[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9666-H9670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER REDEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--VETO MESSAGE 
                FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President of the United States 
on the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water 
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for 
other purposes.
  The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of October 10, 2000, 
at page H9575).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
is recognized for 1 hour.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and that I may include tabular and extraneous material on the 
veto message of the President of the United States to the bill, H.R. 
4733.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues in the strongest possible 
terms to override the President's unfortunate veto of the Fiscal Year 
2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
  Of all the appropriations bills, this is one of the most bipartisan. 
The conference agreement that we presented to the House 2 weeks ago is 
fair and balanced.
  Through the programs of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Reclamation, we have provided funds to maintain and rebuild our 
critical water resources infrastructure and protect millions of 
citizens who are currently vulnerable to the devastating effects of 
floods.
  Funds that we have provided through this bill for the Department of 
Energy will help to strengthen our national defense, increase our 
scientific knowledge, and help us to become more energy independent.
  In spite of all the good things in this bill, the President has 
legislated to veto it over a single provision included by the Senate. 
The administration asserts that this provision would undermine 
implementation of the Endangered Species Act. That is simply incorrect.
  Under the provisions of section 103, all alternatives for protecting 
endangered species on the Missouri River, including a spring rise in 
river levels, can continue to be studied and only a revision in the 
Master Water Control Manual that results from spring rise is prevented 
from being implemented in fiscal year 2001.
  I wish to significantly note that the Corps of Engineers has 
confirmed that it will not be prepared to implement a revised Water 
Control Manual for the Missouri River until the spring of 2003 due to 
the time it will take to comply with the provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy. Therefore, this issue really is not an issue. It 
cannot be implemented before the bill would address in terms of the 
time limits.
  On October 2, the President issued a statement in which he said that 
this provision would ``establish a dangerous precedent aimed at barring 
a Federal agency from obeying one of our Nation's landmark 
environmental statutes.''
  If the President truly believes that today, then why did he not 
believe it four other times when he signed this very provision into 
law?
  We have done our very best on this bill to accommodate the priorities 
of all Members of Congress, including the Democrats and Republicans 
equally and the administration, as well.
  Almost 2 weeks ago, we approved a conference agreement by a vote of 
301-118. I was disappointed at that time that a number of Members who 
had come to us for assistance and whose wishes we did accommodate in 
the bill voted against passage of the conference report. Some who voted 
against the conference report may have had their concerns addressed in 
other bills.
  Specifically, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report, which 
now sits on the President's desk and he will likely sign it I am told, 
included $8 million for the Northeast Home Heating Reserve Issue.

                              {time}  1300

  I am sure that that was part of the reason that some voted against 
the conference report on this bill. I expect that all the Members who 
voted in favor of the bill two weeks ago will do so again today and 
encourage all those Members who voted no last week to reconsider that 
decision. I sincerely hope that we do not have to reopen this bill at 
this point and possibly reconsider items that have already been agreed 
to.
  I truly believe that a wise use of the taxpayers money is rebuilding 
America's infrastructure. It is spending their tax dollars to improve 
their quality of life. It is a very good expenditure of funds. And so 
our conservative Members who feel that we have spent too much in this 
bill I hope will recognize that this is spending money in their 
districts, improving the quality of life of their citizens. It is not 
in the best interest of our Nation to hold up this important piece of 
legislation over a single provision. Therefore, I ask all Members to 
vote to override the President's unfortunate veto of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I join my colleague, the gentleman from California, in asking all of 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to override the 
President's veto of H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Appropriation Act 
for the year 2001. The chairman eloquently addressed the primary 
controversy that is engaged in this legislation and that is the Army 
Corps manual and regulations dealing with water flow on the Missouri 
River. I would join in his observations.
  First of all, that the President in 4 previous years has signed 
legislation with similar language. Secondly, as far as the issue that 
is of complaint to the President, it will not come to fruition for 
another 2 fiscal years, so I do not think it would be appropriate to 
veto this legislation based on that one provision, given the good work 
the chairman and the committee has done on the bill.
  The President also mentioned, however, three other items in his veto 
message, and I would like for a moment to address each of his concerns. 
The President indicated he is upset that we had not set aside enough 
funds for renewable and solar energy. I would point out to the Members 
that for the current fiscal year 2000, we appropriated and the 
administration will spend $362 million for these programs. The 
conference report that was approved by

[[Page H9667]]

the House and Senate and sent to the President approved for this coming 
fiscal year $422 million for these programs, a $60 million increase.
  The President also had concerns relative to expenditures for the 
Florida Everglades. The fact is that this legislation contains $20 
million in construction funds for the Everglades, the exact dollar 
figure in the President's budget. What the President wanted to do is to 
add additional expenditures that had not yet been authorized, and we 
have been very diligent in ensuring that unauthorized programs not 
enter into the legislation.
  Finally, the President has complained that $20 million was not set 
aside for the so-called Bay-Delta CAL-FED program. In past years, we 
have appropriated up to $60 million for this important program; and the 
chairman, during the debate and discussion we had on the floor on the 
conference report, indicated it was his desire to set aside those $20 
million if again we had authorization to do so. A compromise to date 
has not yet been struck. We lack the authorization and, therefore, the 
chairman, I think wisely, although I know it was a very tough and 
painful decision for him, decided not to include those moneys in the 
bill, and I think it is an eminently justifiable position.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest for these reasons and those propounded 
by the chairman of the subcommittee that all of the Members of this 
institution vote to override the President's veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee on appropriations.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just first of all like to say this is 
extraordinarily unfortunate for the people in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, 
everyone in the lower Mississippi delta that the President vetoed this 
bill over the use of the Missouri River. This is an extraordinarily 
important issue. It goes to saving lives of people who live along the 
Missouri River, to saving their property. It goes to how much energy, 
how much electric power is available during the peak season in the 
summer coming out of the dams upstream. It has to do with usage on the 
river as far as navigation which they want to dry up the river 
basically in the summertime. We have a very important issue with 
recreation in Sioux City, Iowa, using the marina.
  Mr. Speaker, I will submit a letter from the bipartisan city council 
of Sioux City in opposition to the President's position. I think this 
is an issue which is not a partisan issue. This is simply wrong. The 
President has signed four previous bills that had this provision in it 
that today he says he vetoes the bill for, and you wonder why. It has 
to go, I believe, to an extreme environmental position. I think with 
the Presidential election coming up and the Vice President taking an 
extreme position here, I think Iowans and people in Nebraska and 
Missouri should really take a look at who is favoring a radical group 
over the lives and property of people who live along the river and the 
very well-being of those people.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate if we have to reopen this 
bill to find other moneys for some of the priorities the President 
looked at that we are going to have to look in the bill. We are not 
going to have new money. We have to look in the bill to find out 
people, projects, things like that if we are going to fund the new 
initiatives, also.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the override of this very 
unfortunate and misguided veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record:

                                   Office of the City Council,

                                  Sioux City, IA, October 3, 2000.
     U.S. Representative tom Latham,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Latham: One of the issues that we 
     understand you are addressing is the management of the 
     Missouri River. First, we would like to thank you for your 
     previous votes on this issue on behalf of Sioux City and 
     Iowa. We appreciate very much your support and understanding 
     in this issue. What still needs consideration and study is 
     how those changes to the current management may affect Iowans 
     and the downstream states affected by those changes. We thank 
     you for the time and attention you are giving to this matter.
       There should be a broader perspective on the issue at stake 
     than just recreation versus navigation. Policies developed 
     with much deliberation for over four decades such as this 
     should be approached very carefully. there are industries 
     such as downstream recreation, hydropower generation, 
     agriculture, transportation, and navigation that would be 
     dramatically affected by the plan to implement a spring rise 
     in the spring with correlating low flows during late summer 
     and early fall. There are also issues such as flood control 
     for cities, counties, and farmland along the Missouri River 
     that have not yet been sufficiently studied to assess 
     potential damage and economic impact.
       Downstream Recreation.--The Sioux City Riverfront Master 
     Plan calls for $8 million in improvements to the City's 
     Marina and riverfront area. The City of Sioux City cannot 
     proceed with economic plans until the full effects of changes 
     to the management of the Missouri River are known. The pulse 
     and character of Sioux City revolves around the river, 
     boating, and water sports. There are also riverboat gambling 
     operations on the Missouri River that generate $80 million to 
     Iowa's state taxes--specifically to fund the recently passed 
     Vision Iowa legislation. Iowa State statute compels 
     riverboats that gamble to sail at least 100 days per year and 
     it is unknown how this will affect their ability to comply 
     with state statute and how that potential loss of revenue 
     would affect Iowa's future.
       Hydropower Generation.--Under the spring rise plan we would 
     only be able to use approximately 58% of full capacity during 
     the peak energy usage period. All public energy utilities 
     receive a percentage of their energy as hydropower, very 
     inexpensive energy. When there is excess hydropower energy, 
     that power can be marketed to an eager marketplace looking 
     for this lower-cost energy. When the hydropower supply is 
     lower, as is would be in times of low flow, higher cost 
     energy must be used and that extra cost is passed on to 
     consumers. The effect of decreasing hydroelectric supply in a 
     peak usage period with dramatically increased rates needs 
     further study.
       Flood Control.--While spring rise flows will likely not 
     flood Sioux City at current estimates, the effects of high 
     flows from tributaries will need to be studied before either 
     the City of Sioux City or Woodbury County could endorse the 
     spring rise option.
       Transportation Costs to Agriculture Industry.--The farm 
     economy is extremely weak, experiencing low prices, increased 
     interest rates than previous years, and high fuel prices. The 
     agriculture industry will take another hit if they lose the 
     ability to haul and store grain and fertilizer, especially at 
     peak harvest periods. The busiest time for agriculture 
     shipments is the exact time that the low flow period in a 
     split navigation scenario would decrease the ability to use 
     the river for transportation and would leave farmers with 
     fewer transportation and storage options. Data taken on corn 
     bid prices from November 10, 1999 shows that corn bid prices 
     range from 13-51 cents more per bushel for sites located near 
     a river when compared with those sites that are landlocked 
     and dependent solely on rail and truck transportation. 
     Navigation on the Missouri River assists farmers with an 
     additional avenue to market and transport their commodities 
     at competitive rates.
       Industrial Commodities.--It has been proven that there is 
     an economic advantage in industry to have access to both rail 
     and barge transportation. Rail companies charge less, 
     irrespective of distances traveled, if either the initial or 
     final location is near a barge facility, due to the desire to 
     remain competitive with barge rates. These water-compelled 
     rates enable our companies to remain competitive with 
     comparatively much larger operations. These companies would 
     see 50% increase in transportation costs without access to 
     barge transportation and would be ultimately passed on to 
     consumers.
       Degradation Through High Rises.--The impact on riverbed 
     degradation must be determined before the artificially high 
     flows are implemented as already serious degradation problems 
     will only get worse with the spring rise approach. The high-
     rise period in 1969-1972 degraded the riverbed by four feet 
     and high rises in 1993-1996 degraded the riverbed by an 
     additional two feet. Further degradation will threaten the 
     under-river utility crossing, continue the current loss of 
     wetland and oxbow lake areas due to drainage into the river, 
     will eventually threaten bank stabilization structures, 
     piers, and abutments, as well as increase the maintenance 
     cost for marinas and boat ramp basins. The City of Sioux 
     City's collector well and possibly two of the radials of that 
     well would be impacted if additional significant erosion or 
     degradation were to occur.
           Sincerely,
     Martin J. Dougherty,
       Mayor.
     Craig S. Berenstein,
       Council Member.
     Todd A. Moss,
       Mayor Pro-Tem.
     Tony Drake,
       Council Member.
     Thomas R. Padgett,
       Council Member.

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H9668]]

  Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to override the President's veto. I am 
fortunate enough to represent 216 miles of river which includes the 
Mississippi but 86 miles of the Missouri River that forms the boundary 
in my district.
  I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that Members of this body really would give 
some deference to this bipartisan coalition of Members in Missouri that 
do not support the Fish and Wildlife's position, that would urge an 
override of the President's veto, that is, this proposed spring rise. 
The section at issue is section 103 that simply says that none of the 
funds available in this energy and water bill would be available to 
revise the master manual to provide for an increase in the springtime 
water release during heavy spring rainfall and snow melt in States that 
have rivers that drain into the Missouri. As the chairman pointed out, 
this has been in the previous four out of the five spending bills that 
Congress has passed, the President has signed. It allows a range of 
different options but only prevents one specific harmful alternative 
and that is a controlled flood.
  I hope those that support the President's veto do not try to create 
this false choice between picking between the environment and picking 
between commerce. Clearly, commerce is affected. As the gentleman from 
Iowa mentioned before, navigation is extremely important. This affects 
the lower Mississippi River Valley as well. In fact, if this split 
navigation season had been in effect a year ago, it would have meant 
three feet of draft water difference in Memphis, Tennessee, which 
really does affect navigation along the lower Mississippi. But even on 
the environmental point of view, we have scientists in our State, our 
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, that opposes a spring rise. 
They say they are convinced that off-channel and nonflow-related 
mitigation and restoration efforts are the best ways to enhance 
habitat. They say that the Missouri River already has a natural spring 
rise hydrograph, yet we have not seen how certain species are 
flourishing and so they look at other options.
  Mr. Speaker, we can be environmentally friendly and still support 
this veto override. That is why our own State Department of Natural 
Resources believes that improvement projects can be done with the 
cooperation of adjacent landowners, that that will provide the best 
success.
  Let me just say that the Missouri River, we are very blessed as it is 
a natural resource that supports 60 species of mammals, 301 species of 
birds, 52 species of reptiles or amphibians, 156 species of fish. The 
President vetoed this bill because of two birds and one fish that are 
on the endangered species list. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that we would 
consider the habitat of the 22,500 homeowners that are located within 
the identifiable flood control area, flood plain area.
  I urge this body to override the President's veto.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, my State has been trying to revise the master manual for 
a long time. Unfortunately, this issue has become political and it 
should not. It has become more about endangered species than it has 
about people. The State of South Dakota has a lot at stake in this 
debate. We have a huge recreational industry in our State. In fact, the 
recreational industry in South Dakota and surrounding States is about 
$80 million a year, whereas navigation is about $7 million a year. The 
master manual needs to be revised to reflect modern uses. The Corps of 
Engineers is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and with 
the eight Missouri Basin States in an association, the Missouri River 
Basin Association, to do just that. There is a schedule in place. The 
environmental impact statement is due out in June of next year. The 
final decision is due in 2002.
  My point very simply, Mr. Speaker, is that this is an independent 
process. It is a process that is working to build consensus among the 
States of the Missouri River Basin. It should not become bogged down 
and involved in politics and unfortunately it has. I supported the 
energy and water bill when it left the House because it had water 
funding that is important to my State of South Dakota and the chairman 
worked closely with us to secure that. This issue became bogged down 
and the President vetoed it over an independent provision, a provision 
which, as I said earlier, has no immediate consequence because the 
process that is in place to revise the master manual moves forward 
independent of this rider. It is important in my view that we get a 
master manual fix, a revision that is reflective of modern uses on the 
reservoir.
  The spring rise/split season approach frankly, Mr. Speaker, is not in 
the best interests of South Dakota. It hurts hydropower generation. We 
would lose about $50 million a year in hydropower generation if that 
becomes the change. It also hurts, I think, a lot of the downstream 
areas south of Gavins Point in the area of bank erosion. There are 
environmental problems associated with this. And what has happened is 
all these things have become hostage to the piping plover, the least 
tern, and the pallid sturgeon.
  I support those things, Mr. Speaker. We want to make sure that we 
protect endangered species but not at the expense of people, not at the 
expense of a process that is moving forward on an independent track and 
which will address the master manual in a consensus way.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to 
vote in a bipartisan way to override the President's veto. The 
Democratic mayor of Council Bluffs, Iowa stood recently with the 
Republican mayor of Omaha saying we do not like the idea of controlled 
floods. We have Republicans and Democrats from South Dakota, Iowa, 
Nebraska, Missouri. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) is not 
in favor of the new flood plan.
  We should vote to override the President's veto on this, and we 
should look at a better plan.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a valued member of the subcommittee and 
also one that has worked on this bill considerably.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Packard) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding the President's 
veto of the 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and I urge each 
and every Member who voted in favor of the conference report 2 weeks 
ago to maintain their support for this legislation today.
  The administration appears to show a callousness toward the rural 
people who will be flooded. This callousness smells of the comments 
that the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) made earlier this 
year to the effect that the Democrats were writing off the rural areas, 
and I am quoting, ``to hell with the rural people,'' unquote, attitude.
  Well, the flooding of Missouri and several other States has in 
several recent years put Missourians and others through a sort of hell. 
I ask for some compassion and common sense here for these people.
  My other concern is about the trustworthiness of the administration. 
This very provision has been signed in the previous 4 years.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, a certain four-letter word has been 
mentioned several times here on the House floor, and I am wondering if 
it is appropriate given the decorum of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In response to the inquiry of the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), it is not in order to use profanity 
during debate, even if uttered and quoted from a printed source.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is recognized.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I accept that.

[[Page H9669]]

  Mr. Speaker, as I said a few short weeks ago, this is a good bill, 
and a good conference report. It is balanced and responsible. At a time 
when energy costs are hitting record levels and when water projects 
vital to the lives of American citizens are needed, we cannot sit idly 
by as the President would have us do.
  So I would just simply say that this bill is worthy of becoming law, 
and I believe that we have every reason in the world, as a Congress 
acting in this fashion, to override this veto because, frankly, it does 
not speak to the needs of the people. So I would just join in with 
those who have already spoken on behalf of overriding this veto by the 
President. I think it is a just bill, and I think it is proper that we 
do override this veto.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply end my remarks by again asking my 
colleagues to vote to override the President's veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to reaffirm the fact that, and I 
think it is well known in this body, we have tried to write this 
conference report as a very bipartisan piece of legislation. I have 
gone as far as I know how to go to really reach out to the other side, 
and I hope that they will recognize that this is a good bill and, 
therefore, we need to override the President's veto.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, when the House considered the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Conference Report nearly two weeks ago, I voiced 
my strong opposition to the legislative rider that would prevent the 
Corps of Engineers from moving forward to revise the Missouri River 
Master Manual. At the time I indicated that I would vote to sustain the 
President's veto if the conference report came back to the House and I 
intend to do that today.
  Today, the Missouri River is managed by the Corps of Engineers on the 
basis of a manual that was adopted over 40 years ago. Under the manual, 
the Corps manages the river by trying to maintain steady water levels 
through the spring and summer to ensure there is always enough water to 
support barge traffic downstream. Unfortunately, under this management 
system, navigation has been emphasized on the Missouri River to the 
detriment of upstream interests, including recreation, which is much 
more important now than it was in 1960. The projections on barge 
traffic used to justify the manual have never materialized and have 
actually declined since its peak in the late 1970s.
  The manual used today does not provide an appropriate balance among 
the competing interests. The time has come for the management of the 
Missouri River to reflect the current economic realities of a $90 
million annual recreation impact upstream, versus a $7 million annual 
navigation impact downstream. The Corps should not be stopped in their 
efforts to revise and update the manual and achieve a balance between 
all parties who use and rely on the Missouri River.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be determined by the yeas and 
nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 315, 
nays 98, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 523]

                               YEAS--315

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--98

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Engel
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Toomey
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Archer
     Barton
     Campbell
     Coble
     Danner
     Eshoo
     Franks (NJ)
     Klink
     Lazio
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (VA)
     Neal
     Schaffer
     Shuster
     Waxman
     Wise

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HASTINGS of Florida, DELAHUNT, GONZALEZ, and SCOTT, Ms. 
KILPATRICK, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, and Ms. CARSON changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was passed, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:

[[Page H9670]]

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 523, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will notify the Senate of the 
action of the House.

                          ____________________