[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.
____________________