Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 84 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5300-H5303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1030
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4680, MEDICARE RX 2000 ACT

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 539

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order, without intervention of any point of
order, to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4680) to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a
voluntary program for prescription drug coverage under the
Medicare Program, to modernize the Medicare Program, and for
other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for
amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) two hours of debate on the bill, as amended, equally
divided among and controlled by the chairmen and ranking
minority members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4680, notwithstanding
the operation of the previous question, the Chair may
postpone further consideration of the bill until a time
designated by the Speaker.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time on or before the
legislative day of Friday, June 30, 2000, for the Speaker to
entertain motions to suspend the rules with respect to the
following measures:
(1) the bill (H.R. 3240) to amend the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act to clarify certain responsibilities of the
Food and Drug Administration with respect to the importation
of drugs into the United States; and
(2) the resolution (H. Res. 535) expressing the sense of
the House of Representatives concerning use of additional
projected surplus funds to supplement Medicare funding,
previously reduced under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Unfunded Mandates Point of Order

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against
consideration of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman will state
his point of order.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 539 waives all points of
order against consideration of H.R. 4680, including points of order
against provisions of the House Rules pertaining to intergovernmental
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, the offending language in the resolution is ``without
intervention of any point of order.'' Included in that waiver are
points of order that would possibly lie against consideration of H.R.
4680.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)

[[Page H5301]]

makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
According to section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentleman must specify
precise language in the resolution that has that effect. Having met his
threshold burden to identify the specific language of the resolution
under section 426(b)(2), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and a
Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question
of consideration under section 426(b)(4).
Following the debate, the Chair will put the question of
consideration, to wit: ``Will the House now consider the resolution?''
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the bill contains a number of
preemptions of State law that would be intergovernmental mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. CBO cannot estimate the
cost of a preemption of State taxing authority because of uncertainties
about market changes.
The bill also contains a private sector mandate on Medigap insurers
that would bar them from providing coverage of prescription drug
expenses for certain individuals. But CBO estimates that its cost would
not exceed the threshold specified.
Mr. Speaker, we have spent a lot of time in this body over the last
several years discussing unfunded mandates; and there has been very
strong bipartisan acknowledgment and support that the Federal
Government, the United States Congress in particular, should pass no
additional legislation that causes States and/or private businesses to
incur cost without at least conferring with them and getting their
acquiescence.
This bill, developed somewhere in the middle of the night, no real
bipartisan hearings, no discussions regarding the question of the point
of order that I bring up at this moment, no one has had an
acknowledgment of what do we do about these unfunded mandates. It seems
that this bill has been agreed to and that unfunded mandates on this
particular bill are okay.
I would hope that we could have some consistency in our opinions
regarding legislation and again would point out the number of
preemptions that are in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we all understand electoral
pressures. None of us parachuted in here without getting votes. But I
have never seen people react so badly to electoral pressures as we are
now seeing on the part of the majority. The legislative process is
becoming a total shambles.
Last night, at midnight, we debated on suspension of the rules,
without any chance of amendment, on important campaign reform. It was
one where there were constitutional objections. The majority whip said
it was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, he must have got stuck in the
elevator and could not be here to talk about it.
Now we have a complex bill addressing one of the most important
problems in this country, that of older people who cannot afford to pay
for their prescription drugs; and, once again, we are dealing with a
travesty of the legislative process.
The Committee on Rules met. First of all, we do major campaign reform
at midnight. Then they get to the Committee on Rules and the Committee
on Rules waives points of order. On the one hand, of course, it could
not possibly take any of the increased revenues that are available to
try to help middle income, older people. On the other hand, the
unfunded mandate issue, to which Members on the other side
intermittently profess great support, suddenly goes out the window.
Why? Because a pollster said, you guys better move in a hurry. This
is the most policy driven, ill-advised overly hasty piece of
legislation on a major issue I have ever seen.
I do not know, because I have been skeptical of some of the unfunded
mandate talk, whether there is a problem or not. I do know that because
in carrying out their pollsters instructions to move quickly so they
seem to be doing something, they did not allow adequate consideration
of this.
Most of their own Members do not know, Mr. Speaker, what the unfunded
mandates are or are not. Perhaps we should use some of the extra
revenue the Federal Government is getting to alleviate this impact on
the States. They will never know. They will just vote yes because their
pollster said, hey, the House may be at stake.
So a month ago the majority obediently votes against a campaign
reform bill which last night the majority of them obediently voted for,
one of the great convergences in history.
Today the party that says, leave the Government out of it, the
private sector will do it, decides it better try to show that it does
think a Government response is there.
Now, I will once again congratulate the majority on its flexibility.
This is an expansion of the Federal Government's role. But they have
done it too hastily, maybe because the whole notion of expanding the
Government's role so bothers Members of the majority that they have to
get it over with in a hurry, they cannot stand to think about it. But
when they do it this hastily, when they do not allow adequate
consideration in the Committee on Ways and Means, when they rush this
thing through the Committee on Rules, when they do not allow the other
side, ourselves, give an alternative that is well thought out, they
make mistakes.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has been a model of
consistency and fiscal integrity; and when he invokes a point of order
against unfunded mandates, he is speaking from a demonstrated history
of this House of concern.
Their legislative procedure has made a travesty of the House and of
their own professed principles.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time,
and I want to be sure I have the right to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has
the right to close.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is very strong agreement on both sides of
the aisle that we need to deal with the pharmaceutical cost issue.
I know in my own district at home that I have hundreds, if not
thousands, of individuals who have to choose between the cost of their
medicine and food every month. And I know that folks on both sides of
the aisle agree to that.
What bothers me about the bill that is being rushed to the floor and
those of us on this side who would have had some differing opinions, or
at least having a substitute, or at least having the opportunity to
amend in some way being denied.
Okay, I understand the rule of the majority. The majority can do
anything that they wish to do, and they are doing it. But by the same
token, I would hope that there would be large numbers of Members on the
other side of the aisle that would have just a tinge of conscience in
following their leadership down a path in which, when we ask the
question, what is this plan that we will vote on later today going to
cost, I do not know. That is up to the private sector to determine.
That is where the unfunded mandates in this point of order come from.
If my colleagues read carefully the legislation, they will find that
there are mandates on the private sector and mandates on local and
State government that I do not think most of my colleagues want to vote
for.
Most of them are like most of us, we have not seen in detail this
bill that we are considering. We are rushing it to the floor because
somebody thinks it is a good idea and everybody on that side suggests
that we should not be allowed to even amend it on this floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

[[Page H5302]]

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, this will be my only floor statement on the
rule and the bill. I will vote ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the
Democratic bill, and ``no'' on the GOP bill.
Why? Number one, regular order has not been followed. The Committee
on Commerce, which has equal jurisdiction, has held no hearings on the
bill.

{time} 1045

We certainly held no markups.
Number two, both parties' plans are fundamentally flawed because of
adverse risk selection. Read the USA Today lead editorial on both of
the bills. They are right.
Number three, I offered four amendments and a substitute at the
Committee on Rules. No amendments from anyone or substitutes are
allowed, and that is not right on such an important issue.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we address this issue in a more
thoughtful way after the July 4 recess. If this rule goes down, it is
not over for the year. We simply must deal with this later this year.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of
bipartisanship and a better debate, I know last night there were
obviously some constraints which kept some Members of the Republican
side, including the leadership, from participating in the debate. In
case the same constraints are applied today, if there are Republican
Members, particularly in the leadership, who have doubts about this
bill that they have been asked not to express we are available. If they
send them to us, we would be glad once again to put them into the
Record so that there is a fuller debate than apparently otherwise we
are going to have. We are available for those Republicans suffering
from that kind of floor censorship to get their message out.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida continues to
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I am moved by the comments
of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) that indeed what we are looking
at today is a bill that really does not have a true dollar sign on it.
When we came before the Committee on Rules last night, many of us were
talking about making sure that whatever we brought before the House is
going to be a cost effective, efficient piece of legislation that could
indeed provide us with a reduction in prescription costs for all
seniors.
Indeed, what we have today, unfortunately, is a bill that does not
have a bottom line to it. In fact, has a very, very expensive way of
providing for prescription drugs and does not provide us with a basic
fundamental purpose of what the bill is all about, making sure that all
seniors are covered in a universal way so that indeed they can have
reduced costs of their prescription drugs.
We implore the other side to take into account what the people in
their districts and our districts are talking about. When people are
spending $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 a year for prescription drugs, we have
to have a bill that will clearly address the issue of dollars in a
reasonable way. We hope that they will listen to us because we are just
repeating what the people in their districts are talking about.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take 30 seconds to respond to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). There is no one more
cantankerous or contrary with our leadership than I am, and we have
never been stifled in our conversation and we have never been limited
in terms of our ability to express our viewpoint.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the point of order is raised on the unfunded mandates.
Read the bill, my friends on the other side who are about to blindly
follow their leadership down the path. This is not the way to
legislate. This is not the way to deal with the question as important
as the pharmaceutical costs to all Americans is, and it is certainly
not the way to have an unfunded mandate after spending the hours
passing bills and doing all of the things and saying we are not going
to impose costs on State and local government and private business for
any purpose.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has raised the
possibility that H.R. 4680 may contain an unfunded mandate. There is a
provision for that. The provision is to proceed forward with the
question will the committee now consider the amendment. I would like to
get to that point so we can get on with the important business of the
day, which is this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair will now put the
question of consideration.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 200, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 344]

YEAS--224

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
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
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
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
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--200

[[Page H5303]]

Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
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)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--10

Burton
Cook
Hinojosa
Hyde
Markey
McIntosh
Porter
Scott
Strickland
Vento

{time} 1108

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE, Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. WHITFIELD, HOEKSTRA,
MATSUI and PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 343 and 344, I
was unavoidably detained and therefore unable to be present on the
House floor during that time. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no'' on rollcall vote 343 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 344.

Motion to Reconsider the Vote: Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the
vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Did the gentleman from
Massachusetts vote on the prevailing side?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker.

Motion to Table Offered By Mr. Goss

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 200, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 345]

AYES--219

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
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
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
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
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)

NOES--200

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
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)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--15

Cannon
Cook
DeLay
Hansen
Hinojosa
Hyde
Markey
McIntosh
Olver
Porter
Radanovich
Scott
Strickland
Tauzin
Vento

{time} 1127

Messrs. STENHOLM, SNYDER, PRICE of North Carolina and Ms. McKINNEY
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DEAL of Georgia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________