[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.

                          ____________________