[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.

                          ____________________