[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 140 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11538-H11545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS 121, 122, 123, 
AND 124, EACH MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2001

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 662 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 662

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 121) 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) making 
     further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001, and 
     for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered 
     as read for amendment. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 123) making

[[Page H11539]]

     further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, 
     and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) making 
     further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, 
     and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that the 
use of personal electronic communications devices is prohibited in the 
Chamber of the House, and they are to disable wireless telephones 
before entering the Chamber of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. Linder. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 662 is a closed rule providing for 
consideration of House Joint Resolutions 121, 122, 123 and 124. Each of 
these joint resolutions make further continuing appropriations for 
fiscal year 2001 for a period of 1 day. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 662 
provides for 1 hour of debate on each joint resolution, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order 
against the consideration of these joint resolutions. Finally, the rule 
provides one motion to recommit on each joint resolution, as is the 
right of the minority. This rule was favorably reported by the 
Committee on Rules yesterday, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for being more brief than he was the last time. He caught me 
off guard. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary half-
hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of the 
eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth continuing resolutions we 
have done in the last month. Each one of these continuing resolutions 
will keep the Federal Government open just 1 more day, because my 
Republican colleagues just have not finished their 13 appropriation 
bills.
  The 1974 Budget Act requires that these bills, those 13 bills, be 
signed into law by October 1. But, my Republican colleagues have spent 
much too much time passing tax breaks for big business and not enough 
time on school construction.
  So, here we are on October 30 with only five appropriation bills 
signed into law. Those bills are Defense, Military Construction, 
Interior, Transportation, and Agriculture, and VA-HUD and Energy and 
Water. Meanwhile, waiting at the White House are Legislative Branch, 
Treasury-Postal, and others. Still outstanding are Labor, Health and 
Human Services; Commerce, State, Justice; Foreign Operations; and 
District of Columbia. But, because so many bills are outstanding, Mr. 
Speaker, my Republican colleagues have been forcing Congress to spend 
time passing emergency measures and protections for special interests, 
while Democrats have still been fighting for new school construction.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) have a school construction bill 
that is supported by 230 Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans 
alike. This bill would provide $25 billion over 10 years of interest-
free financing for school construction and modernization with 
prevailing wage protections. But my Republican colleagues refuse to put 
this bill into the Labor, Health and Human Service appropriation bill 
so that the President can sign it and local communities can begin 
building new schools.
  So, rather than wasting time this month on abbreviated work weeks, 
renaming post offices, and tax breaks for the special interests, my 
Republican colleagues should have been passing Medicare reform, 
prescription drug programs within Medicare, and funding school 
construction.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 8 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I think we 
ought to do 1-day rules and 1-day CRs, but more importantly, I think it 
is time for us to reach the compromises necessary and finish up the 
work of the 106 Congress.
  We are all asking why we are here today, and we have different views 
on it. According to ``The Baltimore Sun,'' it is because of Republican 
gridlock in Congress again. Once again, leaders of this House are 
finding they cannot get their way. Whatever happened to the fine art of 
compromise? I know my friends on the other side of the aisle would 
differ with that and have a different opinion of that. Both sides are 
right, perhaps.
  But perhaps a little practical constitutional reminder is in order 
for us today. You, we, cannot beat a President, unless we have two-
thirds of the votes. The Constitution guarantees that under our 
separate, but coequal branches of government, that the only way the 
House of Representatives can win is to have two-thirds of the vote, no 
matter how we like or dislike a President, now or in the future. And we 
cannot get two-thirds of the vote, unless we are willing to work with 
at least some on the other side of the aisle which, unfortunately, our 
leadership has chosen not to do.
  Remember the budget resolution where all of this began? The 
President's budget called for $637 billion in spending, and you said 
you were going to hold discretionary spending to $625 billion and you 
complained about big spending Democrats, including we Blue Dogs, those 
of us in the Blue Dog Coalition proposed a budget suggesting a 
compromise of $633 billion. This budget was supported by 138 Democrats 
and 37 Republicans.

                              {time}  1115

  If 45 more Republicans had joined with 137 of us, perhaps the debate 
would be a little different. Perhaps we would not even be here. If the 
leadership in Congress had been willing to work with us, we could have 
had a credible bipartisan budget that would have held spending down to 
$633 billion. Instead, we are on a path to spend $645 billion or more 
next year, $12 billion more than the Blue Dogs suggested and $8 billion 
more than the President requested. Some compromise.
  Some compromise, spending $8 billion more than the President. And yet 
my colleagues, some continue to come to the floor and say how much more 
are we going to spend. Well, they have won on this issue. When we 
passed the rule last week on the foreign operations bill, they voted to 
raise, at least some, not all, a majority of us, not me, voted to raise 
the caps to $645 billion. The issue of how much we are going to spend 
is a moot issue.
  I would much rather have held it to $633 billion. My Republican 
colleagues wanted to go to $645 billion. The President wanted to keep 
it at $637 billion.
  So let us not have any more of this because any of these issues that 
spend more money, my colleagues should know by now that the rules of 
the House suggest that if we spend more than $645 billion, we will 
sequester all spending next year to bring the level back to $645 
billion if we mean it, and I hope we mean it. So let us quit talking 
about that money is the issue.
  I do not know how the leadership in the House honestly can complain 
that Democrats are big spenders when they have already voted 
appropriation bills

[[Page H11540]]

and sent to the President spending $11 billion more than the President 
requested. I do not understand how voting to increase spending by $21 
billion on programs that a prominent Republican has identified as low 
priority, unnecessary, or wasteful spending is acceptable, but asking 
for $5 billion more for education makes someone a big spender.
  Under the plan being pushed by leaders in the Congress, we will 
squander the surpluses that should be used to deal with a variety of my 
priorities including eliminating our national debt. Leadership is 
taking credit for debt reduction that was achieved only because their 
proposals to use the entire budget surplus for tax cuts was defeated.
  The recent conversion to debt reduction rhetoric after 2 years of 
rhetoric to the contrary comes after their tax cut proposals fell flat. 
The cover of the September 16 issue of Congressional Quarterly 
described the leadership strategy with this headline: ``Desperate to 
find a way out, GOP settles for debt reduction.''
  Mr. Speaker, we easily could have bipartisan agreement on death tax 
relief, on marriage tax penalty relief, on a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit, a Patients' Bill of Rights, campaign finance reform 
legislation; yet this Congress will adjourn without enacting any 
legislation on any of these issues. The leadership has chosen to take 
these issues off the table. They have won on these issues. They are off 
the table. But we will not go home, we will not go home without making 
sure we have given our hospitals, nursing homes, and home health care 
providers the relief that they need. That is the dividing issue, the 
one that must be worked out.
  There is strong support among Democrats for meaningful estate tax 
relief that would repeal the death tax for all estates less than $4 
million and reduce rates for all other estates by 20 percent 
immediately. This proposal could be signed into law. But according to 
the Wall Street Journal, some in the Republican leadership rejected 
that proposal because they are afraid that ``the GOP would lose a 
powerful election-year issue for its candidates.'' And they might be 
right.
  We heard a lot of rhetoric Saturday about the need for a national 
energy policy; yet we are about to conclude another Congress without 
any effort on the part of the House to develop a national consensus on 
energy policy. We could have taken a small step by adopting the tax 
incentives for domestic oil and gas producers that were included in the 
Senate version of the tax bill, but for some reason the leadership of 
the House opposed this bipartisan effort as well.
  Surely we can reach a bipartisan agreement now if leaders of the 
Congress are willing to work with the President to find compromises on 
the remaining issues. But I have to ask, why did the congressional 
leadership not accept the President's offer to meet yesterday to 
discuss an agreement on responsible tax relief and a Medicare package 
that provides assistance to health care providers as well as 
beneficiaries, instead of providing over 40 percent of the funding for 
HMOs?
  Let me repeat so that all of us can understand and hear clearly, 
particularly the leaders of the Congress: we will not have a final 
budget agreement that allows us to leave here without making sure we 
have given our health care providers the relief that they must have, 
nor without satisfactory compromises regarding school construction, 
class size reduction, immigration, and the other issues remaining.

  We would not need to be here on October 30 if 2 or 3 months ago, when 
this work should have been happening, the Republican leadership had 
been willing to work with us in a bipartisan spirit on a fiscally-
responsible budget that funded priority programs including Medicare, 
provided reasonable tax relief, and paid down the debt. Unfortunately, 
for some reason the leadership has chosen a course that has produced 
gridlock and inaction.
  Mr. Speaker, it is your move. The ball is in your court. Do your job 
and you will find a lot of bipartisan support, especially if you were 
to ask.
  This is the message that I hope that all of us will take. It is time 
to quit the fingerpointing. We are down to the last few issues. Some of 
them are very, very important; but all of them must be compromised. It 
is unrealistic to believe that anyone, the President or the House, can 
get their way absolutely. But a reasonable compromise on all of these 
issues could be reached this afternoon if only we would find the 
willingness to sit down and to talk to each other, a willingness that 
we have not been willing to do for the last 2 years, 4 years or 6 
years. That is why we are here today.
  Again, we cannot, we cannot defeat this President, the next 
President, or any President unless we have two-thirds of the vote. We 
cannot get two-thirds of the vote unless we work for it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), who in the well of the House outlined many of the same 
arguments that he outlined last night when we gathered here in informal 
session to have an honest discussion on some differences.
  One thing that I think is interesting is this: when the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) put the question to the gentleman from 
Texas, if we reverted to the President's original budget numbers, if 
that were the key to accommodate the President as my friend points out, 
that certainly the President has a role in this process, if we were to 
revert to the President's original estimates, could there be a 
guarantee that the President would sign the appropriations bills? The 
gentleman from Texas was very candid last night. He said he could not 
guarantee that, and he respectfully submitted that that was not the 
question.
  But, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the question, because that is the 
argument my friend from Texas has made. We do not seek to ignore the 
President or deal with some sort of blatant hostility. We understand 
consensus and compromise and we have done that. And even as the 
gentleman outlined the challenge confronting us with Medicare, I would 
remind all of my colleagues that just last week on this floor we passed 
a piece of legislation vital for health care with the bulk of the help 
going to hospitals, especially rural hospitals, to local health care, 
to nursing homes.
  The fact is some chose not to vote for it. Now, good people can 
disagree. We are here in this situation, as we try to find consensus 
and compromise, and the question again, Mr. Speaker, is this: How much 
is enough?
  I understand the calendar. I do not presume to be naive. I know this 
is the political season. But I would join with the gentleman from Texas 
who says let us not engage in fingerpointing. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the 
challenge before us is to put people before politics, and that is what 
I suggest we do.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for those Americans who may be following 
these proceedings, they might be asking themselves what exactly are we 
doing here 30 days after the appropriation and funding bills are 
supposed to have been enacted into law? What have we accomplished? Or a 
better question: What have we not accomplished this Congress?
  I would like to give a brief overview. Over the last 2 years, the 
Republican leadership of this Congress has had a unique opportunity. It 
was an opportunity to work with House Democrats and to work with the 
President to craft a sensible, bipartisan solution to some of America's 
most difficult and toughest problems: the unchecked powers of the HMOs 
to veto family health care decisions; the fact that literally millions 
of senior citizens cannot afford to buy prescription medicine that they 
need; the need to increase the minimum wage for those people who work 
and make this country run by taking care of our seniors in nursing 
homes and feeding us and cleaning our offices and taking care of our 
children in child day care centers; the fact that kids from one end of 
this country to the other are forced to go to school in cramped, 
overcrowded classrooms.
  The Republican leadership had 2 whole years, some would say 6 years 
since they became the majority, to work with President Clinton and 
Democrats to respond to these problems. Had they decided to work with 
us

[[Page H11541]]

by now, we could have had a prescription drug benefit in effect. People 
who use HMOs could have had the right to legally challenge them. 
Millions of people would not have been thrown off the benefits of HMO 
plans or denied benefits under those plans. We could have started 
working on repairing and modernizing our schools all over this country.
  Minimum wage workers who are struggling, often adults with a couple 
of children, to provide for their family could have had thousands of 
dollars into their pockets. But I am sad to say that instead of rolling 
up their sleeve and working with us, the Republican majority chose to 
obfuscate, to shrug their shoulders, to walk away.
  Mr. Speaker, just do not take my word for it. Listen to what 
America's leading newspapers are saying. Rollcall: ``What a mess . . . 
If (voters) paid attention, they'd surely be appalled, as practically 
everybody here in this town is. House leaders failed to work out a 
joint strategy with Senate leaders, and they have been utterly 
uninterested in working with House Democrats.''
  The Washington Post: ``The Un-Congress continues neither to work nor 
adjourn. For 2 years, it has mainly pretended to deal with issues that 
it has systematically avoided.''
  The Baltimore Sun: ``Whatever happened to the fine art of compromise? 
It seems to have vanished from the lexicon of Republicans on Capitol 
Hill. The result is more gridlock in Washington, as Republicans try to 
force their political agenda down President Clinton's throat.''
  And, of course in the USA Today today they described this Congress as 
a ``costly do-little Congress.'' I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that 
this is a do-little and a delay Congress. They have done little; they 
have delayed much.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have demonstrated that the only place 
they are capable of leading Congress is gridlock and dead end. It is 
time for a change. This has been an utter failure. We have failed to 
address the main issues that the American people have sent us here to 
address, and the American people understand that. They know that, and 
they will respond to that if we do not, in the next couple of days, 
answer some of these questions that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) and others have addressed.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to react to some of the 
speakers that have preceded. Republicans have come in with some 
additional spending. Deployments by the Clinton-Gore administration, 
Haiti, $4 billion; $3 billion of that is in Aristide's pocket. 
Extension of Somalia where we had 18 Rangers killed; the United States 
paid for 86 percent of Kosovo.
  I think that is wrong. And my colleagues on the other side would say 
that there should be more burden-sharing from NATO countries. That has 
come at a great expense of our defense, of our military, of our men and 
our women.

                              {time}  1130

  We have got 22 ships that are tied up to the pier because of deferred 
maintenance. The Secretary of the Navy just announced the descoping and 
cancellation affecting repair and maintenance of 26 naval ships, which 
means that is 26 more ships this year will not be worked on; and that 
the lack of funds, because we have used it, they have had to shift the 
ship repair money over to the CV, the carriers, and the submarine 
refueling because of the deployments that we have had.
  My colleagues talk about working bipartisan. Many of us long for 
that, and we have on many cases. But I want to give my colleagues an 
idea that, with the HMOs, when Governor Bush, and I believe that the 
polls are showing it, is President, we will pass a patients' bill of 
rights. But it will not allow lawyers to sue unlimited amounts and put 
a hospital, a doctor, or a health care provider out of business with 
one lawsuit. Then one will not be able to go down and sue the small 
business that hires them in good faith. I mean, that is a pretty strict 
difference between the two parties. When one talks about compromise, we 
are not going to allow one to put health care providers out of work.
  If one looks at the bill that is before us right now with Davis-
Bacon, many States have overridden Davis-Bacon requirements. Now, their 
side of the aisle wants even those States that do not have Davis-Bacon 
to have to fall under construction. We think that is wrong. A, it adds 
between 15 to 35 percent to the school construction. We are saying let 
the schools keep the extra money instead of paying the union wage.
  Those are pretty big differences. The reason that we have not come 
forward is, on both sides, that the different positions sometimes are 
here or they are out here to the left. I think where we have come to 
the center and work together, that is the best thing that this Congress 
can do. That is what we are trying to do. That is why we are here 
today.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me the time. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), the last speaker, just answered a big part of the previous 
question of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The reason we cannot go back and undo the budgets now is that there 
is only one really left. We have spent the money. We have different 
opinions as to whether we have spent it wisely, but it is done. My 
point that I am trying to make is it is done.
  We have set the caps of spending of $645 billion. If we wanted to 
spend less, we should have done it with the budget resolution that 
would have had the kind of support to carry us through. We did not do 
that. But that is done.
  I wanted to emphasize where I am coming from and where I think a lot 
of Members on both sides of the aisle are coming from regarding the 
health care, the Medicare relief bill.
  For the rurals, the urbans, the teaching hospitals, what I would like 
to have seen us done is add a 2nd year of full market basket update for 
inpatient hospital services. That needs to be done to get consistency. 
Restore cuts for skilled nursing facilities for 2 years, not just one. 
Restore cuts for home health providers for 2 years, not just one. 
Improve the formula for Medicare disproportionate share hospitals to 
equalize payments to rural hospitals.
  Now, many were already saying, then you are wanting to spend more 
money. No. I believe that we could have given less to the HMOs and more 
to our hospitals, and we would have had a better package. That is my 
opinion. I suspect that there are more that share that opinion, because 
I really believe, and more of the folks believe, that that is what we 
should have. We have the argument of consistency.
  Our rural hospitals and others that are struggling to keep their 
doors open, we give them 1 year. The atmosphere that we are in today, 
what kind of planning can you give. Why could we not give a 2-year 
certainty on this and then start working soon after the next election 
as to where we truly go with health care policy? We need to do this.
  That is why I say I think people are having some real wrong ideas and 
thoughts that we are not going to be able to work this and several 
other areas out on the Medicare relief bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in case the American people are having 
difficulty understanding the argument of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), as most of us over here are having difficulty, because it 
does come down to us, we believe, the President asking for more money; 
and we are trying to keep control of the budget.
  But if we cannot understand that, they should be able to understand 
one of the other issues, the major issue of contention between the 
Republicans and the other side of the aisle and the Clinton-Gore 
administration; and that is the Clinton-Gore administration is 
demanding that we stay here, and they are holding us hostage with the 
demand that we give a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal 
immigrants.
  Now, the American people should be able to understand that. All of 
this budget talk, if one cannot understand what is going on there, one 
should be able to understand that this administration, the Clinton-Gore 
administration, the other side of the aisle, want us, and we are 
refusing, to grant a

[[Page H11542]]

blanket amnesty so that millions of more illegal immigrants will, 
number one, be granted amnesty and eventually be eligible for 
government programs, which means millions of illegal immigrants who are 
now not eligible will be eligible for health care benefits, for 
education benefits.
  Here we are trying to give a modest, just a modest bit of tax relief 
to the American people, and that is outrageous; but it is not 
outrageous to bring millions of more illegal immigrants into this 
country and make them eligible for government benefits. Give me a 
break. Give the American people a break.
  No, I am proud to stand here with the Republicans saying, no, we are 
going to watch out for the American people. We care about others. We 
care about our immigrant population. In fact, legal immigrants are some 
of our proudest citizens. We are happy to have them here as legal 
immigrants. But to have millions of illegal immigrants be granted 
amnesty is thumbing their noses at legal immigration and at the 
American people.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I understand what he is saying. He made a very 
important point. He is asking for reason and balance; and that is, to 
respond to the needs of rural and urban hospitals and not give to HMOs 
the $34 billion that our Republican colleagues want to give to 
insurance companies, and not allow some of those dollars to be utilized 
to pay health care providers and hospitals.
  Secondarily, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my good 
friend who just spoke, has also a misunderstanding what those of us are 
trying to do with respect to legal immigration or access to 
legalization.
  Mr. Speaker, I serve as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims on the Committee on Judiciary; and I am sorry to 
say it is not a million people coming into this country, it is 
thousands of homeowners and taxpayers who have lived in this country 
for almost 20 years. In fact, the National Restaurant Association is 
begging us to be responsible to hard-working members of their community 
who have worked in their restaurants.
  This is a question with the INS. We all know the status of the INS, 
it made a great error and did not allow these individuals to proceed to 
apply for citizenship. It is not giving them blanket amnesty; it is 
allowing them to apply for citizenship.
  Interestingly enough, when many of us voted in 1996 for what we 
thought was a fair immigration policy in the dark of night, Republicans 
took away the court proceedings that were proceeding in a very orderly 
manner, sponsored by the Catholic Dioses, that would allow individuals 
to go into the courtrooms and proceed in the process of securing their 
citizenship. That was stopped in the dark of night in 1996.
  So what we are standing here for is to ensure that those who are 
trying to seek legalization, access to legalization fairly and 
honestly, citizens in Nevada, citizens in Rhode Island, in New York, in 
Michigan, in California, in Texas, who are already here, whose children 
are going to school, they want to be able to access legalization.
  In fact, in my good city of Houston, a poor man by the name of Mr. 
Gonzalez, working 13 years, is about to be deported and his family left 
abandoned because he cannot have access to legalization.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for raising this, because this is one of the great 
shames and scandals of our country.
  These people which the gentlewoman speaks of are the people who do 
the work of this country. We could not be building the roads; we could 
not be feeding the people of this country. They have been here for 15 
and 20 years, and they live in fear every day because of their status. 
They make this country work.
  It just is an absolute outrage that we have to deal with this issue 
in a way that is not responsible to them and to the future of this 
country. The gentlewoman from Texas is absolutely right. We ought to do 
something about this. These are the people that take care of our 
children, our grandparents, our roads, our buildings. They collect our 
garbage. They do a lot of things.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip, for his eloquence on his 
issue, because I hate the undercurrent that I am hearing in this body. 
That is that the reason why we are here and the reason why we are stuck 
in the mud besides the issues on health care and this tax cut is 
because we do not want this millions of illegals to come into this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, they are here, and they are not millions, they are 
thousands of hard-working individuals who love this country, who love 
their families, and who came here out of persecution, and we opened the 
doors.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that we need to work on this issue.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my good friend, who I would be delighted 
to yield to when I finish my point, and maybe he can get some time from 
his side, because I know his heart is good.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply say we need to get down to dealing with hard-
working individuals and stop this undercurrent of bias that I am 
hearing. It hurts my heart.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, every time we talk about illegal 
immigration, we talk about racial bias. I have about had it. There are 
immigration laws. If they are in the country illegally, we should throw 
them out.
  We are putting up a neon sign blinking all over the world, come on 
and run in, run in illegally, and we will make one a citizen, and then 
we will let one bring one's family. Beam me up here.
  I disagree with this illegal immigration. If they want to come into 
America, damn it, get in line. There are laws. Follow the law. When 
Congress starts letting people jump the fence and get away with it and 
then use it for political gain, Congress has failed the American 
people, and Congress has shredded the Constitution.
  I want to say one last thing. Several days ago, 10 Mexican narco-
terrorists crossed the border and started shooting at our border 
patrol. They needed a helicopter to come in and provide air coverage.
  We are guarding the borders all over the world. We are flooded with 
heroin and cocaine. And my colleagues are here wanting to make more 
illegal immigrants citizens.
  I am not for making one more illegal immigrant a citizen. There is no 
bias in my heart. I am tired of the charge that is being placed against 
us.
  If they want to come into America, get in line like many Americans 
did legally. If they are not in this country legally, Jim Traficant 
says they should be thrown out, and the Congress of the United States 
should not have a flashing sign saying jump the fence.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, more than my colleagues 
think. There is a lot of political ramifications that are not very good 
for the country. With that, I would hope the Democrat party would take 
a look at the issue a little more carefully.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Chair reminds Members that 
they are to refrain from the use of profanity in debate on the House 
floor.
  The Chair reminds all persons in the gallery that they are here as 
guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval or 
disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is in 
violation of the Rules of the House.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to advise 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and myself of the remaining 
time.

[[Page H11543]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I will not take the 2 minutes, but I wanted to correct 
something.
  The impression has been left here that these people are illegal; that 
they have come here and not followed the rules. The fact of the matter 
is that many of them have come here as a result of persecution in their 
countries. They have been in line. They are waiting for documentation. 
It is not the case of them sneaking across the border and cutting in 
front of other people. These are people who have been here, have been 
accepted here, are waiting in line and not getting their documentation 
processed.
  I might also add for my colleagues that it is very ironic that we 
could come here and do on a voice vote 193,000 people, allow them into 
this country, high-tech people, when no one was around here, and then 
these folks who have been here for as much as 14 years cannot get the 
satisfaction of knowing that the taxes they have been paying for 14 
years and the work they have been providing to this country is being 
ignored.
  It is an outright scandal and it is a shame. But they happen to be 
nonhigh-tech people. They are people who do the work of the country. 
They do our garbage, they do our roads, our schools, they take care of 
our kids, they do our wash, they do the stuff in the restaurants, cook 
our food. They deserve to be here.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. The only thing I wanted to offer to this debate is the fact 
that all of us in this Nation, all of us, no matter how we look and 
what language we might have started out with, have come from somewhere 
and have sought opportunity.
  I do not know how I came legally. I was not able to come here 
legally, as I understand it. My colleagues may question my history, but 
I know my history. I came in another manner.
  So I would simply say that anyone who wants to challenge these 
individuals needs to look at their own personal history. This is a 
terrible shame what we are doing in this Congress.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate what the gentleman 
from Texas has already said, and certainly part of this disagreement is 
about the immigrants; but the major disagreement we have is that the 
Republicans have chosen to raise their own budget caps and spend that 
money by giving it as a wonderful trick or treat present to the HMOs. 
They have chosen to deny the relief that our hospitals and nursing 
homes need. They have chosen to deny prescription drug benefits for our 
seniors. They have chosen to deny estate tax and marriage tax relief to 
our citizens.
  These people cannot wait. This money should not go to the insurance 
companies, it should not be wasted by giving it to the HMOs. It should 
be used to provide a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, to keep 
our hospitals and nursing homes in business, to provide the services we 
need, to provide estate tax and marriage tax relief to our citizens.
  We should not have to wait another 1 year or 2 years or 4 years to 
see this benefit granted to the American people. It is time for this 
Congress to do its work that we should have done a long time ago.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) to instruct the gentleman from Arkansas what 
was actually in that bill he voted on.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, some of us are sitting here somewhat 
confused. We have been listening carefully to the debate and hearing, 
for example, that these folks are legal but they are in fear of their 
status; that in fact we have chosen to give $34 billion to the HMOs.
  If anyone bothered to check the entire cost of this bill, which is 
money for the hospitals, Medicare+Choice, home health, preventive care, 
on and on and on, the entire package, according to CBO, scores at $31.5 
billion over 5 years. Now, I know there has been a discussion on the 
Presidential trail about fuzzy math; but to be able to stand up last 
night and today and to continue to repeat that there is $34 billion for 
managed care in this bill is to simply ignore the fact that the entire 
package is $31.5 billion.
  By the way, the single largest percentage in this package goes to 
hospitals. That is appropriate because hospitals are the single largest 
cost factor in Medicare. As a matter of fact, the American Hospital 
Association, the largest hospital grouping in the country, has written 
a letter saying, we urge the Members to vote for the legislation; we 
urge the President not to veto the legislation. Now, when are we going 
to let the hospitals speak for themselves?
  We just heard repeated this apparent political mantra that is 
necessary that we are shorting the providers, the other providers, the 
hospitals. The hospitals said we should have voted for the bill. 
Frankly, some of the Democrats have been coming up to me and saying, 
gee, I would like to have another opportunity. My leadership led me 
astray. I did not realize exactly what was in the bill. Well, sorry, it 
came up, we voted on it, and it was passed.
  The providers themselves have written letters, more than four dozen 
home health associations, various specific acute hospitals, psychiatric 
hospitals, the providers; and they have said, sign the bill. Yet we 
continue to hear this argument, which is totally devoid of reality, 
that somehow we are spending $34 billion on the HMOs out of a $31.5 
billion bill and that we are shorting the other providers, when the 
American Hospital Association said, we like it, deliver it, and please, 
Mr. President, sign it.
  Now, we are also not talking about the very, very nice package of 
preventive care provisions that are in there extending the preventive 
care, which was first put in by this majority in 1997, having not been 
done before. We have extended it in terms of digital mammography; we 
have increased the number of Pap smears available for those in risk 
groups; we have provided screening for glaucoma; we provided screening 
for colonoscopies. In fact, the second largest grouping in this bill is 
for preventive care and beneficiary assistance.
  One of the largest dollar amounts in the package is to put real 
dollars toward correcting the overpayment by beneficiaries on hospital 
bills because they have not been treated fairly and honestly by this 
administration in terms of what an actual percentage of the bill is. 
The beneficiaries are paying 20 percent of the listed price when HCFA 
is negotiating the price down, and that 20 percent becomes 30, 40 and 
50 percent of the bill. That is shameful. We moved directly to start 
stopping that. That is the single largest chunk.
  We also, finally, allow immunosuppressive drugs to be available to 
those who have had organ transplants for the rest of their lives. 
Current administration has held it at 3 years.
  This bill is full of really good stuff supported by all of these 
groups, and what we continue to hear is a total misrepresentation. I 
know my colleagues will not stop it, but what they are saying is simply 
not true.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I too am dismayed at the tone this debate 
has taken with respect to immigration, and I am saddened and ashamed 
about it.
  All of us think we should enforce the immigration laws; but the 
immigration laws have worked to damage a segment of our society, hard-
working Americans with families who work hard and pay taxes every day, 
people who have been here since before 1986, paying taxes and raising 
families, and the law needs to be made equitable for those people.
  Last year, in Denver, we had a lady who, because she was afraid she 
would be ejected from this country permanently under the immigration 
laws,

[[Page H11544]]

left this country. She left this country and she left her newborn 
child, who is an American citizen, in the arms of her husband, who is 
also an American citizen, because she was afraid that she would never 
be able to come back if she did not leave and reapply.
  That is not only an inequity, it is a terrible human tragedy, and 
that is what we are trying to do. We are not trying to open the borders 
to everybody. We are not trying to let criminals in here. We are trying 
to protect the rights of hard-working Americans who are decent citizens 
and who pay taxes. That is what we are trying to do.
  I think we should stop all of this terrible slurring on the race and 
everything else, and we ought to get down to what this is all about.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, none of us is happy being here today on this resolution. 
I believe it is fair to say that both sides would rather be home 
talking to our constituents about the future. And as long as I can 
remember, there have been continuing resolutions passed for several 
days at a time so that only the negotiators were kept here finishing 
the job. As I recall, one year during the Reagan administration, 
agreement was never reached, and the entire next fiscal year was 
conducted under a continuing resolution that President Reagan signed.
  Yet we are here today forced to pass a series of continuing 
resolutions because we have a President who has been reluctant to leave 
the stage with grace and dignity. In order to have his way, he is 
willing to threaten to shut down the government unless we agree to this 
nonsense. He is willing to shut down the government unless we agree 
with him on his priorities in the budget. And he is willing to put 
everyone else at risk, both parties included, unless he gets his way.
  Does the world not see what is going on here? My guess is that they 
do not because they view the world through the eyes of an uncritical 
press. In 1995, the President vetoed a continuing resolution because it 
contained a ``legislative rider,'' his words, in an appropriations 
bill. Today, he is holding an entire Congress, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, hostage because we are unwilling to approve his 
``legislative rider'' in an appropriation bill. Is he likely to 
succeed? Perhaps. Because we have an uncritical press that will not 
tell that story.
  The American people might be interested in one rider he insists upon. 
We have heard it talked about today. The President is insisting on a 
rider that will grant total amnesty to as many as a million immigrants 
who came to the Nation illegally. Now, to be sure, we are a Nation of 
immigrants. We welcome those who come to our shores and use the legal 
process to become Americans. But the President wants to put those who 
ignore our laws ahead of those who are law abiding. But we will never 
hear this from the press.
  We have been here daily since the President issued his edict that he 
would not sign any continuing resolution that was longer than 24 hours. 
I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I have never seen two more 
dedicated workers for the cause of getting the people's work 
accomplished. They have been here day and night to complete the task.
  I confess they differ in their views as to the right solution for the 
final sticking points; but unlike the President, they are here working. 
They were prepared to meet even on that evening last week when the 
President and his Chief of Staff were attending the World Series, and 
the next day, when the President found it more important to get in a 
round of golf. And over the past weekend, when the President was 
campaigning for his side, oh, yes, we have been ready to meet and solve 
this. But the President has not been here, and an uncritical press will 
not point that out.
  In fact, the President plans a trip to California this week to 
campaign. We will pass one of these 1-day continuing resolutions, and a 
military jet will be dispatched to take it to the President for his 
signature. But that cost of thousands of dollars will not be billed to 
his party or the people he was campaigning for. The taxpayer will foot 
the bill. But an uncritical press will not burden the public with that 
fact.
  We are here and will be here until the President returns to town to 
sit down and negotiate. We do not expect every decision to go our way, 
but neither should the President.

                              {time}  1200

  But absent the critical press, we will never know.
  So we are left to stand here on this 30th day of October. We will 
pass this series of 24-hour continuing resolutions. We will wonder when 
the President plans to return from the campaign. We will get the job 
done for the American people. And we will look back to the old days 
when Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan and 
Bush understood that their day had passed and they left the stage with 
grace and dignity and we will long for that time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 286, 
nays 73, not voting 73, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 580]

                               YEAS--286

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer

[[Page H11545]]


     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--73

     Andrews
     Baird
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     DeGette
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kildee
     Lampson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sandlin
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--73

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Barr
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dickey
     Everett
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Goodlatte
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Neal
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pickett
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Talent
     Thompson (MS)
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Watkins
     Weygand
     Wise

                              {time}  1221

  Mr. WAXMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. GORDON and Mr. KUCINICH changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 580, I was unable to vote. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 296, 
noes 64, not voting 72, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 581]

                               AYES--296

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     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
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--64

     Baird
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bonior
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Holt
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Markey
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Sisisky
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--72

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Barr
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dickey
     Everett
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Goodlatte
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Neal
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pickett
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Turner
     Watkins
     Weygand
     Wise

                              {time}  1231

  Mr. OLVER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 581, I was unable to vote. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________