[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 64 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2086-H2090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1646, FOREIGN RELATIONS
AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2002 AND 2003.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 138 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 138
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1646) to authorize appropriations for the
Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on International Relations. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on International Relations now printed in the
bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Except as specified in section 2 of this
resolution, each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed,
but not sooner than one hour after the Majority Leader or his
designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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 138 is a structured rule providing for
the consideration of H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act
for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The rule provides for 1 hour of general
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on International Relations. The rule
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. It provides that no
further amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in
the Committee on Rules report.
The rule provides that each amendment printed in the report shall be
offered only in the order printed in the report except as specified in
section 2 of the resolution. These amendments shall be offered by a
Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against
such amendments.
Section 2 of the resolution allows the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole to permit amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report
to be considered out of the order printed provided that the majority
leader or his designee announces such a request from the floor no
sooner than 1 hour before its consideration. Finally, the rule provides
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
The authority provided in section 2 of the resolution will provide
flexibility for the House during the lengthy consideration of this bill
and the 26 amendments which have been made in order by the Committee on
Rules.
In considering amendments, the Committee on Rules was as fair and
open as possible, Mr. Speaker. Of the 71 amendments filed, several of
which were duplicative or overlapping, this rule makes in order three
bipartisan amendments, 13 Democrat amendments, and 10 Republican
amendments. I believe this is a generous composition. I commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and my colleagues on the
Committee on Rules for reaching this balance.
I support this fair rule which brings forth very important bipartisan
legislation authorizing appropriations for 2002 and 2003 for the
Department of State, U.S. contributions to international organizations
and commissions, international broadcasting activities, security
assistance and for other purposes.
This bill authorizes appropriations for the State Department, thereby
setting an upper limit on the amounts that may be appropriated in the
Commerce-Justice-State and the Foreign
[[Page H2087]]
Operations appropriations bills. It also sets forth authorities and
restrictions under which U.S. foreign policy operations may be
conducted during the next 2 years.
It is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. Some of the amendments that have been
made in order can make the bill even better by addressing important
issues, such as the Mexico City policy and United Nations funding. I
believe the rule provides ample opportunity to discuss the pros and
cons of the Mexico City policy concerning funding for international
family planning organizations that offer abortions by allowing an
amendment to strike an amendment that was adopted during the committee
consideration of the bill. Members will have a clean vote on this issue
after a thorough debate. As a believer in the right to life, I intend
to support the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment because I believe
in preserving the President's legal authority to implement the Mexico
City policy. The President should have the same authority as those
before him. Preserving this policy will not take any funding away from
the $425 million the administration has requested for use in population
assistance around the world.
But my view is not what is important, Mr. Speaker. What is important
is that this issue will be thoroughly available for debate. Last week,
as Members know, the United Nations Economic and Social Council voted
to remove the U.S. from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights for the
first time since the commission's inception in 1947.
Unfortunately, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has more and more
become a club of dictatorships, with the inclusion of such regimes as
Sudan, China, Libya, Vietnam. The Cuban dictatorship is automatically
reelected as a member each time. The expulsion of the United States
simply shows, in my opinion, the true nature of a significant portion
of that commission. I am confident that the United States Congress
through this legislation will make it clear that it takes note of what
is unfortunately really happening to the United Nations.
In response to the U.N. actions, we will be debating the Hyde-Lantos-
Sweeney amendment, which would send a clear signal to the governments
which did not stand with the U.S. on the U.N. vote that expelled the
United States from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Hyde-Lantos-
Sweeney, which I intend to support, ties United States return to the
U.N. Human Rights Commission to the release of $244 million in
previously appropriated funds to pay U.S. arrearages to the United
Nations. If the amendment is adopted, money will still be available to
be released for fiscal year 2001; but it would condition the spending
of money for 2002 on the readmission of the United States to the U.N.
Human Rights Commission, giving the U.N. ample opportunity to meet this
condition.
I am also supportive of an amendment sponsored by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) which will keep the U.S. from wasting valuable
time and funds joining and participating in the U.N. so-called
Educational and Scientific Cultural Organization, which in my view is
an organization truly in search of a mission. Currently, the U.S. gives
approximately $3 million each year on a voluntary basis to support
educational, scientific, and cultural projects which we feel are
worthwhile, whereas if we were to become a member, we would be funding
good and bad projects alike.
This structured rule is not without precedent, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1015
In the 103rd Congress, at the request of the chairman of the
Committee on International Relations, the State Department
authorization bill was considered under a structured rule.
We also considered last year's American Embassy security bill under a
structured rule.
The rule is allowing for 26 amendments, which will obviously take up
a significant amount of time of the House, and which are as wide-
ranging in subject as they are in sponsorship.
I look forward to a vigorous debate on this bill. I commend the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well as the ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their commitment to human
rights, their hard work in crafting this bipartisan bill and, as
always, for making us all in this House proud.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a restrictive rule. It will allow for
consideration of H.R. 1646. It is a bill that would authorize the
Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. As my colleague
from Florida has described, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate. It
will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on International Relations. The rule
permits floor consideration of only those amendments selected by the
Committee on Rules.
I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their leadership on this
bill. It is refreshing to see a State Department authorization bill
which increases funding for vital foreign policy programs instead of
making major cuts as we have done in the past.
Our Nation's diplomats are the ounce of prevention towards avoiding
international conflict, and a good diplomatic corps with sufficient
resources can prevent much more costly and disruptive military actions.
I am also pleased that the bill funds our Nation's commitment to
international organizations, especially the United Nations.
Last year, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard
Holbrooke, negotiated an agreement to lower our U.N. dues, saving
America millions of dollars. This legislation will honor that agreement
by making the technical changes to current U.S. law. We must now uphold
our part of this bargain by paying our back dues to the United Nations.
Great nations honor their commitments, and we must pay our bills.
This measure increases the authorization for UNICEF and for refugee
assistance. Both of these accounts save lives and they deserve our
support. Since 1995, funding for the refugee account has been so low it
has not even kept up with inflation. This bill increases the account by
more than $100 million above the President's request and will help make
up for the shortfall. This funding is especially critical, now since a
funding shortfall is anticipated from other donor nations.
Though I am pleased with the bill that was reported out of committee,
I must express my disappointment with the rule to accompany the bill
that we are now considering. In the 104th and the 105th Congresses, we
took up the State Department authorization bill under an open rule. In
the 107th Congress, the rule was restrictive but the Committee on Rules
made in order most requested amendments. Now this restrictive rule
makes in order less than half of the amendments requested.
Moreover, the amendments that are made in order do not fully address
the breadth of issues of concern to House Members.
I am especially concerned about one amendment made in order to be
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) to withhold some U.N. dues unless the
United States is returned to its seat on the U.N. Human Rights
Commission. I must state that I hold these gentlemen in the highest
personal regard and I fully support the ultimate goal of their
amendment. Like most Americans, I am outraged that the United States
was removed from both the United Nations Human Rights Commission and
the International Narcotics Control Board. Like the sponsors of this
amendment, I want the United States to get back on these commissions in
2002. However, I strongly oppose the approach of the Hyde-Lantos
amendment that hold our U.N. back dues hostage to the United States
returning to these commissions.
This is the money we owe the U.N. and we have already agreed to pay
it. As the gentlemen know, I am opposed to linking back payment of U.N.
dues to any cause. With great reluctance, I broke from my pro-life
colleagues who wanted to link payment of our dues to funding some
international family
[[Page H2088]]
planning organizations. Then, as now, I fully supported the end result
but then, as now, I do not think that threatening to withhold our U.N.
dues, our U.N. back dues, was the proper tactic.
Mr. Speaker, this is President Bush's view as well. Yesterday, the
President's spokesman stated while the United States is disappointed
with the results of the Human Rights Commission election, the President
feels strongly that this issue should not be linked to the payment of
our arrears to the U.N. and other international organizations.
The United States has been and continues to be a beacon of hope for
defending the human rights and freedoms of all people, and this is the
promise of the United Nations. I am afraid that the Hyde-Lantos
amendment would only further undermine the operations of the U.N. and
our ability to provide leadership. Despite my support for the bill, I
reluctantly oppose the rule, and ask my colleagues to vote no on this
unnecessarily restrictive rule. Should the rule pass, I ask my
colleagues to vote no on the Hyde-Lantos amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Committee on International
Relations but I would like to express my disappointment that of my
amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules, none of them
were approved. That was a great disappointment to me.
I will vote for the rule, recognizing the fact that it is hard to
accommodate everyone, but nevertheless it is very clear that I have
been an outspoken opponent of the United Nations, and the amendments
that we will be discussing will really not deal with the essence of
whether or not we should be involved as we are in foreign
interventionism. I think we are tinkering on the edges and will not do
much to improve the bill even if some of the amendments are passed,
some of which I will support.
I do think there are some serious things that we must consider. One
is the issue of national sovereignty. To support H.R. 1646, one has to
vote to give up some of our national sovereignty to the United Nations.
There is $844 million for peacekeeping missions. We know now that we
live in an age when we go to war not by declaration of the U.S.
Congress but we go to war under U.N. resolutions. When we vote for this
bill, and if this bill is supported, that concept of giving up our
sovereignty and going to war under U.N. resolutions is supported.
I would like to have struck from the bill all the money for
population control. I will support the Mexican City language, but it
really does not do that much. All funds are fungible, and if we provide
hundreds of millions of dollars for population control and say please
do not use it for abortion, it is just shifting some funds around. So
there is no real prohibition on the use of American taxpayers' money
for abortion if we do not strike all of these funds.
The United Nations have already laid plans for an international tax.
This January it was proposed that the U.N. would like to put a tax on
all currency transactions to raise $1.5 billion. This is abhorrent.
This should be abhorrent to all of us. It should be abhorrent to all
Americans that we would have an international tax imposed by the United
Nations.
Already the United Nations is involved in tax collecting. In Bosnia
right now, in Serbia, the U.N. has as one of their functions collecting
taxes on goods coming into the country. There was a demonstration not
too long ago by the Serbs objecting to this. The idea that U.N.
soldiers, paid by the American taxpayers, are now tax collectors in
Bosnia should arouse our concern.
The only way, since we do not have the amendments to reject outright
some of this wasteful and harmful funding, the only way we who believe
that our sovereignty is being challenged is to reject 1646. I see no
other way to address this subject, because it is not in our best
interest to go along with this.
The way the bill is written right now, we will support the Kyoto
Treaty, and the International Criminal Court is also something that we
should be contending with.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I am disappointed that the
Hastings-Allen amendment was not made in order. Our amendment would
establish a special coordinator for Korea to negotiate the end of the
North Korean missile program. We can negotiate away the North Korean
missile threat, but only if we sit down at the table to discuss the
subject. President Bush has refused to do so.
In denying the House a vote on our amendment, Republicans show they
have no interest in getting rid of North Korean missiles. Why?
Apparently because those missiles are needed to justify the President's
extravagant, unworkable missile defense scheme.
It is far easier to defend against a missile that is never built than
against a missile that has been launched. There is a new, improved
climate on the Korean Peninsula. The North Koreans have voluntarily
continued their moratorium on testing. It is a shame on this bill we
cannot even vote for a special coordinator to negotiate an end to the
North Korean missile threat.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding me this time. I appreciate his great
leadership in this body on so many issues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive rule. The rule
should be open and allow for debate of all the issues that could be
brought to this floor, because it is extremely important.
Later today I will be speaking about an issue that does not reflect
the best of our decisions in the deals that we have made. I am
referring to the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment. This amendment will
hold hostage United States payments to the United Nations.
In 1999, under the Helms-Biden agreement, we negotiated a deal with
the United Nations. They have held up their end of the bargain. We have
not. Because the U.N. has voted the U.S. off the Human Rights
Commission, we are deciding that we can break our agreement, that we
can break our contract.
This is wrong, and I think we would be ashamed if our children acted
in this manner.
Today I am supporting the Bush administration, because they support
the funding of the United Nations. If we pass the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney
amendment, it will be the first loss of the Bush administration on
Capitol Hill.
I would like to quote from Ari Fleisher, representing the Bush
administration. ``While the United States is disappointed with the
results of the Human Rights Commission election, the President feels
strongly that this issue should not be linked to the payment of our
arrears to the United Nations and other international interests.''
If we pass this amendment, we will be sending a message to the world
that our word cannot be trusted and that if we do not get what we want,
we can break our deal. As I am sure my colleagues will agree, this is
not the message we want to send to the world community.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, with
great disappointment that the Committee on Rules did not make in order
a very important amendment that I had offered. While I understand the
restrictions that face the Committee on Rules in selecting a workable
number of amendments under tight time constraints, I regret that the
committee did not see fit to report my amendment which addresses a very
critical and legitimate issue.
[[Page H2089]]
The amendment that I had hoped to offer would better coordinate the
Federal Government's response to international terrorism. In crafting
this bill, my staff and I worked closely with experts in the field of
international terrorism, including officials from the Congressional
Research Service, the Rand Corporation, the State Department and
Department of Justice. In short, I believe this is a very legitimate
and growing problem.
Under the measure which I offered also as a bill, H.R. 1338, the
Secretary of State would be required to designate an existing Assistant
Secretary of State to monitor efforts to bring justice to U.S. victims
of terrorism abroad.
{time} 1030
Each year, hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens work and travel
overseas, including a growing number of U.S. employees who work for the
energy industry based in my district. Because of the confusing blend of
multijurisdictional concerns, U.S. victims of terrorism and their
families are often unable to obtain justice, even when the
perpetrators' whereabouts are known by Federal authorities.
Under this measure, the Assistant Secretary of State would be
required to work directly with the Justice Department and other
applicable Federal agencies to identify and track terrorists living
abroad who have killed Americans or who are engaged in acts of
terrorism that have directly affected American citizens. In addition,
the Assistant Secretary would provide an annual report to Congress on
the number of Americans kidnapped, killed, or otherwise directly
affected by the actions of international terrorists. Also included in
the annual report to Congress would be a thorough detailing of what
actions State and Justice are undertaking to obtain justice for U.S.
victims of international terrorism and a current list of terrorists
living abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not
see fit to allow this amendment to be debated on the floor of the House
today. As Members of Congress, we have a profound duty to provide an
effective response when our constituents have been victims of
international terrorists while traveling or working abroad. I am
hopeful that I can count on the support of the chairman and the ranking
member of the Committee on International Relations in the weeks ahead
to address this very important problem.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we oppose the rule. The bill is a pretty good bill. I am
very satisfied with the bill, but the rule is very restrictive.
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.
Mr. Speaker, we have crafted a fair rule, with 26 amendments made in
order, over half from our friends from the other side of the aisle. The
key issues have all been made in order for debate. We look forward to a
vigorous debate on this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. The Rules
Committee has blocked an amendment offered by Mr. Gilman and myself.
This amendment, ``Accountability to Congress for Nuclear Transfers to
North Korea Act'', would have provided for thoughtful consideration as
the United States and its allies march forward ponderously towards
providing nuclear power to North Korea.
North Korea is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and, as such, is required to submit to
inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Since the
early 1990s, however, North Korea has blocked the IAEA from performing
inspections of certain nuclear facilities. This non-compliance was
tacitly accepted by the U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework of 1994,
which arranged for the provision of 2,000 megawatts of light water
nuclear reactors to the North Koreans in exchange for them to stop
operation and construction of their graphite-moderated reactors. IAEA
inspections, however, must occur before ``key nuclear components'' can
be delivered.
With a country that is unwilling to fulfill its international
obligations, it is important that we scrutinize carefully any transfers
of nuclear equipment or technology. At the same time, we must recognize
the precarious power predicament in which North Korea finds itself. The
nuclear reactors won't be completed for years. And when--and if--they
are, North Korea's electric grid is not capable of handling and
transmitting the power that will be produced. The people of North Korea
will still want for that fundamental building block of an
industrialized society--sufficient, reliable electricity.
So we have to balance the various issues; we have to be tough but
fair-minded. We have to consider carefully any attempt to transfer
nuclear technology or material to North Korea per the Agreed Framework,
but we also have to preserve the Agreed Framework, which helped to
avoid potential military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula. And as
part of ensuring stability there, we have to recognize the legitimate
needs of the North Korean people.
The amendment offered by Mr. Gilman and myself would have
accomplished this task. First, it required that before any material or
technology was transferred to North Korea under a nuclear cooperation
agreement, Congress would have to approve by joint resolution any
certification made by the President as specified by the North Korea
Threat Reduction Act of 1999. This portion of the amendment passed the
House of Representatives in the last Congress by a margin of 374 to 6
on May 15, 2000. Second, the amendment would have prohibited the
assumption of liability by the United States government for accidents
involving nuclear reactors in North Korea. This portion of the
amendment passed the House of Representatives last May by a margin of
334 to 85 as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.
Finally, the amendment expressed the sense of Congress that the
provision of non-nuclear power generation to North Korea should be
considered. This proposal postulated that non-nuclear power was the
best way to fulfill the energy needs of North Korea. It encouraged the
modernization of the electricity grid. It required that the President
report to Congress on the current and projected electricity needs of
North Korea and on the cost and time-frame for providing non-nuclear
versus nuclear power generation. It was an information-gathering tool.
It was a call to think about what we are doing with North Korea. Let us
not go blindly along, business-as-usual, and hope that somehow,
someday, the nuclear power plants will be built according to the
satisfaction of everyone. North Korea will not be satisfied with their
lack of electricity, and we in the House of Representatives will not be
satisfied with being shut out of the decisionmaking process regarding
nuclear transfers to North Korea.
The rule hides from these realities. It should be rejected.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 192, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 105]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
[[Page H2090]]
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--192
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Abercrombie
Clement
Cubin
Delahunt
Engel
Hunter
Menendez
Moakley
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Sensenbrenner
Stump
Young (AK)
{time} 1058
Messrs. BARRETT of Wisconsin, CLYBURN, and ROSS, and Mrs. McCARTHY of
New York changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PAUL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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 against:
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 105, I was unavoidably
detained on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay.''
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably absent
and I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 105, the rule for H.R.
1646, the State Department Authorization bill.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________