[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.
____________________