[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 138 (Saturday, October 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11462-H11465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to comment that it is interesting to note it was the Republicans first
proposal, when they took charge here, to kill low-income energy
assistance, the LIHEAP program.
Yes, it is about LIHEAP today and people being warm in this country,
particularly in those areas of the country where it is cold, like the
Northeast.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut for this motion. I rise in strong support of this motion.
I ask my colleagues, on behalf of millions of needy families, that we
maintain the current funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, better known as LIHEAP. It is of critical importance to the
families in my district and across the Nation.
Although current funding for the program is low, this conference
report lowers it even further. I do not believe that any of my
colleagues wants to be held responsible for a family or an elderly
person living in the cold because they cannot afford heating this
winter, especially in this prosperous country. The Republican majority
has cut this program every year. While they are warm in their own homes
they slash this program with cold hearts.
The purpose of LIHEAP is to help pay the winter heating bills of our
most needy low-income and elderly individuals. Two-thirds make less
than $8,000 a year. They are the poorest of the poor. Last year, this
program helped 4.4 million households. Mr. Speaker, we are not just
talking about comfort here, we are talking about the health and
sometimes even the lives of some of our citizens. The Boston City
Hospital reports that the number of clinically underweight children
increases dramatically following the coldest months, and we all know
the tragic stories each year about some elderly person dying in an
unheated home.
LIHEAP is most crucial during the peak winter heating season when
high energy bills eat up to 30 percent of a family's budget. And this
winter, heating oil prices are expected to rise 20 to 40 percent,
consuming even more of the average budget. Without LIHEAP, many low-
income families and elderly people will have to choose between heating
their homes and paying for food, medicine, and rent. I rise in strong
support of this motion.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time that remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has 7 minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to close.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my friend, the gentleman
from Florida who was here at the podium a few moments ago, that this
issue is about energy policy and it is about people being cold and it
is about people surviving this winter. That may not be true if one
lives in Florida, but it is true for those living in New York or New
Hampshire or Pennsylvania or Ohio or Wisconsin or Michigan. This is a
critical issue for people in all those States. So it is important that
we raise the level of LIHEAP funding.
I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, because, earlier this month, I asked for a
request of $8 million to fund the continued operation of the
President's initiated Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which is now
funded. But I also want to say a couple of things about energy policy
in this country and who is directing it at this moment, because that
policy is being directed by the oil companies.
The three largest oil firms are currently reporting quarterly profits
that double last year's earnings. Leading the way was Exxon-Mobil,
which 3 months ago posted the largest quarterly profits ever for a U.S.
corporation. It beat that record just a couple of days ago with the
announcement that it had earned $4.3 billion in the third quarter.
Chevron-Texaco, which announced last week that it will merge, and
Conoco all reported that their profits have doubled just recently.
Exxon-Mobil's vice president is quoted as saying, ``We've got a lot
of cash around here. It's coming in pretty fast. Flying through the
door.'' So while Americans are struggling trying to pay their home
heating bills and the gasoline bills to get back and forth to work, the
energy companies are racking up records profits.
The oil companies are not using their profits to invest in new oil
and gas exploration, which would ultimately lead to lower prices,
decreased dependence on foreign oil, and greater stability in the
market. Instead, what they are doing is using the profits to repurchase
their stocks so that they can raise the stock price.
We ought to have the Committee on Commerce convene immediate hearings
on the outrageous profits of the oil companies. That is a
responsibility that we place on the other side of the aisle. Immediate
hearings to determine what is going on.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the motion
to instruct conferees to provide full funding for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program.
Before I make a few points, I just want to agree with my colleague,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and I would encourage the
FTC
[[Page H11463]]
to continue the investigation of the oil companies that are making
record, record profits.
Secondly, with regard to points that were made by my good friends on
the other side of the aisle, I think it is important that we emphasize
that SPR is just being bid this month. It is going into circulation in
November, and we do expect to see decreases in oil prices. But again I
encourage the FTC to continue that investigation and to complete it as
expeditiously as possible.
My colleagues, I want to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for having this motion to instruct, because
we know that LIHEAP is an absolutely essential program for the poor and
elderly. When energy prices go up, low-income families and people on
fixed incomes are hurt the most. This winter, energy prices are
expected to be higher than ever. Stocks of home heating oil are at the
lowest point in years, and the natural gas supply is also expected to
tighten significantly this winter. This supply shortage will put prices
up to twice that of last year.
For millions of families, this massive increase in energy prices will
force them to choose between heat and food. We cannot stand by and
watch people have to make this choice. My colleagues, if we have to be
here on a Saturday to ensure that the numbers are adequate to serve
these seniors, the elderly, the poor, then I am pleased to be here,
because this is a critical, critical issue. In New York alone, 1.8
million families are eligible for LIHEAP assistance.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the amount of time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, some really astonishing things have been
said from the other side of the aisle. For example, that nothing has
happened in the last 8 years; that we cannot accomplish things.
Fortunately, we are all, as Americans, better off today than we were
8 years ago; but on our side of the aisle we are concerned about people
who have been left behind. This was in bills to all people living in
Chicago that says, ``Winter is coming and natural gas bills could
increase 50 percent or more.'' And on the back it says, ``If you need
help with your heating bill, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, LIHEAP, can help.'' And it says to ``call LIHEAP if you can't
pay your bills.'' In Chicago, unlike programs in Florida, there are a
lot of people like that.
We need to make sure that there are sufficient funds in that program.
That is what this motion to instruct is about, and that is why I
support it.
Just one final note. The reason that our gasoline prices were too
high had nothing to do with the EPA. All of our hearings determined
that. And now they are lower because the FTC began an investigation
into the oil companies and their colleagues in this House.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
My predecessor, as a member from the First District of Massachusetts,
Silvio Conte, a member of the other party, was one of the great figures
of the 20th century in this House of Representatives and one of the
great champions on behalf of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program. I am very glad, on his behalf, to hear that the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has agreed with the idea of
$1.6 million; maybe whatever else the gentlewoman from Connecticut
might be asking for on this program.
I urge the majority to get the Labor, Health and Education bill,
which we passed originally in this House back in July, back to the
floor so that we can finish our work. It is 4 weeks into the new fiscal
year. This is the longest session in the history of the country in an
election year, and the work is not done. We have not finished the
appropriation bills for the year.
I would like to speak to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on his
comments about energy policy and remind him that on energy policy the
majority in this Congress has obstructed both the short-term and the
long-term effort to lower our dependence on foreign oil. In the short
term, they thwarted every effort to require additional efficiency in
the use of vehicles when half of all our oil is used for transportation
and for vehicles in transportation.
{time} 1200
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. I thank my good friend from Connecticut for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, this should be a nonpartisan issue. This should be
nonpartisan in that funding for low-income people helps not only New
England but the Midwest and California and Florida. It helps not only
with heating oil, it helps in the Midwest with natural gas. And it
helps in a host of ways for nonpartisan concerns about the disabled,
the poor and our seniors who have trouble paying these bills.
In my State of Indiana, we are already working on helping these
people who are vulnerable pay what we know will be a gas bill, which
cost $100 last winter, that will be $140 this winter. So getting full
funding or more funding in this program will allow us in the State of
Indiana to now purchase natural gas or heating oil at October prices
rather than higher prices in November, December, January, and February.
This makes good common sense for compassion for the poor, for the
disabled, for senior citizens; and it makes good sense for our
taxpayers in buying things now rather than knowing what the price we
are going to pay for them later on.
I support the motion. I hope that we can work in a nonpartisan way
before an election to help some of the most vulnerable people in
society.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
This is an appropriate time for me to make this closing statement
because I just listened to my friend saying that this should be a
nonpartisan issue. Amen. In fact, I think about an hour ago, I
suggested to the gentlewoman when she offered her motion, we accept it.
We agree. We have already put in here more money than the President
asked for or that her side asked for. So we agree. It ought to be a
nonpartisan issue. If they would let it be a nonpartisan issue, it
would be.
What I cannot figure out is why in the world can you not take yes for
an answer? We have agreed to this motion.
In the little time that I have, we have heard a lot of complaint from
that side of the aisle about how long it takes to get this work done.
Here is a perfect example of why it takes so long. They cannot take yes
for an answer. Then if you give them a yes, and they do accept it, the
next time you sit down together, they move the target. They move the
goal post. At one point on the advance funding, we were at one level.
The administration and the minority asked for a level. We went to that
level. They went another level. We went to that level. Now they have
another level. I do not know where they are going to end. Maybe she
will tell me in her closing remarks exactly what their top number is
going to be. We have accepted her motion to instruct the conferees.
There were a lot of complaints about oil company profits, and I think
they make too much profit as well, and a lot of talking about price
increases to the homeowner and to the motorist. Well, who sets the oil
policy of this country? It is the President of the United States and
the Vice President. What is the policy? It must not be a very good
policy, if there is one, if prices continue to go up and up and up.
Maybe because their Secretary of Energy said, and I am quoting him, we
were asleep at the switch. An administration should not be asleep at
the switch when it is dealing with something that has so much effect on
each individual American's economy.
There is something else, though, really got me stirred up, and I do
not like to be stirred up, I would rather be calm, but one of the
speakers on that side of the aisle said that the Republicans cut
LIHEAP. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. Republicans did not
cut LIHEAP, and I am going to give you the example and I am going to
[[Page H11464]]
give you an exact number. In fiscal year 1996, there was a substantial
amount of unobligated balances for that year and so we did rescind
those, but they had not been spent. In 1997, the request was $1
billion. We as a Republican Congress appropriated $1 billion. In 1998,
the request was $1 billion. The Republican Congress appropriated $1
billion. In 1999, the request was $1 billion, a very flat number coming
from the administration. They never asked for these increases. But in
1999 again they asked for $1 billion. We upped it to $1.1 billion. In
fiscal year 2000, they asked for $1.1 billion and, yes, we went $1.1
billion.
Now, tell me how the claim, the accusation, the political rhetoric
that we cut LIHEAP has any truth or validity. It is just not true. And
the American people who are the consumers ought to know this. This
campaign rhetoric is okay on the campaign trail because candidates do
sometimes get carried away with their facts and their figures. But in
this House when we are doing the people's business, facts should be
accurate. Facts should be facts. The people's business should come
ahead of politics.
There again, I want to suggest, we are fighting over something that
we have agreed to. Why the accusations? Why the arguments? I have
pointed out how we have gone above and beyond for this year and we are
supporting this motion to instruct and we stayed with the
administration's request in all of the years of the Republican Congress
except one where we increased it. What is the argument? Is this a
political argument? If it is a political argument, it belongs out on
the campaign trail. It does not belong here in the people's House where
we are here to do the people's business and put their business ahead of
politics.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. My understanding is that if in fact we have agreed to
accept it, and there is a plea for nonpartisanship on the other side,
that the nonpartisan vote would be a voice vote. But that if somebody
calls for a recorded vote, that clearly could be indicated to be a
partisan vote.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we support the motion to instruct.
I would ask the Members to vote for it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is wonderful to watch a deathbed conversion, because with regard
to LIHEAP, the very fact of the matter is that over and over and over
again the majority party has in fact opposed LIHEAP. Not only that,
they have tried to abolish the Energy Department in 1995, they proposed
to abolish LIHEAP and, furthermore, what they tried to do with LIHEAP
is to really, in a very Scrooge-like plan, force millions of very low-
income families to make the choice between food and heat.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. The very first rescission action the Republican Congress
took when they took control is to try to cut LIHEAP, and the
gentlewoman from Connecticut and I blocked it in the Committee on
Appropriations. We beat you on that vote.
Ms. DeLAURO. This is about LIHEAP today. It is about a continued
activity of the majority to do in a program, to not properly fund it,
not only in the year that we are, in forward-funding the money in the
future. We are asking to fund this at its maximum, at $1.65 billion,
because the folks who need this assistance all across this country have
been sorely shortchanged by the majority.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Ms. DeLauro's
motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4577 with regard to the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is one of the most
important funding programs that I have the privilege to vote on, as it
provides our low income constituents with one of life's basic
necessities--energy. As the winter months approach, and the
temperatures drop, there must not be one reported death caused by our
constituent's inability to pay for their heat. This program is
especially important at a time when the American people are being
forced to pay outrageous costs for energy. All to often, we hear that a
constituent had to choose between eating and heating their home--that
is unacceptable!
Mr. Speaker, LIHEAP was created as a result of the energy crisis of
the late 1970's and early 1980's. Today, the exorbitant cost of energy
is beyond the reach of too many of our hard working constituents. This
program has proven its effectiveness in assisting low income families
to stay warm during the winter, thereby reducing the risk of exposure
to hypothermia, and in the warmer climates, by reducing the numbers of
those who would succumb to ``heat stroke'' and heart failure, but for
this program.
Mr. Speaker, the numbers, while estimated, reveals that almost 40% of
the LIHEAP households have elderly members; more than 30% of the
households have disabled members; 27% of these households include
children who are under the age of six years old, and a further 27% are
comprised of the working poor who have no access to other sources of
government assistance.
In addition to assisting those who are forced to pay a high
proportion of their household income on the high costs of energy,
LIHEAP accomplishes something else, it allows our constituents to
remain in their own homes, and to do so with dignity. It is heartening
when I hear stories from my hard working constituents who tell me that
before the assistance provided by LIHEAP, they were sleeping with
jackets, gloves and hats and in sleeping bags, in order to keep warm.
Mr. Speaker, appropriately funding the LIHEAP program is the least we
can do to protect our hard working constituents from the extreme
temperatures of the summer and the winter; our constituents deserve no
less.
Accordingly, I urge adoption of the proposal.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I support the DeLauro motion to instruct
and in support of the highest possible funding for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) program.
This vital program helps low-income households pay for home energy
costs--including home heating costs in the winter and home cooling
costs in the summer.
Every year, we see seniors die from the lack of air conditioning
during a heat wave, or from the severe cold weather we've seen so much
of recently. This could usually be prevented, if only these seniors
could have afforded the cool air or heating assistance they needed.
Approximately 4.4 million of the most vulnerable households in this
country depend on the LIHEAP program each year. And in the year 2000,
1.8 million families are eligible for LIHEAP assistance in New York
State alone. And a significant portion of those receiving LIHEAP
assistance are the elderly.
The LIHEAP program truly saves lives--by helping the frail elderly
stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer. The LIHEAP program will
be especially important this winter--which is predicted to be more
harsh than last winter.
The GOP-controlled Congress has failed to put forward its own energy
policy over the last six years--and has continuously voted down the
energy proposals of President Clinton.
Now, there is growing concern over energy supply and costs. Indeed,
the American Petroleum Institute is reporting home heating oil
inventories 20% lower than last winter. Experts are predicting that a
30% increase in home heating costs this winter is now unavoidable.
It was just 5 short years ago that this Republican Congress took over
and voted to zero out funding for LIHEAP in the House-passed Labor-HHS
bill. Thankfully, after a vigorous protest by Democrats and a
presidential veto, money was restored. But this was a dangerous lesson
for all of us. We simply cannot trust the Republican Congress to stand
up for low income seniors.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the DeLauro motion.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to instruct.
Right now, as the autumn leaves are falling, is an excellent time to
emphasize the importance of LIHEAP specifically. But we also need to
focus on this country's overall energy situation.
We have all heard the statistics:
Domestic crude oil stocks are at a 24-year low, which is translating
into significant price increases in propane, kerosene and other forms
of heating fuels.
Natural gas prices have increased by 40-50% over the past year, and
with low storage levels, increased used of natural gas for electric
generation, and higher industrial use, we can only expect higher prices
to come.
Meanwhile, gasoline prices remain high--a reality that constitutes to
highlight our dependence on foreign oil. Today we are importing
significantly more oil than we did during the energy crisis in the
1970s.
So putting enough money into funding for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program--or LIHEAP--is critical for low-income families this
winter.
In September, I urged the President to release $4 million in
emergency LIHEAP funding for Colorado. Shortly after that, he did
release emergency funds--something for which all Coloradans should be
appreciative.
[[Page H11465]]
But that action by the President needs to be followed by
Congressional action. We need to increase the overall LIHEAP funding
for fiscal 2001. Remember, two-thirds of LIHEAP households have incomes
of less than $8,000 per year and even with the assistance, the average
LIHEAP family spends over 18 percent of its income on home energy
costs, compared with 6.7 percent for all households.
So, in a time of higher fuel prices we need to act to make sure our
low-income senior citizens and children need not be forced to be cold
or to choose between heating and eating.
But beyond that, there is a broader question to consider--how can we
avoid these energy crises in the future?
What should not be focused just on the short-term issue of oil
prices. We also need to be addressing the core problem: our continued
excessive dependence on petroleum.
We need to be actively and strongly promoting alternative energy and
increasing our energy efficiency. We need to do it for the
environment--and also because it promotes our national security and
strengthens our economy.
By promoting these alternatives, we're making one of our most
valuable investments in America's future. These investments can
stimulate the private sector, and jobs, reduce our reliance on imported
oil, and improve our air and water quality.
So I urge adoption of this motion, for increased support for LIHEAP,
and I urge all of us to work together to strengthen our national
commitment to clean energy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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 305,
nays 18, not voting 109, as follows:
[Roll No. 572]
YEAS--305
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Larson
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--18
Archer
Cannon
Coble
Deal
Doolittle
Hostettler
Johnson, Sam
Largent
Linder
Miller (FL)
Paul
Rohrabacher
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Toomey
NOT VOTING--109
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Barr
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Calvert
Campbell
Clay
Clyburn
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Danner
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hilliard
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Klink
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Lipinski
Maloney (CT)
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mollohan
Morella
Neal
Owens
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Porter
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Rush
Sawyer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Visclosky
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Weygand
Wise
Wynn
{time} 1228
Mr. GILCHREST and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________