[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.''

                          ____________________