[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 136 (Wednesday, October 16, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7953-H7960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H7953]]
House of Representatives
{time} 1700
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 123, FURTHER CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003
(Continued)
However, along comes the Office of Management and Budget and based on
some vague language they derived out of section 110 of the CR,
misinterpreted that law to cut highway funding and establish a pro-rata
share of only $27.7 billion, which is $4.1 billion less than the fiscal
year 2002 funding level.
This is consistent with the Administration's attempt to cut highway
infrastructure investment as expressed in its message to Congress, but
it is not consistent with Congressional intent. It had to be corrected.
So the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), and I worked together to include language in the third
continuing resolution to reverse the OMB interpretation and ensure that
the Federal-aid highways program obligation limitation be continued at
the fiscal year 2002 rate, that is, $31.8 billion, until Congress
passes the Transportation Appropriations Conference Report.
Congress, not OMB, makes that determination. Our language did reverse
the OMB interpretation. So far so good.
But then along came the House Republican leadership. They insisted on
some additional language to reintroduce the $27.7 billion number of the
Transportation Appropriation committee-reported bill.
Well, a week ago the director of OMB, Mitch Daniels, said ``I think
$27 [billion] is the right number''; but that is not what the CR said.
So we insisted, I think we got OMB's attention, and OMB and the Federal
Highway Administration have now issued guidance to States to provide
the pro-rata share at the $31.8 billion level. Unfortunately, that
language that the House Republican leadership insisted on has clouded
the picture.
Suffice it to say, I think we have a short-term fix that keeps the
transportation program on the level provided for in TEA-21 up through,
perhaps, August of next year. Then the whole program will crash back
down to the $27.7 billion level, and States will lose a lot of money
and a lot of construction jobs.
Now the wish is and the hope is, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
and I both hope that Congress will come to its senses and fix that
problem between now and then. But the reality is that States have to be
able to plan long term. They cannot plan much longer than August of
2003, at which time the program crashes back to $27.7 billion and we
lose 195,000 good-paying jobs in our economy.
What is worse is that States now are looking ahead and saying I do
not think we can plan that far ahead.
Mr. Speaker, we will on our side move to defeat the previous question
and offer an amendment that will fix this problem, and we ought to
defeat the previous question. We ought to come back with fixed language
that restores the total intent of TEA-21 and keep our transportation
programs on schedule. These are Highway Trust Fund dollars. These are
monies that could be set aside in the guaranteed account. They will
help lift this economy up; and if Members believe in transportation and
are sick of sitting in traffic congestion and believe in moving America
forward, then they need to defeat the previous question and restore
those dollars now, rather than waiting for some future point next year
when we may or may not be able to restore the $31.8 billion. This
provides short-term benefit, and long-term uncertainty which is bad for
highway programs, bad for transportation programs, bad for American
jobs.
N O T I C EEffective January 1, 2003, the subscription price of the
Congressional Record will be $434 per year or $217 for six months.
Individual issues may be purchased for $6.00 per copy.
Subscriptions in microfiche format will be $141 per year with
single copies priced at $1.50. This price increase is necessary
based upon the cost of printing and distribution.
Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer
[[Page H7954]]
COMPARISON OF DISTRIBUTION OF HIGHWAY FUNDING UNDER TEA 21 ENACTED (FY2002) AND ONE-YEAR CONTINUING RESOLUTION (FY2003) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA 21 enacted One-year cont. Highway funds cut
State FY2002 resolution FY2003 FY2003 Job losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... 561,362,701 498,655,044 (62,697,657) -2,978
Alaska.......................................................... 314,793,656 282,429,537 (32,364,119) -1,537
Arizona......................................................... 486,222,525 428,846,983 (57,375,542) -2,725
Arkansas........................................................ 362,646,673 325,701,045 (36,945,628) -1,755
California...................................................... 2,516,921,592 2,255,787,099 (261,134,493) -12,404
Colorado........................................................ 353,162,510 315,841,503 (37,321,007) -1,773
Connecticut..................................................... 408,915,843 367,360,962 (41,554,881) -1,974
Delaware........................................................ 119,922,108 107,962,722 (11,959,386) -568
Dist. of Col.................................................... 110,272,767 97,845,344 (12,427,423) -590
Florida......................................................... 1,288,949,611 1,139,860,823 (149,088,788) -7,082
Georgia......................................................... 988,683,758 875,763,739 (112,920,019) -5,364
Hawaii.......................................................... 142,269,483 126,325,910 (15,943,573) -757
Idaho........................................................... 211,274,214 188,471,331 (22,802,883) -1,083
Illinois........................................................ 933,052,868 829,768,384 (103,284,484) -4,906
Indiana......................................................... 637,416,428 572,668,258 (64,748,170) -3,076
Iowa............................................................ 329,539,179 295,706,501 (33,832,678) -1,607
Kansas.......................................................... 324,853,609 288,585,950 (36,267,659) -1,723
Kentucky........................................................ 483,773,648 429,395,471 (54,378,177) -2,583
Louisiana....................................................... 433,572,935 392,556,488 (41,016,447) -1,948
Maine........................................................... 147,086,603 130,479,750 (16,606,853) -789
Maryland........................................................ 444,585,693 402,894,442 (41,691,251) -1,980
Massachusetts................................................... 514,199,794 460,954,117 (53,245,677) -2,529
Michigan........................................................ 894,928,134 794,183,563 (100,744,571) -4,785
Minnesota....................................................... 408,422,237 367,652,312 (40,789,925) -1,938
Mississippi..................................................... 355,303,061 318,446,942 (36,856,119) -1,751
Missouri........................................................ 646,921,711 580,568,320 (66,353,391) -3,152
Montana......................................................... 266,186,472 239,510,196 (26,676,276) -1,267
Nebraska........................................................ 215,987,903 191,081,515 (24,906,388) -1,183
Nevada.......................................................... 197,993,516 176,029,565 (21,963,951) -1,043
New Hampshire................................................... 140,214,707 126,902,623 (13,312,084) -632
New Jersey...................................................... 724,629,766 644,437,408 (80,192,358) -3,809
New Mexico...................................................... 268,590,255 240,780,600 (27,809,655) -1,321
New York........................................................ 1,401,040,155 1,262,949,423 (138,090,732) -6,559
North Carolina.................................................. 773,663,974 688,032,994 (85,630,980) -4,067
North Dakota.................................................... 179,364,219 160,210,847 (19,153,372) -910
Ohio............................................................ 961,276,478 860,311,210 (100,965,268) -4,796
Oklahoma........................................................ 428,332,860 379,797,789 (48,535,071) -2,305
Oregon.......................................................... 337,795,085 304,194,090 (33,600,995) -1,596
Pennsylvania.................................................... 1,391,590,528 1,243,282,020 (148,308,508) -7,045
Rhode Island.................................................... 164,111,783 146,157,429 (17,954,354) -853
South Carolina.................................................. 461,159,042 411,996,298 (49,162,744) -2,335
South Dakota.................................................... 199,167,503 178,669,157 (20,498,346) -974
Tennessee....................................................... 622,352,003 564,991,230 (57,360,773) -2,725
Texas........................................................... 2,146,241,884 1,898,429,283 (247,812,601) -11,771
Utah............................................................ 216,502,048 192,439,532 (24,062,516) -1,143
Vermont......................................................... 124,154,439 111,927,901 (12,226,538) -581
Virginia........................................................ 709,623,612 641,862,481 (67,761,131) -3,219
Washington...................................................... 493,764,590 439,213,963 (54,550,627) -2,591
West Virginia................................................... 308,053,178 278,926,511 (29,126,667) -1,384
Wisconsin....................................................... 545,543,085 483,447,684 (62,095,401) -2,950
Wyoming......................................................... 188,996,676 171,131,402 (17,865,274) -849
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State total............................................... 27,885,409,102 24,911,435,691 (2,973,973,411) -141,264
Allocated programs.............................................. 3,913,694,898 2,788,564,309 (1,125,130,589) -53,444
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total............................................... 31,799,104,000 27,700,000,000 (4,099,104,000) -194,707
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prepared by Transportation Committee Democratic Staff based on information provided by the Federal Highway Administration and the American Road and
Transportation Builders Association. Employment loss is spread over 7 years, with most loss occurring in 2003 and 2004. Assumes 47,500 jobs per $1
billion of federal highway program investment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to
the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and
his presentation. The gentleman and I participated and both signed off
on the language in this resolution. That was last week. Nothing has
changed. I am happy to say that this week my back does not hurt quite
as much as it did last week, but the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Petri) raised this point, and I will say it again, this is for
political purposes. It is really not the way to do business.
If Members remember, in fact, when the President came down with his
budget, there was about $23 billion in the highway program. We on a
bipartisan basis raised it to $27.1 billion, and this House voted on
that level. But under a continuing resolution, I want to spend the
money actually at $31.8 billion; and that is what we will do under this
resolution as long as we are working under a continuing resolution. But
there is a lot of what-ifs being brought up here. No Member believes
that we will be working under a continuing resolution until August.
That is very unlikely. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
will not allow that, nor will myself.
The Senate has not acted, nor have we in the final conclusion of this
highway program. I see the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and
his staff, and they signed off on this. The gentleman signed off on
this. Everybody signed off on it. That really bothers me when I see
Members trying to distort this on the floor of the House again for
political purposes. I think that is improper. We have been a very
bipartisan committee, and I will continue to do that; but do not use
this floor to try to convey something that is not all true. Not all
true.
We will be able to spend this money and the States will be able to
program this money until August under this resolution. I expect
truthfully when the Senate and the House get together, we will arrive
at the $31 billion. I expect that to happen. So what we are doing is
saying what if. We are in this position now. This is where we are going
to be. I heard we are cutting jobs. We are not cutting anything in this
resolution. I
[[Page H7955]]
think it is improper to try to convey the idea that we are trying to do
something that we did not agree to beforehand.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Did the gentleman hear my distinction of the funding at
the $31.8 billion level until August of next year at which point it
crashes; and is that inaccurate?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Absolutely. I heard and I agree if we were
working under a continuing resolution that would happen, and by August
we would not be able to spend the money at $31 billion; but that is not
going to happen.
Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that is what
I said. I did not politicize it. That is simply a statement of fact.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. What is fact? The fact is we are going to spend
money at $31 billion which we did not have prior to this until August
if we work under a continuing resolution. We are not going to work
under a continuing resolution, and the gentleman knows that. There will
be a solving of this problem with the Senate if the Senate ever gets
busy, and we will probably arrive at a figure of around $31 billion.
Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I would hope
that we solve the problem. But I want to point out in all fairness,
what we agreed to with the gentleman was $31.8 billion. The $27.7
billion language was added later. I do not know where it came from.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Wait a minute. The gentleman saw the language.
Mr. OBERSTAR. That was an OMB insistence which I hope has been fixed.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, it has been fixed with this
letter, which I include for the Record.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, October 15, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportion and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: OMB has reviewed section 137 of Public
Law 107-240, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, which passed the House on October 11,
2002. The enactment of section 137 will have no impact on the
level of highway jobs or the level of highway spending for
states.
The effect of section 137 is to retain the FY 2002 rate of
operations for the Federal aid highway program at $31.8
billion for the duration of the continuing resolution by
requiring OMB to apportion funds at an annualized rate of
$31.8 billion during that period. As of today, OMB has
apportioned funds in accordance with section 137.
Much confusion has surrounded the language in section 137
that limits total annual obligations for this program while
operating under continuing resolutions to no more than $27.7
billion. This provision, as many of the terms of the current
resolution, is subject to section 107(c) of P.L. 107-229,
which establishes the date of expiration of the continuing
resolution. H.J. Res. 122 sets that date of expiration at
October 18, 2002. Consequently, it is mathematically
impossible for the highway program, spending at an annualized
rate of $31,8 billion, to reach the $27.7 billion cap on
total obligations prior to mid-August 2003, well beyond the
expiration date of this or any other continuing resolution
that is expected in the future.
Therefore, the effect of section 137 is to provide that the
highway program continue at the FY 2002 enacted level of
$31.8 billion until the final FY 2003 funding level is
determined in the context of House, Senate and Administration
negotiations of the FY 2003 Transportation Appropriations
bill.
Sincerely,
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
Director.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), who has been a leader in trying
to help the neediest children in this land.
(Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. Because of our inaction on
August 1, nearly $1.2 billion in funds intended for low-income children
reverted to the Federal Treasury. We had a chance in this continuing
resolution to make a change for the better, for the children.
More than 80 percent of the funds that have reverted were awarded
just 6 months ago to States such as Indiana, which had programs
enrolling a large number of children. These States include Alaska,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and West Virginia.
Because of the national recession, many of these same States have
experienced a slowdown in their SCHIP enrollment and record levels of
participation in Medicaid. This is due to many low-income parents being
forced to work reduced hours which forces parents into Medicaid
programs along with their children. Not extending these funds will put
the most successful programs at great risk when the economy improves
and the SCHIP rolls again swell rapidly.
Indiana has already lost $105 million of funding. Knowing that
Indiana would likely receive additional funding from other States,
State officials last year asked HHS to use it for new initiatives,
including one to fund the replacement on windows painted with lead-
based paint. Indiana wanted to take an aggressive approach and help
more children by preventing lead poisoning, a significant problem in
Indianapolis and throughout the State. Federal officials denied the
request because Indiana would not limit the program to homes in which
children already showed evidence of lead poisoning.
Allowing States to keep reallocated and redistributed fiscal year
1998 and 1999 allotments, along the lines of what the President
proposed, is the simplest and fairest way to stabilize the program and
help States to maintain critical services for low-income children.
These are the funds that just expired and may be lost forever if
Congress takes no action.
My Governor, who chairs the Human Resources Committee of the National
Governors Association, recently told the New York Times that
``Governors fear that, if this money is lost, the Federal Government's
growing budget deficit will make it difficult to recover this money at
a later date.''
Without this funding being kept in States during uncertain financial
times, Congress is risking leaving thousands of low-income children
behind.
Mr. Speaker, as Members know, $2.4 billion remaining from the regular
SCHIP allotment is scheduled to be redistributed this year because of
the agreement Congress made 2 years ago.
Congress must act, otherwise we are shortchanging more than 4.6
million children throughout America and in Indiana who need health care
most. I plead that, indeed, we leave no child behind.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the joint
resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year
2003.
Much has been said about the highway funding provision that was
included in last week's continuing resolution and which remains in
effect under this resolution.
This provision was necessary to reverse the administration's decision
to reduce the highway program to a $27.7 billion annualized rate of
funding while under the first two continuing resolutions.
As a result of the highway funding provision in last week's
continuing resolution, the Office of Management and Budget issued a new
apportionment for the highway program, increasing the rate of funding
from $27.7 billion to $31.8 billion, on an annualized basis.
This proves beyond any doubt that the highway funding provision
enacted last week had the desired effect of requiring the highway
program to be continued at the fiscal year 2002 funding level of $31.8
billion, while the continuing resolution remains in effect.
I am pleased to insert into the Record a copy of the OMB
apportionment as well as a letter from OMB regarding this issue. From
this letter, it is clear that the $27.7 billion limit on total
obligations has no practical effect under a short-term continuing
resolution.
If at some point in the future the House considers a longer-term CR,
one that remains in effect well into next year, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, as has been indicated by the
gentleman from Alaska
[[Page H7956]]
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will work
to ensure that the $27.7 billion limit on total obligations is removed.
Should that become necessary, we look forward to having the support
of all those friends of the highway program who have spoken in favor of
the $31.8 billion funding level here on the House floor over this past
week.
{time} 1715
I am hopeful that a long-term CR will not become necessary and that
this year's final highway funding level will be appropriately
determined in the context of House and Senate negotiations on the
budget 2003 transportation appropriation bill.
I urge support for the resolution that will be brought forward by the
rule before us.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, October 15, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: OMB has reviewed section 137 of Public
Law 107-240, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, which passed the House on October 11,
2002. The enactment of section 137 will have no impact on the
level of highway jobs or the level of highway spending for
states.
The effect of section 137 is to retain the FY 2002 rate of
operations for the Federal aid highway program at $31.8
billion for the duration of the continuing resolution by
requiring OMB to apportion funds at an annualized rate of
$31.8 billion during that period. As of today, OMB has
apportioned funds in accordance with section 137.
Much confusion has surrounded the language in section 137
that limits total annual obligations for this program while
operating under continuing resolutions to no more than $27.7
billion. This provision, as many of the terms of the current
resolution, is subject to section 107(c) of P.L. 107-229,
which establishes the date of expiration of the continuing
resolution. H.J. Res. 122 sets that date of expiration at
October 18, 2002. Consequently, it is mathematically
impossible for the highway program, spending at an annualized
rate of $31.8 billion, to reach the $27.7 billion cap on
total obligations prior to mid-August 2003, well beyond the
expiration date of this or any other continuing resolution
that is expected in the future.
Therefore, the effect of section 137 is to provide that the
highway program continue at the FY 2002 enacted level of
$31.8 billion until the final FY 2003 funding level is
determined in the context of House, Senate and Administration
negotiations on the FY 2003 Transportation Appropriations
bill.
Sincerely,
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes
to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who
fights hard for the Nation's Capital as well as the rest of this
Nation.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the gentleman from
Florida for yielding this time to me because of the urgency of what
this CR, yes, even this CR, does to your Nation's Capital. While we
have broken one impasse, the CR week-to-week impasse that allows
Congress to go home, but I cannot believe that Congress understands
what it is doing to the great American city called the District of
Columbia. They are simply leaving this city hanging by a thread.
First, let me personally thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fattah) for doing their job. It was the smoothest D.C. appropriation in
many years, they got it done, but there is not a sufficient realization
of the Congress that the District of Columbia is not a Federal agency.
It is an anomaly that it is here, anyway. This money is the money of
the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, but we cannot spend any of
it until we bring it over here. We have brought it over here. There
have been no changes made in our budget, but D.C. cannot now go about
allocating its money and spending the money of its own taxpayers.
The urgency of the matter is revealed in a letter that I would like
to insert in the Congressional Record from the Mayor and the City
Council chair. They have done an extraordinary job in making needed
cuts because the national economy has caused that to be necessary for
local jurisdictions and States throughout the United States. But now
they cannot make the cuts, they cannot move the money around the way
Maryland and Virginia and every other State is doing, because we are on
some kind of continuing resolution that works well for HHS. Well, it
does not work well, but at least does not bring HHS down, does not
bring the Department of Labor down, but leaves your Nation's capital
really on the ground.
The District has done a magnificent job of balancing its budget in
difficult times. It had the same problem that your jurisdictions have
had, where the problem with the national economy has not just trickled
down, it has dumped on the States and localities. In 10 days' time the
Mayor and the Council did not whine about it. When they discovered this
problem, they cut their budget by $323 million. They are ready to go
now. But the Congress is not ready to go so they are holding us back
for completely unrelated reasons.
There is vital new Federal money in there, the kind of Federal money
that helps the Congress more than it helps us. We had to go to the
Treasury in order to ask the President, and I am pleased that the
President did in fact forward some money to us when we could not get
the 2002 supplemental out, so that we could protect this city when the
IMF demonstrations were just held here. But we cannot get public safety
reimbursement money for, in fact, demonstrations that are likely to be
held here, for example, against the war before you get back. This city
is torn up, however, because we have to spend on a day-to-day basis.
Everybody will wonder: Why did the city not get protected?
You have no dispute with the District of Columbia. This is a dispute
between the Congress and the President and, for that matter, among
quarreling factions within the Congress of the United States. Nobody in
this Congress means to hurt this city. Wherever you stand on the
District, I think everybody wants this city to thrive. But to leave us
even in a month-long CR is to leave us not only in pain, it is to leave
the good people of the District of Columbia with pain and suffering. I
am asking you to help us free D.C. from this CR.
District of Columbia,
October 15, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: We thank you for your past assistance to
the city and for the special sensitivity you have shown
toward matters affecting the District of Columbia since
becoming Speaker. We write to ask that you allow the
District's budget to be disconnected from the current
congressional appropriations stalemate out of respect for the
nearly 600,000 taxpaying residents of the nation's capital
who fund city services contained in that budget. The
District, of course, is a major city, not a federal agency,
and residents experience unique hardships when the D.C.
appropriation is delayed with agency appropriations. We
appreciate the expeditious consideration and close
cooperation the city received in this year's appropriation
process from the Chairs Bill Young and Joe Knollenberg and
Ranking Members David Obey and Chaka Fattah. The continuing
delay of passage of the District's budget, however, poses a
special threat this year when the city has had to make last
minute calls and must reallocate funds accordingly.
As you are aware, nearly all of the District's
appropriation is derived from local, not federal funds, and
Congress has traditionally approved the District's local
budget without revision. This year, both the House and Senate
appropriations committees passed the D.C. appropriation bill
with unanimous bipartisan votes. The city is both grateful
and proud of this achievement because just weeks before the
start of the fiscal year, the city's Chief Financial Officer
released revenue estimates projecting a $323 million
operating deficit in Fiscal Year 2003 due to the twin shocks
of 9/11 attacks and the faltering national economy. Of
course, the District's decline in revenue mirrors similar
declines in cities and states across the country, but the
District quickly corrected the imbalance with cuts to city
programs and achieved a balanced budget within the record
time of approximately ten days. We appreciate that after
inspecting the city's figures to assure the budget was
balanced, the House appropriations committee was able simply
to insert the District's new numbers into the bill. The
District has shown that it can act quickly to avert potential
fiscal crisis. We hope that the Congress will respond.
In December 2000, you generously worked with us to free the
District's appropriation from a similar national budget
impasse. We are asking for your intervention again because
further delay in the passage of the city's budget threatens
our administration of many city services that must be
adjusted
[[Page H7957]]
because of extensive cuts. We appreciate your consideration
of our request and look forward to working with you and your
staff on this matter.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Congresswoman.
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.
Linda W. Cropp,
Chairman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we would never know it was an election
year on the House floor, would we? I am joking, of course. It is
sickening, the partisan attacks that go back and forth on this floor.
Unfortunately, we are just a few weeks out from an election.
My colleagues on the other side will say, well, it is the mean
Republican leadership; they are the ones that will not allow us to pass
appropriations bills. All those other guys are okay; it is just the
leadership. Casting aspersions and a dark cloud on the leadership
damages the party for an election.
The House has passed appropriations bills, and my colleagues will
say, ``They don't need the Senate to act for us to pass our
appropriations bills.'' On the floor, the rules state that I cannot
talk about what the Senate has done and the reasons for it, so I will
not do that. I will not violate those rules. So what I will do, let us
just say the House of Commons in England, let us say the House of Lords
in England, and let us say the House of Commons passes a budget and
they look at fiscal responsibility across the board so that we do not
go out into debt and that we can get back to a balanced budget and the
things that we hold dear. But let us say the House of Lords does not
pass a budget and they know that the House does not want to pass their
appropriations bills, the House of Commons, because they can attach any
number above ours. Not ours, of course, in England because that would
be against the rule, Mr. Speaker, if I spoke if this was the House. But
let us just say that they would speak against the House of Commons with
any budget number and say, ``Look at that mean House of Commons.
They're cutting education. They're cutting veterans bills. They're
cutting prescription drugs.''
Let us just say, for instance, the House of Commons put $340 billion
to a prescription drug plan and the House of Lords put $1.3 trillion.
The House of Lords would go out and tell all the seniors, ``Look at
those mean Republicans.'' Well, excuse me, I do not know if they are
called Republicans. Let us say ``the House of Commons folks. Look how
mean they are. They're going to hurt you, seniors.'' And let us say
that if they had a bill on education and labor, that they put $278
billion more in the House of Lords than the House of Commons and they
say, ``Look, those mean rascals are cutting.'' But why will they not do
their budget? Because the House of Commons will not play the game prior
to an election and pass bills that the House of Lords knows will never
get done, but for political reasons they want to do it.
But I would never, of course, attach the House of Lords to the Senate
of the United States, Mr. Speaker, because that would be against the
rules.
There was a bill, or a headline, Washington Post and Washington Times
last week assigned and said, Congress Votes a Continuing Resolution Not
to Shut Down the Government. You can spin it any way you want. You can
try and blame the Republicans for shutting down the government or not
doing their job, but we are not going to go home and not do our job
just like the House of Commons would not in England. If you want to
vote ``no'' on this rule and continuing resolution, you can spin it any
way you want, but you are voting to shut down the government. We are
not going to play that game either, Mr. Speaker.
If my colleagues on the other side, whether you be the House, or the
House of Lords, you ought to get after the Senate. We passed in this
House, with 118 Democrat votes, a bill giving confidence in the stock
market to help the economy. We passed that in the House. The Senate has
not acted. I, Mr. Speaker, would question anyone that would hold up a
homeland security bill because they wanted their union brothers to fill
those jobs. To me, that is unpatriotic.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I heard the gentleman speak,
I expected the Royal Family to show up any time here on the floor, but
I am sure that that is not going to be the case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we hear from the other side of the aisle that
it is the Senate's fault that we have not done our work. It has been 84
days since the House last considered an appropriation bill. We have
been here for 84 days. Our number one job has been to pass the
appropriation bills. And because of an internal war in the Republican
Caucus, these 84 days have been wasted. They have been blown. It is
time to quit being the Alibi Ikes of the Cosmos. It is time to face up
to our duty. It is time to use at least 1 day in these 84 days to get
the country's work done.
We have done the military bills. We have done Iraq. This House has
not finished work on a single domestic appropriation bill. It ought to
be ashamed of itself.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. More
than that, I rise in strong support of the leadership of the 107th
Congress. In what will likely be the last time that I have the chance
to stand on this blue carpet prior to Election Day 2002, it is truly
astounding for me to hear anyone, any Member of any party rise in this
institution and talk about the 107th Congress not having done its work,
when I will in my years, whether I am a private citizen or a public
servant, when I look back on these years, doing the people's work will
be precisely what I know we have been about for the last 23 months: the
people's work in passing, not once but twice, historic tax relief
measures for working families, small businesses and family farms;
passing a $350 billion Medicare modernization and prescription drug
benefit. We brought about types of reforms in virtually every area of
government which, standing completely alone, Mr. Speaker, would qualify
for this Congress having done its work for not 84 days but for the
entirety of the 107th Congress. That would be not even require us to
mention the way this Congress and this leadership responded to national
tragedy. Our leadership in this institution stood with broad shoulders
against the avalanche of tragedy on 9/11. We sped relief to the people
immediately affected. More than that, we sped needed military resources
to respond in the war on terrorism and a historic increase in military
spending to prepare us for what may come. As biological and chemical
weapons made their way into our Nation's Capital, it was this
leadership that had the courage to stand against the wind of the
national media's ridicule and take every member of the staff and every
Member of this institution out of harm's way, demonstrating in a
bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, courage and vision and foresight. As we
have gone forward doing our work in these humbling days that have just
recently passed, as the President today signed a resolution authorizing
the use of force, this Congress has done its work.
It is time to pass this rule and pass this continuing resolution so
that every one of us of goodwill in this institution can go home and
tell the people that we proudly serve of that work that we have done. I
am proud of the Republican leadership of the 107th Congress. I am
proud, and will ever be throughout my life, to have been part of this
important and critical work during this time in the life of our Nation.
{time} 1730
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
[[Page H7958]]
I would like to respond to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) by
reminding him that a considerable number of people are out of work; the
stock market is certainly not in a bullish mode. It is bearish, to say
the least; and it is certainly down, although I do not know whether
that is the best barometer, but when it comes to whether or not this
House has really been about the business of helping people with their
health care and with the workers in this country, even when the
gentleman mentions 9-11, and, yes, I agree that we did a tremendous job
in a bipartisan fashion in speeding along some relief for some, but
those airline workers, many of them still have not received any of the
benefits that were offered by Congress at that time.
Thus I say not only have we not done everything we are supposed to do
first fiscally by law, we also may have done some things that made this
economy worse; and I for one stood in opposition to many of the tax
cuts offered by the other side, and I would feel that if we look at it
carefully, we will know that it had a devastating impact on this
economy.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats want to give Americans a clear choice.
Democrats stand for increasing the minimum wage, extending unemployment
benefits for laid-off workers, and making sure our highways are
adequately funded. Republicans stand for more tax cuts. That is what
they have been bandying about here for a couple of weeks about trying
to bring out something here called an economic stimulus package that
was nothing but some more tax cuts for some who are wealthy in our
society and letting tax evaders move to Bermuda while our Nation is at
war.
There is a clear choice. The numbers do not lie, Mr. Speaker: 8.1
million Americans are looking for work but cannot find it; 2.9 million
have been unemployed for more than 15 weeks. Poverty has risen while
our economic growth has declined. Democrats think we should do
something about this. The Republicans evidently do not. There is a
clear choice.
If the previous question is defeated, we will offer an amendment to
the rule that will allow us to vote on three amendments. Number one, to
increase the minimum wage to $6.65 an hour over 2 years, and I say to
anybody that has people in their district that are working on the
minimum wage, you multiply $6.65 times 40 hours and see if you can live
with your family on such a meager amount of assistance. Two, we are
going to seek to give an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits
to our workers; and, three, to retain the fix for highway spending that
was inserted in the CR last week while striking the language that would
have limited overall spending for fiscal year 2003 to $27 billion.
These are priorities to Democrats and evidently afterthoughts to my
Republican colleagues. There is a clear choice, Mr. Speaker; and I urge
a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I want to remind Members that this is a rule that provides for
consideration of a continuing resolution that will get us through
November 22. We will be back in the House for reorganization the week
after the election, and I know between now and that time there will be
work on the appropriation process. But one thing that has been well
documented here in debate on the floor is that the other body on a
major piece of legislation is behind this body; and I think it
appropriate that we leave and allow them to catch up, and one of the
main pieces of legislation that they have to get done, and I believe
they have to get done and I think the American people expects them to
get done, is the creation of the Office of Homeland Security.
So as we leave here with this CR in place until November 22, we will
have the ability to come back and act on whatever legislation the other
body were to pass that would require our work on this side. So that
option is open, and our Members are prepared to come back at any time.
Of course the most important piece of legislation is the creation of
the Office of Homeland Security.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the
Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 123) making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the joint resolution
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the joint
resolution and the amendments made in order by this
resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the joint
resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The joint resolution shall be considered as
read. No amendment to the joint resolution shall be in order
except those specified in section 2. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by
the Member designated or a designee of such Member, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendments referred to in the first section of
this resolution are as follows:
(1) by Representative Oberstar of Minnesota, adding the
following new section:
Sec.____. Section 137 of Public Law 107-229, as added by
Public Law 107-240, is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``; Provided, That'' and all that follows through
``Act''.
(1) by Representative Bonior of Michigan, adding a new
title consisting of the text of H.R. 4799.
(2) by Representative Rangel of New York, adding a new
title of the text of H.R. 5491.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209,
nays 193, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 467]
YEAS--209
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
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
[[Page H7959]]
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Miller, Dan
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
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
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
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
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
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
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
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--29
Baldacci
Borski
Carson (OK)
Clayton
Clement
Combest
Cooksey
Cubin
Delahunt
Dooley
Filner
Ganske
Graham
Hilleary
Hinojosa
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller, Gary
Riley
Roukema
Rush
Slaughter
Stump
Waters
{time} 1802
Ms. ESHOO and Ms. PELOSI changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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. 467, I was conducting
official business in my San Diego, California district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 193, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 468]
AYES--206
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Miller, Dan
Miller, Jeff
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
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)
NOES--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--33
Baldacci
Borski
Carson (OK)
Clayton
Clement
Combest
Cooksey
Cubin
Delahunt
[[Page H7960]]
Dooley
Filner
Ganske
Graham
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Kennedy (RI)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Linder
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller, Gary
Riley
Roukema
Rush
Slaughter
Stump
Tiahrt
Velazquez
Waters
{time} 1814
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 468, I was conducting
official business in my San Diego, California district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________