[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 39 (Thursday, March 22, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1070-H1074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 247, TORNADO SHELTERS ACT

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this 
time on this open rule.
  I ask the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) how many 
speakers he has remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we have three speakers on this side.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest features of a 
deliberative body is adherence to the ordinary process unless there are 
extraordinary reasons. We have a process for the consideration of 
legislation. We have committees. We have subcommittees. We have 
hearings.
  We have rules that a subcommittee should have a hearing and report a 
bill out or the committee should have the hearing; but in all events, 
committees should report a bill out. That is so that bills can be 
considered, deliberated, different people could be heard from whose 
perspectives one might never anticipate so that amendments could be 
offered to deal with difficulties that are perceived only during that 
process.
  Now, I am not saying that that must be an ironclad process at all 
times. I am not saying that there cannot be exceptions because of 
exceptional circumstances.
  But on this particular bill, the first I heard of it was last week 
when it was scheduled without my knowledge whatsoever for the 
Suspension Calendar. I communicated with Members of the leadership on 
the committee; and I said, Look, we cannot do this. We have not had any 
hearings whatsoever. We have not had any discussion. Let us pull the 
bill off, let us have some opportunity to discuss it, and we can take 
it up in a few weeks or so, unless there is some compelling reason, 
some compelling urgency.
  That was my understanding of what the process was going to be. I was 
flabbergasted when I found out this week that it was still coming to 
the floor of the House without hearings, without committee 
deliberation, without the ability to offer amendments, but most of all, 
without any consultation with either me or the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the relevant 
subcommittee.
  That means something. That means no respect either. That means no 
collegiality. That is not the way for the new Committee on Financial 
Services to start out this Congress. That is not the best way to bring 
up the first bill from the Committee on Financial Services, as if the 
minority Members, the Democrats, do not exist; and if they do exist, 
their rights are nonexistent.
  It is not the bill so much, but it is this very offensive process. I 
do not want to unduly delay the deliberations of the body today. I am 
sensitive to the personal needs and times of the Members. But somehow 
we must be able to make this point. We do not want this to happen 
again. We want collegiality. We want bipartisanship. We have 
experienced it in the past. We expect it as Members of this body.
  Now, with respect to the particular bill, it has a laudable goal; and 
I hope that I can wind up supporting it. I would like to. I have 
nothing but the highest regard for the sponsor of the bill. We have 
worked together on so many different causes over the years, 
particularly Third World debt. But, I really do not know the urgency. I 
suspect the Senate is not going to consider this until September. I 
could be wrong. But that means we do have some latitude of time.
  Further, this deals with an amendment to the Community Development 
Block Grant program. Now, if we are going to deal with an amendment to 
the Community Development Block Grant program, I think that there are a 
number of things that we should consider.
  First of all, if we are only going to make eligible shelters for 
tornados and storms, there is some technical issues that should have 
been considered not on the floor of the House, but in subcommittee. For 
example, should we really give public monies to private for-profit 
entities to use? That is a serious issue. We ought to talk about that, 
deliberate about it.
  Secondly, if we are going to use community development moneys, should 
we have income-targeting provisions? That is a serious issue that 
should have been dealt with in subcommittee rather than taking up the 
time of the floor.

[[Page H1071]]

  Third, should there be a nonexclusivity clause with respect to the 
use of the shelters? By that, I mean should the shelter be open to the 
public, because a good many of these shelters would not be.
  There are a host of other issues, too, that should have been brought 
up in connection with this bill.
  So I just want the minority Members to understand, I do not want to 
make the biggest case in the world out of this, but all Democrats, 
despite the fact that we are in the minority, demand respect. Respect 
means that one must recognize and maintain our rights rather than 
trample on them. This should not happen again.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I assure our friends on the other side of the aisle that 
we mean no disrespect; that, quite on the contrary, we have great 
respect for their points of view as well as the fine work that they do 
on a daily basis.
  We take note of the comments made by the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. LaFalce). All legislative bodies must balance, must 
balance a series of factors; and one factor, one such factor that is 
balanced in the equation is the need to proceed with important 
legislation. It is that factor that in our view outweighed other 
factors and today made us proceed, made the Committee on Rules come to 
the decision to proceed.
  Now, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) has worked long and 
hard, and I was pleased to see that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
LaFalce) recognized and commended his leadership as well on this issue 
of public safety. That is why we believe that it is important to move 
forward.
  In addition, we have, Mr. Speaker, another guarantee built in so that 
the minority will be respected in this process, cognizant as we are of 
the arguments made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce); and 
that is that the rule that we have brought forward is an open rule so 
that at least at this stage, the stage of the plenary consideration of 
the legislation, any Member can introduce and have considered any 
amendment to improve this important legislation.
  So in that sense, we feel that, having taken notice of the comments 
made by the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), we 
nonetheless are providing a mechanism and a vehicle for and of 
intrinsic fairness, which is the vehicle of an open rule and which I 
think that all of the Members should support as the goal for the 
functioning of this House whenever possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
proposed rule here today, and I hope that Congress is listening because 
if you listen very carefully, you will find out that you do not like 
this resolution, and you do not like this bill, and this is not the way 
the House should be operating and each of you should be aware of it.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we ignoring the regular order? Why is it so 
important that it is brought to the floor without having the scrutiny 
of anyone. Tell me why. Is it urgent or is it an attempt to confuse or 
snooker? Is it an attempt to bring something to the floor that is 
needed by someone, and someone that will perhaps benefit from this 
piece of legislation? It looks like a relief act to me for somebody. 
Please look at this piece of legislation; and when you look at it, you 
will not like it because what it is doing is bringing to the floor a 
bill that would make a significant change in the Community Development 
Block Grant program.
  Mr. Speaker, every time a bill like this comes to the floor, I come 
forward to speak against it because it is just another way of using the 
Community Development Block Grant funds to subvert general revenue 
funds and funds that should be used from that particular area.
  All of us know that we can improve our bills more by sending them to 
committee. The gentleman spoke about an open rule. An open rule is 
fine, but it does not give the kind of substantive look and scrutiny 
that a committee can give, and we have a very strong committee to look 
at this.
  President Bush talked about bipartisanship, and just a few weeks ago 
we went on a retreat where we talked about bipartisanship and respect. 
We talked about comity. You know what this particular process that they 
are using does, it undermines the bipartisan way we do things. It 
undermines the respect we have for each other. It undermines every 
tenet of bipartisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, there are several issues raised by the bill which I 
disagree with, but the committee has not had a chance to look at it. If 
we adopt this proposed rule and consider this bill, you could fund 
tornado shelters at mobile home sites which do not even have low-income 
or moderate-income residents.
  You could take that money and help some of the low- and moderate-
people in your community build homes or get jobs, but if you do this, 
which is within the law, you could do this, but if you did it, you 
would be taking the funds away from people who really need it.
  Secondly, if you do this, some contractor or developer could build 
these shelters around their property using government funds; and when 
this is all over, that shelter belongs to that developer or property 
owner; and when someone in your district who might need a home, a 
moderate-income person, and you know how hard it is to get affordable 
housing in this country, you know how hard it is to get a house.
  Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, I would have a hard time supporting this 
particular rule, and the bill as well, because I feel very deeply about 
the Community Development Block Grant program, and I have seen several 
runs on these funds. Each of you who have a pet project that you want, 
you come to the floor and make a run on the Community Development Block 
Grant funds. This was really a very bad way of doing it, and I think 
you should rethink this and go back to the bill and let them look at 
it. Go back to the committee and let them look at what you are trying 
to do.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress intended for these funds to be used for a 
distinct purpose. It did not mean for you to come to the floor with an 
emergency all of a sudden, look, here is a pile of money, let us use 
this for that emergency. Congress intended for you to take these moneys 
and help low- and moderate-income people. So this is inconsistent. It 
is very inconsistent with the core principle of Community Development 
Block Grant funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you, but I hope my colleagues who brought this 
to the floor will reconsider it because it does not lead to the kind of 
thing that we preach here in the Congress.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) has 23 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall) has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the author of this important legislation.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I think we have been asked a fair question 
here. Is this an attempt to snooker? Is this an attempt to deceive? No, 
it is an attempt to do neither. It is an attempt to save lives. It is 
an attempt to quit treating people who live in mobile home parks as 
second-class citizens under the HUD regulations.
  The program director at HUD for shelter programs, for storm 
mitigation, is the one that suggested this language to us. My county, 
which was hit by a tornado, 12 people, 10 of them in a mobile home, and 
during the main debate on the floor I will show you a picture of one of 
the young victims. She was alive being carried from her manufactured 
home. Her father and her 16-month-old baby were not as fortunate. They 
died.
  Mr. Speaker, when the county approached the government and asked for 
Community Development Block Grant funds, they were told that mobile 
home sites do not qualify. Clearly that is what this legislation does.
  Mr. Speaker, never consulted we are told. In fact, the committee had 
extensive talks with committee staff on the other side. I talked to one 
Democratic staffer myself. He asked, Do we need

[[Page H1072]]

this. I told him what our answer had been. He called the program 
director. He got the same answer. He called me back and said, You are 
right.
  Currently manufactured housing communities, mobile homes, are 
excluded from these grants. Low-income site-built homes qualify. 
Apartment buildings qualify. And not only that, but a $500,000 site-
built home, permanent home, qualifies for a grant from FEMA to build a 
safe room, but a mobile home does not qualify for a safe room because 
it does not have an interior hall, it does not have a room that does 
not have a window facing the outside. These shelters are, in certain 
cases, as the gentlewoman from Florida has said, going to be sited on 
mobile home parks; and the owners of those parks are going to be making 
money. It is a for-profit mobile home park. But I can tell my colleague 
that though it is going to turn a profit for the mobile home park 
operator, it is going to be a safe shelter in a storm for the people 
that live in those mobile homes, and this arcane argument is not going 
to sell with them.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. This is an idea whose time has 
come. I have talked to at least 100 mobile home residents since this 
bill has received the endorsement of every major paper in Alabama, and 
they tell me about getting a warning that in 25 or 30 minutes a tornado 
is going to bear down on their home and they plot it there and they 
watch the TV as it bears down on them, as people say get in the 
basement, get inside, get in an interior hallway if you do not have a 
basement, and yet they have to sit there and listen to the warning and 
not heed that warning.
  This is not my idea. This is the idea of a county that lost 12 
people. It was their idea. They came to me. They went to the Federal 
Government. So did a community in Missouri. Both those communities were 
told they did not qualify.
  Now, it will not be my decision and it will not be the decision of 
the gentlewoman from Florida as to whether this money will be spent. It 
will be the local community. There are no mandates; there are no 
restrictions. The local community, a city, a county, can go to a mobile 
home park and they can build a shelter, which may be beside or between 
two or three. In fact, both the gentlewoman from Florida and I would 
agree when we say mobile home park operators, sometimes we are talking 
about a widow who has seven trailers on an acre lot and who wants to 
build a shelter for 15 people there.
  Now, the fatality that I will show my colleagues, the so-called 
mobile home park this little girl was, was a half acre lot with four 
trailers on it owned by a relative. We believe that the little girl, 
and her brother and father, the two which are dead right now, we 
believe they ought to have the same right as someone living in a 
$400,000 house to go to the government and get assistance for shelter. 
Anyone today can qualify for a safe room in their house. They can get 
$2,000 to reinforce a room. But mobile home residents cannot.
  Tornadoes do not make distinctions between site-built homes and 
manufactured homes. Neither should we. And this is of the essence. It 
is of the essence because I lost 41 citizens to a tornado 3 years ago 
and I lost 12 this past fall and it is past time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the gentleman from 
Alabama would suggest that we were trying to delay this. The majority 
has been in control of this Congress last year; this year. This could 
have been brought to our subcommittee and our committee at any time. No 
one is trying to delay this. The suggestion that the orderly process of 
subcommittee and committee is somehow a delay is nonsense.
  Let us talk about why this bill is really up today. We ought to keep 
to an unavoidable minimum the times when people say things that are 
unlikely to be believed. We are not here because we expect a tornado 
tomorrow. If in fact this was important, we could have had the hearing 
last week, 2 weeks ago. This bill could have been on the floor today 
after a subcommittee and committee process.
  We offered that to the gentleman from Alabama. Indeed, to his credit 
when I talked to him on Monday and said we just have a couple of 
questions about the bill, he said, let us pull it. But he was overruled 
by his leadership. Why? Because last night the Republican schedule 
called for the budget to be voted out, and today the Republican 
schedule calls for a vote on taxes. Now, we are not working very hard 
on anything that is not part of the President's agenda. Apparently, we 
are on the limited attention span approach. The people can only keep 
track of one or two things at a time, so let us only do one or two 
things at a time.
  The problem is that when we finished this hard- working Congress' 
business yesterday, at about noon, maybe it was 1 o'clock, I should not 
exaggerate, Members would have left. There was nothing to keep them for 
the week. And the Republican leadership was afraid they would not have 
the quorum they needed to put through the budget last night and to put 
through the tax bill today. So that is why this bill is on the floor 
today and everybody knows that, despite what they say.
  Of course, it is important for us to provide help, but there is 
another issue I want to raise. If it so important to provide help, as I 
believe it is to these people living in the mobile home parks, why are 
we doing it without adding a penny to the pot from which it comes? That 
is part of the problem the gentlewoman from Florida and I have. We are 
expanding more and more the purposes of CDBG while providing CDBG with 
less and less. The whole Community Development Block Grant money now, 
thanks to the other party, has less money in its authorization and 
appropriation than it had years ago.
  I would love to do this, but I would like to do it with an expansion 
of the money so that protecting these people who ought to be protected 
does not come at the expense of other important purposes.
  And then there is one substantive question. This bill does not just 
say cover manufactured housing, which is a very important resource for 
low-income people in order to be better protected than they are, it 
says that the entity getting the Federal funds can give them to a for-
profit entity, who presumably could then own the shelter.

                              {time}  1130

  The gentleman from Alabama conjured up the favorite device here, the 
ubiquitous poor widow. I sometimes think that poor widows must own 
about 97 percent of America, given the frequency with which they are 
the justification for various grants of money to private owners.
  If in fact we are talking about providing special assistance to lower 
income owners, let us put that in the bill. That is why you have 
subcommittees. That is why you have committees. That is why you 
legislate. But, as I read this bill, nothing would prevent a community 
from helping to build a shelter for a wealthy owner of second-home 
manufactured housing which could then be part of that property and 
sold. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe that is not the case. I do not know 
that because we have not had a chance to discuss it in the kind of 
forum we ought to have. That is the issue here.
  For scheduling purposes, the Republican leadership took a bill that 
should not have been controversial, that has got a very laudable goal, 
as the gentleman from Alabama points out, and that could have been 
refined in subcommittee and committee.
  I have to say one other thing that bothers me and the gentlewoman 
from Florida and the gentleman from New York. They would not do this to 
a banking bill. They would not do this to the securities industry. 
Community Development Block Grants is a disfavored program under this 
congressional regime. It is about poor people's needs, and poor 
people's needs are not often given that same consideration.
  It is not an accident that the committee that used to be the 
Committee on Banking and Urban Affairs is now just the Committee on 
Financial Services. Not only did the title disappear but so did some of 
the concerns. We have real concerns about the ability of the CDBG 
program to meet all of its needs. When you continually add in new 
functions and do not give it any money but in fact reduce money, you 
cause stresses.
  The goal of providing shelters for people in manufactured housing is

[[Page H1073]]

wholly noncontroversial, and we would be glad to work on it. We would 
have been glad to work on it a month ago. This bill could have been 
brought up before that. We had a hearing in the subcommittee on the 
FHA. It was a very good hearing that the Chair called. I was glad that 
she did. But we could have used that time for this.
  I should say, by the way, it does not occur to me that this decision 
was made anywhere but at the Republican leadership. I do not think we 
have an intracommittee problem here. We have a problem that the 
Republican leadership had a need to keep the Members here. They could 
not ground the planes and they could not force people to stay, so they 
put a bill on the floor. That is our method of house arrest. That is 
what we have got. It is a shame that this bill is being used for that 
purpose.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, this is obviously not an issue simply for 
Alabama and Florida. I want to say that, believe it or not, we had 
tornadoes in southern California 2 years ago where the roofs came off 
of parks in one of my cities, Paramount, where there is any number of 
parks there where people have moved out of their homes and lived in a 
much smaller level than they did when they were in those homes. But 
their houses are now gone.
  This can happen in any particular State in this Union. Rather than 
argue over subcommittee, full committee and all that, it seems to me we 
are big enough to solve it in this Chamber. Those are simply tools of 
the House on some things. This is very clear, the use of Community 
Development Block Grant funds for construction of tornado-safe shelters 
in manufactured home parks. That is what a lot of home parks are 
nowadays. I think a lot of us in this Chamber have fought for the 
rights of people in those parks.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for his 
kindness at the beginning of the debate in taking some time. We were 
surprised how fast this came up for a debate. He gave us some time to 
get over here and be prepared. We thank him very much.
  They have heard our concerns. They are credible. We hope that they 
listened to them. We do not like to have our rights trampled upon.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his kindness and, 
quite frankly, all of our friends on the other side of the aisle who 
have brought forth concerns which we note. But, as I stated before, in 
the balancing of interests before the Congress and in fact when we are 
dealing with the most instantly devastating natural disaster 
conceivable, we have brought forth in a very rapid fashion legislation 
to the floor of this House with an open rule that will save lives.
  So for that fundamental reason, this legislation, which is a local 
option legislation, which does not force local communities to do 
anything but does provide the option for local communities to take 
steps to save lives, we believe that it is important to bring it forth. 
We believe that it is important to bring it forth rapidly, and in rapid 
fashion we are dealing with the most dangerous, instantly devastating 
natural disaster, which is the tornado.
  I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) once again for his 
leadership on this issue.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to support not only the underlying 
legislation but the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to 5 minutes the time for electronic 
voting on motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 1099 and H.R. 802 
following the vote on House Resolution 93.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246, 
nays 169, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 57]

                               YEAS--246

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--169

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner

[[Page H1074]]


     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Blunt
     Brown (FL)
     Cannon
     Clement
     Gordon
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Moakley
     Morella
     Myrick
     Portman
     Rothman
     Scarborough
     Sisisky
     Toomey

                              {time}  1201

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. BALDACCI and Mr. HILLIARD 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________