[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 23 (Wednesday, March 6, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H696-H700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 354
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of Wednesday, March 6, 2002, for the Speaker
to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules
relating to the following measures:
(1) The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 32) congratulating the
United States Military Academy at West Point on its
bicentennial anniversary, and commending its outstanding
contributions to the Nation.
[[Page H697]]
(2) The bill (S. 1857) to encourage the negotiated
settlement of tribal claims.
(3) The bill (H.R. 1870) to provide for the sale of certain
real property within the Newlands Project in Nevada, to the
city of Fallon, Nevada.
(4) The bill (H.R. 1883) to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a feasibility study on water optimization
in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River basin, Owyhee River
basin, and Powder River basin, Oregon.
(5) The bill (H.R. 1963) to amend the National Trails
System Act to designate the route taken by American soldier
and frontiersman George Rogers Clark and his men during the
Revolutionary War to capture the British forts at Kaskaskia
and Cahokia, Illinois, and Vincennes, Indiana, for study for
potential addition to the National Trails System.
(6) A bill to provide assistance to displaced workers by
extending unemployment benefits and by providing a credit for
health insurance costs, and for other purposes.
(7) A resolution expressing support for the democratically
elected government of Colombia and its efforts to counter
threats from United States-designated foreign terrorist
organizations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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, House Resolution 354 is a rule providing for the
consideration of motions to suspend the rules at any time on the
legislative day Wednesday, March 6, 2002. This is a fair rule that will
allow for consideration of several pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules in fact had the debate
and the vote about those things which we are going to choose to
consider today and one of those that we talked about at the time we
have now made a decision that we are not going to present at this time;
and it should be noted that though, while the unemployment benefits
bill is listed under the rule, it will not be called up for
consideration today, meaning that it will not be a part of the package
that we are seeking at this time.
Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events of September 11, the House has
worked with speed and deliberation to pass much-needed legislation that
will provide an extension of critical-needed unemployment benefits to
dislocated workers. It is regrettable that though this bill has passed
several times with bipartisan votes that there will be no action on
this today and also that there has been no action by the other body on
this.
As the 6-month anniversary of September 11 approaches us, there are
people across the country who are still struggling to recover from the
tragic events of that day, whether it be emotional, physically,
financially or otherwise. It is my hope that the issue will stay at the
forefront of our legislative business until we pass and enact a bill
that will help each of those people.
Mr. Speaker, I have outlined those things which we will be
considering, or hope to consider, today under suspension of the rules;
and I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule which will allow
us to consider these pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 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 thank my friend from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider a number of
suspension bills today, bills that many of us had hoped would be of
critical importance to our constituents. In fact, last night rumors
circulated that the leadership of the body was preparing to do what we
hoped it would have done long ago and extend unemployment benefits to
the thousands of workers who were laid off in the wake of the September
11 attacks.
For weeks we have begged the leadership of the body time and time
again to pass a clean unemployment extension bill. Recently released
Labor Department data for January 2002 shows that from September 11
through January of this year more than 1.3 million workers exhausted
their regular unemployment benefits. As of January, about 7.9 million
Americans, or about 5.6 percent of the workforce, were unemployed. Over
12,000 people a day are exhausting their unemployment insurance. And
earlier this year the Senate adopted a simple extension of unemployment
benefits by unanimous consent.
The House leadership, rather than acting expeditiously, refused to
pass the same extension without tying it to a package of dying stimulus
plans.
{time} 1130
The plan, no one was surprised to learn, consisted almost entirely of
tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. And the measure, no one was
surprised to learn, went nowhere in the Senate.
We now have an opportunity to do today, or we did have, what should
have been done weeks ago, pass a clean unemployment bill. Were we to
pass such a measure this morning, the bill could be on the President's
desk immediately. But, instead, the leadership of the body is preparing
to push a measure that would augment a simple extension of jobs
benefits with controversial tax provisions that will kill it in the
Senate.
Why can we not simply extend unemployment benefits by an additional
13 weeks? Tax credits do little to aid the unemployed, many of whom are
not paying taxes in the first place while out of work. A clean bill
could go straight to the President, and the leadership in the body
could signal to the unemployed that this House cares about the plight
of their families. Today's confusion, however, will ensure just the
opposite, more delay and not a penny of relief for impacted families.
Mr. Speaker, this is not leadership; this is petulance. Having failed
three times to pass accelerated tax breaks for upper brackets and
reducing the alternative tax on corporations or actually doing away
with them, the leadership is taking a fourth swing at the other body.
What is stunning about this maneuver is the sheer cynicism it embraces.
The leadership is making it perfectly clear that it is willing to
inflict further pain on desperate families in order to have another
crack at a divisive, partisan agenda.
Moreover, Members of this body are being afforded little notice of
what these bills contain. The House of Representatives is not a shadow
government. Our rules mandate that we deliberate in the open. What
aversion do we have here to regular order? Instead of informed
deliberations, my colleagues are left with scant information. In fact,
the bill we have been talking about has not yet been seen, and my
colleagues and I have no information and no debate time on which to
base decisions impacting millions of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this extraordinary rule we are considering today is
normally reserved for those times when Congress is hard at work, not
when we are working 2\1/2\ days a week, and it needs flexibility to
meet its commitments. But not today. The long stretches of idleness in
this body can surely be replaced with meaningful deliberation on
important measures.
We just got the report of people being abused in nursing homes. We
should be concerned about all the corporations in America that are
registering themselves over in Bermuda to avoid paying America's taxes.
While we name post offices and contemplate shooting mourning doves, the
measures that impact prescription drugs and saving Social Security
languish.
I have a bill that would ban genetic discrimination in health
insurance that has over 258 bipartisan cosponsors; and it would affect
every man, woman, and child in the United States. But for over 6 years
we have not been able to have that on the floor. I implore, then, if
they are going to abuse the power of suspensions, to put it to good use
and make a real difference in the lives of American people.
Mr. Speaker, we intend to try to defeat the previous question on the
rule in order to amend the rule simply to allow what should be done, a
straight 13-week unemployment benefits extension bill. I urge all my
colleagues on both sides of this House to support this effort because
the American public demands and deserves it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H698]]
We are hearing a lot about this unemployment problem, and it is a
problem, and the health care problems, and there are health care
problems. This body has addressed this issue numerous times. This issue
was prepared to be on the floor today, except there was some
disagreement as to whether it would be on suspension or whether we
would have long enough even to speak about it. The bottom line is, I do
not believe we should be playing politics with the health and
livelihood of American workers, whose families' jobs and their own
jobs, their own problems, are right on the line.
But for those who would call for a clean bill, I would quote Speaker
Hastert, who yesterday said this is about as clean as you could get it.
And I would add that it is also a straightforward approach to
addressing the real needs of laid-off workers as we can get. That was
what this bill was supposed to do. It was clean. It was about
unemployment and health care tax credits. Oh, but then we find out that
they simply do not like the way we have done it, and that is why the
other side is opposed to what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, we disagree on lots of issues, and they are honest
disagreements that we have in Washington, about taxes, about the size
of government, about how much we are going to tax the American people,
about who will be paying in and who will be receiving what. But the
bottom line is that this Republican Congress has attempted
expeditiously and carefully to address the needs and the issues of
people who are having tough times. But we also believe, as Republicans,
that it is important for us to put out a plan that addresses the needs
of the Nation. That is why we asked for tax cuts.
We believe that people not only want a job but they want the ability
to have a secure job. Savings and investment and the opportunity for
people to have more take-home pay to protect the jobs that we have is
what the Republican plan is, also. It is not just about the health care
needs, where we offer tax credits. It is not just about unemployment.
It is about a broad, overarching idea that we believe that this
government can, must and will react and respond properly to people. And
that is what the Republican plan has been since September 11.
I am sorry we are not addressing that issue today. We will continue
to wait for the other body as they deliberate and deliberate and
deliberate on this issue, but we will keep going with the things we
know are good for people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to my friend.
I appreciate that people who are unemployed, who have families to
feed, who have mortgages to pay, who have no prospects immediately of a
job are not terribly interested whether or not we do away with an
Alternative Minimum Tax and give money back to IBM and money back to
Enron and money back to major corporations in the United States. They
simply want some kind of action here.
In all times of trouble, when we have this kind of unemployment rate,
it has been the policy of the government of the United States to extend
unemployment. For some reason, we simply cannot seem to get that done
here. I am appalled at that and urge that that be rectified.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague on the
other side, he just said that we are playing politics. I would say the
problem here is that the Republicans are in charge of the floor. They
are in charge of the House. They are in the leadership because they are
in the majority. They are playing politics because they are not
allowing a clean bill on unemployment insurance extension to come up.
I cannot believe I am hearing this from my Republican colleagues,
somehow suggesting that if we take action on this bill that they put in
order under this rule that we will have some relief for the unemployed.
It is not true. We know if this bill goes over to the other body and it
includes anything other than extension of unemployment compensation it
will never pass and it will die.
The other body has already taken up I do not know how many stimulus
packages, tried all kinds of options, with or without different kinds
of health care benefits, with or without Alternative Minimum Tax, and
finally the leadership said, look, there is nothing we can pass here
other than a clean unemployment compensation extension, passed, I
believe, 100 to nothing.
So the lesson is learned. The only thing that will work, the only
thing that will provide relief for Americans who are running out of
their unemployment insurance is if we just pass a clean bill that has
nothing else attached to it.
We have done the same thing over here. The Republican leadership has
brought up three stimulus packages, pretty much the same. I suspect if
this bill is voted down today they will bring up another stimulus
package tomorrow or next week. They are playing politics because they
will not allow a clean bill to pass. It passed the other body 100 to
nothing. It will pass here probably unanimously. Let us just do it.
Now, let me talk about the tax credits for health care that are in
this bill. My Republican colleagues know that this is a very
controversial issue because the Democrats do not believe it will work.
When we talk about tax credits for health care, most of the people who
are uninsured, very few are going to be able to go out in the
individual market and buy insurance, which is $4,000 or $5,000 a year,
with the piddly tax credits the Republicans are proposing.
So the Democrats have been saying this is not going to work, this tax
credit. We have talked about extending COBRA, we have talked about the
need to extend Medicaid to cover more people at a little higher level
of income. My own State of New Jersey, a perfect example, is suffering
because they do not have the money, and so many States are not able to
provide the Medicaid benefits they have now and cover the people they
now have and are considering cutting back on Medicaid.
So we have a major difference here. Democrats believe COBRA extension
and Medicaid extension will bring more people and provide insurance. We
do not believe the Republican proposal with tax credits will work. So
forget about this for the time being. We do not have agreement. Let us
go with the thing we do have agreement on, which is unemployment
expansion, a clean bill. We should bring it up and get it over with.
The Republican side is playing politics and not giving a fair shake
to those people in my district and around the country that need these
extra weeks of unemployment compensation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We can keep talking about this. It has passed this House four times.
This body has dealt with this issue. Now what we hear is my colleagues
on the other side suggesting we have to bow down to what the other body
wants to do, that we must do what the other body wants to do. Well,
that is not the way it works. This body has its own leadership, has the
two sides of the aisle. We work on the things that we work on, just
like the items that we passed and have sent to the other body.
Mr. Speaker, we have been open and clear about what we are trying to
do. We are offering an opportunity to put together unemployment
benefits, health care, and, at the same time, make sure that it would
be done in a way which we believe would work. Now, what we understand
from the other side is, we disagree that it is not going to work that
way, so we are going to oppose what you are doing.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have heard this lots of time. We heard this
about the balanced budget. A balanced budget will never work. We can
never have a balanced budget.
Secondly, we heard when we went to welfare reform, oh, my gosh,
welfare reform will never, ever work. We heard this about the capital
gains tax cut, that it is going to cost our government $9 billion. In
fact, it did work and brought in $90 billion to the government and
created an economic stimulus that our country has lived off for several
years now.
Republican ideas are simply bad to the other side every time, and
that is where they play politics, and I am sorry that it is that way.
But what we are doing is proposing something that
[[Page H699]]
will allow families who today have to use pre-tax dollars to pay for
their health care, and we are trying to make it easier to where they
can then deduct this amount.
Tax credits do work. They work for the families that use them over
and over and over. Tens of thousands of African Americans, tens of
thousands of Hispanics, and, oh, yes, tens of thousands of Caucasians
will get this same tax credit. It works for people. It works for people
who have health care today by helping them pay for what they want and
they need.
I am proud of what we are doing. I am sorry that my colleagues on the
other side simply disagree and so they are not willing to venture in to
helping anybody because they do not like what we have done. That is the
politics, Mr. Speaker, and it is a real shame that it is happening
again today on the floor of the House of Representatives right before
our very eyes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has made it clear
what this is all about. He says we are waiting for the other body. The
other body has twice unanimously passed an unemployment compensation
extension bill. Twice. What is my colleague waiting for? He says we
should not bow down to the Senate. To whom? Trent Lott? Every other
Republican in the Senate who voted for this extension?
{time} 1145
Bowing down, this is a fight with Republicans in the Senate. It is
not only a fight with us. The gentleman is all alone.
Secondly, the gentleman says this issue is not just about
unemployment. That is the problem. The gentleman is ignoring the needs
of the unemployed because the gentleman has another agenda. I want the
gentleman to go and talk to the 356,000 people who exhausted their
benefits in January and tell them this is not just about unemployment.
It is the largest number of people exhausting their regular benefits
without receiving additional aid in a single month, in any single month
on record. So I suggest that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) go
to the 50 States of this Union and tell them that this is not just
about unemployment. Shame.
The other side of the aisle insists on adding to this unemployment
bill controversial issues, and the gentleman knows they are. The health
provision is the same one that has created the controversy in the
Senate. This is what Mr. Lott said on February 7.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Members are reminded to
refrain from improper references to Senators.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this is what has been said. ``My
recommendation is that they send just a clean bill.'' That is the
gentleman's leader over in the Senate. I shall not name his name.
This is what this is all about. The other side wants a package, and
then they change it. They want a package that essentially says to the
unemployed of this country that their unemployment is not enough for
Congress to act.
Mr. Speaker, my suggestion to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hastert) and Members on the Republican side, including many of the
leaders who said they wanted a clean bill, is to think again. These
millions of people are not getting unemployment on their watch. They
are disregarding them. They have another agenda. Take up unemployment
compensation today, pass it, send it to the President. I am sure he
will sign it, and then we will go on to other issues.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will reiterate that Members must
avoid improper references to Senators, whether specifically by name or
otherwise.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we do have a broader agenda. It is about jobs in this
country. It is about the ability that we have to make sure through
stimulus or through tax cuts or through those things that will allow
people to have more money in their own pocket. That is also what this
is about.
Yes, it is bigger than unemployment. It also includes health care. It
includes the things that are the essence of what will maintain the
vitality of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago when I came to Congress, some
6 years ago, that virtually every single bill, every single debate that
takes place on this floor is about more government, more spending, more
taxes, or about the reverse.
I am falling off on the side of the people who want jobs in this
country, who want to make sure we have a sound economy and make sure
that what this government does, it does, and is done efficiently. I am
proud of what we are doing and what we have passed.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind this entire body that if we can lay aside
our differences, lay aside the things that we think will not work and
get to work on the things that we are going to propose that will work,
that means real money to real people in the time of their need, that in
fact we will achieve the things that we are after. Government should
not pick the winners and losers. We should help the people that need
help.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is to try to help the people that need help. I know
the unemployed do want jobs. I am sure that all unemployed workers
thought that, during their working years when they paid their taxes,
they believed that should a catastrophe hit and they lose their jobs
that this government would help them out. That has been in the best
tradition, to tide them over until a new job can be found; and when
that job is found, I hope it will be as good as the job they lost.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule
that will allow the House to vote on a straight 13-week extension of
the unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 6 months since the tragic events of
September 11. In addition to the horrendous loss of life that occurred
as a result of that day, the economic destruction has been enormous.
Our economy, which was already in an economic downturn before the
event, has worsened considerably. Millions of American jobs have been
lost since then.
The unemployment benefits for many of these jobless workers have
already expired. Many, many more will lose benefits in the coming
weeks. We must act immediately. The other body has already passed a
clean extension of these critically-needed benefits. Every day that we
fail to act means economic hardships for thousands of Americans and
their families. Let us stop wasting time and vote to extend the
unemployment benefits. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Previous Question for H. Res. 354--Motions to Suspend the Rules
In the resolution after ``(6)'' strike ``the bill (H.R.
1963)'' and all that follows through ``health insurance
costs, and for other purposes'' and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
``Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax
incentives for economic recovery.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard it here today. Republicans have this
hidden agenda. The other side of the aisle is right. Our hidden agenda
is jobs and growing the economy, getting people back in their jobs,
having an extension of unemployment benefits, having health care tax
credits. And yet we have heard now what the other side of the aisle
says about that. That is that they do not like the way that we have
done it, and because they do not like the way we have done this, they
oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue this Republican conference, and
Congress is going to continue passing things that are great for people,
good for workers, continues economic opportunities. We are going to
keep talking about how America's greatest days lie in our future.
Opportunities for people who are going to school and want jobs,
[[Page H700]]
people who today may not have a job. We are going to rebound this
economy. It is going to head back.
I believe that the President, working with this Congress, will have a
lot of success. That is what this is about. That is our hidden agenda.
Our hidden agenda is simple. It is about jobs. It is about economic
growth and the opportunity for people to get a job, keep a job and know
that they can have more take-home pay.
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.
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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic voting on adoption of the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 191, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 49]
YEAS--218
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
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
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 (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
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
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--191
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
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)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
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
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--25
Abercrombie
Bentsen
Blagojevich
Buyer
Calvert
Condit
Cubin
Dooley
Doolittle
Filner
Hyde
Kilpatrick
Lantos
Lee
Lofgren
Millender-McDonald
Napolitano
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez
Solis
Traficant
Waters
Watson (CA)
Wexler
Woolsey
{time} 1222
Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, DINGELL, BARRETT of WISCONSIN, ALLEN,
FORD, HINOJOSA and ISRAEL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. REGULA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 49, I was conducting
official business in my San Diego, California, district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 49 on ordering the
previous question I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unable to cast my
vote on two rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as
follows: Rollcall 48, Approval of the Journal: ``aye''; rollcall 49,
Previous Question: ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________