law enforcement and crime-related issues, and I am here on
the floor today to tell my colleagues that this bill does not do
enough. It does not do enough for the COPS office; it does not do
enough to fund crime prosecutions, for violence against women grants,
or crime fighting technologies. It weakens the Federal Government's
important role in protecting civil rights by cutting funding for the
EEOC, the Legal Services Corporation, and the civil rights division. I
will vote against this bill because I know we can and we should do
better to ensure our communities are safer, our police departments are
better equipped, and our individual rights are better protected.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member
very much on the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. I know
the hard work that is done by all the Members in this body. It is
unfortunate that in this process there could not be more collaboration
on the appropriations that could lend themselves to bipartisan support.
This appropriations bill, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary,
does not do justice and it is supposed to have oversight over those
agencies that are to render justice. It does not do justice. It does
not recognize that we are in the most prosperous times of our life,
more prosperous than we were ever in the 20th century and now at the
beginning of the 21st century we have much to offer the American
citizens.
I said just a few days ago that we spend a lot of time talking about
tax cuts, but we do not realize that the moneys that we appropriate are
really an investment in America's future. They are an investment in
America's security. Why for the life of me would we cut this particular
appropriations $2.5 billion less than the President's request? Why
would we take a very popular program, one that has worked, one that
does not discriminate whether you are in a large inner city or whether
you are in a rural hamlet or a village. The Cops On the Beat program
overall has proven to be very successful. Over time in the Committee on
the Judiciary we have heard testimony after testimony of officers who
have come forward from different communities and said, We could not
have the kind of patrol and security and outreach to the community if
we did not have the Cops on the Beat program. Yet that program is
underfunded almost to the extent of extinction.
Then the bill cuts the Legal Services Corporation. Mr. Speaker, I was
on the board of the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation in my own community.
What those Legal Services Corporation lawyers do around the Nation is
they affirm and confirm that all of us are created equal, working
families who are
[[Page H4960]]
low income, who need child support or need help in their family law
matters, who need rental assistance or landlord-tenant issue
assistance. These are the kinds of clients that every year we come to
the floor and we bash them and we in essence say, ``Go get yourself a
Fifth Avenue lawyer.'' And if you can't afford it, forget it. Paupers
don't need to come into the courtroom because we're not worried about
poor people. I do not understand what the purpose in of cutting the
Legal Services Corporation.
This rule, of course, is an open rule, so I guess one would say you
should support it. I do not, because frankly we have a situation that
promotes a bill that does not answer the concerns of the American
people and point of orders against Democratic amendments have not been
waived. The digital divide is not taken care of. I for one believe that
this was an excellent opportunity that we could provide those
resources.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a long and vigorous debate on this
legislation. I intend to offer amendments dealing with late amnesty. I
think we need more dollars to deal with the border patrol. I do
appreciate the work of the ranking member and as well the chairman.
These issues that we have dealt with and have not been resolved, I hope
the Republican majority will waive the points of order and deal with
this important crisis that we are facing dealing with thousands of
individuals who have been in this country working, but they are still
considered illegal immigrants because the INS has not seen fit to
remove these problems that have prevented them from applying for legal
citizenship. We will have that debate, and I hope that we will have a
vigorous debate. I would like my colleagues to support me in those
amendments.
Finally, let me say the great disappointment that I have additionally
found with this bill along with the other issues that I have cited that
although America promotes peace in this Nation and we know that there
is strife on the continent of Africa. In fact, I met with the
ambassador to the United States from Uganda. I was in the Security
Council just a few days ago at the United Nations. Yet this body is
cutting $240 million from the peacekeeping efforts in Sierra Leone.
This is wrongheaded and misdirected. We are going in the wrong
direction, Mr. Speaker. I hope we can correct this as we move this
appropriations process forward.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the former chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, now the ranking minority member.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons why I am going to vote
against this rule and against this bill. First of all, we just voted on
an amendment that was a nongermane amendment that the Committee on
Rules put in order which was offered by a member of the majority side.
But now on this bill every single Democratic amendment that was
requested to be made in order by the Committee on Rules was denied.
That is the procedural reason why I am voting against it.
Secondly, it just boggles my mind. If you take a look at this bill,
this Congress just voted to give the 400 richest families in America a
$200 billion tax cut. Now it has to squeeze out all other programs in
order to try to keep that commitment to the wealthiest 2 percent of
people in this country.
For instance, it says that it is going to slash the Legal Services
Corporation, which is the corporation that helps poor people have legal
defense when they have a lawsuit. It is insufficient in the area of
civil rights. It is certainly destructive in the area of peacekeeping
with its budget cuts. We have all Members of this House crying all over
the floor about what is happening with gas prices. Yet this bill cuts
$50 million below the request for Justice Department and Federal Trade
Commission programs to pursue antitrust actions and other
noncompetitive actions in the marketplace.
I would especially like to focus for one moment on that latter issue.
On the agriculture subcommittee bill when it was before the Committee
on Appropriations, I offered an amendment to try to do something about
the monopolistic practices that occur in the food industry, where you
have just literally a handful of companies, four or five, who control
the majority of processing for poultry, for beef, for pork and for
other food products in this country. That works to make farmers serfs
rather than farmers; and it does not do anything very helpful for
consumers as well. In this bill, we see the same problem.
The primary obligation we have in the capitalist system is to see to
it that for consumers and for every business in this country, we have
truly competitive marketplaces. You do not have those marketplaces if
you do not have the ability of government to check out what practices
are endangering those free marketplaces, whether they occur in the
computer industry, in poultry processing, you name it.
Yet this bill has whacked the Justice antitrust division; it has
whacked the Federal Trade Commission and in the process has made it
very difficult for those agencies to pursue their job of keeping the
American marketplace a truly competitive marketplace. We have to
understand that with this changing economy, we have these huge new
corporate entities that are being created overnight, and not just on
the Internet. You have got one company that has become so big in the
last year, its increase in market capitalization, its increase, I am
talking about Oracle, is larger than the combined market capitalization
for Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors combined. We need to have the
Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission with sufficient
resources to attack those problems.
And when we see the oil industry gouging people as they are gouging
them today in the Midwest on gasoline prices and we see Members of
Congress stumbling over each other to get to the nearest microphone to
rise in protest against that, what do we see this body doing? We see
them cutting the President's request for the Federal Trade Commission,
the agency charged with the responsibility to review not only those
anticompetitive market practices but dozens of others by dozens of
other companies in the economy.
This bill is totally inadequate to defend the rights of consumers, it
is totally inadequate to assure every corporation in America that they
are competing on a level playing field, and it is antibusiness when it
does that. There is nothing more pro-business than seeing to it that an
American entrepreneur or an American corporation has the ability to
compete in a real marketplace. This bill denies that. We ought to vote
down both the rule and the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule to correct a
misconception that may be going around the House. I had requested a
waiver from the Committee on Rules for an amendment to increase the
Legal Services Corporation. I did that because I am troubled every year
by the fact that we come to this floor with a very low amount for Legal
Services, fully understanding that in the House the amount will go up
and in conference the amount will even go higher. So I wanted to avoid
us that pain by asking for a waiver from the Committee on Rules. That
did not take place. So I will still be presenting an amendment.
However, the amendment, and this is what I want to clarify, will be
offsetted. It will have offsets and it will bring us up to $275
million. So there is a misconception going around the House that we
will be presenting an amendment that Members cannot vote for in a
bipartisan fashion. That is not correct. The amendment that I will be
presenting will allow us to bring for the time being the Legal Services
Corporation up to $275 million, and there will be offsets that I will
be presenting.
Also, Members should know that that particular amendment will be part
of the early process of the discussion rather than later on.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There are a few things that obviously I need to respond to that have
been discussed here in the discussion of the rule. First of all, I do
recognize that
[[Page H4961]]
there are people in Congress who want to spend more and more and more
and more and more money. My years in Congress have taught me that
virtually every single vote is about more spending or less spending,
more rules and regulations or less rules and regulations, and about
whether we are going to have a balanced budget or not. I learned a long
time ago that you cannot please everybody in this House of
Representatives.
But to hear my colleagues say that COPS was underfunded to the point
of extinction is an exaggeration that cannot go without an explanation.
In fact, the COPS, which is the Community Oriented Policing Services,
is funded to the tune of $595 million. I do not consider that to the
point of extinction. I consider that to the point of there was a
realistic discussion that we have to live within a balance of how much
money we are going to be spending.
We had a vote earlier in the year to determine what the budget would
look like. As I recall, not one member of the minority party would even
offer the President's budget for consideration or vote on the floor of
the House of Representatives.
{time} 1345
Yet what they want to talk about over and over is the President's
budget, what the President's budget does; and yet not one Democrat
would even sponsor the President's bill on this floor.
We do have a Republican bill that passed, and that is the budget that
we are working within; and proudly we are going to say that we would
not spend a penny of Social Security, and we would make sure that we
balance the budget.
Secondly, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had an opportunity
to state that the Federal Trade Commission must have sufficient
resources to attack problems like the growing market capitalization of
Oracle.
Mr. Speaker, we have just been through another vigorous debate in
this country about how another large company like Oracle was treated;
they are Microsoft.
Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I will not yield.
Mr. OBEY. That is not what I said.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will quote: ``To attack the problems like the growing
market capitalization.''
Mr. OBEY. Market capitalization, but not Oracle. I was using Oracle
as an example of increased market capitalization.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) controls the time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will accept the gentleman's explanation that perhaps
he did not mean Oracle, what the gentleman was talking about was a
large company like Oracle when he said that, and I will accept the
gentleman's explanation. I do accept the gentleman's explanation.
What I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republican Congress is
proud of these large companies that employ millions of Americans, and I
do understand that. I think these companies get it that this Justice
Department would sooner have people like Bill Gates and others to be
Germans or Chinese or from another country; they do not want them here
in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I will say that I believe that they add not only to the
confidence of this country but also the might and the strength that we
have of the capitalization, of jobs, of the technology, of e-commerce
and are solving problems in our country. I am proud of what this rule
does.
I am proud of the balance that we have had in this bill, and I would
remind my colleagues that this is an open rule allowing any Member of
Congress to offer any germane amendment; and this being the case, I
urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, 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. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 188, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 314]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--188
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
[[Page H4962]]
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--21
Barcia
Brown (FL)
Cannon
Clement
Cook
Cubin
Dooley
Engel
Filner
Hyde
Kleczka
Kuykendall
Linder
McCollum
Meek (FL)
Murtha
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Vento
Wynn
{time} 1407
Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SHOWS changed his 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.
____________________