[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.
____________________