[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4549-H4553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2590, TREASURY AND GENERAL 
                  GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 206

       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. 2590) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, 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 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted 
     in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. Points of 
     order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure 
     to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. The amendment 
     printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 5 pursuant 
     to clause 8 of rule XVIII may be offered only by 
     Representative Smith of New Jersey or his designee and only 
     at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill. All 
     points of order against that amendment are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 
     amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of 
debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 206 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2590, the fiscal year 2002 Treasury-Postal 
Service appropriations bill. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, and it waives all points of 
order against consideration of the bill.
  House Resolution 206 also provides that the two amendments printed in 
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the rule shall be 
considered as adopted. This rule waives all points of order against 
provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 
of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized or legislative provisions in 
an appropriations bill.
  House Resolution 206 provides that the bill shall be considered for 
amendment by paragraph. The rule also waives all points of order 
against the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 
5, which may be offered only by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) or his designee, and only at the appropriate point in the 
reading of the bill, and shall be considered as read.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord 
priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments 
in the Congressional Record.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions, as is the right of the minority. The underlying 
bill, H.R. 2590, provides a total of roughly $17 billion in funding for 
a variety of Federal agencies and departments, about $1.1 billion more 
than the current fiscal year, and $400 million more than President 
Bush's budget request.
  The Committee on Rules approved this rule by voice vote last night, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it so that we may proceed with 
general debate and consideration of this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Treasury-Postal Operations 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002 and in support of the rule.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for 
their work on this bill and for their recognition of the importance to 
the entire country of the necessary departments and agencies it funds.
  For a moment, let me just say how important this bill is to the 
American people. It funds such diverse agencies as Customs and the 
Postal Service. It

[[Page H4550]]

increases funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and 
the National Archives.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the programs and agencies of national 
interest that I just alluded to, this bill contains a number of 
significant projects important to my home State of Florida that I would 
like to highlight briefly.
  I am pleased that this bill contains $15 million for the completion 
of the new Federal courthouse in Miami. I cannot overemphasize the 
importance to our region that this facility will have. I know full well 
the burdens that our courts and judges face today. They have a 
difficult job in ideal circumstances. However, when these jurists are 
not given adequate facilities and resources, their job is made that 
much more difficult.
  For the very same reasons, it is worth noting that this bill 
continues significant funding for the proposed new United States 
Courthouse in Orlando. I am especially pleased to see that the 
Committee on Appropriations has directed that the courthouse must 
complement the historic community and the future Florida A&M college of 
law.
  As an alumnus of the law school, I am certain that the new facility 
in Orlando will continue the proud tradition of FAMU.
  Additionally, this bill contains funding for improvements to the 
Federal building in Jacksonville and to the Federal Courthouse in 
Tallahassee. Let me be perfectly clear, these are necessary funds; and, 
frankly, they are needed throughout the country.
  As the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and 
the others note in the report that accompanies this bill, this is not 
an issue of luxury for the judiciary. The courthouse requests represent 
an effort to keep up with the skyrocketing judicial workload while 
ensuring a safe environment for employees, detainees, and the public. I 
could not agree more.
  Mr. Speaker, very soon in this debate my colleague and neighbor, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), will seek time to explain a very 
worthy program that she has fought tirelessly for.
  Let me briefly extend my support to the First Accounts program. While 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) will go into more detail, 
suffice it to say that this is one of the few programs in this bill 
which specifically targets low-income Americans. I wholeheartedly 
support the program and urge its full funding and authorization.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss what I perceive to be 
one major omission of this otherwise good bill. This bill funds the 
Federal Election Commission. It has now been 240 days since our last 
Federal election, 240 days since we discovered what problems exist in 
this country when it comes to elections.
  Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed to report to the American people that, 
since the last election, Congress has done nothing, nothing in the area 
of appropriations. While we are spending millions of dollars on the 
Salt Lake Olympics and billions on a tax cut for the wealthy, we have 
not spent one penny to fix the problems that plague the last election, 
not one cent.
  Columnist E.J. Dionne said yesterday, ``Some problems are genuinely 
difficult to solve. Some problems are easy. When the solutions are 
clear, a failure to act is irresponsible, the result of a lack of 
will.''
  I submit to my colleagues and to the American people that the 
solutions to our disgraceful election systems are abundantly clear. 
Congress' failure to act is worse than irresponsible, it is shameful. 
The amendment I will offer later today is the first step toward fixing 
the problems that our States face in updating and modernizing their 
election equipment.
  In fact, to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, this will be the first time 
that Congress discusses this issue in the context of floor 
consideration of a relevant appropriations measure. Sure, Members have 
spoken in special orders, in travel around the country, or in hearings. 
They have had 1-minutes here on the floor. But, until today, we have 
been unable to discuss dollars and cents. I look forward to the candid 
debate that I am certain the amendment will generate.
  With that aside, Mr. Speaker, let me again say that this is a 
reasonably good bill, and the rule is fine as far as it goes. I thank 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for bringing this bill to the 
House.
  This is a mostly bipartisan bill that helps millions of Americans 
from coast to coast, and I urge passage of the bill and adoption of the 
rule.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, Mr. 
Speaker, and I rise in support of the rule. I think the rule is a fair 
rule that gives opportunity to debate this bill and protects some of 
the more controversial items that are within the bill for full debate.
  I also want to say that I agree with the member of the Committee on 
Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who has observed that 
this is a good bill and deserves passage. He is correct on that. I will 
be speaking more to that in the course of general debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to comment on the amendment that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will offer at the time of the 
bill's consideration. He will offer an amendment that will provide $600 
million, as I understand it, to the FEC, for the purposes of effecting 
reforms in our election process throughout the United States.
  It is clear that we need to invest in democracy. We invest a lot of 
dollars in national defense. We invest a lot of dollars in health care, 
education, and domestic spending. We invest a lot of dollars in 
entitlement programs. All of those dollars, in my opinion, are well 
invested, for the most part. But the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, 
has never invested dollars in Federal elections. Never.
  We have always allowed that to be a burden that we place on the 
States and local subdivisions. We assumed, correctly in most instances, 
incorrectly in some, that those elections would be held in a manner 
that would serve our democracy well. But, Mr. Speaker, our democracy is 
not served well when some Americans go to the polls, having registered 
to vote, and show up at the polls and, in the first instance, may find 
that their name is not on the list and, therefore, they are not allowed 
to vote, but are told that someone will try to get on the telephone and 
see if it can be straightened out, but find that in this high-tech age 
in which we find ourselves happily that lo and behold they cannot get 
through to the central office and cannot find out whether that 
individual is able to vote.
  Too many jurisdictions do not have the ability to provide a 
provisional ballot to say, here, go ahead and vote, and then when 
tomorrow comes we will have some time and we will check to see whether 
or not this individual is a valid voter; and if they are, because they 
are entitled to vote, they will also ensure that that person's vote is 
counted. Every American that goes to the poll assumes that they go to 
the poll for the purposes of expressing their opinion in this, the 
greatest democracy on the face of the earth. They expect to play a role 
in the decision-making process of their country. And if their vote is 
not counted, they are discriminated against, they are precluded from 
participating fully in our democracy.
  Happily, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the 
Committee on House Administration, and myself and many others, 
including the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), have sponsored legislation which 
will do what the gentleman from Florida seeks to do, and that is, A, 
provide resources; provide resources for technology that will ensure at 
least that technology does not undermine the voter's intent and 
constitutional right. In addition, it will say to States who take any 
Federal dollars that they need to comply with certain requirements; 
that they need to have a registration system that works; that they need 
not disqualify, they must not disqualify otherwise totally qualified 
Americans from voting by some inadvertent or mistaken or perhaps 
conscious effort to undermine the ability to vote of some Americans.

[[Page H4551]]

  In addition, we are going to provide for provisional ballots, good 
registration, purging that is not unfair, and a system that has 
technology that works for every American. That is the minimal that we 
ought to do as a Nation.
  We are proposing the investment this year, for which we are budgeting 
fiscal year 2002, of $550,000 million. That sounds like a lot of money. 
It is a lot of money. But spread across the 50 States, it is not. And I 
would hope that we will have full debate on the gentleman's amendment.
  I am not sure what the disposition will be today, but in the final 
analysis we ought to adopt the gentleman's proposal. It is a proposal 
for democracy for our Nation's ideals and for our objectives.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume merely to respond to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland, the ranking member of the committee, that the jurisdiction 
allows for what is being contemplated today. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) because I know of his sincerity in 
proposing measures that will assist in remedying the many problems in 
this country with reference to our election system.
  I have been asked often, as I travel about the country, how much is 
it going to cost? And my reply has been and will continue to be that 
democracy does not have a price. We spend money around here on fleas 
knees studies. So it would seem to me that we could find money to 
correct problems that exist throughout this Nation with reference to 
the infrastructure for our election systems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous 
question. I am very concerned about the fact that we are looking today 
at allowing a congressional pay raise as part of this rule.
  I have to tell my colleagues that at this time, when we have just 
completed a decade where the watchwords have been fiscal 
responsibility, where we have been able to move to the point where we 
no longer have annual budget deficits, where we have actually paid down 
some debt, where we have had a great history over the last few years, 
and since I came to Congress to continue in that tradition, to preach 
frugality, to show fiscal responsibility, to be aggressive about paying 
down the debt, in my own State right now we have uranium miners, we 
have people who are exposed to radiation through fallout from Federal 
testing of nuclear weapons. They are dying right now and the Federal 
Government will not even fund them the compensation they are due. The 
Federal Government is sending them IOUs saying, well, we do owe you 
this money, we just do not have the money to give you, but we are okay 
giving a congressional pay raise.
  I just do not think that fits with the times. And I think it is up to 
the Members of Congress to stand up and say we really do believe in 
fiscal responsibility. It is important we make a statement to the 
American people about our concerns about being responsible with their 
tax dollars.
  This is an interesting procedural issue. We do not get to 
specifically have a straight up-or-down vote on a pay raise. I think we 
should. I think people deserve that. I think Congressmen ought to stand 
up and say whether or not they are for that. So for that reason I make 
these comments in opposition to the previous question and urge my 
fellow Members to vote ``no'' as well.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that 
nothing in this bill whatsoever deals with a Member of Congress' pay. 
No word whatsoever in this bill deals with congressional pay.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) that it is 
regrettable that it does not, because I for one believe that we are 
deserving of a cost of living adjustment, just so I go on record.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the situation. We have 
historically, on this bill, on the previous question, had a vote. We 
have had a vote because we think the public is entitled to that. If the 
previous question were not passed, an amendment may be in order to 
preclude the cost of living adjustment for Members.
  Long ago we decided, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the 
Speaker of the House, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), 
the minority leader, that that was the fair and proper thing to do. 
Everybody in the leadership on both sides has agreed that cost-of-
living adjustments that go to everybody in the Federal service are 
justified.
  This is not in that sense a pay raise. It is what most Federal 
Government employees receive, and we will receive less than, by about 
1.2 percent, than Federal employees do.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield, and I will be glad 
to yield him a minute of my time?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, does the gentleman from 
Maryland expect to vote for the previous question?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida will yield to 
me for a response.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman from Maryland will certainly vote for the 
previous question, and I urge the Members to vote for the previous 
question.
  Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my 
good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida 
(Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am humbled and 
privileged this morning to have been given time by a young man for whom 
I have great admiration and praise, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), who is now a member of the Committee on Rules. God has 
wrought that I should stand here and be able to speak after he gives me 
the opportunity. I thank him so much.
  I am pleased to be a member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal 
Service, and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, 
serving with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and my good 
friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and I rise in support 
of the rule for this bill. It is an open rule. The rule provides a 
self-executing amendment that I offered that will make the $10 million 
in fiscal year 2002 funding that the bill provides for the First 
Accounts program contingent upon the authorization of the program.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), of the Committee on Financial 
Services, had asked the Committee on Rules not to protect the First 
Accounts program from a point of order. The self-executing amendment is 
a means to address the concerns of the gentleman from Ohio, and I thank 
him and the Committee on Rules for supporting my amendment.
  The First Accounts initiative is a demonstration program that is 
designed to help check-cashing ripoffs by improving the access of low- 
and moderate-income Americans to basic financial services that most of 
us take for granted. Most of us take for granted that we can go to the 
nearest corner to an ATM machine or to a bank and have our financial 
services needs met. That is not so in all communities in this country. 
It is one of the few programs in this Treasury, Postal bill that is 
specifically geared to helping low-income Americans.
  It is estimated that 8.4 million low-income American families, 22 
percent of all such families, do not have bank accounts. And, remember, 
families without bank accounts frequently resort to check-cashing 
services to pay bills and cash checks. My colleagues may have read in 
the newspapers recently of one very large check-cashing firm which has 
now been sued for having 30 stores across this country that were 
charging very high interest to low-income people. It is a ripoff, it is 
a sham, and of course this First Accounts services will allow people 
who do not have banks in their areas, who do not have credit unions in 
their areas to be able to cash their checks without having to pay such 
large interest on it.

[[Page H4552]]

  We want to provide these ``unbanked'' families with low-cost access 
to financial services, and we think this will increase the likelihood 
that they will begin a savings program and accumulate some assets. It 
also will significantly decrease their reliance upon high-cost check-
cashing services. In some of these neighborhoods, dotted throughout the 
neighborhoods, there are these big signs ``check cashing services''; 
and of course on the day these people are paid, they are standing in 
line to get their checks cashed at these high-interest ripoffs in their 
community.
  We are very happy that there is a placeholder in the bill to address 
election reform. And of course, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) has spoken to that and so has the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer). If this country is going to right itself from the many 
wrongs we have seen in the last election, there certainly will be great 
attention to election reform. We must address it this year, not only 
for the problems we have in Florida but the problems we have throughout 
this Nation.
  Because this is a Nation of laws, we must begin to provide laws and 
provide resources so people will get the right to vote. I cannot 
emphasize that too strongly and that people have died for this right. 
Certainly we in Congress would be remiss if we do not give them a fine, 
strong intellectual system; and I think this bill will sooner or later 
provide for that.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, I thank the committee and the people who are members of 
this committee. We will go forward certainly from this after passing 
this strong rule to pass the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and 
the members of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and 
General Government.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment, consistent with the work of 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and the chairman of the 
Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), 
is included in the rule as self-executing, and I thank the Committee on 
Rules for doing that.
  I rise first to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida for working 
on this issue. It is a critically important issue to millions of what 
the gentlewoman referred to as the ``unbanked,'' those who are not in 
the banking system. They do not have checks or ATM cards. They get 
ripped off every week when they try to cash their check or when they 
need a little money to bide them over. It is a significant problem.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) have reached an agreement on this; 
and I hope the Committee on Financial Services will, in the very near 
future, authorize this program so this money, which is now fenced, 
subject to authorization, can move forward and the Treasury Department 
can implement a program which is critically necessary.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). 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. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on 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.
  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 
adoption of the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 293, 
nays 129, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 267]

                               YEAS--293

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--129

     Aderholt
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Costello
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeMint
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Northup
     Ose
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rehberg
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey

[[Page H4553]]


     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Lantos
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     McGovern
     Scarborough
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Spence
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1127

  Mrs. EMERSON, Ms. KAPTUR, Messrs. HAYES, BERRY, LEWIS of Kentucky, 
SIMMONS, FORBES, SHUSTER, GIBBONS, KENNEDY of Minnesota, PITTS, 
SHERWOOD, LEACH, BILIRAKIS, TANCREDO, HILLEARY, POMEROY, STUMP, 
EVERETT, HILL, MOORE, and Ms. HART changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. PASTOR, HILLIARD, FRANK, LaFALCE, and Ms. PELOSI changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________