[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 146 (Wednesday, November 13, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8590-H8594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5710, HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 600 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 600
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5710) to establish
the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one
hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair must remind Members
not to display communicative badges while under recognition for debate.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 600 is a closed rule
allowing for the immediate consideration of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security. The rule further provides the minority
the opportunity to offer a motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, this Chamber first acted in July to make the President's
goal of a Department of Homeland Security a reality. However, we were
not able to send a bill to the President's desk because the other body
failed to act.
After months of inaction and gridlock, President Bush has been
instrumental in forging a compromise between Democrats and Republicans
in order to pass legislation for the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security as soon as possible.
I am pleased and honored by the opportunity to take to the House
floor today this historic legislation to create the Department of
Homeland Security. The security of the American people is the primary
function of the Government of the United States. The creation of this
new Department to coordinate all security activities on behalf of the
American people is of the utmost importance. It has been a high
[[Page H8591]]
priority for President Bush, and I am pleased to bring it to the floor
of the House of Representatives.
Since September 11, 2001, we have been working to rebuild our Nation,
not only our bridges and our buildings, rather, but our sense of
security. The American people have waited too long for this critical
piece of legislation, legislation that is designed to protect all
Americans.
This rule provides a second opportunity for consideration of this
important measure. The underlying legislation will create a new Federal
Department, bringing together for the first time entities that were
designed to protect the homeland of the United States. This new
Department will ensure coordination among all of the agencies under its
charge, as well as any Department that retains functions that could
affect the homeland security.
The legislation will help to protect our borders by moving the Coast
Guard, Customs Service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service into
the Department of Homeland Security. While the Department of State will
retain responsibility for issuing visas, the legislation tasks the
Department of Homeland Security to develop rules for entry into the
United States in order to ensure the best security practices possible.
This historic legislation intensifies our effort to ensure that our
Nation's first responders have the resources that they need to address
all threats. This includes coordination with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the Secret Service, and many other agencies, as well
as the private sector. Additionally, this legislation promotes and
expands upon our efforts in research, development, and technology in
homeland security.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it is also important to let the American people
know that while we are working to protect our homeland, we are also
working to protect the freedom that every American enjoys. Specific
legal protections in this legislation are meant to ensure that our
freedom is not undermined. It includes the creation of a privacy
officer and a civil rights and civil liberties officer. These very
important officials will work as close advisers to the Secretary to
ensure that our privacy, civil rights, and liberties are protected.
As a strong advocate of workers' rights, I am very pleased to see
that a compromise has been reached on collective bargaining issues. The
language creates a process by which employees and employees union
representatives will consult with the Department in creating the new
personnel system. The bill maintains essential employee protections
while providing the President the flexibility he needs to ensure the
safety of the American people.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is an unfortunate reality that we may
very well face future attacks within our borders or abroad; but with
the creation of this new Department, the American people can rest
assured that the Federal Government is doing everything possible to
thwart future terrorist attacks.
I would like to thank the Select Committee on Homeland Security for
their commitment and their dedication, as well as all the chairmen of
the committees of jurisdiction for coming together to craft this vital
legislation.
This is a fair rule that will allow consideration of critical
legislation, legislation that is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to
support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. The measure appeared
at 7 a.m. this morning at the Committee on Rules with no opportunity
for Members to review it beforehand, and no amendments are allowed. For
those two reasons I will oppose this rule.
I would note that creating a Department of Homeland Security was the
Democrat Party's idea and has been a Democratic priority since
September 11 made clear America's terrifying vulnerabilities to
terrorism. For 8 long months after the terrorist attacks this last
year, Democrats were almost alone in insisting that the government be
reorganized to make homeland security a cabinet-level priority. Sure,
we had the support of a few brave Republicans, but the leadership of
the Republican Party strongly opposed the idea. House Republican
leaders blocked the Department of Homeland Security, and the White
House argued strenuously that America did not need it.
Then, Mr. Speaker, something happened to change Republican minds in
Washington. Simply put, the public learned the full magnitude of the
FBI's incompetence before September 11. As the entire Nation watched,
FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley explained how the FBI leadership had
hindered our investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui; and the White House
realized it had a major political problem, so they flip-flopped to save
their political skin.
However, unfortunately, they did not stop using homeland security as
a political prop since then. In the House, they refused bipartisanship
on all substantive matters, and stuffed their own partisan pet projects
into the bill. In the other body, the Republicans used procedural
tactics to repeatedly block homeland security until after the election
so they would have a partisan club to use against Democrats like Max
Cleland, a decorated war hero.
Make no mistake, Americans do not have the Department of Homeland
Security today because Republicans obstructed and politicized it for so
long. But nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats remain committed to
increasing the safety of the American people.
Unfortunately, the so-called compromise on personnel issues does more
for the ideology than for the workers we are about to entrust with our
homeland security. It sets up a notification and mediation process; but
at the end of the day, the administration can still ignore civil
service protections if it wants. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a
mistake that could harm the effectiveness of the new Department.
I am also concerned with what will happen with freedom of
information, whether the answer can just be given: ``You may not have
that information because it is hidden away in the Department of
Homeland Security.''
But it is the civil service system that protects Americans against
the spoils system that allows politicians to award their friends and
supporters with important government jobs. We should not be stepping
away from that. It is crucial that the Department of Homeland Security
be staffed by professionals, not the political cronies of whichever
party happens to hold the White House.
Because of the procedural way in which this is being brought to the
floor, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, an extraordinary Member, and an expert in
the field of national security.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend on the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) who I
enjoy working with very much, particularly on this very critical piece
of legislation, and I congratulate him for his floor management.
This is obviously a rule that we should all be able to support. It is
an appropriate rule and this institution has been through this subject
recently rather completely, and it seems to me that we should be able
to deal with this apace.
This is the historic homeland security legislation that we have been
waiting for and the American people have been asking for. Certainly in
the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, our great Nation
has showed its very steadfast resolve to confront and defeat terror.
Every day we pick up the papers and we see examples of Americans
dealing with these problems on a global basis. We have an awful lot of
men and women out there in uniform and in other agencies doing the hard
[[Page H8592]]
work of winning the war on terrorism. The creation of the Department of
Homeland Security will further bolster this effort. Coordination,
cooperation, communication will be improved and, as we have discovered,
are areas where we need improvement. Daily operations will grow
stronger. Alertness will be better. The agents responsible for the
security of our citizens will be more effective. All of these things
will directly flow from this legislation and more.
The Department of Homeland Security will finally allow us to direct
some long overdue attention to the problems faced by our immigration
system. We live in a hospitable, open and democratic society and we are
all extraordinarily proud of it and defend it. It is our liberty. We
welcome the orderly flow of immigration and we always have. But
regrettably, there are many who take advantage of our generosity by
engaging in illegal immigration. Our borders must be protected. Our
citizens have asked us to do that, and I believe that this Homeland
Security Department will be organized in a way that will help us better
deal with the immigration subject in a way that meets the requirements
of all Americans and protects our borders from mischief makers.
While this legislation makes great strides towards organizing the
protection of our homeland, I believe a considerable amount of work is
still going to remain, primarily in the intelligence area.
Specifically, I believe there is insufficient provision in this
legislation as we have set it up for intelligence consolidation, fusion
and analysis. I believe an intelligence analysis center would
facilitate the interface of intelligence between agencies that are not
very good at it now, thereby increasing reaction speed in a way that
could prove critical, and we saw what critical means on September 11,
2001.
Obviously, let me be clear, I very much support the legislation. It
is long overdue. It will vastly improve our Nation's defenses, and it
obviously is a critically important component on the war on terror,
particularly for our homeland where we live. I am pleased to see that
the necessary and overdue legislation is about to become a reality. If
for no other reason for a lame duck session, I think we have found
something that the American people are going to cheer about.
I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart)
for yielding me time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule.
I have to say the idea of having a new Department of Homeland
Security is a good one, but it should not be at the detriment or to the
detriment of hardworking government employees.
Mr. Speaker, this so-called compromise, and I do not think it is a
compromise at all, it does not go far enough to ensure the rights of
workers in this new department to collectively bargain. Once again,
this is just another attempt by the Republican Party to use back
channels to destroy the Americans workers' right to organize.
The bill adopts the President's proposals to waive all of the
provisions of the civil service laws for employees of the new
department, and it would permit the President to strip employees of
their union representation for any national security reasons.
Basically, it is eliminating effectively the right to collectively
bargain.
Why is this necessary? Why in the minds of the administration is this
necessary? Historically, civil service has been a way of preventing
abuse on the part of the President and the executive branch, and I do
not see any relationship between national security and the war against
terrorism and workers' rights. There is absolutely no reason to suggest
that for national security reasons or because of the war against
terrorism that we have to eliminate or cut back on workers' rights. I
think what is really happening here is there is an ideological
opposition on the part of the President and the Republican Party to
collective bargaining, to union representation, to civil service.
It is very troublesome to think that is the case and that somehow
national security or the war against terrorism is being used by this
administration, the Republican leadership, as an excuse to work their
idealogical will against government employees. They should not do that.
They should not use this, so to speak, as the excuse to basically cut
back or eliminate workers' rights.
I know that there is a rush to pass this. Everyone says we have to
have this new department. It is certainly true that we do. But I do not
think that those of us who care about workers' rights, who care about
collective bargaining should simply say that is okay, that in the name
and in the rush to create this new department that somehow we should
eliminate workers' rights.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and opposition to the
underlying bill.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, this underlying legislation does not
cut back on workers' rights.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), a distinguished Member of this House who has been a pillar in
the construction of this historic legislation.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida (Mr.
Diaz-Balart) for yielding me time, and I appreciate the input he has
had in this legislation. I know he feels deeply about the need to
protect our homeland and our families. I appreciate his willingness to
take the management responsibility today on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we have before us a true consensus
bill. It is one that has been worked out by the Senate, worked out with
various interested parties. This bill passed the House of
Representatives, as my colleagues will recall, with more than a two to
one margin. I hope we would get additional support today so it will be
a strong bipartisan show of support for, indeed, moving forward with
the necessary new Department of Homeland Security to better protect us.
I do think it is necessary to respond briefly to the comments of my
colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). I was listening and he said it
destroys the rights to collectively bargain. That is not in here. That
may be another piece of legislation or maybe one that someone else has
told him about. I would urge him to read this legislation. In fact, it
guarantees the right to collectively bargain.
Under existing law, existing authority, the President of the United
States has the ability under his national security role to be able to
pull from individual collective bargaining, individual collective
bargaining units or agencies on the basis of national security. This is
something that President Kennedy put into effect through executive
order. President Carter signed a law to that effect. It has been in the
law ever since. Every President since Jimmy Carter has used it and used
it judiciously.
All that we do in this legislation is actually narrow that right. We
say under the Homeland Security Department the President cannot merely
find a national security interest is at stake. It has to be a
significant and adverse impact on homeland security. And we further say
the President has to notify this Congress 10 days prior to using any
such authority.
So I do not know where the gentleman gets this that we are taking
current law and making it in any sense worse for civil service or for
public employees. In fact, with regard to the President's national
security waiver, which is what I assume he is referring to, we narrow
it. The right to collectively bargain is explicitly listed in the
legislation before us as a guarantee under this department. In fact,
the union representation, which will be roughly one out of every three
employees or one out of every four employees in this new department
would be represented by a union, those union representatives will have
a seat at the table.
Although representing just one in four of these employees in this new
department, they are guaranteed to have a negotiating role, and this is
one of the changes we have made in the legislation over the last few
days, is that in fact if there are any disagreements with regard to the
necessary new personnel flexibilities that in fact it goes to the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for negotiation. If at the
end of that process they cannot agree, then, yes, the new personnel
practices will be put into place. But in the meantime Congress is
notified and you go through this process of negotiation.
[[Page H8593]]
I would just underline again that this was something that was
carefully thought out over time. The House passed it three and a half
months ago. It was bipartisan from the start. The gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter) has talked about it being a Democrat idea. It has
also been a Republican idea. It has been a bipartisan idea. And I would
applaud Senator Lieberman and others who pushed it so hard after the
tragedy of 9/11.
I would say the creation of this Department of Homeland Security may
be the most important thing we do in this Congress. Even though it
looks like it will finally happen in terms of enacting it during a lame
duck session, nothing is more important to us than protecting the
homeland.
I would strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support the good bill before us.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) very much for yielding me time.
I think it goes without saying that we all want a homeland security
bill. We want a good bill. Now, the bill before us today has been
characterized as a fair compromise. That is unfortunately not true. It
is a very flawed bill.
This bill allows the Department of Homeland Security to eliminate
collective bargaining rights for the agency's workforce and allows
managers a virtual carte blanche in rewriting civil service rules.
Why are collective bargaining rights important? Collective bargaining
is the negotiation between the employer and the labor union on wages,
hours, and working conditions. If employees do not feel secure that
they receive fair consideration for their employment concerns, one
cannot expect to produce a work environment that produces a feeling of
personal security for those employees. Let me state, without that
feeling of personal security we will have a loss of morale. We will not
get an excellent homeland security product from a workforce that does
not have a feeling of employment security.
How can granting employees the right to seek redress for resolving
labor disputes be interpreted as a threat to national security? The
bill allows significant discretionary tampering with respect to four
key areas of the civil service process: Pay, job classification,
adverse actions and performance appraisals, as well as collective
bargaining and employee appeals.
This discretionary tampering is left unchecked because it does not
allow unions to collectively bargain through binding negotiations over
any of the changes and agreements in these vital areas.
I have read this bill. This bill provides that the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service could attempt to mediate impasses. That may
sound good until you realize that this Mediation and Conciliation
Service has no binding authority. So basically they kind of give you a
pass-through but the Homeland Security Department retains the authority
to alter civil service rules unchecked after a 30-day waiting period.
In other words, this bill gives the Department of Homeland Security
managers unilateral authority to write their own rules on such
important civil service matters as pay, job classifications, firing,
and demotions without any involvement for oversight at all from
Congress for 5 years.
What is the harm? This allows an immense bureaucratic fiefdom to be
created in which managers can bestow favor on their cronies, punish
whistleblowers, remember the FBI agent who tried to warn us about
September 11, punish people who refuse to tow the political lines
without any check on this type of abuse. This bill would allow
Department of Homeland Security managers to eliminate collective
bargaining rights whenever employees are involved in national security
work. This is clearly too broad. Given the name of the new department,
Department of Homeland Security, such authority could easily be applied
to exempt more than 170,000 employees from belonging to unions.
Let me state, tens of thousands of employees can be transferred from
the Border Patrol, from the Customs Service, from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and from many other agencies that have chosen to
belong to Federal employee unions for decades, but they will be
performing the same work in the new agency that they performed in their
old agency. The only difference is the name of their agency.
Why then do these people suddenly become security risks because they
want to keep their civil service protections? Why would we remove the
collective bargaining rights from these people? This is supposed to be
a bill about fighting terrorism. Unfortunately, this bill puts the
administration at war with Federal employees, and that is not right. I
urge rejection of the underlying bill.
{time} 1345
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation means more than moving
boxes on an organization chart. For the first time, it provides real
authority to those we count on to protect our country and our
constituents. The Department of Homeland Security, with the Homeland
Security Council in the White House, will create and implement a
comprehensive homeland security strategy, a unified approach will
replace the ad hoc efforts now going on across agency and State lines.
The Nation and this Congress are strong in their support for a
Department of Homeland Security and a coordinated strategy, and I only
regret that this legislation was not completed months ago.
The legislation is not perfect, as we have heard, but neither was the
National Security Act, which created the Department of Defense in 1947.
Our national security organization has evolved and improved over time,
and so will our homeland security organization. The compromises in this
bill are not perfect either, as we have heard, but they are reasonable,
and they do make tremendous strides in protecting the security of every
neighborhood in America.
The legislation does more than reorganize. It includes the
information-sharing procedures I cosponsored with the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), which passed this House as H.R. 4598 by a vote
of 422-2.
It also recognizes that the cutting edge of security technologies
resides in the private sector, and includes a point of entry for
companies to interact with the Federal Government for procurement.
The legislation does not include an independent commission to
investigate 9/11, but I hope this Congress will soon pass the
intelligence authorization conference report for fiscal year 2003,
which includes such a commission.
I urge Members to support this homeland security legislation. Members
may disagree with certain provisions or with the process which has
brought it to the floor. But this bill, in the net, is the right thing
for the American people and can prove to be this Congress' lasting
legacy.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude before offering an amendment to the
resolution, I would simply state that this is a fair rule, as I stated
before, and it is a very important bill. The underlying legislation is
critically important.
I beg to disagree with the gentleman from Maryland who I believe did
not state the facts correctly with regard to the legislation before us.
The President currently has waiverability that he is getting in this
legislation for this very important new department in other
departments, and that power has been used very judiciously and wisely
in the past and has not been abused. I think that it is fair that the
President in something as important as the security of the homeland and
this new department have the power he has already with regard to other
departments, and that is what we are giving the President in this
legislation. I would simply urge my colleagues to support the
legislation.
Amendment In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart
Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.
[[Page H8594]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Diaz-Balart:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the bill (H.R. 5710) to establish the Department
of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. The bill shall
be considered as read for amendment. The amendment specified
in section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Select Committee on Homeland
Security; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of
this resolution is as follows:
Amend section 2(10)(B) so as to read:
``(B) an Indian Tribe or authorized tribal organization, or
in Alaska a Native Village or Alaska Regional Native
Corporation; and''
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, the amendment corrects language
currently in the bill which is inconsistent with the 1971 Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act. The amendment maintains the status quo and
ensures the future recognition of current Indian Tribes, tribal
organizations, Alaskan Native Villages and Alaska Native Regional
Corporations. Mr. Speaker, we are very cognizant of the historic nature
of the legislation before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart).
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 177, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 475]
YEAS--237
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--177
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
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
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Strickland
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Blagojevich
Condit
Farr
Hinchey
Hooley
Houghton
Hulshof
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Rangel
Roukema
Simmons
Stark
Stump
{time} 1415
Messrs. ROTHMAN, BERRY, ABERCROMBIE, CUMMINGS and TOWNS changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated Against:
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my
congressional office and missed rollcall vote No. 475. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________