[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 146 (Wednesday, November 13, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8554-H8561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) making further 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

[[Page H8555]]

  The text of H.J. Res. 124 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 124
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 107-229 is further amended by striking the date specified 
     in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 11, 
     2003''
       Sec. 2. Section 114 of Public Law 107-229 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``the 
     date specified in section 107(c) of this joint resolution''; 
     and
       (2) by striking the first proviso and inserting the 
     following: ``: Provided, That grants and payments may be made 
     pursuant to this authority at the beginning of any included 
     quarter or other period of fiscal year 2003, for such quarter 
     or other period, at the level provided for such activities 
     for the corresponding quarter or other period of fiscal year 
     2002''.
       Sec. 3. Upon determination by the Secretary of Homeland 
     security that such action is necessary in the national 
     interest, he may, with the approval of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, transfer not to exceed $500,000,000 of 
     funds made available to the Department of Homeland Security 
     and be available for the same purposes, and for the same time 
     period, as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: 
     Provided, That such authority to transfer may not be used 
     unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen 
     homeland security requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: 
     Provided further, That during fiscal year 2003, the Office of 
     Management and Budget may transfer not to exceed $140,000,000 
     for unobligated balances of appropriations enacted prior to 
     October 1, 2002 for organizations and entities that will be 
     transferred to the new Department for the salaries and 
     expenses associated with the initiation of the Department: 
     Provided further, That of amounts authorized for transfer by 
     this section, except as otherwise specifically authorized by 
     law, not to exceed two percent of any appropriation available 
     to the secretary may be transferred between such 
     appropriations: Provided further, That not less than 15 days' 
     notice shall be given to the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives before any such 
     transfer is made: Provided further, That no part of the funds 
     in this Act shall be available to prepare or present a 
     request to the Committees on Appropriations for reprogramming 
     of funds, unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen homeland security requirements, than those for 
     which originally appropriated and in no case where the item 
     for which reprogramming is requested has been denied by 
     Congress: Provided further, That the authority provided in 
     this section shall expire on September 30, 2004.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 602, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me welcome all the Members back from their 
election-day activities and suggest that we do have a lot of work to 
do, especially a lot of appropriations bills that need to be concluded.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing resolution to keep the government 
functioning until such time as all appropriations bills are concluded. 
It would extend the date of the initial continuing resolution until the 
11th of January and includes one additional anomaly that would extend 
the authorization for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the 
TANF program, through this same period.
  Mr. Speaker, the other anomalies that we had included in the original 
CRs are all the same, no changes. This is a clean CR. I do not think 
that there is any real controversy over the content of the CR.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think Members will recall when we were sitting around 
here last February and March waiting for the President to send up the 
supplemental and talking about starting the appropriations bills after 
we got back from the spring recess. The dogwoods bloomed and the cherry 
trees bloomed and, finally, the azaleas; and yet we had no 
appropriations bills.
  So then we had talked about how busy the summer was going to be after 
we had gotten back from the Memorial Day recess. We had droughts across 
most of the country. We had forest fires in the West. Tiger Woods won 
the U.S. Open, and the All Star Game ended in a tie, and nearly three-
quarters of the appropriations bills during that time never even got to 
the House floor.
  After all of that transpired, we left for the August recess talking 
about how impossible the fall would be. We were going to have long 
nights and late nights, and that was going to be the only way that the 
House could get its work done before the election. Well, we returned in 
September and we did not work those long weeks or those long nights. 
The Republican leadership of the House would not let the chairman of 
the committee take up the bills that the committee had reported.
  And in September we had a continuing of the work style of the 
previous 3 or 4 months. We would have our first votes occurring on 
Tuesday evenings for the week, and we would have wheels up at National 
Airport going back to our districts by noon on Thursday or close to it. 
And so when we left in October, we had passed only two of 13 
appropriations bills. We had funded only one of the 15 departments of 
the U.S. Government, and not a single domestic agency had a budget for 
the fiscal year that had already begun.
  We left town then for the election, and we said that the lame duck 
session would be a tough one, that the work load would be enormous, 
that Congress would be forced to stay in session until Christmas Eve. 
But guess what? Wrong again. We simply are seeing the magic switch 
being used one more time. Put the government on automatic pilot and go 
home.
  So what have we accomplished? Well, the Director of the Customs 
Service will no longer report to an Under Secretary in the Treasury 
Department. He will report to an Under Secretary in another building in 
a new bureaucracy. That is our achievement on the Homeland Security 
front.
  I frankly do not think Osama bin Laden will care. He may even realize 
that all of the moving of desks and phones and computers over the next 
couple of years in the new Department of Homeland Security is likely to 
create gaps in our security and give him openings to do his dirty work.
  But what will happen to the plan of the Director of the Customs 
Service to inspect the millions of 40-foot long steel containers that 
get shipped into the United States each year when they leave Europe or 
Asia or Latin America? I think Osama will be glad that the Congress did 
not find time to fund that initiative. What about the money that the 
FBI Director needs to upgrade his computers, to hire more analysts, to 
get translators to speak Arabic, Farsi or Pashto. I am sure that Osama 
will be glad that the Congress did not get around to fixing that 
problem either.
  And how about the money we were supposed to give to local fire and 
police departments so they could have common communications systems so 
that the first responders would have protection in dealing with 
biological and chemical attacks? Well, I guess apparently the judgment 
of Congress is that that can wait. After all, who knows, maybe the next 
major attack in this country may not come until next summer or, if we 
are lucky, even later.

                              {time}  1200

  So again, Congress chooses to not deal with the problem.
  What about the money for the Public Health Service to buy the anthrax 
vaccine for first responders and others that would have to cope with an 
attack? The same answer, no action.
  But I guess we need another break. After all, we have had a tough 
election season. Apparently the Congress has to rest up from all of its 
recesses and those weeks we had to slave from Tuesday evening through 
Thursday noon before we went back to our districts. And certainly 
Congress needs to rest up from all of the promises that it has made 
during the election, promises about how much we care about the economy 
and people being squeezed by the economic downturn.
  But apparently we are not going to stay here now to deal with the 
extension of unemployment benefits; we are not going to fix the 
problems at the National Institutes of Health; we are not going to fix 
the highway problems; we are not going to fix the problem of the 
underfunding of the Securities and Exchange Commission. But after all, 
apparently Members of the House are really worn out from all of the TV 
ads we all had to run telling our constituents how much we cared for 
the elderly

[[Page H8556]]

and how hard we were going to work to ensure that they got the medical 
care and the prescription drugs that they needed.
  If running those ads had been less arduous, maybe we could have 
persuaded the majority party to stay around for a few more days to do 
its work. I know that the chairman of the committee would like to do 
that, but apparently he has been overruled by his caucus or by his 
leadership or by the House and Senate leadership combined, if we can 
call that leadership by walking away from their responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that this is a pitiful performance by 
a pitiful Congress walking away from its major responsibility. This 
Congress has not even found the will to pass the appropriation bills, 
which is the main job Congress has each year.
  I do not know why Members run for reelection for another 2 years if 
they do not want to do the work that they were elected to do in the 
previous 2 years. I guess there are a lot of mysteries in this place I 
do not understand.
  This resolution is going to pass. We will come in here on January 7, 
and we will kick the can down the road again. We will come in long 
enough to sign up for our new 2-year lease on our paychecks, and then 
Congress will apparently adjourn again without doing anything to deal 
with the major problems that Congress is facing on the appropriations 
side. I guess it is a harbinger of things to come, but it is a 
disgrace. I for one am not going to vote for this continuing resolution 
because what it really is is a spectacular abdication of 
responsibility, which is not worthy of this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I misspoke when I said there was only one anomaly or 
change in this CR because there is one other I should call to the 
attention of the House, and that has to do with the Department of 
Homeland Security. In the CR we included a provision which provides 
transfer authority for the establishment of the Department of Homeland 
Security and for unforeseen homeland security requirements.
  This is basically language that we had agreed to when the Homeland 
Security bill passed the House earlier this year; because that 
conference report is expected to hit the floor today we included this 
appropriations provision in the CR. Here is what it does.
  Under this provision, the Secretary of Homeland Security may transfer 
a total of $500 million in appropriations for unforeseen homeland 
security requirements.
  In addition, unobligated balances of not more than $140 million from 
funds appropriated prior to October 1, 2002, may be transferred for the 
initiation of the new department.
  Now such transfers, Mr. Speaker, may not exceed 2 percent of any 
appropriation between such appropriations. The provision requires that 
these transfers, and this is important, are subject to current 
reprogramming requirements. These transfer authorities would be 
provided until September 30, 2004.
  Mr. Speaker, this language was necessary to provide the President of 
the United States with the ability to move quickly in dealing with 
homeland security issues. We had some debate on this during the 
consideration of the homeland security bill. This is an acceptable 
provision to the appropriators as we protect the responsibilities under 
the Constitution of the House and the Senate.
  So this is not a controversial item in this continuing resolution, 
but I thought I had better call it to the attention of the membership.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his hard work this year in trying to get these 
appropriations out.
  Many of my colleagues have been local elected officials, and surely 
they recognize what fix they would be in if their city or county had to 
run on a day-to-day CR. We cannot pick up garbage on a day-to-day CR. 
The Federal Government might be able to run HHS or the Department of 
Labor that way, but I am talking about the Nation's capital, a living, 
breathing city of 600,000 people which also serves 200,000 Federal 
workers.
  What we are doing with these interminable CRs that puts D.C. right in 
there, even though there is mostly local money here, what we are doing 
is crippling good management in the city, which is exactly what the 
Congress has admonished the District to try to improve.
  Major Williams and our City Council deserve a lot better. They have 
done a spectacular job in renewing city operations. These folks had a 
balanced budget, and then they had to do a 10 percent cut of the budget 
raised by local taxes, and they did it in 10 days. Now they are told 
for an entire quarter they are going to have to live on last year's 
budget.
  Let me give Members two reasons why that is difficult for a city. 
First, they cannot implement new programs which are necessary. Second, 
despite the cuts, the District of Columbia has increased its school 
budget, but since under the CR the city must run at last year's levels, 
it cannot increase its school budget, and yet that is the budget that 
Congress has been most concerned about.
  Much of that local money would go to special education problems, 
which are particularly crippling us because we do not have any State to 
contribute to special education. Indeed, Congress is so concerned about 
special education that we got $14 million in extra Federal money for 
special education in this budget, but I am not even asking for that, I 
am just asking for D.C. to be able to spend her own money on her own 
special education children.
  Yesterday I spoke with the President about it, the Mayor spoke with 
him about it, and subsequently I called his top staff at the White 
House. Guess what, neither the President nor his top staff seemed to 
have any objections. The top staff said they would put it before the 
OMB. The reason that I think the President and his staff did not have 
particular objection is that apparently what the President and those 
who are holding the appropriations want is no Federal spending above a 
certain level. Voila. The money I am talking about is all money raised 
in the District of Columbia, $3 billion of it. No Federal spending 
above a certain level, fits the rule, this money should not even be 
here in the first place.
  If it is here, I would think that there would be some sensitivity to 
the fact that the city should not be treated as if it were the 
Department of Labor or some other agency. I had a one-sentence 
amendment that would have allowed D.C. to spend local taxpayer funds 
only, leaving all of the Federal money over here.
  There are special circumstances in this CR. It is not a clean CR. 
There are TANF grants and payments, and I thank the leadership. There 
is an allowance for transfer of $500 million from other agencies to 
homeland security.
  Mr. Speaker, surely keeping the Nation's capital afloat and well-run 
is just such a special circumstance. I ask that we take all the action 
we can after this CR expires to see that this never happens to the city 
again, and pray for the city during this period.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I first encountered this thing we call a 
continuing resolution when I was a young officer in the Army working 
for the Assistant Secretary of Defense Comptroller. I remember how it 
was explained to me then by the DOD's General Counsel. He said, in 
effect, the Congress is saying to us we have not got our job done, we 
are a little embarrassed, so just keep spending money at the level it 
is being spent until we can catch up and get things done right.
  This year, more than any year I have ever seen or known about, we are 
deficient in doing our job. Eleven out of 13 appropriation bills have 
not been passed. Let me just pick out four and point out to Members the 
consequences of having a continuing resolution in lieu of a properly 
worked appropriation bill.
  Veterans medical care. If Members are not aware that veterans are 
calling their district offices and saying they cannot get an 
appointment at veterans hospitals in less than 6 months, Members have 
not been talking to their

[[Page H8557]]

staff. The Veterans Administration is overstretched, overcommitted, and 
we are not in this resolution providing them a dime more than they got 
last year to deal with a problem that is getting worse all the time.
  So Members are turning a deaf ear to the veterans who are calling and 
saying what good is health care when it needs to be delayed for 6 
months. That is the situation that I am finding in my office, and I 
dare say it is true all across the country, and this resolution turns a 
deaf ear to the veterans of this country and their pleas for the health 
care promised them.
  Education. Last year the President made a big deal, and rightly so, 
out of his signature education bill. Democrats in the House and Senate, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and Senator Kennedy, 
joined him in inaugurating the bill called Leave No Child Behind. It 
was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  When we passed that authorization bill in the House, the price tag on 
it was $26.4 billion. We said that we recognize that school districts 
are going to have additional substantial obligations, and we wanted to 
send money with the mandates we were imposing upon them. We said we 
need to increase what we are spending on elementary and secondary 
education so that the school districts will be able to meet their 
obligations and will be funded at the Federal level for the obligations 
that the Federal Government is imposing upon them.
  Mr. Speaker, 6 weeks later after the authorization had passed, the 
President sent his budget up and guess what, his budget funded the bill 
at $4 billion less, $19 million less than we were then spending for 
elementary and secondary education, and that is the way we will leave 
it if we pass the CR instead of going back to the Labor-Education 
appropriation bill and properly funding education as we should.
  Education will be shorted. We will leave a lot of children behind. $4 
billion would put a lot of our school districts that are already 
hurting because of statewide budget cuts in dire straits. It is true in 
my State; I dare say it is true in every State.
  Highways. No Member should vote without looking at this list right 
here. I just looked at it to see what happens to the highway bill, what 
we will fund compared to what TEA-21 might have provided. South 
Carolina will get $49.162 million less than we would otherwise get if 
we did a proper appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1215

  We are a small State. If you are larger than South Carolina, and most 
of you are, you better check this list because you are going to be 
surprised at how much you will be shorted in highway funding if you 
vote for a CR over a proper transportation appropriation bill.
  Finally, the SEC. The SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
makes money for the Federal Government. The SEC charges fees that 
amount to about $1.2 billion every year. It then spends about $450 
million a year, and the $750 million difference goes into the Treasury. 
They make money for the Federal Government. If there is one agency of 
the Federal Government that is challenged right now, if there is one 
thing we need to do for this economy, to restore confidence in the 
stock markets and corporate accountability, the SEC has to be the 
watchdog. They have to do it. They need more money. The man who wrote 
the bill, Sarbanes-Oxley, said they need $776 million. You would still 
have a $500 million contribution out of their fees to make to the 
Federal Treasury. Pass this continuing resolution instead of a proper 
appropriation bill and the SEC will get $450 million, slightly less 
than that, in fact. It is not right.
  I am ready to stay here and do it right. That is what I submit every 
Member should do. We can do it. We can do it between now and 
Thanksgiving. We can do it right. We can take care of highways, we can 
take care of veterans, we can take care of the SEC. We can do it right. 
We should do it right and not pass this CR.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to both of the distinguished 
gentlemen, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
ranking member, we stand today not wearing any partisan hat on a very 
crucial element of our responsibilities as the House of 
Representatives. I have always been taught constitutionally that we 
have the Committee on Ways and Means, which the Founding Fathers 
established as the ways and the means to fund our government; and we 
have the appropriators who are the distributors of important taxpayers' 
dollars to move the engine of America. And so I am particularly 
frustrated by what we are facing today.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from the 
District of Columbia, particularly because I think we should look to 
the issue of national security. And certainly a city, having come from 
local government as a member of the Houston City Council, it is very 
difficult to run a government with the ups and downs of no one knows 
what may occur without having the kind of funding that the 
Congresswoman is asking for. This resolution does not answer that 
question.
  Then as I have made known to my colleagues, there are some of us who 
have entities in our district that are literally closing their doors. 
They are doing good work. They are fiscally conservative and 
responsible, like the Martin Luther King Jr. Center in my community 
that houses homeless women and their children, those children, also 
separately housed, who come from HIV-infected parents, who have to have 
separate housing or have to be cared for. Those doors are about to 
close. Or the increasing rise in America of HIV infection. There are 
two entities in my congressional district, the Montrose Counseling 
Center and the Donald Watkins Center, that cater to the needs of 
individuals in the minority community who are HIV infected.
  Then, of course, we with great pride in a bipartisan manner indicated 
our support for Leave No Child Behind. My school district, one of my 
school districts, the Houston Independent School District, has been 
labeled as an exemplary school district; but at the same time there is 
increasing need for special needs children. Those funds that we so 
appropriately authorized in Leave No Child Behind are not being funded 
at the levels that it should. Institutions of higher learning, like 
Texas Southern University that is branching out to educate as a 
historically black college those individuals who would not have access 
to higher learning, are losing programs that are so vital to producing 
more experts in math and science and the sciences.
  And so this CR does more than just respond to maybe someone's 
viewpoint that we are to harbor our tax dollars and put them off to the 
side; it hurts people. Particularly, it hurts our community hospitals. 
We must fund them now. I would only encourage my colleagues by way of 
thanking them, both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to come together and see how we 
can resolve these matters; and if the leadership would simply listen to 
them, we could resolve these matters.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding a visit I had just a few 
minutes ago from some physicians from the State of Texas asking me 
about the replacement of the Medicare funding into the CR. We know that 
on January 1, their Medicare payments, or payments to the doctors for 
treating Medicare payments, will go away. They will be notified at the 
beginning of December, we understand on December 1. What the doctors 
are saying is that they received information from us that we would as a 
Congress attempt to address this last year. We did not. That we would 
address it this year. We did not. They are afraid that when those 
letters in December go out asking those doctors to reup, to agree to 
continue to see Medicare patients, that the answer is going to be ``no 
way.''
  We need to address this because it is going to affect an awful lot of 
people. Can the gentleman from Wisconsin tell

[[Page H8558]]

me, or others, whether or not this language will indeed be put into 
this CR before we vote on it?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for raising the point. 
Unfortunately, that is one of the many items that will not be corrected 
when this CR passes. You will have those cutbacks go into effect in 
January. In addition, we lose other items which we cannot reach in our 
motion to recommit, such as the need to extend unemployment 
compensation. That is not going to be taken care of, either. This is 
just another example of the Congress walking away from its 
responsibilities.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Reclaiming the few seconds that I can take on this, it 
is a travesty to our citizens of this country who are going to need and 
want treatment within our health care system. If they cannot get access 
to the care that they need, they will be spending a huge amount of 
money on themselves, which we will more than likely be picking up as a 
country later on. My brother is just one of many physicians who will 
fall into that category. I think that it is terrible that we are having 
to consider this right now, and I hope and pray that somehow it could 
be fixed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida a question. As he knows, this committee has been trying to 
convince the House leadership for months that with a few billion of 
additional allocation, we could produce appropriation bills that would 
produce very large bipartisan majority support in both Houses. As he 
knows, we have been asking for roughly around $10 billion. I know the 
gentleman has. We have been told, ``Oh, you cannot do that because the 
Committee on Appropriations is a big spender.'' But as I understand the 
rule that just passed, the bill that will follow ours that was approved 
by the rule will in fact wipe out the requirement to sequester because 
on the entitlement side of the budget, we see an explosion on the 
deficit of well over $100 billion; and when you take into account all 
of the exemptions that you have from this sequestration requirement, 
the Congress is in essence saying, ``Well, do not worry, it is on the 
mandatory side. So we will let that $30 billion expansion of the 
deficit that would be avoided by sequestration, we will let that go 
ahead.''
  These same folks who are attacking this committee for being big 
spenders are in fact wiping out a requirement to compensate for 
spending that is more than three times as large as the amount that this 
committee is asking for to fix the appropriations bills.
  Is that not roughly the situation?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  That is roughly the situation. The gentleman has described a 
situation that was beyond our control, unfortunately. The budget that 
was deemed by the House of Representatives included a top-line number 
that was different from the number used by the Committee on 
Appropriations in the Senate. And so we did have a difference of 
numbers. The problem has been all along that we have not had the same 
numbers as the other body.
  But to get to the gentleman's specific point, the PAYGO issue. By the 
way, the PAYGO is not in this CR. There was an attempt to include it in 
the CR, but the committee objected to that, because PAYGO deals with 
mandatory spending. It relates to mandatory spending, of which we have 
no jurisdiction and no control. But as I have said on this floor many 
times and as my colleague from Wisconsin has said many times, a dollar 
is a dollar, it is all the same color whether it is in a mandatory 
account or whether it is in a discretionary account. The truth of the 
matter is that our mandatory spending has far exceeded what the 
Balanced Budget Act would allow for. And the PAYGO scorecard needs to 
be cleared so that the government does not become in violation of the 
Balanced Budget Act. Our committee does not deal with mandatory 
spending, so I did not think we had any obligation or responsibility or 
jurisdiction to deal with it in this CR.
  But again, and the gentleman makes a very good point, spending is 
spending. And while appropriators are often referred to as the big 
spenders, we stay within our allocation, the budget numbers. The 
mandatory spending accounts are the ones that get really out of 
balance. That is exactly what has happened here. That is why this PAYGO 
issue will be before the House later today. It is interesting to note 
that some of those who are most adamant on keeping down discretionary 
spending, regardless of what it might be for, seem to have no objection 
to mandatory spending despite the fact that it goes far above the 
budget, much more so than the appropriations bills. Our committee has 
been very careful to keep our spending bills within the budget numbers 
that were set. The same cannot be said for mandatory programs.
  So I appreciate the gentleman raising that issue. It is not something 
that is political. It is not partisan. It is not one party versus the 
other. It is just a matter of fact. Mandatory spending is spending 
exactly the same as discretionary spending. The problem is a lot of 
people do not understand that and they really need to, because 
mandatory spending is what is causing the biggest part of our budget 
problems today. That is why we are going to have to deal with a PAYGO 
bill later on today or tomorrow. I thank the gentleman for raising the 
issue.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman's comments come down to is that the 
same House leadership that has told the Committee on Appropriations 
that we cannot make these bills healthy enough to pass by adding 
roughly $10 billion to them for appropriation bills, the same 
leadership is asking us to allow the Congress to get out of town with a 
license to provide spending for more than $30 billion on the 
entitlement side. I think that exposes the double standard to which we 
have been subjected for this entire year.
  That is why in my motion to recommit I will have a motion that does 
the following: it will add $2.4 billion to veterans medical care to 
help reduce the backlog that veterans face now when they go into a VA 
hospital and want to see a specialist. It will add $2.8 billion to the 
funding level for the National Institutes of Health so that NIH will be 
able to proceed to provide its new grants and contracts. Otherwise, 
they will be in trouble come January. It will provide $2.6 billion in 
additional funding to FEMA for State and local first responders grants 
to help police and firemen get up to speed in dealing with our 
antiterrorism efforts. And it will add $300 million to the Securities 
and Exchange Commission to bring that funding level up to $776 million, 
which is the amount that the Congress promised in the authorization 
that it would provide back when the heat was on when the public was 
upset about fraud that was going on in many American corporations.

                              {time}  1230

  Unfortunately, now this CR will not meet that commitment either. So 
when the time comes, I will offer that recommit motion and I wanted to, 
in the interest of saving some time, notify the House of that right 
now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Just a brief closing statement to say, Mr. Speaker, that a continuing 
resolution is not the best way to fund the government. There is no 
question about that, and I think most of our colleagues would agree 
with that. But circumstances today require us to deal with this 
continuing resolution.
  And just a couple of comments on the motion to recommit. These types 
of decisions should be made in the Committee and on the floor of the 
House once the Committee has reported the bill. And as the ranking 
member knows, the Committee on Appropriations in the House has marked 
up all of its bills but one. So these decisions really have been made 
in the committee, and once we move the bills many of the concerns that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is concerned about will be 
taken care of because they are legitimate needs of the government. We 
do not want to recommit this bill today. We want to pass this bill, get 
this business behind

[[Page H8559]]

us, and get on to the balance of our responsibilities for today and 
tomorrow, and then we will begin to prepare for the beginning of the 
next session, and hopefully we will have the appropriations bills for 
2003 ready to be completed when the House reconvenes.
  So, again, a continuing resolution is not the best way to deal with 
appropriations issues, but because of today's circumstances this is 
what is available to us, and, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we would reject 
the motion to recommit and that we would pass this CR and get on with 
the rest of our business.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, passage of this resolution is 
understandable, but unfortunate. And, louder than any words, it 
demonstrates the cynicism of the Republican leadership here in the 
House.
  For months, the leadership has refused to allow the House to meet its 
basic responsibility of considering bills to fund any part of the 
government besides the Department of Defense. And by passing this 
continuing resolution, that pattern of dereliction will be continued 
through the rest of this year.
  I do not think this is how we should do our business. I agree with 
the Rocky Mountain News that we should instead make completion of the 
appropriations process our top priority.
  For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching the News's 
editorial on this subject.

             [From the Rocky Mountain News, Nov. 13, 2002]

                  Budget the Top Priority for Congress

       President Bush says the ``single most important item'' 
     facing the lame-duck Congress is creation of his Department 
     of Homeland Security.
       Actually, it's not.
       The most important duty of the lame-duck Congress is to 
     pass the Federal budget for fiscal year 2003, which began 
     Oct. 1. Embarrassingly, one two of the 13 money bills needed 
     to complete that budget have been passed. And that alone is 
     why the outgoing Congress had to return to the capital, not 
     homeland security or terrorism insurance or the energy bill.
       And the returning lawmakers should pass those bills cleanly 
     and not resort to the desperate solution of other lame-duck 
     Congresses--stuffing all the unfinished budget business into 
     the messy monster called an omnibus reconciliation bill.
       Lame-duck Congresses are not the best possible legislative 
     forum. They operate in a tight time frame, knowing they'll be 
     out of business at the end of December. And they include in 
     their ranks retiring and defeated lawmakers who no longer 
     answer to anyone. And this lame-duck session has a novel 
     problem. The Democrats now control the Senate, but only by 
     one vote and only until a new Republican senator arrives in a 
     week or so.
       The lame-duck Congress' most important item of business is 
     to pass the budget.
       The second most important priority is: Go home.
  Ms. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Continuing 
Resolution.
  People at home send us to Washington to do a job and make tough 
decisions--not simply kick the can down the street when it's convenient 
for us to do so.
  It is irresponsible to run our government like this--without a budget 
or any sense of what we can afford to spend money on--especially during 
times of war.
  We have real demands on our shrinking federal budget, and we have 
tough choice to make.
  By passing this Continuing Resolution, we are not only avoiding 
making those decisions, we are putting our country in jeopardy.
  This is the fifth Continuing Resolution we've passed this year that 
funds all aspects of the federal government at fiscal year 2002 levels, 
except highway construction--which it cuts by almost $4 billion. By 
setting spending at $27.7 billion instead of the current year level of 
$31.8 billion, California will lose over $261 million, which translates 
into about 12,400 good paying jobs that will be lost as a result.
  This is wrong for California's economy and it's wrong for the highway 
users who have paid taxes into the highway trust fund.
  Investments in highway infrastructure are not only an immediate 
stimulus to California's economy, but they will help alleviate 
congestion and reduce air pollution.
  Operating under a Continuing Resolution also has a damaging impact on 
ongoing construction projects at the national laboratories in my 
district. Without an annual budget, the labs are unable to consent to 
the large contracts. Contracts like these at Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory are vital to ongoing construction work on the 
National Ignition Facility and the Terrascale Simulation Facility, both 
critical elements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program This not only 
undermines this important national security program, it also hurts 
workers because contractors are let go when the labs are no longer able 
to guarantee payment.
  National security work this critical cannot simply be continued 
piecemeal, and I am concerned that the Continuing Resolution, by 
driving the costs of construction up, will make it harder to fund these 
programs that ensure that we have a credible and reliable nuclear 
deterrent to protect the American people.
  And, this Continuing Resolution hurts health care.
  Medicare's foundation is crumbling. Medicare payments to physicians 
and other health professionals will be cut by 12 percent over the next 
three years, beginning with a 4.4 percent cut on January 1, 2003. More 
than $11 billion nationwide is at stake, with each state losing 
millions in federal health care funds. All of this is in addition to 
the 5.4 percent cut that was implemented on January 1 of this year.
  For Medicare seniors, I strongly urge my colleagues to immediately 
fix the Medicare physician payment update problem.
  Physicians and other health professionals are the very foundation of 
the medical care system. Without them, patients will not be able to get 
hospital, nursing home and home health care services, or prescription 
drugs. It is critical that both the House and Senate stay in session to 
fix this mistake and avert the impending cuts before patient access is 
further jeopardized.
  In addition to failing our nation's seniors, we are also failing 
America's children.
  The Impact Aid program, which compensates local school districts that 
enroll ``federally connected'' children, is also hurt if Congress 
passes a Continuing Resolution. Most of these children are the sons and 
daughters of parents who are in the military or live on military bases.
  Since Congress has failed to act appropriately, I urge the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a reasonable apportionment of 
Impact Aid funds for fiscal year 2003 based on historical obligations. 
This action by OMB will ensure that our schools can continue to meet 
the needs of our children.
  And these problems are just the tip of the iceberg. By keeping 
funding at 2002 levels, Congress is not providing any money for the 
Securities and Exchange Commission to beef up its enforcement of 
corporate crime, and the National Institutes of Health has to cut back 
on important work.
  Congress should not leave town until all the appropriations bills are 
completed. It is our responsibility to make decisions on how to fund 
the activities in the federal budget, with a new urgent priority of 
fighting terrorism abroad and protecting our homeland.
  American taxpayers are the victim of Congress' inability to get its 
work done.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this Continuing Resolution and 
get back to doing the work we were sent to Washington to do.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has 
expired.
  The joint resolution is considered read for amendment, and pursuant 
to House Resolution 602, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
  Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, House Joint Resolution 
     124, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the bill back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       Page 1, line 5, after ``2003'', insert the following:
       ``Provided, That in addition to the amounts made available 
     by section 101, $2,416,000,000 is available for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health 
     Administration, Medical Care, for health care for enrolled 
     veterans: Provided further, That in addition to the amounts 
     made available by section 101, $2,800,000,000 is available 
     for the Department of Health and Human Services, National 
     Institutes of Health: Provided further, That in addition to 
     the amounts made available by section 101, $2,600,000,000 is 
     available for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     Emergency Management and Planning Assistance, for State and 
     local first responders: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution, 
     $776,000,000 is available for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, Salaries and expenses, and amounts otherwise made 
     available by this resolution for salaries and expenses 
     activities at the Department of Commerce shall be reduced by 
     $100,000,000 and amounts otherwise made available by this 
     resolution for salaries and expenses activities at the 
     Department of Justice (excluding the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation and the Immigration and Naturalization Service) 
     shall be reduced by $200,000,000: Provided further, 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of

[[Page H8560]]

     this joint resolution, in addition to amounts made available 
     in section 101, and subject to sections 107(c) and 108, such 
     funds shall be available to the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission to advance to the Public Company Accounting 
     Oversight Board for necessary start-up costs of the Board: 
     Provided further, That upon the collection of fees authorized 
     in section 109(d) of Public Law 107-204, the Securities and 
     exchange Commission shall be reimbursed for any Securities 
     and Exchange Commission shall be reimbursed for any 
     Securities and exchange Commission appropriations advanced to 
     the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for start-up 
     expenses, as authorized by section 109(j) of Public Law 107-
     204, resulting in no net impact on appropriations available 
     to the Securities and Exchange Commission in fiscal year 
     2003.''

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion will, as I said, provide increases 
to the following accounts: For veterans medical care it will provide a 
$2.4 billion increase; for the National Institutes of Health for 
bioterrorism and general research it will increase funding by $2.8 
billion; for FEMA for State and local first responders it will increase 
funding by $2.6 billion; for the Securities and Exchange Commission for 
corporate oversight it will increase funding by $300 million to finally 
put some teeth back in that agency; and it ensures that the Public 
Company Accounting Oversight Board has sufficient funding to provide 
effective oversight of the SEC and corporate accounting standards.
  There are other items that I would like to have in the recommit 
motion, Mr. Speaker, but because of the parliamentary situation, for 
instance, we are precluded from including items that would include an 
extension of the unemployment compensation program to long-term 
unemployed workers. We are precluded from adding funding that was just 
raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) on the Medicare 
givebacks for providers, and we have not been able to include funding 
at this point for additional support for education. That does not mean 
those items should not also be addressed. They should. But right now we 
have just been told that the bill that will come up later today will in 
fact give Congressional blessing to the idea that the deficit will be 
increased by at least $30 billion on the mandatory side and yet somehow 
we are committing a mortal sin if we try to provide more funding for 
veterans medical care, for medical research, to our local police and 
firemen to strengthen our response against terrorism, and to the SEC in 
order to ensure that corporate balance sheets are actually on the 
square and legitimate.
  I find that kind of logic quaint. I think that each of these items is 
perfectly defensible. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a yes 
vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the 
gentleman's motion to recommit addresses a number of important issues, 
but they are important to the point that they should not be discussed 
or determined with a 5-minute debate on one side and a 5-minute debate 
on the other side. These issues are so important they should have 
considerable debate, and consideration by the committee, and 
consideration by the House, and because of that, Mr. Speaker, I object 
to the motion to recommit and ask the Members to oppose it and then 
vote for the continuing resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196, 
nays 216, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 473]

                               YEAS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     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
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--216

     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
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     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
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     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
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)

[[Page H8561]]


     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Blagojevich
     Condit
     Cubin
     Ehrlich
     Fattah
     Grucci
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Houghton
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Neal
     Oxley
     Payne
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Stump
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1304

  Mrs. CAPITO, and Messrs. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, KENNEDY of Minnesota, 
and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. DeGETTE, and Messrs. PHELPS, COSTELLO, and MEEHAN changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 473, the motion to 
recommit for the bill H.J. Res. 124, my vote was inadvertantly recorded 
as a ``no.'' I had intented to support the Obey motion to recommit and 
vote ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
passage of the joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 270, 
noes 143, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 474]

                               AYES--270

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pastor
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--143

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barr
     Blagojevich
     Condit
     Cubin
     Fattah
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Jones (OH)
     McCarthy (MO)
     Miller, George
     Neal
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Royce
     Stump

                              {time}  1319

  Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs. THURMAN, and Mrs. CLAYTON changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________