[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 121 (Tuesday, October 3, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8659-H8663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 604,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 110) making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of H.J. Res. 110 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 110
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 106-275 is amended by striking ``October 6, 2000'' in
section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 14,
2000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 604, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the second CR which is before us today merely extends
the date of the original CR from October 6, 2000 through October 14,
2000. We need to do this because, although the House has passed all 13
bills, and as of a few minutes ago we now passed 6 of the conference
reports, there are several that still have not passed, and we need to
get those done.
We are moving along fairly well. We finished the conference report on
the Transportation bill this morning. We will file that this afternoon
and hopefully have it on the floor tomorrow.
Also we are scheduled to meet in conference on the Agricultural
appropriations bill this afternoon, and we would hope that we can
finish that tonight and have it ready for consideration by the House
before the week is over.
We are moving, but there are still a few outstanding issues that need
to be resolved, most of which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, are not really
appropriations items, but they have to do with other items that have
been placed upon these bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, again, there is nothing new with what we are doing here
today. We have in the past had Congresses that have failed to get their
appropriations work done on time and so they have required continuing
resolutions; that is not the issue. The issue is why we are here on
this occasion still in this same crunch, and when you answer that
question, you see why this session is different from so many others in
the history of the Congress.
It is different, because in past years when the Congress failed to
get its appropriations work done on time, it was usually because there
were honest fights which were occurring over funding levels for
programs all the way through, and you had honest fights between honest
pieces of legislation. And it was clear what each side in those
controversies were trying to do.
This year has been different. This year we have seen bill after bill
after bill come to the floor initially and each time those bills came
to the floor, we were told by the majority leadership, well, we know
the bill does not make sense at this point, but this is only the first
inning, we will fix it up along the way.
Basically, the reason that we are stuck here today and the problem we
face today does not have so much to do with what people are now doing
or not doing to bring this session to a close, what we are really faced
with is the consequences of what was not done in the first 10 months of
this session. What was not done was to bring bills to the floor which
were a genuine reflection of the intention of the majority party and
which were a genuine reflection of what we really in the end expected
the Congress to produce in each of the 13 appropriation categories.
Those bills essentially were political press releases put out so that
the majority party could continue to pretend that there was room in the
budget to fund their huge tax packages, the large majority of the
breaks in those packages being directed to the most well-off among us
in this society. They wanted to continue the fiction they could afford
those huge tax packages, also at the same time provide a pay down of
debt, a huge increase in the military budget of some $20 billion,
although not nearly as much of it went to readiness as the President
asked for.
In order to maintain those fictions, they maintained the pretense
that this Congress is going to spend about $40 billion less than, in
fact, it will wind up now spending. So now we are stuck here seeing
this institution having great difficulty finding the off button so that
people can go home.
As I said many times, that is not the fault of the majority on the
Committee on Appropriations, they are practical realists. They have
tried time and time again to demonstrate what kind of legislation could
be passed. And when you deal with legislation straightforwardly and
forthrightly and produce legislation which honestly reflects the
priorities of the House, then you can pass it with a bipartisan
majority on both sides; that was just demonstrated on the previous
appropriations bill that we passed today.
The problem we have is now after pretending to be fiscal tightwads
for almost 9 months, the majority party is now in its rush to go home,
now trying to jam a lot of money into a lot of bills in a very short
period of time in order to get out of here. But they were still
refusing to recognize that of the new money being put on the table, a
good piece of that needs to be put in the bill that funds the
education, health, social service and worker protection programs in the
Federal budget.
They are refusing to put money in that bill, but they put billions
more in the energy and water bill, and they will put billions more in
other appropriation bills as they move through this
[[Page H8660]]
place. Some of those decisions will be responsible, a good many of
them, in my view, will not be. So this Congress has no choice but to
vote for this continuing resolution in order to keep the government
open.
The reason we are in this situation is simply because the product
that the Committee on Appropriations was forced by the majority
leadership to produce was not a genuine product in the first place. The
committee knew that on the majority side of the aisle. The committee
knew that on the minority side of the aisle. I think everyone knew that
on both sides of the aisle on and off the committee, but for the sake
of pretense, this charade has gone on for 10 months, and only now are
the real choices being faced and wrestled with.
Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that my friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), has to bring another continuing resolution before
us. He has no institutional choice, we have no institutional choice but
to vote for it if we are to be responsible. But I regret very much the
9-month charade that has preceded what we are now trying to do in the
last inning days of the session.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, except to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the CR today and take no quarrel
with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his handling of
this bill and any other bill that he has been handling.
I am somewhat disappointed by, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) has been talking about, the process to the extent that we have
taken action on appropriation bills. We have been increasing spending
appropriations in bills above the amounts requested by the President,
without any indication how all the increased spending we have passed
will fit within a fiscally responsible budget.
Mr. Speaker, I think people need to understand how this game is being
played today, because the majority, the leadership I might say, has
said that we are going to put our priorities and we are going to take
out the President's priorities, and then any increase that is going to
be on increased spending we are going to blame on him. That is not the
way it ought to work.
This place ought to work if we are interested in keeping a fiscally
responsible budget. If there is a plan on how we can continue to pass
appropriation bills which spend more than the President has requested,
plus all the tax cut items and other spending items and fit them into
the new budgetary framework, I wish someone would explain it to me, and
I think I speak for the majority on both sides of the aisle.
{time} 1500
According to recent press accounts, the congressional leadership
intends to quietly raise the discretionary spending limits for 2001 in
the first omnibus appropriation bill.
I do not object to raising the caps for 2001. Everybody realizes the
spending caps set in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 were unrealistic.
But if we are going to raise the spending cap for 2001, we should be
looking at setting new, realistic discretionary spending caps for 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
The existing caps for fiscal year 2002 are even more unrealistic than
they are for next year. Unless we set new, realistic caps, we will face
the same problem next year with discretionary caps that are ignored and
no discipline on discretionary spending, and the finger of blame being
pointed on both sides of the aisle.
More importantly, the discretionary spending caps expire after 2002,
leaving no discipline on discretionary spending at all.
If the Republican leadership is truly interested in controlling
spending, I would encourage them to again consider the Blue Dog
proposal to set new discretionary caps for the next 5 years now, while
we have an opportunity.
We are suddenly hearing a lot of rhetoric from the other side
regarding the 90/10 plan and the majority's commitment to debt
reduction. I would have preferred that the leadership had been as
enthusiastic about that position 6 months ago when we offered the same
budget, which would have made debt reduction the top priority for the
surplus, instead of pursuing tax cuts that would consume all the
surplus.
But I am glad we have come around to our way of thinking.
Unfortunately, the substance of the 90/10 plan falls short of the
recent rhetoric coming from the other side about debt reduction. If we
have a moral obligation to pay off the debt as soon as possible, as the
leadership has said, then why does the Republican leadership's debt
reduction plan only apply to next year? Why can we not take action now
to extend the plan to set aside surpluses for debt reduction until we
have eliminated the entire national debt?
The 90/10 plan being touted by my Republican colleagues would leave
Congress free to abandon our moral obligation to debt reduction and
return to fiscally irresponsible proposals to use the entire surplus
for tax cuts and increased spending next year.
Instead of continuing an ad hoc process without any real plan, we
need to reach agreement between Congress and the President on an
overall budget framework that ensures that we have enough resources to
meet our various tax cut and spending priorities and pay down the debt,
and then extend the discipline by setting new discretionary caps and
agreeing on a plan to eliminate the national debt.
There are some on this side of the aisle that would like very much to
join in that endeavor.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who sadly has
no vote on this floor, but happily, at least, has a voice.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, especially given the very special circumstance in which I find
myself.
This process has to be as frustrating for my Republican colleagues as
for Democrats. After all, we are stuck here with the overwhelming
number of our appropriations unresolved this late, and into a new
fiscal year.
I do believe I have a right to be more frustrated than most because
mine is not a case of delay in funding Federal agencies. It is more
complicated than that. You are asking me to put an entire city of half
a million people on hold, the city that I represent.
It is important for the House to be aware of what happens when we put
a city on hold. In this high-crime big city, 175 new police officers
now cannot be hired; 88 new firefighters, to help fill out the
depletion that occurred when the District was in financial crisis in
the 1990s, cannot be hired.
We have five new charter schools, and that is what this Congress has
most wanted. They are now in operation. We have the largest number of
charter schools in the United States, but there is no money for these
new charter schools, making their start very shaky, because they are
already in operation. School has begun.
There is $4.5 million for school recreation centers to get our kids
off the streets during the busy crime hours between 3 and 6; that is on
hold.
To the public, this seems like games we play with ourselves. Games or
not, it is far more serious for the District of Columbia than for any
other place in the United States. The District got its work done on
time. We have submitted a balanced budget with a surplus. Because the
Congress has not done its work, the District cannot begin to spend its
own money, raised in the District of Columbia from its own taxpayers.
We cannot continue to treat this city this way. We need a new
process, Mr. Speaker.
I have just called the Mayor to say to our new Mayor, the mayor who
has received so much in lip service compliments for the work that he
has done already in the District, to say ``Mr. Mayor, your city is on
hold for CR number 2.''
We have a new Mayor. We have a new council exercising excellent
oversight. They have done what the Congress said they should do.
Everything in the District is new. Painstaking reforms are occurring.
There is a new government in the throes of wholesale
[[Page H8661]]
reform. The very least this body should do is to let that government
take care of itself and begin to spend its own money.
The only thing that is not new about the District of Columbia is the
process that the Congress forces upon it in order for the city to spend
its own money. I ask that we look closely at this process, and I ask
Members to help me next year to change this process and free D.C.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding time to me, and again I rise, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) rose, to say to my distinguished chairman and friend, who
does a great service for this institution of the House and a great
service for the Committee on Appropriations, and it is a better
committee for his service, but unfortunately, he was given a no-win
task at the beginning of this year.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote: ``Nobody has ever done this many this
quick in less time.'' Some may recall that that was the self-
congratulatory statement in July of the majority leader, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Armey), regarding this body's passage of all 13
appropriation bills through the House.
Even, frankly, the New York Times could not contain itself. The
headline over a story earlier this year cried out, ``GOP passes
spending bills at record clip.'' But oh, what a difference a few months
makes, and, I might say, a dose of reality. We had passed in July and
sent to the President two of 13 appropriation bills that were signed
into law. August came and went. September came and went. We have two
bills signed by the President of the United States and 11 still
pending.
Now, we have passed the energy and water, and the President says he
is going to veto that. So the two out of 13 was the same as we had in
July, and despite the fact that both chambers have since passed the
energy and water spending bill, the President vowed again just the
other day to veto it.
In addition to the haste, I might say, that we passed these bills in,
there was a great deal of hubris, too, on the part of the leadership,
which acted as if we could disregard the views of the minority and the
fact that it only held a six-seat margin.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have said that that makes
it difficult. I agree. The only way it can be done is for us to come
together and work together, realizing that the American people have
elected 435 folks who have differences of opinion, 100 members of the
Senate who have differences of opinion, and, as Speaker Gingrich
pointed out and I referenced last week when we passed the CR, a
president of the United States who does not agree with some of us.
Apparently it just never occurred to the Republican leadership that
it needed to or should reach out to Democrats and to the President and
try to strike a bipartisan budget resolution last April. That is why we
are here, because the budget resolution passed on a partisan vote was
not reasonable, was not acceptable, and could not be implemented, no
matter how talented the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or the
subcommittee chairmen were on the Committee on Appropriations.
Everybody knew that and said it in April. That is why we are here.
Instead, they forged ahead, and I do not mean the chairman. He was
directed to do that. They forged ahead with a budget plan that even
many of my Republican friends knew was unrealistic and could not be
implemented.
Were we really going to eliminate Head Start for more than 40,000
children to make room for big tax cuts? Were we really going to cut
more than 600 FBI agents and 500 DEA agents? Were we really going to
provide Pell grants to 316,000 less young people to go to college? Of
course not. Neither that side of the aisle nor this side of the aisle
thought that was going to occur.
So in failing to come up with a reasonable budget resolution, and I
want to tell the Members, I voted for a couple. I particularly voted
for the one that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) offered which
said, let us do 50 percent debt reduction, 25 percent for investment
and 25 percent for targeted tax cuts. That made sense. Even if we did
one-third and one-third and one-third, that would have made sense.
Now, however, because of our failure to enact a reasonable budget
resolution, we are operating in an unrestrained, unidentified budget
context without parameters. I do not think that is what anybody wants
to do. It is certainly not what I want to do.
Yesterday my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan),
a Republican leader in this House, a man of great wisdom, in my
opinion, and great integrity, he is a member of the Committee on
Appropriations whom I respect and who understands the necessity of
legislative consensus, he was quoted in Roll Call: ``We knew all along
we would appear to be losing when we broke these limits in the budget
resolution.''
So this was predictable. The day of reckoning was as foreseeable as
the beginning of the new school year, the turning of leaves, and the
start of the football season.
The responsibility for this logjam lies with those who thought this
budget resolution was reasonable.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, however, obviously, to vote for
this continuing resolution. It is not the Chairman's fault that this
continuing resolution is here. We have not finished our business. Who
is responsible for that? All of us. We understand that.
But I speak not so much in a partisan vein but for this institution,
because if we come together, whether it is next year or the year after
or whatever, in an attempt to pass appropriation bills that we can send
to the President in a timely fashion, then we will not lose the
leverage as a legislature, and forget about Republicans, Democrats, or
who is president, but as a legislative body.
But every week that goes by, we lose leverage. That is not good for
the institution of the Congress. I argued that when we were in control,
and I will argue it when they are in control. Let us work together to
approve the remaining spending bills. I just voted for one. I was glad
to see it passed. I hope the President signs it. That is what we should
have been doing all along.
I want to tell my friends, I think that 90 percent of the Republicans
on the Committee on Appropriations knew that to be the case and wanted
to do that. I hope we can do that, Mr. Chairman, as we conclude this
session, and I hope we certainly can do it next year, whatever the
outcome of the election.
Again, in closing, let me congratulate the chairman. Let me
congratulate the ranking member. I do not know anybody in this body who
works harder, who is more conscientious, who is more courageous in
standing up for his beliefs and the beliefs of his party than the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
But I very frankly think that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) are working together in a
way in which America can be proud and can place its trust in. I am just
sorry that they could not get the rest of us perhaps to go along in as
bipartisan a fashion as they most of the time have the opportunity to
do.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the problem we face, as was described by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), is that we essentially have no idea what the
limits are. We had a phony limit that was produced in the original
budget resolution in the spring, and the House pretended that it was
going to live with the spending limit or discretionary funds laid out
in that resolution.
{time} 1515
But we all know that, for the third year in a row, that understated
the reality by about $40 billion in terms of what the Congress would
eventually do.
Now, following that pretense, for a long period of time this year, we
now have been given a new construct by the majority party leadership.
They have said, well, under our new 90/10 arrangement for use of our
surplus, $28 billion will be available plus $13 billion because they
are recomputing the base from which they were operating. That gives us
about $40 billion on the table which can be used for tax actions or for
spending actions or for entitlement actions.
The problem is that that is outlays. We measure the deficit in
outlays. But
[[Page H8662]]
because we do not spend all of the money that we appropriate in any
given year, there is a difference between what the committee actually
appropriates and what is actually outlaid in any given fiscal year.
So because of that difference, what is really on the table is up to
$80 billion in additional spending. The problem is no one knows what
the plans are for using that huge amount of money. So we are asked to
approve a bill at a time. I voted against the Energy-Water bill because
I did not know whether we ought to be providing that much money in that
bill when we still did not know what the other bills were going to look
like.
So we are drifting along with no idea of what the limits are, no
context, no limits, no discipline, someone in the leadership office
having some idea of what the game plan is. That changes from day to
day. But we do not know so we cannot tell our constituents, and the
press certainly does not know.
So in the end, we will do what about six anonymous people in the
leadership office tells us will be done, but that is not the way we
ought to run a railroad or a legislative body. We ought to be able to
know what the limits are so that we can choose within those limits.
That is not a privilege which is being afforded us. There is not much
we can do about that on the minority side of the aisle. But it is an
irresponsible way to run what is supposed to be the greatest
legislative body in the world.
Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) going to yield
back?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will yield back after I make a
closing statement.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indication of support for the CR. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is exactly right. We have to do
this from the institutional standpoint. So we are going to pass this CR
today.
I listened to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of the
more articulate members of this Congress. I would have to say that I
agree with an awful lot of what he said. Our budget process is less
than perfect. But I want to make sure that everybody understands that
the budget process is just one piece of the process. The appropriations
process is something entirely different, although it might seem to some
that they are both one and the same; but they are not.
But, unfortunately, the appropriations process becomes captive to the
budget process on occasion, and we are not the masters of our own
destiny sometimes when it comes to the appropriations process.
But we have done a good job in the House. The House can be proud of
the fact that, yes, in fact we did pass all of our bills, and we passed
them fairly early. In fact, all 13 bills were passed before the end of
July, except for D.C., The D.C. bill was actually on the floor in July
but was pulled off the floor for some other measure that apparently had
more importance at one point or another.
Also, we have passed, in terms of conference reports, through the
House the Defense conference report, the Military Construction
conference report, the Energy and Water conference report, the
Treasury-Postal conference report, the Legislative Branch conference
report, and the Interior conference report, which we passed just a
short time ago today.
We have completed the conference on the Transportation appropriations
bill this morning. At 4 o'clock this afternoon, we will convene a
conference meeting on the Agricultural appropriations bill.
So we are moving on our responsibility, but we, in the House, are
only one-third of the players. The other body is a player and the
President of the United States is a player. When it gets to the point
that bills are sent to the President, and we do not know what he is
going to do on some of these bills, he becomes as powerful as two-
thirds of this House and two-thirds of the Senate. Because if he vetoes
one of our bills, it takes two-thirds of both Houses to override the
veto.
So we try to work together. I think what we saw earlier today on the
Interior appropriations bill was an indication of how, if we work
together, both sides, the majority, the minority, understanding that
there are strong differences, to resolve those differences, it is
amazing what we can accomplish. I am really proud of the House for the
strong vote that we received for the Interior bill just a short time
ago.
So Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we pass this CR today, and I
again appreciate those statements from the minority, from the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), recognizing that it is important to pass the
CR today that would keep the government operating to the 14th of
October. Hopefully by then we will have much more positive and
constructive news to report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate is expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 604, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. 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 415,
nays 1, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 509]
YEAS--415
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
[[Page H8663]]
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--1
DeFazio
NOT VOTING--17
Ballenger
Dunn
Eshoo
Franks (NJ)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hinojosa
Houghton
King (NY)
Lazio
McCollum
McIntosh
Meehan
Paul
Riley
Vento
Wexler
{time} 1543
Mr. CONDIT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________