[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 133 (Thursday, October 10, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7818-H7825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. Res. 122, FURTHER CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS, 2003
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 580
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is, Will the
House now consider House Resolution 580.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 580.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of
debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 580 is a
closed rule providing for the consideration of House Joint Resolution
122, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003,
and for other purposes.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution, and provides one motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 122 makes further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003 and provides for funding at
current levels. We had agreed in the Committee on Rules that this would
be through November 22.
At the conclusion of the debate on this, by consent on both sides
there will be an amendment offered to change that date of November 22
to October 18, 2000, a week from tomorrow. This measure is necessary in
order that all necessary and vital functions of government may continue
uninterrupted until Congress completes the work on the spending
measures for the next fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the rule, as we will amend
it, and of course the underlying resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the Members here in the Chamber and Members watching
this on television in their offices are a little confused, there is
very good reason that they should be confused. Let me kind of review
the bidding here, what has gone on today.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is in a total and utter state
of disarray and denial.
{time} 1715
First today we were told, well, there would be a continuing
resolution until next week, until October 18. And then, no, they
changed their minds; and it was going to be a continuing resolution
until November 22. Now, apparently they have changed their minds again
and now the resolution is going to be until October 18, which is next
week.
The question really is, Why are they doing this? Why can they not
decide to let the House work its will on the appropriations bills? Why
do they say one thing to Members at one moment, another thing 5 minutes
later, another thing another 10 minutes later?
This is a disgrace, a disgrace, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on September 30 the fiscal year ended, and the deadline
passed for House Republicans to do their most basic job, passing the
appropriations bills to fund priorities like education and health care.
In the 10 days since then, the stock market has dropped to a 5-year
low, and we have learned that another 417,000 Americans filed
unemployment claims at the end of last month.
By stubbornly refusing to do their jobs they are getting paid to do,
the Republican leaders are hurting the millions of Americans who are
busy looking for work. This House has failed to fund important
initiatives in education, health care, and other key priorities.
Well, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Republicans are still fiddling
while America's economy burns. So in a few minutes we will vote on a
continuing resolution that was November 22. Now it is October 18. Who
knows what it will be an hour from now.
Republican leaders want this CR so they can hide evidence of their
fiscal mismanagement. It is the same cynical strategy they are using to
hide their secret plan to privatize Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, why will Republicans not be honest with the American
people? Not too long ago they insisted that Congress had to vote on an
Iraq resolution before the election. As the President himself said, and
I quote, ``I cannot imagine an elected United States, elected Members
of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, `I
think I am going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision.' ''
To paraphrase the President, I cannot imagine being a House
Republican who has presiding over this failed economy and saying, I am
not going to do anything about it. Because that is exactly what House
Republicans are going to do, postpone action on important domestic and
economic issues. They are desperate to hide their failed economic
policies and dangerous Social Security plan from the voters. But they
cannot hide the truth.
The Republicans' refusal to govern is hurting American priorities
from the economy to education. In a recent memo to the Speaker, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations outlined just how harmful
this refusal to govern is. According to the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young), ``A long-term continuing resolution would have
disastrous impacts on the war on terror, homeland security and other
important government responsibilities.''
The gentleman's memo pointed out that a long-term CR, and we do not
know how they define long term, is it a week, is it a month, that a
long-term CR would undermine the war on terror by denying nearly $40
billion in additional homeland security funds requested by the
President. It would short change our veterans by funding VA medical
care at 2.5 billion less than what is needed to meet their needs, and
would hurt our children's education by underfunding Pell grants by
nearly $1 billion.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans' failed economic policies have driven
America into a huge deficit ditch that poses a grave threat to Social
Security and other priorities like education, prescription drugs, and
homeland security. So Republican leaders hope that by refusing to fund
the government no one will notice the fiscal straitjacket they have put
the country in.
The shell game is most obvious on education. Many Republican Members
want to go home to tout their bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act we
passed with so much fanfare last year; but they refuse to actually
provide schools with the resources they need to carry out the reforms
Congress mandated. Indeed, the bill funding the Departments of Labor,
Education and Health and Human Services backed by most Republican
Members would gut education and other priorities, and
[[Page H7819]]
that is why they do not want to bring it to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to be straight with the American people and
start digging out of this fiscal ditch. That will require Republicans
owning up to the disaster they have made of the Federal budget. For
that reason, Members are going to be called on in just a moment. We
will have very serious questions about this particular continuing
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve honesty from the Republicans
on critical domestic issues. There is no excuse for this House putting
off its most basic work. The economy is weak, prescription drugs are
still sky high, the budget is back in deficit, and many Republicans
want to privatize Social Security.
It is time to quit playing politics. It is time to get back to doing
the American people's business and to actually pass appropriations
bills rather than this shell game of ``Maybe we have a one week CR,
maybe we have a one month CR. Gee, we do not know. We just want to
leave so we can go home and campaign.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what now? We have since Labor Day focused
almost exclusively on Iraq, Iraq, and then Iraq. And then Iraq. We have
now finally finished that business.
And the average American family is sitting home and they are saying,
``You know, I wonder when those guys and gals are going to get around
to doing the stuff that deals with our family security. I wonder when
they are going to get around to dealing with unemployment. I wonder
when they are going to get around to dealing with the fact that people
are losing their shirts in their 401(k)'s, their now 101(k)'s.'' And
they are asking, ``I wonder when they are going to get around to
protecting the integrity of our pension plans from corporate marauders.
And I wonder when they are going to get around to dealing with the fact
that a lot of Americans have lost their health insurance in the last
year.''
I do not understand this institution's reaction. I know virtually
every Member of this House, some a lot more than others. And I know
that when I talk to each and every one of you that you are,
individually, people of good will who want to solve the country's
problems. But when you get together, the collective result of that
individual talent and concern is disastrous. Because instead of
producing a determination to attack problems, what apparently is
produced is a determination to avoid them.
Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has described the confusion
on the Republican side of the aisle today. Here is what I think is at
the root of that confusion. You have passed a budget resolution at the
beginning of the year that told fibs. It pretended that you could hold
education spending to a level that would stop and grind to a halt the
progress we have made in expanding investments in education over the
past 5 years.
You pretended you could afford a health care budget which cuts a
billion and a half dollars out of health care services to the American
people. And you have pretended a lot of other things, and now those
pretensions are coming home to roost. And so the leadership is trying
to figure out how they can get out of town without having to face up to
those irreconcilable contradictions. And so their original game plan
today was to have a continuing resolution that puts us over until
November 22, after the election, conveniently putting aside until after
the election all issues.
The administration, which has made so much of its desire to see
accountability in our schools, is doing as much as it can possibly do
to avoid accountability for each and every one of us in our
stewardship. And so what happened in the Republican Caucus is that some
of the Members got a little ditsy, and they said, ``Gee whiz,'' some
Members said for instance, ``You mean we are going to go home without
dealing with the drought? Gee, we want more time to deal with the
drought.''
So all of the sudden the November 22 date is changed to next week
because the leadership still has not figured out how to resolve that
because they have a problem. Because while some of their Members want
to attack the drought problem, their President, our President, has
already said that he is going to veto a bill which pays for those
drought expenses. So they have that problem.
Then they have the huge problem of wanting to hide from their
constituents the fact that they were bringing progress in education
investments to a screeching halt. They have their votes from the No
Child Left Behind Act which promised all kinds of progress on teacher
training, on handicapped education, on education for kids who need help
with language skills. They have that vote, but the problem is that bill
does not deliver the money. The appropriation bill that delivers the
money is being bottled up because they do not want to have to admit
that they are not going to provide the money to fund the promises they
made just a few months ago. So as a result this place looks silly.
We have done our dead-level best as an institution to try to deal
with the challenges facing us in Iraq. We ought to turn to those same
challenges at home. This continuing resolution does not allow us to do
that. I will, therefore, vote against it. I am against any continuing
resolutions that are more than one or two days at a time. When I see
that the majority has scheduled action on education and on health care,
I will vote for them and not until.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, less than 40 minutes ago we were in the Committee on
Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), myself, all of us
were there to pass a rule. We passed a rule. The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) was there. The ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) was there. We passed a rule that allowed that we would have
a continuing resolution until the 22nd of November.
I came down here to the floor of the House and began talking with
Members indicating that we would have the CR until the 22nd, and lo and
behold, telling them that it is distinctly possible that we may be back
next week or at some other point in time; but then I hear the Clerk
read and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) stand up and say
that it has changed.
What has happened in this institution? Do we have a phantom Committee
on Rules somewhere? Why is it that I continue to go upstairs thinking
that I am participating in a process of importance?
Somewhere along the lines we are losing our rudder; and we have
things that need to be done, and Republicans need to do it and
Democrats need to do it. Liberals need to do it, and conservatives need
to do it on behalf of this country. We cannot continue down this path.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my very good friend.
{time} 1730
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the time. I want to speak on the substance, but I want to
spend 30 seconds on the process.
I want to tell those of my colleagues who were not here prior to 1994
that their side of the aisle was regularly outraged at procedures that
were pursued, none of which were as egregious as some of the process
that we are confronted with. I do not believe this is a process that
anybody on the Committee on Appropriations would sanction, on either
side of the aisle. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is
absolutely correct, and I join him in those comments.
Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit this House can point to
real legislative accomplishments this week. We considered our most
solemn duty, a resolution authorizing our Commander-in-Chief to use our
Armed Forces. We finally passed two appropriations conference reports;
two down, 11 to go. We will soon take up landmark election reform
legislation, the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
But, Mr. Speaker, one week does not a session make.
There is little doubt that the preceding 5 weeks were anything but an
evasion of leadership and responsibility. While we bobbed and weaved,
the American people took it on the chin again and again and again.
[[Page H7820]]
The unemployment rate showed a tiny reduction from 5.7 to 5.6 percent
from August to September, but it still was far above the rate of 3.9
percent in October, 2000.
There are 8.1 million unemployed Americans today, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, an increase of 2\1/2\ million Americans
from just 2 years ago.
The year before President Bush took office, the economy created 1.7
million new jobs. Since January of 2001, we have lost 1.5 million jobs.
The poverty rate increased for the first time in 8 years in 2001. In
the first year of the Bush administration, 1.3 million Americans
slipped back into poverty, with 32.9 million now living in poverty and
this the richest nation on the face of the earth.
The median household income fell 2.2 percent in 2001, after
increasing every year since 1992. More than 400,000 bankruptcies were
filed in the second quarter of this year, an all-time high. In the same
quarter, 1.23 percent of home loans were in foreclosure, a record high,
but that is not all.
The number of Americans without health insurance increased by 1.4
million people from the end of 2000 to the end of 2001. Health
insurance costs increased 12.7 percent in 2002, the largest annual
increase since 1990. Prescription drug prices increased by nearly twice
the rate of inflation in 2001. And then, of course, as all of us know,
the stock market has lost $4.5 trillion in value between January, 2001,
and September, 2002.
But the topper, the most egregious statistic for which we have a
large share of the responsibility, has been the historic reversal of
the Federal budget.
The $86.6 billion surplus inherited by this administration, excluding
Social Security, that President Bush inherited has turned into a $314
billion deficit, almost half a trillion dollars; and the only medicine
the Republican party's economic gurus can prescribe is this--cut taxes.
As we consider this continuing resolution, I urge the American people
to ask themselves Ronald Reagan's famous question: Are we better off
today than we were 2 years ago? The answer tragically and unfortunately
is we are not.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week we went through a very similar debate when we
passed the CR last week to get us to this point. There was some heated
discussion on the floor, and there was a bit of finger pointing. I do
not think it does this institution all that good to point fingers, but
I suppose that is just the nature of a political body that that has to
happen.
I think in that light it may be instructive just to review where we
started in the 107th Congress and the start of this year and where we
are right now. That perhaps has added to some of the sounds of
confusion that we are going through this time.
We are required by law, as we all know, to pass a budget and agree on
some numbers between the House and the Senate. We have talked about
that at length on the floor of this House, and we all know that the
House responded to that in a way and passed a budget according to the
rules and laws that we abide by. We also know that the Senate did not
do that.
It presents a problem, obviously, simply because we do not have an
agreement on both sides by which to argue about our differences. It
causes some dissension, certainly does not make the appropriators' job
very easy, but that is the framework by which we have to work with this
appropriation process.
So we have tried then to get bills out at least and have broad
consensus. Five of them, if my number is correct, have passed the
House, now await action in the Senate, and we have some contentious
appropriations bills that need to be acted on later.
Every year, as a matter of fact, the same bills tend to pop up that
are contentious, and the appropriators are working very hard to try to
work out the differences so we can narrow that gap, but unfortunately,
this year happens to be an election year. Everybody, or at least one-
third of the other body and everybody in this body, desires to go home
to campaign and hopefully come back and start the 108th Congress anew,
but before we do that, of course, we have to finish this process.
It is true when we were up in the Committee on Rules meeting earlier
this afternoon, the CR was to take us until November 22. The reason for
that time between then and now was to give the appropriators a little
bit more time to work out the differences that they may or may not have
and try to take a deep breath, come back after the election and get it
resolved.
Of course, in this body there are a lot of discussions that go on
under the radar, and it was felt, probably through a signal of Members
perhaps on both sides of the aisle, that a resolution carrying the CR
to November 22 may not have passed. We do not know that, we did not put
it to a vote, but sometimes we take a gauge and we learn where the
levels are.
The determination was made, because there had been talk not only last
week but the week before, that probably the last CR would be on the
18th of this month, a determination was made then that we would have
the CR until the next week to allow the appropriators to go back to
work, and that is what this rule is all about, is to allow us to have a
CR to take us into next week. We will come back next week.
I suppose that we will hear the same sort of rhetoric next week as we
try to get all of our business done, but I think this is a responsible
way to do it.
There are some major issues, I might add, that are overhanging the
whole Capitol, not just this body. Today, we passed a very historic
piece of legislation that, as my colleagues know, we debated for 2\1/2\
days regarding the Iraqi situation. But in line with the Iraqi
situation and the potential that we may have to go to war is the issue
of homeland security, and we have acted on that.
When the President came to the Congress with his proposal for
homeland security, there were Members, probably on both sides of the
aisle, that said would it not be great if we could create an Office of
Homeland Security and have that done by September 11. We did not get it
done by September 11, but the House did act on that bill, and that is
waiting in the other body, again, for that bill to pass so we can work
out whatever differences we may have.
I think it would be unconscionable for us as a Congress, in view of
what we did today and the action on Iraq, to leave here, to leave here
and not pass the homeland security bill. I hope that the other body
will work on that. I hope they work extremely hard on that in the next
week so that when we come back, we will have to come back next week to
at least, if nothing else, respond to the CR.
I believe that for us as a Congress one of the things that we need to
do is to put the final exclamation point on what I think all Americans
want us to do, in lieu of the threat that we have coming from the
Middle East and particularly Iraq, is to make sure that our homeland
security is as strong as it can be. It can only be stronger, in my
view, if the Senate acts on that bill, we can go to conference and work
out the differences and pass it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker be so kind as
to inform us as to the amount of time remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I was going to ask my good friend and namesake, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings), whether or not we needed a budget resolution
to pass the Defense bill today.
We did not need one.
And are we going to take up appropriations measures next week when we
return?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in the best of all worlds,
of course, it would be nice if we could do that. Anything is possible.
It is likely probably not, in all honesty.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, did my colleague not just say,
[[Page H7821]]
though, that that was the purpose of the CR?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, I am sorry if the gentleman misinterpreted what I
said on that. The purpose of the CR is to fund the government for one
more week, if, in fact, under that period of time these things can come
together.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my
colleague is not going to answer my question. They did not need a
budget resolution, as argued that we needed, in order for us to go
forward with the Defense bill today. The answer to that is, no, we did
not. The answer to are we going to take up appropriations measures next
week, absolutely not. We are going to come back here and do another CR,
and we need to get on with it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo).
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I am wondering if my friend from Wisconsin would answer a
question.
I am very curious about this explanation that we cannot act on
appropriations bills because there is no conference agreement on a
budget resolution. As our friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) indicated, we passed two final bills today. Is that not
right? How could we do that?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. When they had the
will to pass a bill, they passed it. When they do not want to pass the
bills, they do not pass them. They were not trying to hide what they
were doing on Defense, but they are trying to hide what they are doing
on Education and Agriculture and Transportation.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, do we have a number of bills that have been
passed out of committee available for floor action?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, you
bet. We have the Agriculture bill. We have the Labor H, could be ready
very quickly if they would let us bring it to a vote. We have the HUD
independent offices bill. We have a number of others as well.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I will have another question for the
gentleman.
I read this continuing resolution, and there is something that
bewilders me. As we all know, our economy is fragile and there is
always a dispute about what we can or should do at the Federal level to
help speed up the economy.
Clearly, one of the areas in this country where we have major
problems is our transportation and infrastructure.
{time} 1745
Am I right that this year we are having highway obligation limit of
about $31.8 billion?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the
language in this CR----
Mr. SABO. No, this year.
Mr. OBEY. Right now we are operating under the level the gentleman
described, yes.
Mr. SABO. In our previous continuing resolutions we were told we had
an obligation limit of $31.8 billion.
Mr. OBEY. Right.
Mr. SABO. What is this language in the bill today? I read it, and it
seems to me we are writing into law something about 31.8, that appears
to be a smoke screen to make people feel good, then there is an
exception for it which indicates and takes us back to a highway
obligation limit to 21.7.
Mr. OBEY. That is correct. This resolution cuts the amount that would
be available to the States to $27.7 billion. So the gentleman's State
is going to lose $54 million, my State will lose $69 million, if it is
carried to term, and so on.
Mr. SABO. This is confusing. I know that there is disagreement
between House and Senate bills, but from all the interpretations of
what we have been doing, I think it is clear that no one can dispute
that if we want to spend money that has impact on jobs, maintaining or
creating jobs, the best money spent is on existing programs, where
plans are made, where States are ready to spend it. Am I wrong?
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman is
right, and what is at stake here is 200,000 jobs.
Mr. SABO. And so this bill goes contrary to what we have done in our
first couple of CRs and actually writes into the CR that we are
reducing funding for highways next year.
Mr. OBEY. That is right. Instead of having a disagreement between the
House and the Senate, we have a disagreement between the House and the
House.
Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and I feel a sense of frustration similar to some who
have expressed it on the floor today, because I joined some of my
colleagues in the Committee on Rules in seeking support for a rule to
allow the CR to be brought up to do one primary thing, to keep the
government running beyond tomorrow night at midnight.
Now, there may be some who would like to see the government close
down and play the blame game: ``it is your fault, or it is your fault,
or it is our fault, or it is their fault.'' The problem is, the blame
game does not get us anywhere.
Now, we are here today with a CR because the appropriations bills
have not become law. Today we passed the conference reports on the
defense bill with a very healthy bipartisan vote and on the military
construction bill with a very bipartisan vote. Those are two good
bills, and we had promised the President we would get them to his desk
before any others. But if anybody listening to this debate believes
that we have not passed the appropriations bills because the Committee
on Appropriations has not done its job, they are mistaken. If anyone
believes that the appropriations process has broken down, they are
mistaken.
There was a breakdown. The breakdown was in the budget process. It
totally collapsed. And it collapsed because the law was not followed.
The Budget Act was not obeyed. The Budget Act provides that the House
pass a budget resolution; send it to the other body, the way we do
other legislation; the other body passed a budget resolution; the two
Houses come together in a conference committee and work out the
differences; and then report back to the House and report back to the
Senate the ideal budget resolution with the same numbers and the same
words. As all my colleagues know, a conference report has to be
identical.
Here is where the breakdown occurred. The House passed a budget
resolution. Whether you voted for it or did not vote for it, whether
you liked it or did not like it, the House passed a budget resolution.
The other body did not. So during the appropriations process we have
been dealing with a broken budget process because the top number, the
302(a) number which is the overall budget number for discretionary
spending, is one number in the other body and a different number in the
House.
Now, I have been seeking a mathematician ever since that happened to
tell me how we can reconcile these appropriations bills when one top
number is $9 billion higher than the other one. Either the high one has
to come down or the low one has to come up or they have to meet in the
middle somewhere. This has not happened so the budget process totally
collapsed.
Nevertheless, the Committee on Appropriations has continued to do its
work. We have already passed and sent to the other body a number of
appropriations bills, including the two we passed today, the Defense
and Military Construction bills. We have also sent the Interior bill to
the other body and, we have sent the Treasury, Postal bill the
legislative branch bill to the other body. And I would report to you,
Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared to send all the other bills to the
other body after they are considered here. The committee has marked up
those appropriation bills and they are ready for consideration.
Someone asked about an omnibus bill, and I would have to suggest that
at this late period in this process that may be the way out, that is,
to do an omnibus bill. As a matter of fact, seeing this day coming, I
could prepare an
[[Page H7822]]
omnibus bill, and I could add it to a CR. We are going to be back here
next week. By the time we get back here next week, I could have another
CR ready that would have an omnibus appropriation bill on it that would
finalize our business as far as the House is concerned.
So that is sort of the history of where we are and why we are here.
The appropriations process did not break down; the budget process did.
And most of the bills that we reported from committee had general
support from both parties; and all of those bills were reported out of
the committee with good solid votes. But now the bill we are
considering today, Mr. Speaker, has to do with a continuing resolution
to keep the government functioning beyond midnight tomorrow night.
After writing and rewriting several different continuing resolutions,
we introduced the first one last night. Since then, we have introduced
three additional ones. We went to the Committee on Rules, they gave us
a rule that would allow us to take up the CR that would take us to the
22nd of November. That does not mean we will quit and run and go home
tomorrow or tonight. That means we have that much more time available
to work on trying to conclude our business.
But along the way we ran into another obstacle, and that obstacle was
that there are some people who did not think there was enough in this
CR for an interest that they had. And I think their interest is
legitimate, but there are legitimate interests all over this Congress
that are not included in this CR because a CR is a temporary funding
measure.
So we were hoping to bring this rule to the floor, get a bipartisan
vote for it, take up the CR, and keep the government functioning so
that the Congress could continue to do its work. Now we have found out
that we may not have all the votes we need on our side to pass it and
we may not get any votes on the minority side. That doesn't make it
very bipartisan, to say the least. I have asked a number of my friends
on the other side if we could have some votes to help us pass this
rule, to make up for the votes we may lose on our side; and the answer
was no, we are not going to vote for it.
If we could have had a little bit of cooperation, this rule could be
out of here, the CR could be out of here, and all my colleagues could
be on airplanes headed for home; and I would go back to the office and
put the finishing touches on that omnibus appropriation bill and have
it ready by next week. But instead, we are here.
We could use a little cooperation. Some of my friends on this side
would not like it if we passed the rule the way it is currently written
because they want their interests in this resolution, and I do not
blame them. But sometimes we have to settle down, cut, and go to the
finish line. And that is where we thought we were today, but evidently
we are not.
Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody has a nice day, nice
weekend; and we will see everyone next week.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland if I
have any time left, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. I believe there is time, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker.
We have heard much about the budget and the fact we have not passed
the budget in the same form through two Houses. But as I recall, we
passed a deeming resolution budget, which means the House numbers are
the numbers we are supposed to adhere to. Am I not correct that we used
that deeming resolution to pass the five bills to which the gentleman
previously referred that have passed the House? Is that correct?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
is correct. We are functioning under the deeming resolution.
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, could we not,
therefore, have passed the other eight bills in the same manner?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to think that we could. The
problem would be that conferencing those bills would be impossible, at
least if we did all of them.
Mr. HOYER. I agree with the gentleman, because there are very
substantial differences. The gentleman mentioned a number of
differences in our priorities. But what that would have done, Mr.
Speaker, is to make it clear what those differences are for the
American people in terms of education, in terms of health care, in
terms of biomedical research.
So we could have done that and set before the American people the
differences that exist between our body and the other body, could we
not?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am only going to respond
to the gentleman in this way: that we deemed a budget number because we
could not get a real budget, and we had to have a top line that the
House had previously agreed to. As I pointed out in my remarks, I know
a lot of Members did not vote for it. Nevertheless, the House worked
its will, and that is the budget number we are now working with.
It would have been much easier for me and for the gentleman from
Maryland, as the ranking member on a very important subcommittee, and
for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as the ranking member on
the full committee, and for all of us, if we had a common top number so
that we could have then created common 302(b) numbers and we could have
been well on our way to conferencing these bills.
Mr. HOYER. Again, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, I agree that would have been easier; and, furthermore, I
believe, had there been agreement and a majority for the House-passed
budget numbers, we could have passed our bills.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the votes are not
there to sustain the budget the House passed and put forward, and that
really is the nub of the problem, that we passed a budget that was not
realistic and that, therefore, we and the Committee on Appropriations
are unable to pass bills which can garner the requisite votes to pass.
And I sympathize with the gentleman's challenge.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my friend, the
gentleman from Maryland, is very smooth in the way that he makes his
points, but his comment would be speculation because there are those of
us who believe that we could pass those bills at the number that we
deemed. And if the other body would have had the same number, whether
it was $768 billion, $759 billion, or $749 billion, we could have made
this work.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we did not have the same numbers on the five
bills we did pass.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct, but he understands
that we did not get to conference on those bills.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I wish we could conclude this
business today and let the Members have a weekend at home, because for
those who have strong election campaigns, they need a little bit of
time at home to reconnect with their constituents. But I am not sure
that is going to happen today. We will do the best we can, and I thank
the gentleman for yielding me all of his time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this discussion and
wonder what the American people might be asking themselves about this
inside-the-beltway discussion of budget resolutions, continuing
resolutions, and deeming resolutions.
Let me bring it back home to Americans in real terms. Because we have
not done the one thing Congress has the responsibility to do each year,
pass appropriation bills, the children of military families who might
be put at risk in a war against Iraq, and I voted for that military
authorization today, the children of military families, their schools,
will not be getting the Impact Aid funding as they should be this
November.
{time} 1800
The Fort Hood school district in my congressional district will be
losing millions of dollars that they otherwise would have gotten in
November.
I am told Fort Leavenworth in Kansas might have a serious financial
crisis in the next month or two because of Impact Aid funding not
having been passed in the appropriation bill.
What all this esoteric discussion means, the children of the military
[[Page H7823]]
families, those families which we might be sending into combat in Iraq,
are not going to get the education funding they deeply deserve; which
is somewhat ironic on the same day that we just voted to authorize the
use of military force in Iraq.
Secondly, this means a lot in regard to highway spending and American
jobs. A vote for this rule is a vote to cut highway spending by $4.1
billion. What does that mean? It means the loss of over 190,000 jobs in
an economy which has already lost 2 million jobs. It means the loss of
good-paying jobs from New York to California to Texas. It means we
cannot repair the aging highway infrastructure in America at the rate
that we were even doing last year, considering the fact that 21 percent
of the bridges in the Federal highway system are substandard and many
of those are unsafe.
It means that the 4 days a year that Americans already spend in
congestion away from their work, it means more pollution, more time
away from their families and less efficient businesses. According to
the Texas Transportation Institute, a loss of $75 billion a year
because of congestion, extra fuel and lost time because of inadequate
highways and inadequate transportation systems.
So this is not an esoteric, inside-the-Beltway debate, it is a debate
about jobs and cleaner air and more efficient businesses.
Mr. Speaker, we have not met our responsibility. Because of the
leadership in this House, we have not been allowed to do our one
responsibility that we must do: pass appropriations bills. What I think
has happened is a combination of a slow economy, the war against
terrorism, and an irresponsibly large tax cut which has cut the budget
so drastically that we cannot afford to fund the Leave No Child Behind
education bill, and many Members want us to not vote on these until
after the election. That is irresponsible. We should do our work. It is
our responsibility.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office watching this
debate. If I could do one thing in this Congress, being one of the
longest-serving congressmen, it would be to shut off the television.
The nonsense I heard from that side of the aisle that affects my
committee is pure, pure BS. That is exactly what it is. And they are
playing the political game on television so the people at home can
watch this dishonesty as they present it.
I worked very hard on this and I must tell the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I worked
very hard, including the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), who
is the ranking member, to make sure as it came down that we reinstated,
and $31,799,104,000 is going to be spent. Yes, that is what it is. Just
read it. Has the gentleman read it?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Yes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. I reclaim my
time.
This was an agreement we reached, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and myself, to in fact have the money spent as a continuing
resolution to the level of $31,799,104,000, and it reverts back to
$27.7 billion. That is what this House agreed to.
It also says that none of the obligated funds will be affected. That
is in there, too.
It also says, by the way, it can be changed at a later date; and that
will probably be true, too.
But to allude to those people that depend upon our highways, and no
one defends those highways better than I do, no one works harder to
make sure that the transportation system is improved. It is so much
better than what was proposed.
Mr. Speaker, to stand up on television and play the political game on
this floor of the House is wrong. The Committee on Appropriations
chairman is trying to do his job. I have 64 bills over in the other
body that have not been acted on. How many bills in the other body
belong to the gentleman that the majority leader in the Senate has not
acted on?
Do not ask us to play the political game against my leaders in this
House and say it is all their fault. Look at the Senate side. Look at
the Senate side. What have they done? Have they passed a budget? Have
they looked at the appropriating bills? No, they have not.
In addition, when we get done, I will probably insist on the Senate
side to bring us more money. But, in reality, they worked in good
faith. Our leaders worked in good faith. I worked in good faith. My
ranking member worked in good faith. And to stand up on this floor and
play the political card is absolutely wrong for this House.
If the gentleman wants to have power that bad, go at it. But I am
thinking of the people of the United States right now. I am thinking
about the people who depend on transportation and on the bridges the
gentleman talked about. There is more money in this. We have $4.4
billion put back into it when we passed the budget. And the gentleman
voted for it.
I am a little excited right now because my back hurts, but the fact
of the matter is I have watched this 30 years. I have watched this body
for 30 years, and ever since we put the television cameras in, debate
on this floor has deteriorated and is for political purposes instead of
solving problems.
Our job is to solve the problems and represent the people of this
Nation for the best of this Nation, not for political purposes.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair reminds Members
not to characterize Senate action or inaction.
The Chair would also ask the courtesy of all Members to engage in
debate only when yielded time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young)
is suffering some back pain today; and, unfortunately, it is affecting
his ability to read. If he would read the language, it says,
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution, the
annual rate of operations for Federal aid highway programs for fiscal
year 2003 shall be $31,799,104,000, provided that total obligations to
this program while operating under joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2003 shall not exceed $27.7 billion
unless otherwise specified a subsequent appropriation act.''
That means, baby, all you get to spend as far as the States are
concerned is 27.7 billion bucks, unless you pass different language
than the language that is in this resolution.
I do not know if the gentleman is reading in Turkish, Russian, or
Egyptian, but if you read it in English, that is what it says. If you
vote for this rule, you are voting to cut highway funding by $4
billion.
And as Lily Tomlin used to say, ``That's the truth!''
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, until just a few minutes ago, I was up in
the Speaker's rostrum and I was listening to all of this debate. I will
try to not get too emotional about this, but the gentleman is probably
correct. That is what it says, but this resolution is only for one
week.
And as the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) just said, what that
means is for the period of one week, yes, it may be reduced; but they
also have language and an agreement it will not be reduced. So we are
straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel.
The issue is, will the House agree with a resolution that will keep
the Federal Government open for one week? That is a pretty simple
question, and I think the answer is, or should be, yes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations. I think he said it correctly. The House from the very
beginning has been prepared and willing and has done its work. The
problem is the House is only one part of Congress, and we have had
problems from the very beginning because we have a budget resolution
which we have deemed and which we will abide by, and the other
[[Page H7824]]
side has not. Now, that makes it impossible to come to an agreement.
Somebody said earlier, Well, does the House have the will to pass
appropriation bills? I think the answer to that question is, yes. But
we do not have an agreement. If there is no agreement, what is the
point?
I think the gentleman from Maryland said, what are our priorities?
Let me ask a question. What are the priorities of the other side of the
aisle? Not only for the first time in 26 years did one branch of the
Federal Government not pass a budget, in violation of Federal law, but
our friends on the left never offered a budget resolution. They ask
what our priorities are, what our blueprint is. We have a budget. We
can tell the American people, this is what the Republican blueprint
was.
Now, how do we compare that to the plan on the other side of the
aisle? The other side of the aisle never offered a budget plan.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Gutknecht) just asked what are our priorities. Here is what they are.
Our priority is not to run the government by spending Social Security
money the way theirs apparently are.
Our priorities are to increase funding for special education, a
prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, superfund cleanup and
other things the American people support, and many things the majority
side of the aisle would like to support.
The reason we are going through this exercise is the majority does
not wish to be held accountable before the election for the choices
that it has presented to itself. When the majority enacted its tax cut
in 2001 and the recession was prolonged and the unforeseen events of
September 11 occurred, the majority put itself into a box. Because it
refuses to reconsider the speed and scope of the tax cut, the majority
has only two choices to fund the government.
The first choice is to dramatically reduce what we spend on schools,
on the environment, on health care, on veterans' benefits and other
desirable programs; and they do not want to cast those votes before the
election.
The other choice is to fund those problems at a higher level but dip
into the Social Security surplus and spend Social Security money to run
the government, and they do not want to do that before the election
either.
So their strategy is to play rope-a-dope, is to come back week after
week, continuing resolution after continuing resolution, and not own up
to the consequences of what they have done. What they are doing is
wrong.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been somewhat of a peculiar situation that we
find ourselves in. The other side, after being all over the ballpark
all day, has now decided on a one-week CR. That is fine. That is their
prerogative. They are in the majority. It would have been nice if they
decided this 12 hours ago. Presumably, we will be back on Tuesday,
maybe Wednesday or maybe Thursday.
The only regret I think any of us have is, while the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
is an honorable man, and certainly his committee has completed a lot of
its work, he has been prevented by his own leadership from bringing his
work product to the floor. He has only been permitted to bring five
appropriation bills to the floor. Eight have not been brought to the
floor. They should have been. Most of them have been completed by the
gentleman's committee. It would be nice if they were brought to the
floor so they could be voted on one at a time and resolve the problems
that face this country.
Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a rollcall vote on this rule. A
number of our Members will be voting ``no'' to express their
displeasure in the way that the majority has been handling this matter.
{time} 1815
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of what we have been able to
accomplish here. Some of us were just going through the litany of items
which the 107th Congress, specifically the House of Representatives
with this very narrow 5-to-6-vote margin that we have been able to do.
And it is true, one of the first things we did, as the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) has pointed out so well, we were able to pass a
budget, and no budget has passed in the Senate; but we have been able
to pass a budget here, and we have gone through a rigorous debate on
that. But let us look at some of the other things that we have been
able to accomplish to help the American people, and I think it is very
important to note that one of the greatest successes we had back in
1996 has proved to be passage of welfare reform. We have been able to
pass a very meaningful, positive welfare reform measure from this House
of Representatives.
One of the other items obviously, as we have looked at now bipartisan
support for President Bush's initiative to potentially use force in
dealing with the horror of Saddam Hussein and Iraq and, along with
that, the potential for some kind of response to that from Iraq, we
have passed out of this House a measure that was called on by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, to do it
by September 11; and we have passed a bill establishing a Department of
Homeland Security. That is something we are very proud of as we deal
with the war on terrorism.
We also are very proud of the fact that in a bipartisan way, both
Houses of Congress and with the President's signature ultimately, we
passed the No Child Left Behind Act, dealing with education, what
before September 11 of last year was our number one priority.
Prescription drugs, a very important issue which was talked about in
the Presidential campaign, we are proud of the fact that we have been
able to pass out, within the guidelines of our budget, a $350 billion
prescription drug program so that seniors can have access to affordable
prescription drugs. The other body has not taken action on that.
We have been able to pass out of this body a very, very meaningful
reform of the pension structure; and we all know with the economic
challenges that we are facing, our retirees, those who are looking
towards retirement in the future, the challenges they are facing, we
have been able to bring about meaningful reform on that issue.
I am very proud about something that we worked to try to give
President Clinton beginning back in 1994 when it expired, we have been
able to pass Trade Promotion Authority. Both Houses of Congress have
done that. The President signed it. Our ambassador, the U.S. Trade
Representative, Mr. Zoellick, is in the process of trying to work out
new market-opening opportunities for us. That is going to provide an
economic boost for the United States of America; and we have been able
to pass that out of this House, again something we have not been able
to do in 8 years.
We also were able to bring about meaningful middle-income taxpayer
tax relief. We have heard this criticism of the tax package, but it was
focused towards middle-income wage earners with the provisions that we
have had in there on the marriage penalty, the death tax, the child tax
credit. These are things that have been designed to help working
Americans.
We also have been able to deal with the challenge of corporate fraud,
and we all have been horrified by the actions of some top executives in
this country. We have been able to pass out of this House and the other
body meaningful reform when it comes to corporate fraud.
We hope very much that we will be able to get election reform passed.
We have had what I believe to be a very good conference package. Again,
it started right here in this House of Representatives. We did it in a
bipartisan way. I am very, very proud of that. We have been able to
increase veterans benefits. We have much to be very proud of, much of
it done in a bipartisan way.
So let us not criticize what we have got. We have got a 1-week
continuing resolution; let us pass it and continue with our work.
[[Page H7825]]
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Hastings of
Washington
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Hastings of Washington.
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The amendment specified in
section 2 shall be considered as adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the joint
resolution, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of
this resolution is a follows:
Page 1, line 4, strike ``inserting `November 22, 2002'.''
and insert ``inserting `October 18, 2002'.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. 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 225,
nays 193, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 459]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
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
Ross
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
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--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
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--13
Baker
Berman
Bonior
Cooksey
Coyne
Ganske
Gutierrez
Lewis (CA)
Meek (FL)
Ortiz
Reyes
Roukema
Stump
{time} 1842
Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. BOUCHER and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on table.
____________________