[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 144 (Thursday, October 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7313-H7317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2002
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of
the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 70
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 107-44 is further amended by striking the date specified
in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``November
16, 2001''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Wednesday, October 24, 2001, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House this morning is H.J.
Res. 70. Its purpose is to extend the current continuing resolution
through November 16. We had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that this would not be
necessary, but as all of our colleagues know, the House was really not
able to function for nearly a week because of the anthrax contamination
that was located in some of our areas. In addition to that, some of the
House office buildings were closed and we were not able to actually
recover the information, the papers and the materials that we needed to
carry on some of our appropriations work.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, we actually offered to put on some of those
moon suits that the decontaminators were wearing so that we could
actually get into the building and recover the files and the
information we needed, but, of course, that suggestion was rejected and
so we have had a delay. That is the reason why we come to the floor
with another continuing resolution, but absent any further delays over
which we have no control, we expect to complete our appropriations
business by the end of this continuing resolution.
The terms and conditions of the previous CRs remain in effect. All
ongoing activities will be continued at current rates under the same
terms and conditions as fiscal year 2001. Last week, Mr. Speaker, we
passed two conference reports, Interior and Military Construction.
Yesterday, the committee reported out the Defense appropriations bill.
We expect to file that bill sometime early next week.
In addition to the CR today, we hope to be appointing conferees on
the Foreign Operations bill. We will meet in conference on the
Treasury-Postal bill this afternoon and have that conference report on
the floor next week. Next week, we also hope to go to conference on the
Legislative Branch, the VA-HUD, and the Energy and Water appropriations
bills. We also expect to appoint conferees on Agriculture which the
Senate hopes to complete today, and also Transportation which they
passed in August but we have not yet received a request to go to
conference.
Next week, we also plan to put together a package to allocate the
funding provided in the emergency supplemental bill to address
military, domestic security, humanitarian assistance and recovery
requirements related to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker, I would explain that in the $40 billion supplemental
that we enacted immediately after the attacks on September 11, $10
billion of that had no strings attached, the President was able to use
it quickly in any legal way that he chose. The second $10 billion, the
President is able to use, after he notifies the Appropriations
Committees of the House and the Senate 15 days prior to releasing the
funds. The last $20 billion, according to the law, had to go through
the regular appropriations process.
Actually, we just received information on the $20 billion from the
White House on Wednesday afternoon last week as this building was being
evacuated, and so we have not really had an opportunity to review what
they have proposed relative to the $20 billion. But we will do that
very quickly now and hopefully will include it as part of the Defense
appropriations bill when it comes to the floor.
We have a lot of work to do, and I appreciate the bipartisan
cooperation and spirit that we have had here in the House all of this
year and especially since the September 11 terrorist attacks. This
Congress has come together. As one Member, it makes me extremely proud
of my colleagues in the way that they have responded and joined with
the President to assure the perpetrators of that tragedy, that terrible
attack, are going to be punished and that we are going to do everything
to disrupt their ability to ever do something like that to the United
States again.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the hoarseness that overcame me there
for a few seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 minutes.
I would simply observe for the gentleman from Florida that many of my
constituents would say that the Republic has never yet been harmed when
a Member of Congress has been hoarse, but let me simply make some
points about the issue at hand.
Mr. Speaker, this body is an odd mixture of being both a legislative
institution and a political institution. Sometimes I believe the fact
that the cameras have come into this place have created all kinds of
incentives for this place to be much more a political institution than
it is a legislative institution, and I regret that.
I also think that we have another problem in the House. Woodrow
Wilson wrote in his famous book a long time ago that Congress did its
work in committee, and in my view Congress does its best work in
committee. And I think there is always a tension in a legislative and
political body between efforts of the two parties to get their messages
out and to get their will forced through the House, and, on the other
hand, the efforts of the committees of the House to do the work of the
House on behalf of every Member and on behalf of the country. We have a
committee system because none of us can be an expert on everything, and
we are, through the committee system, given the opportunity to
specialize and develop knowledge in discrete areas of government.
I think this is one of those times when the committee system needs to
be allowed to work on behalf of the House rather than being frustrated
by
[[Page H7314]]
other pressures, and that is what drives me to make the comments I want
to make today.
This continuing resolution certainly deserves to be supported by
every Member. It will allow the committee to begin to produce
conferences, conference reports, between the two Houses now that the
mini-filibuster is over on the other side of the Capitol, but I think
there is a fundamental problem that we face as we go into dealing with
each of those conference reports. As Members understand, after the
events of September 11, we appropriated a $40 billion package to the
President: $10 billion was to be used pretty much as he saw fit on an
emergency situation; the next $10 billion is supposed to be spent after
serious and involved consultation with the Congress, the President
essentially has 15 days during which he is supposed to work out any
potential differences with the Congress before he proceeds to spend
that money; and then, lastly, we indicated that we would at a later
date provide the other $20 billion that we had agreed to provide at
that time. But during that debate, it was made clear many times over by
people on both sides of the aisle that that $40 billion was just a down
payment, not a ceiling, it was just a down payment. It was a limitation
on how much could be spent immediately until the Congress and the
executive branch got its act together and could make a more informed
set of judgments about what else we needed to protect the country. And
now I think we have to face the question of whether or not we are going
to be asked to proceed with these bills under that $40 billion cap or
if we are going to recognize that the world has changed a whole lot
since that $40 billion package was passed.
We will be bringing to the floor next week a defense bill which is
essentially a peacetime defense bill. We are no longer at peace. In my
view there are significant portions of the Pentagon budget that will
need to be augmented above the levels provided in that appropriation
bill. But there are a great many other items which I believe are going
to cost far more than that $40 billion that we have so far provided
authority for, and I think that money needs to be directed specifically
and directly at homeland security issues. And without an understanding
that we need to go above that $40 billion, we will not be able to
provide the public or the Nation with the degree of safety that it has
a right to expect.
We have heard a lot of comments about airline security this morning.
Obviously that has to be the first order of business. I think it is
amazing that we have not passed an airline security bill more than a
month after the tragic events of September 11. But even if we were to
do that today, that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a great
many other security-related items which we need to focus on.
We have had a lot of reference made to the fact that the House went
out of business last week after the anthrax problem was discovered.
That afforded me an opportunity to get a series of briefings that I
otherwise would not have had time to get at this point in the year, and
so I spent the next 4 days when this House was out of session being
briefed by the NSA, the CIA, HHS, CDC, FBI, a whole range of agencies
that have responsibilities directly related to homeland security.
{time} 1045
It is clear to me on the basis of those discussions that we need to
move significantly beyond the amounts that the administration has
provided in its budget submission of last week if we are to really do
the job of securing the home front as well.
We just passed a tax bill yesterday, not with my vote; but we gave
large amounts of money to the largest corporations in this country:
over $2 billion to Ford; $1.6 billion, or $1.4 billion, I believe, to
AT&T; $600 million to GE, not exactly the most needy clients in the
country.
If we can do that, well, I do not think we should have done that. I
think we should have instead protected the integrity of the budget
process and protected the integrity of the fiscal bottom line by not
providing them those outlandish reductions, and instead we should have
used that money for security-related items. I do not want to get into a
debate about what happened yesterday, but I want to give you some
examples of the things I think we need to do that will require us to go
far beyond the $40 billion that we are talking about.
First of all, you cannot talk about the National Security Agency and
what it does in public; but I am telling you, seeing what they are
doing and seeing the work that they are trying to do to help us track
terrorism, there is no doubt in my mind that they are going to need
more people above and beyond those being provided right now.
The same with the FBI. If you take a look what they are trying to do,
the FBI asked for almost $1.5 billion in additional funding. They have
been provided in the budget request submitted by the administration so
far a little more than one-third of that amount.
The Customs Service, we have had everybody talk about the
vulnerabilities of this country on the Canadian border. The Customs
Service, I am told, requested $800 million to do something about that.
The budget submission provides only $114 million to meet that problem.
I think that action is at great variance with our needs.
We also have a number of other efforts at the CIA which I think need
augmenting.
In the area of public health, we have been told by my good friend the
Secretary, who was formerly the Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson,
we have been told that they are going to buy 300 million units of
smallpox vaccine. I think that is terrific. But it will not do us much
good if we have not strengthened the ability of public health officials
down to the local level in every community in this land to actually
deliver those vaccines, and, more importantly, to do the detection work
and the detective work to make certain that we are not 2 weeks into an
epidemic before we realize that we have got an epidemic.
In transportation, I would challenge anyone to show me that we are
buying all the bomb detection equipment that can be produced to provide
greater security for this country. Rail passengers, how often have you
had your bags checked when you get onto a train in this country? Amtrak
has requested $500 million for increased security. That request was cut
by $495 million, or 99 percent.
The Coast Guard, we have a huge number of ports of entry in this
country. The Coast Guard is taxed to the limit. They need more
resources to protect this country and the security of this country, as
far as I am concerned; yet they are not getting, in my view, nearly the
resources they need.
Food safety, we inspect less than 2 percent of the food that comes
into this country. We desperately need to upgrade FDA, USDA and other
agencies' ability to protect the Nation's food supply, both
domestically and imported; and they are not getting sufficient
resources to do that.
There are many other areas of security-related concern that I could
go into. I take this time simply to make the point that we cannot
afford ``business as usual'' in dealing with these appropriation bills.
In my view, we are going to have to live up to the words that we
uttered on this House floor just a few weeks ago when we approved that
initial $40 billion package. We are going to need to provide additional
funds above $40 billion, in my view, to meet all of these threats.
I want to make clear, I think that it is very likely that many of the
requests from agencies that were turned down by OMB were turned down
for very justifiable reasons, because we know that agencies will use
almost any excuse to put their hand out to get more money. So I do not
object to OMB scrubbing those numbers hard, but I do object to us
having to live within an artificial dollar ceiling when the home base
security of the United States is at stake.
If we are at war, then we indeed ought to heed the words of the Vice
President, who correctly said that this may be the first war in this
country's history where we suffer more casualties at home than we do
abroad. If that is the case, then we need to prepare for it; and we
need to make the investments that are necessary.
So I would urge every single Member of this House over the next 3 or
4 days to think through what they have heard from their own
constituents and what they have seen as they travel around the United
States when it comes to
[[Page H7315]]
other areas of security that we need to deal with.
Now, we know each party has our own preferences in terms of economic
policy in this country, in terms of tax policy, in terms of spending
policy. That is fine. Those differences are healthy, at least most of
the time. But today I am not talking about that. There is nothing
philosophical, there is nothing ideological, about the idea of spending
whatever is necessary and whatever can be usefully spent in order to
upgrade the security of our transportation system, of our food supply,
of our schools, and every other point of vulnerability in this country.
We are in a new era. We need to think like it, and that means we need
to get rid of these artificial ceilings and think more clearly about
what is the best use of our time and what are crucial uses of public
money.
I have no problem whatsoever stacking up the list of items that I
just mentioned and comparing them to some of the tax items that this
Congress passed yesterday. If you ask any citizen on the street,
including many citizens who benefited the most by those tax cuts
yesterday, I would bet you by at least a seven or eight to one ratio,
they would say, look, put security first.
That is all I am asking. We have got, in my judgment, about a week
for the House to make some concrete judgments, or else all of these
decisions are going to be made by the Senate. They may make some good
decisions, but I think it would be kind of nice if we participated. I
think as the body charged with the responsibility to initiate
appropriations, I think that we ought to be dealing from the House
document, rather than dealing from the Senate document that they put
together at a later date.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) and I have discussed the issues that he has just spoken about
numerous times at great length, and I certainly agree with what he
said.
I think it is important to note that many of the appropriations bills
that the House passed, actually passed prior to the terrorist attack on
September 11, and were all peacetime budgets. The defense bill that we
marked up yesterday was actually a peacetime budget. It dealt with the
issues and the dollars that were available prior to the September 11
terrorist attack.
So the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is exactly correct. We
have to move. Except for the $40 billion supplemental, we have to move
into a wartime status here in the Congress, as we have done
emotionally, as we have done by statements of support for the
President, as we have done by changing some laws to give our law
enforcement and our military more ability to move quickly to do what
has to be done.
The post-September 11 budget has to be considered real. As for the
$40 billion, I do not think anybody believes that it is going to be
enough to do what we have to do. What we have to do, the list is long,
includes eliminating and bringing to justice bin Laden, his
lieutenants, and the al Queda, and to remove them from any position of
being able to influence terrorist attacks anywhere in the world.
Mr. Speaker, America is not the only target. Other nations in the
world are also targets. In the World Trade Center, for example, on that
fateful day of September 11, there were nationals from 68 different
countries who lost their lives in that attack on the World Trade
Center. At our own Pentagon here, just outside of Washington, D.C., not
only were members of our military killed in that attack, but also
civilians, who were representing industry and meeting with Pentagon
officials, military officials.
So the target is very large, and it is important that we eliminate
and disrupt the ability of any terrorist to carry out any additional
attack, whether it be airplane bombs or truck bombs or anthrax or
bacteria or disease germs, or whatever it might be. It is important
that people do not have to live in fear, and they should not. It is
important that places in our country are not under attack.
I am satisfied that we are doing everything humanly possible to make
sure that does not happen again, but there is a lot that needs to be
done. We are prepared, and we have advised the President and our
leadership knows that we, the Committee on Appropriations, are prepared
to move quickly without any hesitation on addressing whatever the needs
are. We are going to provide whatever it takes to keep America and our
people secure and free from the terrorists who would try to damage our
people and our country.
Mr. Speaker, as we proceed through this appropriations process in the
next few days and the next few weeks, we will be addressing the issues
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just discussed. We will be
addressing the issues of what the needs really are. We will meet those
needs, to the best of our ability; and as the needs arise, if there is
something else that needs to be done, we are going to do it. We are
going to do whatever it takes to stop the bin Ladens of the world, the
Al Quaedas of the world, and those people who would bring terrible
tragedy upon this Nation of ours. We are not going to stand for it, and
I am committing this Committee to this, Mr. Speaker. We will provide
whatever is necessary to make this guarantee and to support our
President and our military in this effort.
The Members of our Army, our Navy, our Marine Corps, our Air Force
and our Coast Guard, our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement,
the FBI, are all doing tremendous work. In briefing after briefing,
about none of which we have revealed anything that is classified, by
the way, Mr. Speaker, but after receiving many, many briefings, I am
really impressed with how well they have come together, how well they
are doing their job, how well they are beginning to disrupt the ability
of any terrorist organization attempting to bring additional tragedies
upon this great Nation of ours.
So, Mr. Speaker, we remain united in this House, in this Congress, in
this government, with the President leading us in this effort. We stand
in strong support of all of our military and civilians who are on the
frontline in this battle. We are going to do what has to be done; and
the terrorists of the world might as well understand that, because we
are coming to get them. If we have to get the rats out of the rat hole,
we are going to get into the rat hole with them, but we are going to
get them out.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the
Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Florida and commend him for the way he and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have had this discussion this morning, and
say in that spirit that there are some things that are a little bit
disturbing and puzzling to some of us on this side of the aisle as we
not only strive to, but hopefully perform, in 110 percent of support of
our President and the bipartisan dedication of the United States in
winning the war on terrorism internationally, as well as domestically.
{time} 1100
Many of us were puzzled at the bringing of yesterday's tax bill to
the floor and the discussion and the debate that ensued around it
because, to some of us, it did not fit the spirit of the times and we
respectfully disagreed. Why some folks's blood pressure went up as high
as it did, I do not know.
But here is my concern, and I say this for the benefit of both sides
of the aisle. The day before yesterday, Mitch Daniels, Director of OMB,
stressed, ``There are very, very few things more important to President
Bush than the State of American agriculture. But at the moment, there
are at least two things more important. One is concerning international
terrorism; the other is protecting Americans here at home. The
President deserves the chance to work on those and then he will turn
his attention to the other more important issues such as farm policy
and a new farm bill.''
Now, this request was being made to the Senate, in saying please do
not bring the farm bill up now, deal with it
[[Page H7316]]
next year. As my colleagues know, we passed the farm bill in the House
bipartisanly, equal support, 290 to 130 votes, indicating that the will
of the House, the wisdom of the House, in the same spirit as the budget
that the gentleman from Florida talked about, where the budget numbers
came from, it was the budget that passed the House. Well, it seems to
me that yesterday, at least in the House and the House leadership, tax
policy became more important than winning the war, or certainly more
important than passing a farm bill.
Now, I hope I am wrong on that, because I do believe that it is still
critically important to us and our food policy that we deal with this
issue this year. But it is a little bit puzzling when we have messages
that seem to contradict each other being sent at the same time most of
us, if not all of us, and I would say all of us, bipartisanly are
sincerely interested in doing everything we can to back our President
in his excellent conduct of this terrible situation we find ourselves
in. But somehow, we have to find a way to communicate on domestic
policy and seemingly, right now, we have a mixed message going on
concerning agriculture that bothers some of us greatly. I hope in our
discussions we will be able to plug that back in and get back on track.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is an important
step today to keep this thing going. We are operating under somewhat
duress and unusual circumstances, but I am glad to see that the
Committee on Appropriations, on a bipartisan basis, is keeping the ball
rolling. I hope that the other body, sometimes known as the United
States Senate, which we are not allowed to refer to by name, would also
move as quickly as we have been moving. We have passed the DOD bill,
which is pending only because of a paperwork snafu in the Rayburn
Building, we cannot actually get to the physical bill, but we will have
passed 13 out of 13 appropriations bills, and I hope that the folks in
the other body will move quickly so that we can get this thing resolved
and we can get to the war on terrorism and focus all of our energies on
that and stimulating the economy.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res.
70, a continuing resolution which extends temporary funding for all
Federal Government agencies until November 16, 2001. This resolution
provides further continuing appropriation for FY 2002 by extending a
previous continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, since September 11, 2001, the legislative work of both
bodies of the Congress has been significantly hampered for a number of
reasons which required our immediate attention. As a result, we have
not been able to complete all of the appropriations bills for fiscal
year 2002. Nevertheless, we must make sure that essential services of
the Federal Government continue uninterrupted without any diminution in
Federal services to the American public.
In this time of national unity and pride, we must keep our museums
and monuments open to the public to show the world that America will
continue to enjoy its rich heritage and civil liberties. Also, we must
provide continued funding for Federal law enforcement, transportation
and health care agencies so that our country may respond effectively to
unforeseen emergencies.
I support this resolution, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, October 24, 2001,
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
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.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on House Joint
Resolution 70 will be followed by a 5-minute vote, if ordered, on
approving the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419,
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 405]
YEAS--419
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
[[Page H7317]]
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Ballenger
Barr
Callahan
Cubin
Cummings
Everett
Fattah
Gallegly
Gonzalez
Gordon
Hoeffel
Istook
Miller, Gary
{time} 1129
Mr. BAIRD and Mr. KLECZKA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________