[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 126 (Tuesday, September 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5980-H5983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2944, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 245
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. 2944) making appropriations for the government
of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for the 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 part A of 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 part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules 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 be
debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the
amendment printed in part B of the report 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 and
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for the purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. At the conclusion 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.
{time} 1015
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to 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 purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 245 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 2944, the Fiscal Year 2002 District of Columbia
Appropriations Act. Overall, this bill provides a total of $7.1 billion
in local funding and a $398 million Federal payment to the District of
Columbia. By way of comparison, the final fiscal year 2001 D.C.
appropriations bill provided a total of $6.8 billion in local funds and
$464 million in Federal payment. The rule waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 245 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 clause 2 of
rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative
provision in a general appropriations bill) against provisions within
H.R. 2944. The rule also provides that the bill be considered for
amendment by paragraph.
The rule provides that amendments in part A of the Committee on Rules
report accompanying H. Res. 245 shall be considered as adopted.
It also waives points of order against the amendment printed in part
B of the Committee on Rules report, which 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 be
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
[[Page H5981]]
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
The rule also allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
accord priority and 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.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule on H.R. 2944, which will
allow the House to work its will on the various funding and policy
matters contained in this bill. I should note that the bill is the 11th
of 13 regular appropriations bills that the House will need to consider
and enact in order to complete the fiscal year 2002 discretionary
budget.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) for yielding me the customary one-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, this is an open rule. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking minority member, was consulted
throughout the process of developing this legislation, along with the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who is a fine chairman and a
great Member, in the process of developing this legislation, a trend we
hope will continue with developing other appropriations measures in the
days ahead. I would further note that this version of the D.C.
appropriations bill is much improved over past years. In fact, 35 of
the 69 riders included by the subcommittee were eliminated at the full
committee markup.
Far too often, Congress takes it upon itself to micromanage the
citizens of the District to advance an agenda that few of its residents
share. Every year, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton), my friend, has made eloquent pleas to this body, asking it to
refrain from making social policy in the city that she represents. But
it is not to be.
While this is a much-improved bill, it is still flawed. The measure
includes controversial prohibitions against using local funds, not a
dime of Federal money, for abortion services and the needle exchange
programs. Moreover, the Committee on Rules took it upon itself to make
in order an amendment that prohibits Federal as well as local funds
from being used for the implementation of the District of Columbia
Domestic Partnership Act which was passed in 1992 and never implemented
because the House of Representatives does not like it. This amendment
was defeated in the full committee on a bipartisan vote. But a gift
from the Committee on Rules puts it before us today.
I look forward to the day when Congress gives the Mayor and the
council of the city an opportunity to govern and make the kind of
decisions with their own money that other governments are allowed to
make without interference by the House and by the Congress.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, may I begin by thanking the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member, for their
very hard work on this bill, the best bill in some time for the
District of Columbia.
I must say that there was a very good chance that for once we might
be able to support a rule, especially since the Committee on
Appropriations, to its credit, made substantial progress on the
infamous social riders by voting to eliminate one that had long plagued
this bill, a rider that provides for health care benefits if paid for
by a partner who may be a grandmother or mother, or may be a gay
person. So the Committee on Appropriations decided that wherever they
stood on gay rights, it was not worth taking down everybody at a time
when health care is so important and when this body has not done its
job to make sure that everyone has health care.
This, I say to my colleagues, is no time to make hay or to make
politics over the local budget of a city. A city where Congress time
and again has shown it has no expertise to get into its local budget,
who could expect Congress to? I do not have any expertise on the D.C.
budget. We have limited interest, and the District of Columbia respects
that interest, because of the Federal presence here.
My side has tried to respond to the crisis we are in. We agreed to a
limited time for general debate, for example. We have agreed to limited
time for amendments. Otherwise, of course, we would not be acting in
the national interest. If, in fact, what we do is to crowd this bill
with the usual riders, we will not only look silly, this year we would
look careless and insensitive to the suffering and the felt needs of
the American people.
At the very least, in recognition of the uniquely serious crisis we
are in, I am asking Members to forebear attachments and amendments,
even if protected, which they know are opposed by D.C. law. I thank the
Committee on Appropriations for, in fact, not including, not including
a domestic partners rider in this bill. I ask my colleagues to respect
what the Committee on Appropriations did when its position is put
before us here today. After all, we are defending democratic values
more than rhetorically this session. At a time when the world is
watching, this body must not be seen as engaging in patently
undemocratic actions such as overturning local laws against the
democratic will of the people of the District of Columbia.
I was prepared, absent actions taken on social riders, to support a
rule this time, even with some serious imperfections; and let me say
what has happened to those imperfections, because there was a puzzling
decision made to delete completely noncontroversial budget provisions
which had never been bothered before in the history of home rule. I
brought this to the attention of the chairman and the ranking member,
and I must say I am deeply appreciative for the way both have worked
with me to make substantial progress. As they have had the time to
study these provisions, we have made many of them consistent with the
will of the Mayor and the city council of the District of Columbia.
Moreover, the chairman has promised me that he will continue to work
with me, even into conference, if necessary.
What he has done shows very substantial good faith. He has, in his
manager's amendment, included provisions that went before the Committee
on Appropriations. We made very substantial progress on the remaining
deletions, and the chairman had already removed 35 redundant and
duplicative amendments and provisions beforehand. In other words, the
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member, and I
have tried to behave like grown-up Members of Congress, not able to get
all we wanted, understanding that we had some disagreements, each
reciprocating; and I was prepared not to object to moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that this rule must be opposed. I hope that if
this bill does, in fact, make it to general debate, we will respect the
chairman's call. He made it known as soon as he became chairman that he
would like no attachments on his bill. I recognize some have been made
in order. I hope that my colleagues who have such attachments will
reconsider, in light of the chairman's call. He simply wants to get his
bill through. He wants to be an appropriator. If my colleagues have
other matters, I am willing to take them to the D.C. City Council or to
take them to the authorizing committee.
Matters such as domestic partners, abortions, other matters of
controversial local concern do not belong on this bill. Let us get this
bill done; let us make this a banner year for D.C. We are off to a bad
start on the rule. I ask my colleagues to oppose the rule. If my
colleagues vote for the rule, I certainly ask my colleagues to be
mindful of the fact that this is a local appropriation and to follow
the lead of the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the council when
it comes to how to respond to
[[Page H5982]]
any attachments that may come forward.
Once again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for very
important progress and for the respect they have shown the people and
the government of the District of Columbia.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying
legislation, and I would like to compliment the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Knollenberg), the majority chairman, and the staff for their hard
work on this legislation.
However, even as I rise to support the underlying legislation, I have
difficulty with this rule, for it seems to lack any respect for the
work product of the subcommittee or the full Committee on
Appropriations and wants to reverse a bipartisan vote in the full
committee. I think that that is unwise and inappropriate. I
particularly feel that, at this particular hour, there would be other
uses of all of our time than to get into the micromanaging of the
District's affairs. But nonetheless, I oppose the rule, but I support
the bill; and I hope that we can move beyond this at some point to the
underlying legislation.
I think that the chairman has done a remarkable job in terms of
building a consensus around how we should move forward in terms of the
District of Columbia, the capital city; and I would hope that we will
be able to get there from here, but I think that there has to be
respect for the committee's position. I think that the rule is one that
should be revisited and, therefore, I oppose it.
{time} 1030
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I have not thought of myself as naive in a
long time, but I guess I am. I have heard and read and even
participated in saluting unity, in arguing that divisive issues ought
to be deferred at this time; indeed, while I continue to think spending
billions on missile defense is a diversion from the real defense needs
of this country and a waste, and destabilizing at a time when the world
does not need that, I understand the decision not to press that at this
time.
So I was deeply shocked to be told yesterday that the Republican
leadership has chosen to use this bill to make an assault on millions
of gay and lesbian Americans in general, and on those who live in the
District of Columbia, in particular.
Not only are they launching this assault, but they are going to
extraordinary lengths to do it. A nongermane amendment has been
protected by the Committee on Rules so that a decision of the Committee
on Appropriations, recognizing the right of people in the District of
Columbia to make their own choices about how their money will be spent,
can be overruled.
The District of Columbia, by its small ``d'' democratic processes,
decided to say that if two men or two women were in love and were
prepared to commit themselves to each other legally and financially, as
well as emotionally, the District of Columbia, if they work for the
District of Columbia, they would honor that.
For reasons I do not understand, that willingness to accept a mutual
declaration of responsibility from two people in love deeply offends
some of my colleagues.
On a personal level, it does not matter to me what they think. They
are entitled to their opinions, prejudicial as I might think they are.
But to tell the 550,000 people of the District, who have voted through
their democratic processes, that they may not use money raised in the
District by taxation voted by the District on residents of the
District, that they may not use that money to carry out a policy that
recognizes that love, shame on those who perpetrate it, and
particularly now.
Everybody in America is concerned about the people who died, and gay
and lesbian and bisexual and transgendered people are no different than
others. In addition to the general mourning, there is discussion of
those in that particular community, of which I am a member, who died.
Indeed, we have the military announcing what we call a ``stop loss''
policy, which says that gay and lesbian Americans in the military who
are, I think, wholly unfairly and incorrectly and unwisely subject to
being thrown out, may not be thrown out now. In other words, at this
time of terrible crisis, when we are going to ask Americans to go and
risk their lives for the defense of freedom, overwhelmingly supported
here, we are going to make an exception in some cases to the policy of
excluding gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian people who have been
asking for the right are going to get it. They are going to be allowed
to die for their country.
But according to some, we are just not allowed to live here freely,
because this bill says that we will violate what some have said is a
philosophical principle that local people at the local level ought to
be able to decide how to spend local money.
We are not talking formally about States' rights. The District of
Columbia is not a State, it is a self-governing group of Americans who
have voted through an open and democratic process, through a public
policy, which they are prepared to support with their money. And the
Republican leadership says, no, no, we cannot let them do that. We
cannot let them do that, because if two women are allowed to express
their love for each other and one of them works for the District of
Columbia and wants to extend health benefits to her partner, we cannot
allow that. That somehow is going to undo the great fabric of this
Nation.
And we will even violate the normal rules of the House, because it is
the one amendment that is nongermane. In our technical terms, it is
legislating in an appropriations bill.
And by the way, how seriously do they take this terrible assault on
the dignity and freedom and emotions of gay and lesbian Americans? They
give us 10 minutes to talk about it. There will be 5 minutes in which
those of us who are appalled by this intrusive, divisive assault on so
many millions of their fellow citizens, because those of us who do not
live in the District on a legal basis, share the pain of those in the
District who will be penalized by this punitive amendment, and they
give us 5 minutes to talk about it.
I do not see how anyone who has talked about not being divisive, who
has talked about unity at this time, can agree to dealing with this
amendment at this time, and certainly not to a 5-minute debate on each
side, where people's fundamental rights, the right of the District to
self-governance, that is to be disposed of in 5 minutes? Have people so
little concern for the rights and feelings of others? I hope the rule
is voted down.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
in yielding time to me to speak briefly to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, like the previous Member, I am deeply concerned that, in
a time when we should be coming together as a Congress, lifting up our
eyes to deal with big issues and finding ways to bring Americans
together, that this Congress sees fit to, sadly, divide people by
playing with the budget for the District of Columbia.
It seems to me that responsible businesses across the country and a
number of local governments, some of which I represent, have seen fit
to extend in a reasonable fashion insurance coverage to their employees
and their domestic associates, people that they have an insurable
interest, people that they care about. This is something that is
reasonable.
I had an opportunity in my prior life to help craft provisions like
this. It was good for our employees, it was the right thing to do.
For the last 8 years, the District of Columbia's government has
chosen to do this with their own resources. Yet, Congress, in its
wisdom, has intervened, seen fit to deny them the right to do what is
being done by progressive people across the country. It is wrong. It is
particularly wrong to do it now.
[[Page H5983]]
We do not need to have these gratuitous efforts at bringing forth
unnecessary political battles. This ought to be one time that we can
move beyond it.
Mr. Speaker, I was also embarrassed that the Congress of the United
States saw fit, in dealing with needed resources for emergency
planning, that we were going to micromanage the District of Columbia
and withhold some of its funds in dealing with the $16 million in
special Federal payments for emergency security planning.
I find that particularly ironic, Mr. Speaker, when I consider that
the events of the last 2 weeks demonstrated that the Federal Government
did not have its act together regarding the District of Columbia; and
further, that if the standard for preparedness is what we as Members of
this House have done in terms of preparing our offices and our
employees for these emergencies, that bar is very low.
Every man and woman who serves in this Chamber knows that we were not
ready, and has doubts about whether we are ready today. Yet, for the
committee to therefore overlook our shortcomings and try to manage the
District of Columbia by withholding funds, I find egregious and
embarrassing. I hope we will reject the rule and reject the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I call for a no vote on the rule, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so we can get
on with the debate on the important appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 236,
nays 183, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 351]
YEAS--236
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
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
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
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
NAYS--183
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Conyers
Farr
Hoyer
Owens
Peterson (MN)
Rush
Serrano
Towns
Velazquez
Watson (CA)
Young (AK)
{time} 1103
Ms. McKINNEY, Messrs. SMITH of Washington, KUCINICH, DAVIS of
Illinois, ROEMER, DOGGETT, MOLLOHAN, RAHALL, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms.
LOFGREN, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Mrs. JOHNSON of
Connecticut changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the voted was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening a tornado ripped through
several towns and I was in Maryland surveying the damage.
I would like the Record to reflect that had I been present I would
have voted ``no'' on rollcall 351.
____________________