[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 106 (Thursday, July 26, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4652-H4661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2620, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 210 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 210
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. 2620) making appropriations for the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and for sundry independent agencies, boards,
commissions, corporations, and offices 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. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule
[[Page H4653]]
XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with'', except
that'' on page 64, line 12, through ``drinking water
contaminants'' on line 17. Where points of order are waived
against part of a paragraph, points of order against a
provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only
against such provision and not against the entire paragraph.
The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on rules
accompanying this resolution may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the report are waived.
During consideration of the bill for 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. During consideration of the bill, points of order
against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of
rule XXI 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. 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.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter); pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 210 is an open rule which provides for
1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), on H.R. 2620, the fiscal
year 2002 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill. After general debate, any Member wishing to offer an amendment
may do so as long as it complies with the regular rules of the House.
The rule makes in order one amendment printed in the report
accompanying the rule and waives all points of order against that
amendment.
The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI for legislating on an
appropriations bill and prohibiting nonemergency designated amendments
to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an emergency
designation.
Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this bill provides yet another example of a carefully
crafted bill from the Committee on Appropriations that strikes a
balance between fiscal discipline and social responsibility. I would
like to commend the chairman and the ranking member, and all the
members of the Committee on Appropriations, for making the tough
decisions required to produce a thoughtful bill that meets our most
important priorities.
While we can never agree on everything, this is a good bill which we
can all agree addresses some of our Nation's most pressing needs. It
takes care of our veterans, it addresses the Nation's critical housing
needs, it helps to preserve and protect our environment, it invests in
scientific research, and continues our exploration into space.
This legislation maintains our commitment to our Nation's veterans,
who selflessly place themselves in harm's way so that we may enjoy the
very freedoms which we so cherish. Our veterans deserve our thanks, but
more importantly they deserve and have earned the benefits in this
bill.
This year, the fiscal year 2002 Veterans-HUD appropriations bill
provides an additional $1 billion over last year's increase for
Veterans Medical Health Care, bringing the total to $21.3 billion.
{time} 1400
I am proud to inform my colleagues and, more importantly, our
veterans that we have increased Veterans Medical Health Care by $4
billion over the course of the last 3 fiscal years.
This bill increases Veterans Medical and Prosthetic Research yet
again, by $20 million, and provides an extra $128 million over last
year's funding levels for the Veterans Benefit Administration to
expedite claims processing.
Finally, H.R. 2620 provides $100 million for Veterans Extended Care
Facilities, an increase of $50 million over the President's request.
Mr. Speaker, along with providing for the needs of our veterans, this
legislation makes available important resources to help the most
vulnerable in our society with a very basic need: placing a roof over
their heads.
Low-income families will benefit through this bill's investment in
the Housing Certificates Program, which provides funding for Section 8
renewals and tenant protection.
A $1.8 billion increase over last year's funding level will allow for
the renewal of all expiring Section 8 contracts and provide needed
relocation assistance at the level requested by our President. A total
of $15.7 billion is provided for this important program in fiscal year
2002. This includes $197 million to fund some 34,000 new Section 8
vouchers.
In my district in Columbus, Ohio, we know all too well how crucial
this housing assistance is for families who are trying to lift
themselves up and improve their lives.
Other needed housing programs that help our elderly, that help people
with AIDS and that help the disabled are also receiving increases over
last year's funding levels in this report.
H.R. 2620 also looks toward the future by preserving and protecting
our environment for the next generations to enjoy.
The bill targets funding and places an emphasis on State grants to
protect the water that we drink and the air that we breath.
The State Revolving Fund for Safe Drinking Water is increased by more
than $25 million from last year's level, the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund is funded at $1.2 billion, equal to last year's level,
and, finally, State Air Grants are increased $8 million over last year.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides important funding which
maintains our commitment to the exploration of space and the
improvements of science.
I am pleased to say that the National Science Foundation is increased
by some 9 percent or $414 million above the last fiscal year. This will
go a long way to try to help foster scientific discovery, promote basic
research, as well as increase science education.
NASA also receives an increase that will bring total funding to more
than $15 billion. It fully funds the space shuttle operations and
increases funding for the International Space Station programs. This
will enable the United States of America to maintain our superiority in
space exploration and aeronautical research.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses an unexpected shortfall
within the Federal Emergency Management Agency by providing $1.3
billion in emergency designated funding.
While, as a fiscal conservative, I am generally opposed to the use of
emergency designations on appropriations bills, this bill and the
amendment made in order under this rule provides that the funds will
only be made available if it is determined that they are necessary for
FEMA to meet the needs of the communities adversely affected by
disaster. These funds simply represent an insurance policy for some of
our Nation's hardest hit communities.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and it deserves our support. It
takes a responsible path towards addressing our Nation's most pressing
needs and priorities. I urge all of my colleagues to support this
straightforward and noncontroversial rule, as well as this must-do
piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for
yielding me the customary half hour and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have strong concerns about the rule and
the process it represents. As I stated earlier, the Committee on Rules
and the current leadership are developing a compulsive aversion to
regular order. In what has become standard operating
[[Page H4654]]
procedure, the Committee on Rules emerged only moments ago to consider
what should be a noncontroversial open rule on an appropriations bill
making its initial pass through this Chamber.
The underlying bill is too important for this country to be treated
so cavalierly. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) deserve rich praise for
their work, particularly in adding funds to the President's anemic
budget for science. The President's budget requested a meager 1.2
percent increase for the National Science Foundation, barely half the
amount necessary to cover inflation. The Committee wisely added $368
million to the President's request, an amount which will allow on-going
research in basic physics, chemistry, mathematics and engineering.
I was particularly pleased and gratified to see the inclusion of $8
million for a proposed Infotonics Center of Excellence in my district
of Rochester, New York. This project will utilize my region's
established expertise in optics, the science of light, that is critical
to the future economic success of New York State. This will be a
cooperative research and development facility where academic
researchers, industry leaders such as Kodak, Xerox and Corning, and
small companies can pool their resources and expertise. With this
funding, we can begin to bridge the gap between basic research and
product manufacturing focusing in optics, fiberoptics and the emerging
field of photonics, transmitting data by light.
I also want to thank the chairman for the increase in funding for
HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control funding. I was pleased that 50 of
my colleagues signed my letter requesting this increase, and I look
forward to continuing to work with the Committee as this funding works
its way through the appropriations process. Many older houses and
apartments still contain lead-based paint.
Research shows that children with elevated blood lead levels are
seven times more likely to drop out of school and twice as likely to
fall behind their peers in language acquisition. In my district of
Rochester, New York, 37 percent of the children tested have more lead
in their blood than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say
is safe. This increased funding will be a critical step in addressing
this problem.
Many Members on this side of the aisle have expressed concern over
veterans medical care and public housing programs that serve the
country's most vulnerable citizens and families. Unfortunately, an
inadequate overall allocation has forced the majority to rely on
budgetary gimmicks to stay within the subcommittee's budget ceiling.
These gimmicks include almost $1 billion of delayed obligations and
``pretend'' budget allocations such as the recommendation to eliminate
funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service, a
recommendation which the chairman announced prior to reporting the bill
that he intends to reverse in conference.
These problems will cause the VA-HUD bill to be the first of the
seven appropriations bills reported by the Committee that may not share
broad bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, this country has the resources to care for its veterans
and to provide adequate housing for the poor, the elderly and the
disabled.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the VA-HUD
Appropriations bill.
I share the concerns of some Members that the designated emergency
spending within the bill is at odds with our broader imperative to
uphold the principles of fiscal discipline, and I applaud my colleagues
for their conviction. Yet, at the same time, it is imperative that we
ensure FEMA has the necessary funds to be prepared for disasters and
emergencies.
Every year emergencies and catastrophes arise that draw down the
account FEMA maintains to fund expenses stemming from emergency
response efforts. In Houston, we just got hit with several feet of
water in one day. Houston, if you have not been there, is built on a
plain. There is only so much water that our system can accommodate. We
got hit with a lot more than that. Now we are facing billions of
dollars in damages. That is catastrophic damage. It is the exact reason
that we classify some events as legitimate emergencies.
Mr. Speaker, I have opposed and will continue opposing attempts to
manipulate the process by lumping wasteful spending in with the
legitimate expenses that we incur by responding to actual emergencies,
but that is not the case here. The FEMA account generally has emergency
funds in contingency reserve to deal with true emergencies, and the
flooding from Tropical Storm Allison caused a real emergency in Houston
and all through the South. We know that cleaning up the damage has
nearly wiped out FEMA's funding, so several weeks ago on this floor I
opposed the partisan fear tactics that were used by some of my
colleagues on other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that FEMA has the funds necessary to
carry out their duties for the remainder of this fiscal year. FEMA has
the funds to make it through the year. The responsible thing to do is
to restore the funds to the account. It will enable FEMA to assist
Houston's recovery, and as we move into hurricane season it will enable
FEMA to stand ready to meet any short-term contingency as well.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Walsh) as we move through this process, and I ask my colleagues to
vote for the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, so far, with the six appropriations bills
which have passed the House, we have seen bipartisan support for every
single one of them. This is the first bill that will generate
considerable opposition, and I want to explain why.
The fault does not lie with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh)
or the subcommittee. He has done the very best job he could possibly
do, given the allocation that he was given. The problem is that the
allocation is too low, and that forces the bill to be at least a half
billion dollars lower than it should be for veterans health care, and
it cripples the enforcement of clean air and water laws across the
country.
It forces the bill to provide inadequate funding for housing for poor
kids. It forces the bill to eliminate the National Service Corps, which
even the subcommittee itself admits is not a serious initiative, but
they had to do it to, quote, ``fit into the so-called budget rules''.
It forces a number of other reductions which everyone understands in
the end are essentially irresponsible.
Why does it do that? It does it because the tax bill passed earlier
in the year by this Congress sucked up every single dollar on the
table, which meant that we had nothing left to deal with the long-term
problems of Social Security, of Medicare, of education, of veterans
medical care, of environmental protection or any other national
priority.
Essentially, the House majority prevented the House from facing the
real world trade-offs between tax cuts of the most well-off people in
our society and other crucial funding for middle income and lower
income people.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I asked the Committee on Rules to make in
order an amendment. Since they are providing numerous other waivers, I
asked them to make in order an amendment that would allow us to add
$300 million to veterans health care, add $382 million to housing, add
$311 million to the National Service Corps, add enough to restore the
65 EPA environmental enforcement positions that they have cut.
And we paid for it without cutting into the Medicare surplus, without
adding to the deficit, by simply scaling back the size of the tax cut
for people with incomes of over $330,000, by dropping it from 39.6 to
39.1 percent instead of the 38.6 percent that the House passed earlier
this year.
Mr. Speaker, the folks we are talking about have seen their after-tax
income grow by $414,000 per family over the last 20 years. I do not
think that it is asking of them too much to say, instead of getting an
average tax cut of $53,000, to only get a tax cut of about $25,000. I
hardly think that is going to put them in the poorhouse.
[[Page H4655]]
If we had that amendment before us, we would be able to try to use
that money, which would be $1.3 billion, use a billion of it in this
bill for veterans health care, for housing, for environmental
enforcement and the like, still leaving $300 million available for
additional education and defense priorities.
That to me is what we ought to do, but the rule did not allow it. So
I will be asking each and every one of my colleagues to vote against
the previous question on the rule so that we can offer this amendment
to allow the House to choose whether giving a $53,000 tax cut to people
who make $1 million or more a year is more important than enforcing our
environmental laws, more important than giving veterans the medical
care they need, more important than providing decent housing for poor
kids.
Mr. Speaker, I think the moral choice is obvious. I would hope that
the House would allow us to face these trade-offs. The problem with the
budget that has been passed is that, very skillfully, these trade-offs
have been avoided. We have not been allowed to exercise real-world
choices. It is time that we grow up and make these choices.
{time} 1415
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) chairman of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time and for her leadership on this rule and for guiding this bill
through the House for the third year in a row. I hope we are as lucky
this year as we have been the last two.
I think we have a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a work product that
incorporates bipartisanship in its truest form. The gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I have worked hand in hand. Our staffs have
worked hand in hand and worked together on priorities. We had a
manager's amendment in the full committee that the gentleman from West
Virginia helped to write. We incorporated that, and the bill was passed
out of committee on a voice vote. So both parties, all Members,
supported the bill.
I think it is obviously a very complex bill. There are a lot of
different issues in the bill. Perhaps the most important, as always has
been the case, is Veterans. The authorizing committee asked for
additional funds in medical care discretionary funds, and we provided a
billion dollars over and above what was provided last year. So in the
past 3 years, we will have increased veterans' medical care by just
over $4 billion. That is a very substantial increase. It is a
tremendous commitment on the part of the Congress to provide funds to
the veterans. In each case, we have met or exceeded the President's
request dating back from the previous administration.
We also provided over $400 million for construction. This is a direct
response to Members who felt that medical care centers around the
country were in need of repair, major construction. This is a huge
commitment that has not been duplicated in many, many years. So I think
we have made a real effort here to put the funds where they need to be
in Veterans.
We have also provided an additional $175 million above last year to
provide for veterans' claims processing. This is Secretary Principi's
highest goal, to provide those resources. We are going to help him to
meet that commitment to get those waiting times down for veterans'
claims processing.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate what the gentleman has said in
response to what we have already done by increasing the President's
budget request for these extremely important issues. I know that we
would like to do more. But we are doing the best we can to keep all of
our bills within our budget number. We cannot go over that budget
number.
What I wanted to say to our colleagues is that the Obey amendment
might have been more acceptable except for one little problem, which I
will refer to in a minute. All of our committees in the House,
jealously guard their areas of responsibility and their areas of
jurisdiction. The gentleman from Wisconsin is one of the outstanding
leaders in doing that for the Committee on Appropriations, to preserve
our prerogatives, and our responsibilities. The problem with the
amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin wanted to have made in
order and he offered in the full committee, relates to two sentences:
``Paragraph 2 of section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
relating to reduction in rates after June 30, 2001 . . .'', This is the
tax bill, ``. . . is amended by adding after the table the following:
in the case of taxable years beginning during calendar year 2002, the
preceding table shall be applied by substituting 39.1 percent for 38.6
percent.''
That would change the tax law. The Committee on Ways and Means
rightfully is protecting their responsibility and their prerogatives,
in being opposed to this. I think it is incumbent upon us if we intend
to maintain the integrity of all of our committee structures, that this
is the reason we were not able to accept this amendment.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I also appreciate the good work
that he and the gentleman from West Virginia have done to produce a
really good bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me simply say that
I am concerned with the integrity of this Congress. And I think we can
start demonstrating that integrity by being willing to make the
specific trade-offs that we have to make in the real world. The problem
that we have is that the tax bill was passed before we ever had a
budget. That was a clever device by which the House was shielded from
having to choose whether it was more important to cut taxes by a
specific amount for high-income folks or whether it was more important
to use some of that money for veterans, for education, or for other
high priorities. We have been denied every other way to make those
trade-offs evident, so this is the only avenue left open to us. It may
not be perfect, but it is a whole lot better than not joining the issue
at all.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the ranking member for his comments. I would
remind him that the Congress, both House and Senate, voted for that tax
cut; and it is the law of the land.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is an open rule that allows all
amendments provided for under the House rules to be offered. It also
waives all points of order against provisions included in the
committee-passed bill.
Of particular importance and interest, it waives points of order
against a provision offered in full committee by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay). This provision would provide $1.3 billion for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency designated as emergency funding. We
all know about the disaster that Tropical Storm Allison brought to
Texas and the Gulf Coast.
Other States, Mr. Speaker, have also recently experienced federally
declared disasters. My own State of West Virginia is struggling to
recover from recent flooding. Twenty-two counties have been included in
the Federal disaster declaration and a recent estimate for West
Virginia has placed the damage cost in excess of $175 million.
We know that the storm season is just beginning, and FEMA has told us
that they will need additional funding. We need to provide it to ensure
that communities that suffer disasters are able to receive Federal
assistance in a timely manner.
While we in the minority would have preferred providing this funding
in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental bill that was recently considered,
the administration blocked that effort. However, in the statement of
administration policy with regard to this bill, on the topic of
emergency funding, they have indicated that they do not object now to
the House including the emergency funding in this bill for fiscal year
2002. I am pleased that the Committee on Rules protected this
provision.
[[Page H4656]]
I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not grant a waiver
making in order an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the full Committee on
Appropriations. His amendment would have provided $1 billion in
additional resources to adequately fund many of the accounts in this
bill that are admittedly underfunded. As an offset, the amendment would
have decreased the recently enacted reduction in the highest marginal
tax rate by just .5 percent. While I might consider this a minor
change, for those who supported the tax cut, it has the implication of
shifting millions of dollars from the highest-income citizens in our
land to benefit some of the neediest citizens and neediest communities
in our land.
Because this amendment was not made in order, I support efforts to
defeat the previous question so that the rule can be amended to permit
the Obey amendment to be considered by the House.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
Ohio for yielding me this time, especially in light of the fact that I
am rising in opposition to this rule. I would point out that it is a
very reluctant opposition. This is the first time that I have opposed a
rule since I have been in Congress.
The fact is in recent years we have been spending too much money. The
result of that is that we are in grave danger, as a result of the
spending increases we have had in recent years and the economic
downturn, that within a few short years we could be back to raiding
Medicare and raiding Social Security. We made a promise we would not do
that. This rule makes that problem worse. It makes that danger worse.
Let me explain why.
This bill, as we know, adds $1.3 billion in funding for FEMA. Above
and beyond the $1.4 billion ordinary funding for FEMA, there is 1.3
billion additional FEMA dollars that have an emergency designation. The
significance of the emergency designation is that that money does not
have to be offset. So that means it is in addition to the entire
budget. It is above and beyond all that we are going to spend in 2002.
House rules forbid putting an emergency designation into a nonemergency
bill. This rule breaks that rule. It waives that provision.
Why was that done, again I ask? It was to make sure that this did not
have to be offset. That is what is wrong with this. Those of us who are
going to oppose this rule do not do so because we necessarily oppose
the FEMA funding. What we oppose is the fact that we are not going to
be able to strike the emergency designation and require this to be
offset; and as a result, we are going to increase the risk that we may,
in fact, end up raiding Medicare or Social Security at some time in the
near future.
I would also point out the President did not request this. Normally
when the President requests an emergency, he sends a letter requesting
emergency funding and designates a specific event. The President did
not do that. In fact, he issued a statement of administration policy. I
will quote briefly. It says:
``The administration appreciates Congress' attentiveness to the needs
of FEMA. The administration is not, however, prepared to commit to a
specific level of contingent emergency appropriations at this time.''
That is exactly what this does. It puts in an extra $1.3 billion. I
urge my Democratic colleagues who object to not being able to offer an
amendment, do not vote against the previous question only to vote for
the rule. You ought to vote against the rule if you do not agree with
this rule. I urge my Republican colleagues likewise.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDermott asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to also oppose the rule. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and I must read different
things, but let me tell you why. This place passed out a tax cut way
out there and now everybody stands up and says, ``We don't have enough
money to do what's necessary.''
We are in such a fix that the leadership from Texas has to bring us
out here and put us under martial law. Why? Because they want to have
$1.3 billion in relief to Texas. Now, yesterday on the Foreign Ops
bill, we could pass all this money, 300 and some odd million dollars to
wipe out drugs in Colombia. But in this bill, because we need $1.3
billion, we take $310 million in drug money, fighting drugs, out of the
public housing in this country. We worry about it in Colombia but not
in our own cities. We wipe out AmeriCorps for $445 million. We are
getting closer to that $1.3.
The issue here is what is an emergency. The White House says that
what goes on in India, where they knocked down 100,000 houses and
30,000 people died, we can give them $5 million. That is how much the
great and generous and rich United States can do. In El Salvador, where
they have had the worst earthquake in history, we give them nothing.
So now the message here is to those Ecuadorians and San Salvadorans
is get in a bus and get to Texas, because if there is any problem, it
will get taken care of in Texas. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan) says that West Virginia has a few problems. Folks, get in the
car and get to Texas, because that is what we are going to take care
of. We are not going to take care of anything else. We are not going to
take care of CDBG. We are cutting money out of there. Of course we
passed this community money into the churches so we all better write a
letter to our churches, send more money, because you are not going to
get it from the Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of
the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work on the bill. I
offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules which was not granted a
waiver and that is very, very disappointing, because my amendment would
appropriate no additional funds and it would only authorize the use of
existing funds for an important program. It would have authorized the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to establish a
minority emergency preparedness demonstration program to research and
promote the capacity of minority communities throughout the country to
get data, information, and awareness education through grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements with eligible nonprofit
corporations. These nonprofits would do research on the status of
emergency preparedness and disaster response awareness in African
American and Hispanic communities across the country, in rural areas,
suburban areas and determine how they are impacted by natural and man-
made disasters and emergencies.
{time} 1430
Also, they would be authorized to develop and promote awareness of
emergency preparedness programs in minority communities and to develop
competent educational materials that could be disseminated in these
communities and to organizations and institutions.
This was a good bill. It would be very helpful, particularly since in
the past year there were 51 disasters in 33 different states, and this
year there have been 23 disasters in 22 different states. The impact on
minorities has been established by FEMA at 2\1/2\ times greater on
minorities than any other group.
This is a very, very much-needed operation, given the disasters we
have had; and I am very, very disappointed that the rule does not allow
a waiver to allow consideration of my amendment, which has been printed
and is in the Record.
I urge ultimate passage of the bill, but if we can defeat the rule
and perhaps allow consideration of this amendment, I certainly would be
appreciative. It would be good for America, good for African American
and Hispanic communities that are impacted so greatly by our floods,
tornadoes and natural disasters where there have been tremendous
fatalities and loss of life over the past few years.
[[Page H4657]]
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the gentleman that just spoke to offer
that amendment when the time comes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, we are now in the eighth of 13 appropriations bills,
and, as we drive this process to conclusion, I think it would be smart
to stop and look at the fuel gauge.
That is what we have here, a gas gauge. We started out with a full
tank, flush with surpluses, $95 billion this year. We did our
resolution, 302(a), and gave $4 billion more than the baseline, so you
take that out. We did a budget resolution with a placeholder number for
defense. Now we are having to come back and put in a real number for
defense, and, in outlay terms, it is $12 billion.
Because we did not adequately provide for defense and because we did
not provide at all for emergencies, even though the chairman of our
committee wanted to institutionalize that, it appeared that a bigger
tax cut was feasible. So the tax cut for this year takes out $75
billion, but for a gimmick I will mention in just a minute. So when you
factor in those changes you get down to $3 billion. That is how close
we are to being empty.
Now, one thing saves us, and that is we did an artificial one-time
transfer of funds from September 15 to October 1. The problem is, when
we go home in August, that money may disappear when CBO does its update
of the budget and economy. If that is true, we will really be running
right on empty. That is all we have got left to provide for
emergencies, to provide for other priorities that come along in this
process before it is completed. That is what is wrong with the tax cut.
What happened? I do not blame the subcommittee at all. I did not get
up to criticize the subcommittee. I think they have done as well as
they could do with what was allocated.
But we pointed out if you went with this budget with these tax cuts
and this allocation, this was going to happen to veterans. We could not
fund fully the basic needs of the Veterans Health Care Program. It has
happened. It has come to pass. We have less than they need. They have
done a good job in trying to plus it up as well they could, but there
is not enough there.
In the Housing Program, how could one pick a program that helps the
vulnerable more than housing? We have a $20 billion backlog in capital
requirements and maintenance needs. What are we doing? Taking a half
billion dollars out of it. The housing projects are a haven for drugs.
We are eliminating the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program.
This is a consequence of having a budget where we did not adequately
provide for emergencies, we did not adequately provide for defense, we
fooled ourselves about the size of the tax cut, and now we are
inheriting the consequences. You see the fruits of this in the bill
before us today.
I commend the committee for doing the best they could with what they
have got, but these are the consequences of the tax bill that we
adopted just a couple of months ago.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this appropriations
bill and the rule attendant to it presents somewhat of a serious
dilemma to all of us who are approaching this issue very carefully. On
the one hand, it elicits only a sense of praise for the subcommittee
chairman, the chairman of the full committee, the ranking members, for
the way in which they have squeezed as much as they have into this
bill, given the limited resources that they had to work with.
But that is essentially the problem. We have choked ourselves off in
this country by this enormous tax cut that we passed earlier this year
preceding the budget, in the craziest way of approaching fiscal policy
I think we have seen in this government in a long, long time. What does
that leave us with? It leaves us with some very serious problems we are
not addressing.
The gentleman from South Carolina just made the point about housing.
We have a $20 billion backlog in housing. We have a housing crisis in
this country. Many people, in urban and rural areas across America,
find it impossible to get a house. Municipal workers, for example, are
not making enough money to afford a house in the present market. This
is a housing crisis. There is no place for them to live and raise their
families.
Similar things can be said about environmental protection. This bill
does the best it can, but it does not provide nearly enough money to
protect the quality of the natural environment from toxic discharges
and other releases into the ambient air and the general environment.
That is a serious mistake. And why? Because we choked ourselves off
with that huge tax cut, and we do not have the resources that we need
to attend to vital concerns addressing our people. The same thing can
be said about health care. The same thing can be said about our growing
crisis in transportation. Look at any of the airports in this country
and you can see it very, very clearly. Drive along the roads during
rush hour. It becomes readily apparent. We are not doing anything to
deal with the need for surface transportation, particularly rail
transportation between our major cities.
So, this is a dilemma for all of us. We are not allowing ourselves to
deal with these important issues facing the American people.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York just spoke of the inability
of our budget to handle the needs of our people. I want to speak to the
veterans' budget, the veteran parts of this budget, because the same is
true there. We simply have let our veterans down in this budget. We
have not honored the promise, we have not honored our commitment, we
have not honored our contract with our Nation's veterans.
Now, we are fond on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, at least on
the Democratic side, of saying that you do not have a surplus until you
have paid your bills, and we have not paid our bills to the Nation's
veterans. We had a decade of flat-line budgeting, and, as a result, the
quality of medical care declined, the waiting times for appointments
expanded greatly, and the new diseases and the diseases of aging
veterans could not be handled with the same professionalism as
previously. So we have not paid our bills to our Nation's veterans.
Now, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee said that we
added $1 billion to last year's budget. Well, all independent analysts
say that $1 billion for our veterans' health care system barely keeps
up with inflation and does not allow us to make the gains that we had
promised over the last decade.
I am going to make several amendments to this bill when the time is
appropriate to bring the level of the budget up to a more appropriate
level, especially in health care.
All the veterans' groups in this Nation got together to produce
something called the Independent Budget. What they did here was a very
professional analysis of what was needed to care for our veterans, not
just give me more money here or give me more money there, but let us
reduce the waiting times to this number of days by putting this much
money in. Let us increase the number of positions in the Benefits
Administration so we can decrease the waiting times for adjudication.
Let us make sure we can have research that will deal with the new
diseases, like hepatitis C and the Persian Gulf War illness. That is
what this Independent Budget does, and that is what this Congress ought
to do.
So I will be making amendments to increase the health care budget by
$1.7 billion, which is what the veterans groups' analysis says. We will
try to make improvements in the health research budget. We will try to
make amendments to treat such diseases as hepatitis C and also to treat
the Filipino veterans of World War II who we have denied care to for
the last 50 years.
So we will make those amendments. I hope they will get the similar
waiver that you have for emergency funding,
[[Page H4658]]
that you have for other items. Let us really keep our commitment to our
Nation's veterans.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the
rule. I have not been here long, but this will be the first rule that I
have opposed. I am not insensitive to disasters like the one we had in
Texas, but I just feel that it would be disaster to ignore the spirit
of our own rules and go right back to emergency spending.
We are perilously close to dipping into the Social Security and
Medicare surpluses. We promised our citizens that we would not do that.
We are close to it. We need not do it.
The problem is not the tax cut, the problem is spending. We have had
an average of 6 percent a year growth in spending over the past 3
years. That is the problem. We cannot simply cannot maintain that.
I urge a vote against the rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, there you have it. You have got one group in the House
who says a $4 billion increase is too much spending. You have another
group in the House that says it is not enough spending. You have a
group in the House who gauges all reality on how many billions of
dollars you can spend. And yet this House has passed a very balanced
budget, a budget that funds the priorities. It puts in money for Social
Security and Medicare and Medicaid. It pays down the debt. It takes
care of our normal obligations of government, such as education,
transportation and health care. Then it returns dollars to the hard-
working taxpayers, and then it spends money wisely.
Yet this reckless scheme of the Democrats to blame everything on a
tax reduction, you know, Georgia is going to get in the form of $300,
$500 and $600 checks $1.2 billion in the next couple of weeks. Now,
that is $1.2 billion that is going to be spent by normal people, like
Joe and Shirley Harrington in Wilmington Island, Georgia, and what they
are going to do with that money is do something real glamorous like buy
a dryer, or maybe buy some clothes for the kids who are going to be
going back to school.
This is not going to be enough money for a nice vacation, the kind of
money that the big Washington bureaucrats make up here. But, do you
know what, they know how to spend their money more than I do.
That is what the debate is about here today, who should spend that
money: the geniuses in Washington, the big bureaucracy who can control
people's lives through their spending, or should we empower the
citizens of America who earned the money, the people that it belongs
to?
We are faced with a very important bill, a very balanced bill, a bill
that puts our veterans' health care spending over $1 billion higher
than what President Clinton did. I want to repeat that. Veterans'
health care provides a $1 billion increase over the last year, and yet
I hear my friends saying no to that.
{time} 1445
We are also going to put more money in Veterans Administration and
medical and prosthetic research, in national cemeteries, in State
extended health care facilities, and in veterans' hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, this is very, very important money.
In addition to that, we are going to put money into housing so that
the poorest of our citizens can have fair and decent public housing
and, there again, it is increased. We are going to put money in to
protect the environment; and I, as a member of the Subcommittee on the
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, think it is very important
to fund Superfund and to put money in leaking underground storage
tanks, and safe drinking water, in clean drinking water State revolving
funds. These are all important projects. I want to support them, and
that is why I am support the rule.
I think it is important to say also that this committee has had to
make some tough decisions. There are still many of us who remember when
President Clinton stood in the well of the House and said, I am going
to set up AmeriCorps; we are going to start paying volunteers for what
they are doing for free. I guess this was some new concept in socialism
in America, but people who are volunteers are doing it because they
want to do it for free, but President Clinton wanted to pay them. We
are saying there has been a lot of waste in that program. We do not
think it is wise at this point to continue that risky scheme of paying
volunteers.
So I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It does comply with the
budget. Our budget, again, takes care of Social Security, Medicare, the
normal and needed obligations of government such as education and
housing and, in this budget, veterans. Then, it returns a portion of
the surplus to the citizens of America, after paying down the debt.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, this bill is in compliance with
that budget that has passed both Houses, and I urge my colleagues to
vote for the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will
make in order the amendment offered at the Committee on Appropriations
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and also at the Committee on
Rules.
The amendment adds $1 billion for veterans medical care, for critical
housing programs, and to partially restore funding for the Corporation
for National and Community Service, some of the issues that have been
spoken to here during the debate on the rule. The money would come from
paring back the recently enacted tax cut in the top tax bracket from
38.6 percent to 39.1 percent. That is one-half of 1 percent from the
richest Americans to help some of the most vulnerable Americans and
communities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Previous Question for Rule on H.R. 2620, FY2002 Appropriations for the
VA/HUD
At the end of the resolution add the following new
sections:
``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order to consider the following amendment if offered
by Representative Obey or his designee. The amendment shall
be considered as read and shall be debatable for 60 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. All points of order are waived against the
amendment. The amendment is not amendable and is not subject
to a demand for the division of the question.
____
General Provisions
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
``Sec. 427. Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to reductions in rates after
June 30, 2001), is amended by adding after the table the
following:
In the case of taxable years beginning during calendar year
2002, the preceding table shall be applied by substituting
`39.1%' for `38.65'.''
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration
In the paragraph ``Medical Care'', strike
``$21,281,587,000'' and insert ``$21,581,587,000'' in lieu
thereof
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public Housing Capital
Fund
In the paragraph entitled ``Public Housing Capital Fund'',
strike ``$2,555,000,000'' and insert ``$2,837,000,000'' in
lieu thereof
Department of Housing and Urban Development
After the paragraph entitled ``homeless Assistance Grants:
insert the following new section:
``SHELTER PLUS CARE RENEWALS
For the renewal on an annual basis or amendment of
contracts funded under the Shelter Plus Care program, as
authorized under subtitle F of Title IV of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act, as amended, $100,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That each Shelter Plus
[[Page H4659]]
Care project with an expiring contract shall be eligible for
renewal only if the project is determined to be needed under
the applicable continuum of care and meets appropriate
program requirements and financial standards, as determined
by the Secretary.''
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and Management
In the paragraph entitled ``Environmental Programs and
Management'', strike ``$2,014,799,000'' and insert
``$2,021,799,000 in lieu thereof
At the end of the paragraph entitled ``Environmental
Programs and Management'', insert:
``: Provided further, That the on-board staffing level of
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance shall be
maintained at not less than the level authorized for this
Office as of December 31, 2000''
Corporation for National and Community Service
Strike the paragraph following the center head entitled
``National and Community Service programs, Operating
Expenses'' and insert the following new section:
``(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and
Community Service (the ``Corporation'') in carrying out
programs, activities, and initiatives under the National and
Community service Act of 1990 (the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501
et seq.), $311,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2003: Provided, That not more than $50,000,000, to remain
available without fiscal year limitation, shall be
transferred to the National Service trust account for
educational awards authorized under subtitle D of title I of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so that we can have an opportunity to vote on this
critical amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, this is a good bill; and the Committee on
Appropriations has done yeoman's work in balancing a number of very,
very important priorities. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the
chairman of the committee; along with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh), the subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, have done a great job.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2620 responds to the needs of our veterans. It
protects our environment. It keeps the U.S. at the forefront of space
exploration. It provides needed funding to ensure new scientific
discovery. It addresses our Nation's critical housing needs and,
finally, helps more Americans realize the dream of owning their own
homes. This we do without reversing tax relief that we just gave to the
American people, tax relief which has not even gone into effect yet.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying
legislation. Support the previous question.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
and the bill. For the past four years, my colleague, Mr. Tancredo, and
I have offered and amendment to the VA/HUD Appropriations bill to
restore or increase the funding of the State Extended Care Facilities
Construction line item. I am extremely happy to report that the
Committee has fully funded the program at $100 million for Fiscal Year
2002.
This program is used to renovate and build state nursing homes for
veterans. State facilities have proven that they can provide above
quality care at a more cost efficient price than the federal
government. In Fiscal Year 1998, the VA spent on average $255.25 per
resident per day to care for long term nursing care residents, while
state veterans homes on average spent $40.00 per resident. This
continued in 1999.
Mr. Speaker, the State Extended Care Facilities Construction program
addresses the issue of long-term care for our nation's veterans. With
the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, states
already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our
veterans. In Illinois, the waiting list for admittance to the LaSalle
and Manteno state extended care facilities are as long as two to three
years, and many ill veterans go untreated or are under-treated due to
the lack of beds.
Additionally, this funding will help pay the millions of dollars in
back payments to state care facilities. In Illinois alone, last year
over $6 million was owed to the state for construction projects to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other facility
updates. This funding helps with the payback of unfunded grant
payments, and helps improve the supply of long term care for our
veterans in the future.
There are two other programs that were not funded under this bill and
it is my hope that we can work with Chairman Walsh and appointed
conferees to have these provisions included in the final bill. I am
requesting $800,000 through a HUD Special Purpose Grant or Community
Development Block Grant to Cornerstone Services to relocate and expand
its developmental training center. Cornerstone Services provides
progressive, comprehensive services to persons with disabilities
promoting choice, dignity, and the opportunity to live and work in the
community. For 32 years, Cornerstone has been a leader in providing
state-of-the-art services to meet the individual needs of persons with
developmental disabilities, mental illnesses, physical disabilities,
sensory impairments and dual diagnoses. The Will County-based, not-for-
profit delivers developmental, vocational, and behavioral health
services in five large agency-owned or leased locations and residential
services in numerous agency or consumer-owned leased residences.
I am also requesting $600,000 to Joliet Junior College to assist
funding efforts for the Bridging Community, Economic and Workforce
Development through Local Partnerships Project. This project embodies
many of the key components of Joliet Junior College's mission and
philosophy, community development, economic development, and workforce
development. The college's division responsible for this initiative is
the Institute of Economic Technology. The institute operates a Small
Business Development Center, Entrepreneurship Services Center,
Dislocated Worker Assistance Center, Business Assistance and Training
Center, and a Manufacturing Extension Center. The institute is a
national model for business assistance services and economic
development.
Both of these programs are desperately needed in my District and I
hope that they will be included in the final VA/HUD appropriations
bill.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Walsh and the members of the
House Appropriations Committee for committing to this funding, and for
honoring our nation's veterans.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, when the people of Georgia's 8th district
first elected me to be their representative, I felt that our number one
priority as legislators should be to operate the Federal government
within its means. My view on this important matter has not changed. I
cannot, in good conscience, cast a vote in favor of a pay increase for
Members while the Federal government is operating under such strict
spending limitations.
I have committed to the folks back in Georgia to getting our Federal
government's fiscal house in order. With the economy slowing and our
work in Congress to keep government spending in check, it is wrong for
us to give ourselves a pay raise. We must keep big government in check
and remain fiscally responsible. As I have for the past few years,
today I voted to oppose a pay raise for Members of Congress.
By voting against the previous question on the rule, I want to go on
record as being opposed to a cost-of-living-adjustment for Members of
Congress.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. OBEY. 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 220,
nays 204, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 278]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
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
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
[[Page H4660]]
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--10
Bachus
Barton
Blumenauer
Cubin
Houghton
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Lipinski
McKinney
Spence
{time} 1512
Mr. SCHIFF changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LEWIS of California and Mr. SMITH of Michigan 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. LaTourette). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 195, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 279]
AYES--228
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Scarborough
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett
Bartlett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pitts
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
[[Page H4661]]
Stenholm
Strickland
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Barton
Blumenauer
Boehner
Clayton
Cooksey
Cubin
Houghton
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lipinski
Souder
Spence
{time} 1531
Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mr. LAMPSON changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
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.
____________________