[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H110-H120]
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 House Resolution 15, I 
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of H.J. Res. 1 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 1

       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 31, 
     2003''.
       Sec. 2. Public Law 107-229, as amended, is further amended 
     in section 120, by striking ``and December 1, 2002,'' and 
     inserting ``December 1, 2002, January 31, 2003, and February 
     1, 2003,''.
       Sec. 3. Section 613 of the Treasury and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 2002, is amended (1) by striking ``2001'' 
     and ``2002'' each place it appears and inserting ``2002'' and 
     ``2003'', respectively; and (2) in subsection (a)(1), as so 
     amended, by inserting ``(as if effect on September 30, 
     2002)'' after ``Act, 2002'' and after ``such section 613'': 
     Provided, That such section, as so amended, shall be 
     effective through September 30, 2003, notwithstanding section 
     107 of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 4. Public Law 107-229, as amended, is further amended 
     by striking section 137 and inserting the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 137. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     joint resolution, in addition to amounts made available in 
     section 101, and subject to sections 107(c) and 108, such 
     sums as may be necessary shall be available to the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission for the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     advance start-up expenses to the Public Company Accounting 
     Oversight Board pursuant to section 109(j) of the Sarbanes-
     Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-204).
       ``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, upon the collection of fees authorized in section 
     109(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-204), 
     the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board shall reimburse 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission for any Commission 
     appropriations advanced to the Board for start-up expenses 
     pursuant to section 109(j) of such Act or subsection (a) of 
     this section, so as to result in no net effect of such 
     advances on appropriations available to the Commission in 
     fiscal year 2003.''.
       Sec. 5. (a) Approval of Prospectus.--For proposes of 
     section 3307(a) of title 40, United States Code, the 
     prospectus of General Services Administration entitled 
     ``Prospectus--Lease, Department of Homeland Security, 
     Washington, DC Metropolitan Area'', prospectus number PDC-
     08W03, as submitted on December 24, 2002, is deemed approved 
     by the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Prohibition on Delegation.--The authority of the 
     General Services Administration to lease space under this 
     section may not be delegated to any other department or 
     agency.
       (c) Modifications.--Any modification to the prospectus 
     referred to in subsection (a) that is subject to approval 
     under section 3307 of title 40, United States Code, shall be 
     approved in accordance with the requirements of such section.
       Sec. 6. Section 126 of Public Law 107-229, as added by 
     Public Law 107-240, is amended to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 126. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     joint resolution, except section 107, the District of 
     Columbia may expend local funds for programs and activities 
     under the heading `District of Columbia Funds--Operating 
     Expenses' at the rate set forth for such programs and 
     activities in the revised financial plan and budget for the 
     District Government for fiscal year 2003 submitted to 
     Congress by the District of Columbia pursuant to section 138 
     of H.R. 5521 of the 107th Congress, as reported by the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 15, 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.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House, H.J. Res. 1, will 
extend the current continuing resolution to allow the government to 
continue to operate through January 31 of 2003. All of the ongoing 
programs and activities will be continued at current rates under the 
same terms and conditions as fiscal year 2002, with the exception of 
funding for programs included in the Defense and Military Construction 
appropriations bills for fiscal year 2003, which have already been 
enacted into law.
  In addition, all the provisions of the previous CRs remain in effect, 
with one exception: It deletes a provision relating to the rate of 
operations for the Federal-aid Highways Program that had been enacted 
as part of the third continuing resolution. Specifically, that CR 
established total obligations for the highway program while operating 
under continuing resolutions. Section 4 of this resolution deletes that 
provision, and Mr. Speaker, it does so with the concurrence of the 
transportation and infrastructure authorizing committee.
  I want everyone to understand this action is going to affect the 
budget. We have been advised by the Congressional Budget Office that it 
will score an additional $1.1 billion in outlays on an

[[Page H111]]

annualized basis against this continuing resolution as a result of that 
deletion. So we are upping the price, but this was an agreed 
arrangement. So that is what we are going to do.
  The CR also includes five new provisions. I will briefly explain what 
they are.
  Number 1, it will extend the authorities necessary to make 
entitlement payments to include the Child Nutrition Programs, the Food 
Stamps Program, Medicaid grants to States, payments to Medicare trust 
funds, Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs, veterans entitlements and 
supplemental security income payments through the month of February.
  Number 2, it will maintain the annual blue collar worker pay 
adjustment to be consistent with other Federal pay increases.
  Number 3, it will allow for funding for the Public Companies 
Accounting Oversight Board as established in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-204.
  Number 4, it will allow the District of Columbia to spend local funds 
at the revised budget levels for fiscal year 2003.
  Number 5, it will allow the Administrator of General Services to move 
forward on the GSA prospectus to lease space for the headquarters of 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. Speaker, we are beginning a new year and a new Congress. We need 
to get the business of the old Congress behind us. We will explain at a 
later date how we plan to do this, but this CR gives us time to put 
that plan into effect.
  I do not think this CR is controversial. I am not aware of any 
controversy. I urge the House to move this legislation to the Senate 
and then to the President so that there will be no question that the 
government will continue to operate smoothly and efficiently through 
January 31.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, what is happening here is that this is the first of two 
continuing resolutions which the House is going to endeavor to pass 
tonight. The first is simply a vehicle by which we keep the government 
open for the next 30 days or so, while the Congress at long last gets 
about the business of finishing what it should have done last year; 
namely, virtually all of the domestic appropriation bills.
  The second continuing resolution that will be voted on after this one 
will be an empty vehicle which is sent to the Senate, and the Senate 
will then use that as the carrying vehicle for the work that they do to 
put together all of the remaining appropriation bills.
  As I was saying, the Senate will then proceed to work its will on the 
remaining domestic appropriation bills. They will then put them 
together in one package in the second CR, which we will send over, and 
they will come back to the House for an up or down vote as a conference 
report. That effectively means that the House will have been shielded 
from any responsibility to take visible positions on virtually all of 
the issues involved in education, in health care, in the Labor 
Department programs, in housing programs, in science programs, foreign 
aid, you name it. That, I believe, is the purpose of this process.
  I do not happen to think that is a very healthy process but that is 
what the plan is. What that means is that tonight represented the only 
opportunity for Members of this body to speak to any of the issues that 
would be funded by this continuing resolution.
  Now, the rules of the House provide that if the Committee on 
Appropriations has not passed a new 302(b) allocation, allocating the 
total resources of the committee that are available to us to the 
various subcommittees, then the House is precluded from considering an 
appropriation bill. So last night the Committee on Rules waived that 
provision for the majority so that the majority is able to proceed with 
this process today, but they refused to waive it for the minority, 
which means that we cannot offer any significant or meaningful 
amendments to the continuing resolution.
  If we had not been denied that right, we wanted to offer a $5 billion 
package that essentially asked the House to, once again, approve 
matters which it approved in the supplemental last summer. Half of that 
would be the $2.5 billion that we provided for additional homeland 
security items, additional port protection, additional border 
protection, additional support to the FBI to modernize its computer 
system, additional translators and the like. All of that money has 
already been voted for by 90 percent of the Members of both parties in 
this House, but it has been effectively impounded by the President who 
declined to spend that $2.5 billion, thus leaving this country 
needlessly exposed on the homeland security front.
  The other $2 billion or so that we wanted to add represented other 
items that the House had already voted for: The $274 million which was 
badly needed for veterans medical care to clean up the backlog at 
veterans facilities; the $401 million which was necessary to provide 
aid to first responders, our police and our firemen at the local level; 
and $200 million to assist with anti-terrorist actions on the part of 
the State of Israel, for instance, all of that has been denied us 
because the House Committee on Rules essentially said that there should 
be one set of rules for the majority and another set of rules for the 
minority.
  Now, as I said earlier today on the floor, the purpose of rules in 
any venue is to see to it that all people are treated the same, and 
that is true whether you are talking about a San Francisco 49er and New 
York Giant football game or whether you are talking about actions on 
the floor of the House. We are supposed to have rules that apply 
equally to everybody, but thanks to the misguided and misbegotten 
action of the Committee on Rules that is not what we are going to have.
  So what that means is that this House, which is supposed to be the 
greatest deliberative body in the world, has been turned into something 
that much more clearly represents a Soviet Congress than it represents 
the embodiment of democratic representation.
  What this means is that a small group of insider Members in the 
Republican leadership have essentially decided ahead of time what the 
outcome should be on all of these appropriation bills, and now they 
have fixed the process so that there is no practical possibility 
whatsoever of changing in any way that desired outcome. That may be an 
effective use of power, but it is a fundamental corruption of the 
legislative process that goes to the heart of democratic government, 
and people who engage in that kind of conduct, in my view, should be 
ashamed of themselves.
  So what we are faced with is the necessity to try to use 
extraordinary means in order to try to gain some ability to define what 
actions we on this side of the aisle believe are in the best interests 
of the country. Mr. Speaker, I detest the idea of having to go after 
House traditions and normal House procedures. I do not like, for 
instance, to have to try to appeal the ruling of the Chair on matters, 
but when we are denied the legitimate exercise of our rights to define 
differences, which is supposed to be the subject of legislative debate, 
then we are left with no choice but to engage in extraordinary measures 
as a matter of protest.
  Now, we have not created this situation. The House Republican 
leadership and the House Committee on Rules has. I would urge them to 
reconsider.
  Yesterday, we heard all kinds of nice words about bipartisanship. The 
Speaker said that we should respect each other. We do not feel that 
much respect has been shown this institution when the normal processes 
of this institution are cut short for the partisan convenience of the 
party that happens to control this House.

                              {time}  1930

  So I wanted to explain why it is that we on this side of the aisle 
are unhappy and why we will be doing what we are doing tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. The gentleman

[[Page H112]]

from Wisconsin has given us an explanation with reference to what is 
transpiring.
  When I came to this body, I had no idea that I would have the 
privilege to serve on the Committee on Rules. When I was given that 
opportunity, it became the proudest moment in my limited congressional 
career. Last night, before we left here, I became rather distressed 
that the majority does not see fit to grant the minority privileges 
that the minority at another point in time argued that they should 
have, I remember very distinctly.
  I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. Certainly, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is a 
friend of mine, and I have immense respect for him, his fairness and 
his ability. But the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is not the 
person that is in control of the situation with reference to the rule. 
The chairman of the Committee on Rules also is a friend of mine, and I 
am not certain that he is in control of what is transpiring with 
reference to the rule.
  What is happening here is we are giving back-room deals new meaning. 
In essence, what my colleagues have done, if we were to take 10 people, 
as one Member of Congress here said today, she described it as though 
we had 10 people and my colleagues put a gag on four and a half of 
them, so that nearly one-half of America is being denied an opportunity 
to go forward and put ideas on the table for this body to work its 
will. That is not fair.
  Thus my colleagues will find that there are some of us who, different 
than the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) described when he said we 
are unhappy, some of us are outraged and plain mad about the 
circumstances we find ourselves in. In fact, what my colleagues are 
allowing with these two continuing resolutions is absolutely no debate 
of consequence with reference to matters of immense and enormous 
magnitude for the good of this country.
  Among the things that we say all the time, and on yesterday proudly 
all of us admired, as we do admire the Speaker of the House, when he 
cited certain portions of the Constitution that all of us know so well, 
among those things was to promote the general welfare. Well, we cannot 
promote the general welfare with dynamic scoring when we are hiding the 
deficit with creative math. We cannot promote the general welfare when 
we find ourselves taking ``Jefferson's Manual on Parliamentary 
Procedure'' and pitching it into the Potomac River.
  We did not have hearings last night. A train hit those of us in the 
minority in the Committee on Rules, and a train is hitting every member 
of the minority as well as the majority. My colleagues hurt themselves 
as much as they hurt us when they do not give us an opportunity to make 
an adequate presentation on matters of health, on matters of education, 
on matters of homeland security; and I could go on and on.
  Everybody knows what my colleagues did when they took over the House 
of Representatives, and they did it by arguing against what the 
Democrats did that was so wrong then: closed rules. Yet every time we 
look up, all we see is no opportunity for amendments, no opportunity 
for supplementals. Nothing in the way of decency is coming forward. I 
am outraged.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to 
say that I am not going to try to respond to all the political comments 
that are going to be made here this evening. I understand the minority 
is upset. They are upset because they are the minority, and I know 
about that. I served in this House for 24 years under their rule.
  And if my colleagues think what our party is doing tonight to manage 
the business of the House is something wrong, they should go back and 
look over the 40 years of their own rule. We had more closed rules, we 
had more autocratic management of this House, we had more weird crazy, 
creative schemes to get through the legislative process. And, yes, we 
complained, just like they are complaining tonight.
  But we have to get this job done. Come on. We are already beginning 
to get ready for our 2004 business. We need to get the 2003 business 
finished. Like I have suggested on other occasions, let us do our 
politicking somewhere else. Let us do the people's business here 
tonight. Let us get this CR out of here.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not objecting to this process tonight because we 
are unhappy we are in the minority. We are in the minority, and we 
expect to lose 99 percent of the votes around here. But we do not 
expect to have denied to us the opportunity to at least engage in the 
debate.
  My question is, what is the majority party afraid of? Our colleagues 
in the majority have the votes, and if they think we are wrong, outvote 
us. But the Committee on Rules has taken us beyond that. What the 
Committee on Rules has done is that they have said, ``Sorry, we are not 
going to even allow an opportunity to raise any of these questions.''
  Now, this issue came up in March of 1999 when the Republicans were 
also in control. The exact same situation arose. At that time the 
majority party did the right thing. The Republican Party waived the 
rule for the majority so that we could proceed, but they also waived 
the rule so that we could participate equally in the process. That is 
what the majority party should have done this time around. They should 
have followed their own earlier example.
  I would also say that, in effect, what is happening is that the 
minority party is being prevented from doing its job because the 
majority party neglected to pass a 302 allocation. We did not make the 
determination on this side that that would not happen; the majority 
party did. So the minority party is being penalized for the inaction of 
the majority party. That is quaint in any legislative body.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as a parent of two small children, I have 
been told that children pay more attention to what their parents do 
than what we say. Tonight, I hope the American people will use that 
commonsense principle in judging Congress. It is not what we say in our 
speeches that counts so much, but far more important to the American 
people is what we do.
  What has this Congress, what has this House done today? Basically, 
the Republican leadership has denied the minority an opportunity to 
present an amendment that would have added $275 million desperately 
needed in veterans health care. These particular dollars were focused 
to try to help those veterans who have such critical health care 
problems that they need specialist care. This $275 million was designed 
so that veterans who fought for our country so valiantly, so 
patriotically would not have to wait 6 months for a heart specialist or 
for some sort of very, very important care.
  I would imagine Republicans and Democrats alike on Veterans Day back 
home go make that speech, that it is wrong for veterans to have to wait 
6 months to get the care that they have earned and even fought for, 
even been wounded to earn. Yet when we have a chance to do something 
about it, the Committee on Rules, not through the leadership of either 
the chairmen or the subcommittee chairmen, who are valiant supporters 
of veterans health care, but through the actions of the Republican 
leadership in the House, despite all of our great words on Veterans Day 
and Memorial Day, all our respect for veterans, when we could do 
something about it tonight, when we could have helped veterans, what 
are our actions? We are prevented from even having a vote on helping to 
improve veterans health care in that desperately needed way.
  The Republican leadership does not hurt the Democrats when they deny 
us the right to such a vote, denying Republicans and Democrats the 
right to that vote. They hurt veterans. These are men and women who 
fought for this country, men and women who have been willing to die for 
this country.
  So I wish the Republican leadership would reconsider its ill-founded 
rule that denies not us but veterans the right to get better health 
care. Let the American people and let veterans know what we parents of 
small children

[[Page H113]]

know: it is what we do that counts, not what we say that counts.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me this time and congratulate my chairman, as always, for 
trying to do the best job he possibly can under the circumstances and 
the facts that he is dealing with.
  I do not speak in my capacity as whip but as I guess still the 
ranking member of the Treasury, Postal committee, or whatever capacity 
I am in, because we have not reconstituted that committee. Mr. Speaker, 
in the Treasury, Postal committee we included a number of dollars in 
the supplemental, which would be the subject of the amendment that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) speaks of and that we would like to 
offer and we think is critical.
  First of all, there was $400 million in there for the emergency first 
responders. That is a critical figure. All of us are for that. I do not 
think anybody is opposed to that. As a matter of fact, all of us were 
for all the dollars that were in this bill. We voted on it, passed it, 
and it was sequestered by the President. We believe that it is 
underminding homeland security not to move ahead with these finances at 
this point in time.
  And not only the $400 million for first responders, but I was at the 
White House today with the leadership and brought up the funding of the 
election reform bill. The election reform bill was the most significant 
bipartisan success that we had in the 107th Congress. The chairman was 
a very important part of passing that and committing ourselves to 
funding that election reform legislation to make sure that every 
American vote not only is cast but is counted accurately. There was 
$400 million in that bill for that objective.
  The President agreed today that we ought to fund that. Mitchell 
Daniels agreed we ought to fund it. I do not say they were for this 
particular amendment, but they believe that funding is appropriate 
funding. As a matter of fact, I am hopeful and believe that we will get 
a higher figure.
  In this amendment was $28.5 million for the Secret Service to support 
the increased cost to protective details and to implement provisions of 
the PATRIOT Act we passed to secure our homeland. But it needs funding. 
This $28.5 million would be in that request.
  In addition, there were $39 million for the Customs Service Container 
Security initiative. We have heard recently the vulnerability of our 
ports and the infrastructure in our ports to boats, ships coming into 
our ports that may be laden with explosives. Customs needs to have 
additional resources in order to check this. I do not think anybody 
disagrees with that proposition. However, it has languished unfunded.
  Mr. Speaker, because my time is short, let me mention also, and 
lastly, $16 million in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 
FLETC, located in Glynco, Georgia. All of us know as a result of the 
tragedy of 9-11 of the outrage that was committed against this country, 
that we have made a determination that we are going to upgrade the 
security of our homeland. One of the ways we are doing that is adding 
Federal security officers. We are adding them at our airports, we are 
adding them at our Federal buildings, we are adding them in other 
places in our Federal infrastructure. We need to train them.

                              {time}  1945

  This was not anticipated. The demands for the Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center have, therefore, been substantially increased. But we 
have not given them the resources to accomplish that training. In doing 
so, we undermine homeland security. What we are saying is we ought not 
to wait. We ought to act, and we ought to act now to protect the 
homeland security.
  It is very nice for us to pass bills and say we want to do this. But 
if we do not fund it, we cannot do it. We are going to be talking about 
that at the end of this month. I would hope to find a way to allow this 
amendment to be offered and that we could pass this amendment 
overwhelmingly because I believe the objectives are supported.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) was speaking 
directly to the issue of the CR and to the issue of the necessary 
funding, and especially for homeland security. The gentleman is 
correct. In the supplemental that we presented, we covered most of 
those items that the gentleman mentioned. The President chose not to 
release some of those funds, and that was the authority that the 
President had.
  What I would say to the gentleman is my support for those issues is 
no less today than when we did the supplemental. We are in a procedural 
situation today. We need to get the CR so we can extend past January 
11, which is the present CR, and we have to get the second CR which the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has mentioned so we can conclude 
our work of the 107th Congress.
  A lot of Members are congratulating each other in starting out the 
108th Congress. My comment to some of my colleagues is I am still 
trying to get out of the 107th Congress. That is what we need to do 
tonight. Let us finish the business of the 107th Congress, and then we 
will get on and take care of the issues that the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has so properly identified.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies, such as NASA.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership and 
also the distinguished ranking member for the gentleman's hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to debate all of these issues at 
the subcommittee level, at the full committee level, and in many cases 
on the floor. But all of these items have been debated.
  It has been stated that there has not been time for debate, but there 
has been. We have spent hours and hours and hours. We spent 2\1/2\ 
months in our subcommittee putting this very, very complex bill 
together, the VA-HUD bill. If we could move forward and pass this and 
then get to a point where we can pass all of the fiscal year 2003 
appropriations bills, that would be a good thing.
  There has been discussion about veterans. We have substantial 
increases in veterans' health care benefits in the 2003 bill. We cannot 
get to those until we pass this continuing resolution and send a bill 
to the Senate. We cannot make the increases in the housing accounts for 
the homeless, in housing for people with AIDS, in the section 8 
program, in the senior housing programs. We cannot get those funding 
measures to the department heads and the money to the department heads 
to implement those policies if we do not pass this bill.
  So there has been plenty of time to debate all of the policy issues. 
We are at a point where we need to bring closure to the 2003 year. I 
know I have and the other subcommittee chairmen have a lot of work to 
do. As soon as we complete on these 2003 bills, I will begin hearings 
for the Veterans Administration, for HUD, for NASA, for FEMA, for the 
EPA, for the National Science Foundation. There is a tremendous amount 
of work to be done, and every minute of every day, every hour that we 
delay here puts our decisions off for the future, and those are 
critical decisions.
  Advocates are coming to us, veterans are coming to us, people from 
the science community are coming to us and saying please get these 
bills done so we can begin to plan for next year's bills. If we work 
very closely with OMB and the House and the Senate work closely 
together, we will have a budget resolution to work with. That is what 
happened this year. The House did its job. We passed our budget 
resolution. The Senate did not. Had they passed a budget resolution, we 
could have worked out the differences and had a road map to work with. 
But we did not have that road map. That is why we are at this juncture.
  We need to get this work out of the way, get the bills passed, 
complete our work on 2003 and get a good solid budget resolution passed 
for 2004 and get these appropriations bills done. It is not that 
difficult. It is not rocket science, but we need to get last year's 
work out of the way first.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Florida

[[Page H114]]

(Mr. Young) has 9 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) has 21 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution 
which I think instead ought to be called this continuing saga of one 
budget's lonely effort to struggle into maturity is in part a 
continuing story of the majority's refusal to allow the corporate 
responsibility bill to go forward. There is some language in here 
finally that would allow the Public Company Accounting Board to get a 
couple million dollars in advance from the Treasury. That comes several 
months late after a couple of unsuccessful efforts that we made; 
finally the committee has done this.
  But on the committee point of funding the corporate responsibility 
bill known as the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, this continuing resolution 
continues to refuse to do that. When the President signed the bill with 
great fanfare months ago, it called for an authorization of $776 
million. This bill has in fact a lower figure than the original budget 
request as amended, and even if we throw in the pay parity, the 
appropriations level in this bill, as I last saw it, is more than $200 
million less than Sarbanes-Oxley called for. That is $540 million 
instead of $776 million.
  So the President signs the bill with great fanfare, and then refuses 
to fund it. The Securities and Exchange Commission was given a great 
number of new responsibilities, and none of them are effectively funded 
in this bill.
  The bill also will continue a situation in which public housing 
authorities are in crisis. Public housing authorities were told by the 
Republican Party that when they lost the money for the drug elimination 
program that had been a specific amount, $300 million, not to worry. 
When the majority eliminated the drug elimination program, quite 
surprisingly to me, which made funds available to housing authorities 
to combat drug abuses in the housing projects by hiring police and 
other ways, they were told that is okay, they could fund this out of 
their regular, ongoing operation.
  But this bill, this procedure, has shorted those housing authorities. 
So they, in the first place, lose the $300 million for the drug 
elimination program, and now they are given less money than they needed 
even without that $300 million, and already because of the stop and go 
and interruptions of the continuing resolution and some mistakes on the 
part of HUD, public housing authorities all over this country are going 
to be short of money. Elderly people are going to be looking for police 
protection and maintenance, and people are going to be looking for a 
whole range of basic protections and they will not be there because of 
the majority's handling of this matter.
  So with regards to both Sarbanes-Oxley and public housing, this bill 
is sorrily deficient.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, 
Postal and General Government.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is always good in exchanges like this that 
every once in a while we try to come back to reality and discuss what 
the topic for debate actually is.
  What we have under consideration is a continuing resolution so that 
the Federal Government can stay open through the end of January, so 
that people who are expecting some sort of Federal benefit, whether it 
be a Social Security check, whether it is the continuation of Medicare, 
whether it is the processing of their Veterans Administration 
disability claim, whatever it may be, we are here to talk about a 
resolution to enable the Federal Government to keep going through the 
end of January.
  We are in that situation because the kind of bickering that we are 
hearing from too many people on this floor was what predominated last 
year and kept us from adopting any permanent appropriations 
legislation.
  Some Members are saying we do not want to talk about keeping things 
going, we do not want to talk anything until we can solve all of the 
problems and put a lot of new issues on the table. I guess they want to 
go ahead and let the government shut down. If that is Members' desire, 
and what they really want to do is mask that desire through other 
verbiage that they are throwing at us, I wish they would be open about 
it.
  But the resolution under consideration is to allow continuing 
expenditures at predetermined, ordinary rates so until we can work out 
all these problems things do not come to a grinding halt. We are not 
going to be able to have time to work on the permanent solutions to the 
very funding problems that Members are complaining about unless we can 
get things like this through. When all of the time has to be devoted to 
temporary stopgap measures, that takes away from the time that we need 
to devote to permanent measures.
  The American people spoke last fall in the elections. They said they 
want us to be solvers. They want us to be working towards solutions, 
not bogging down in bickering and petty parliamentary complaints.
  Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that we need to adopt. It is 
responsible. I do not hear Members complaining about it, or the other 
side of the aisle saying we want to shut things down instead. But they 
do want to throw all sorts of barriers and roadblocks that will mean 
the current spending authority will expire, we will have a government 
shutdown.
  We are trying to be responsible, Mr. Speaker. We should pass this 
resolution tonight so we can then work together on the permanent 
solutions and the permanent appropriations bills that need to be 
adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I thank the leadership for 
bringing this up, and I urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) feels that we are unduly taxing 
his capacities by raising all of these complex issues. I did not think 
that the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accountability bill came as entirely 
a shock to Members on the other side of the aisle.
  We just heard that we are raising new issues. All we are asking for 
and all I mentioned was let us fund the Securities and Exchange 
Commission at the level this House and the rest of the government said 
was appropriate last August. It is not a complicated matter. I am not 
trying to raise new obstacles. The gentleman said this is just an 
ordinary bill.
  I thought there was a decision by the Congress and the President last 
summer that ordinary was not good enough for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, that we had to do some extraordinary things to 
combat abuses in the securities industry. So when I say that we should 
fund the level that we said we would fund, apparently for the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that is too complicated.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we wanted to bring some sort of information 
here because I was listening back in my office. In the CR under 
consideration today are two provisions providing the Securities and 
Exchange Commission with additional authorities and resources to 
protect investors. That is already in the CR. The second provision 
allows the SEC to fund the start-up expenses of the Public Company 
Accounting Oversight Board to begin to provide the additional necessary 
scrutiny in corporate accounting.
  There was also a bill put in earlier today, I believe it has been put 
in, which does the following: with regard to the fiscal year 2003 
Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts was referring to this, it includes $776 million for the 
Securities and Exchange Commission. That is the level that is 
authorized by the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. It is $209 million, I will tell 
the gentleman, above the President's request;

[[Page H115]]

and it is higher than the amount that was in the Senate bill.
  In addition to fully funding the SEC's pay parity cost, the funding 
will include an increase of $100 million for information technology 
initiatives such as enhanced automated analytical tools, an integrated 
document management system, a central data repository and various e-
government projects.
  It will also, I will tell the body so they feel very comfortable in 
voting for what the gentleman was talking about on the CR, the funding 
level will also provide for hundreds of additional accountants, 
attorneys and examiners to substantially increase oversight of auditors 
and audit services, enhance the commission's investigative and 
enforcement capability, improve disclosure of information to investors, 
and perform various other oversight duties. So that bill has been 
introduced and is in the hopper tonight.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman says it has been 
introduced, but it is not in this version here. It has been introduced 
for later adoption. It is not a number that is in this bill.
  Mr. WOLF. But it is introduced to be the subject of, and we are 
committed to those figures, to be the subject of the 2003 conference. 
We are actually higher with regard to that than what the Senate had. 
That is the subject of us going to conference. It is higher than what 
the administration asked for and also higher than what the Senate has.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Providing more money than this 
administration asked for for opposing corporate abuses is not a great 
thing. What the gentleman from Virginia has said is they have now 
introduced a bill to be acted on at some future date that will carry 
out the funding level of Sarbanes-Oxley. But the fact is that we are 
now in our sixth or seventh continuing resolution and we have not got 
it yet. I am pleased to know that a bill has been introduced, but it 
does not do anything for the SEC now. Why not simply in this version of 
the continuing resolution put that number in there? The bill passed in 
August. The President in August signed the bill and said, ``I'm 
improving corporate accountability.'' Several opportunities have gone 
by to actually fund it at that level, and the answer from the gentleman 
from Virginia is, ``Don't worry. Hope is on the way. The Lone Ranger is 
coming. We actually introduced the bill.'' I never heard of a bill 
being introduced that was immediately implemented.
  If, in fact, that is the right number, why not have it in this bill?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who has just 
become chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this continuing 
resolution, and I really want to thank Chairman Young for all the hard 
work that he has put into this process. I want to thank also the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on the minority side. It is not 
easy. I know. This may be one of the hardest jobs in the House that the 
chairman has and the ranking member, too. The continuing resolution is 
an essential bill, and obviously I strongly urge all my colleagues to 
support it. I do not think the appropriations process has ever been 
easy, and I think this particular situation is maybe one of the most 
difficult that we have ever had, at least in my understanding. All we 
can do is take the situation that we have and do the very best that we 
can. I believe that is exactly what we are going to do.
  The President has made it pretty clear, quite clear, that he will not 
sign any bills that push us over the discretionary level of $750.5 
billion. I believe we have to pay attention to that. We have to respect 
that. And I believe we will. The gulf between the spending levels 
between the two bodies has now been closed. I understand that we are 
now close to agreeing to new allocations for the fiscal year 2003 bills 
that have not been completed.
  As my colleagues will remember, this was one of the key problems last 
year as we attempted, as some attempted, rather, to throw fiscal 
discipline out the window. Not everybody may be happy, either, with the 
final allocations; but they are critical to move this process forward. 
Time is of the essence. We have to complete the fiscal year 2003 bills 
so we can properly focus on fiscal year 2004, which is why again we 
must pass this continuing resolution. Further delays run the risk of 
the Federal Government operating for an entire year under a continuing 
resolution. That is the alternative. What is it you want to do? If that 
is what you want as an alternative, that is the only thing that is out 
there. I do not think either side of the aisle will be satisfied with 
that outcome. The blame game is easy. By the way, if I were in the 
minority, I might be saying some of the same things that you are saying 
and doing some of the same things.
  But the hard work, by the way, is being done by Chairman Young and, 
yes, Ranking Member Obey to bring the fiscal year 2003, I am talking 
about 2003, by the way, and we should be talking about 2004, bring the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation bills to a successful resolution.
  I just say, let us pass this CR and let us get back to work. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a point of 
clarification?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear to the gentleman, if our 
amendment is passed, we are still substantially below the Republican 
budget resolution numbers. We do not exceed the amount dictated by the 
White House. We simply make sure that the money is used for homeland 
security, for the SEC, and for the other items that you have already 
voted for in the supplemental.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to 
provide for continuing appropriations for the United States Government 
through January 31 of this year with the exception, of course, of the 
Defense and Military Construction bills that we have already passed and 
have had enacted into law.
  Like a lot of my colleagues and certainly other members of the 
Committee on Appropriations, I have been frustrated that we were not 
able during the regular course of events last year and even into the 
beginning of the next fiscal year, but still during the course of the 
107th Congress, that we have found ourselves unable to complete work on 
the appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2003. And so we find 
ourselves here in the 108th Congress, a new Congress, a new body, new 
committees, new personnel, faced with still doing almost all of the 
appropriation bills for 2003. I am not into the blame game of pointing 
the fingers as to where the responsibility for this lies. I think that 
one can look at the political facts that caused us all, neither side, 
to want to complete the work during the calendar year 2002.
  And so we find ourselves here in 2003, at the beginning of a new 
Congress, a new calendar year, and in the second quarter of this fiscal 
year with the appropriation bills still unfinished. I have high hopes 
that the new Congress, the 108th Congress, can move speedily to 
complete this work. But it cannot be done unless we give authorization 
to the government to continue its work, all the agencies of the Federal 
Government that have appropriations to continue their work past this 
coming weekend and to the end of this month. While we are gone from 
Washington in the next couple of weeks, the Senate will be taking up 
these appropriation bills. The plan is that they will add them to our 
continuing resolution and we will have an opportunity to go to 
conference and discuss them there.
  Whatever one thinks of the process, I think one has to look at the 
end result, which is to try to get the appropriation bills done for 
2003 so that we can get into the regular appropriation bills for 2004, 
and I think all of us understand that there is going to be a 
supplemental appropriation bill as well coming up in the next couple of 
months to

[[Page H116]]

deal with the military and political crisis that we find ourselves 
dealing with in the Middle East and South Asia.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this body would support this 
continuing resolution, that we would adopt it, and that we would get on 
with the work of adopting the bills for 2003 before the end of this 
month and that we can do the regular work of fiscal year 2004 in the 
next year.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I take this time, Mr. Speaker, to explain to the House the amendment 
that I will shortly offer. That amendment will do essentially two 
things: it would provide an additional $308 million for the Securities 
and Exchange Commission to increase funding to the level agreed to in 
the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. Secondly, it would make available $5.1 billion 
in critical funding already agreed to by the House last year as 
contingent emergencies in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental. That money 
will pay for items such as helping to find, arrest and deport high-risk 
individuals who have disregarded the departure date on their visas. It 
would provide for increased security of U.S. nuclear weapons and 
nuclear materials at DOE weapons labs, money which the DOE has asked 
for. It would provide money for the Customs Container Security 
initiative suggested by the agency. It would provide $275 million for 
veterans health care, which this House has already approved on a 
contingent appropriation basis. It would provide $415 million for 
grants to State and local first responders, and a variety of other 
items which the House has already approved, but which the President has 
declined to release.
  As I told the House earlier today, right after the election I was 
watching McNeil-Lehrer. In their panel discussion, Tom Oliphant, the 
columnist, was asked what the role of the Democratic Party was going to 
be now that the Republican Party had all of the marbles in every 
institution. He said, ``Well, their obligation as the minority is to 
offer alternatives to what the majority proposes.'' That is exactly 
what we are trying to do. The problem with the rule that was adopted 
earlier is that it attempts to preclude us from meeting those 
responsibilities as a minority to offer constructive alternatives. In 
the process, it also denies the ability to hold either the majority or 
the minority accountable for the decisions they make. That is why we 
are attempting to move forward with this amendment.
  I would hope when the time comes that no point of order is lodged 
against the amendment so that we can, in fact, meet the obligations 
that we have in this House to be a real legislative body, not a Soviet-
style Congress where a few unknown individuals make decisions and then 
subvert the process in order to predetermine the outcome.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  I will be very brief just to say that it has been an interesting 
debate as usual. I appreciate the work that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I are able to do together because we do agree 
a lot. My position is we should pass this CR and get on with completing 
the work of the 107th Congress. There are a lot of good issues raised 
here today by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), by the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), by others, but those will be fixed, and I am 
as anxious as they are to get those fixes in place. I would like to 
pass this CR now. I would like to take up the second CR immediately, 
pass it now, and get on to finalizing the work of the 107th Congress by 
completing the appropriations process for that Congress because we are 
starting the process for the 108th Congress for fiscal year 2004.
  We anticipate the budget from the administration shortly. We will 
begin our hearings in our subcommittees shortly. We will have a budget 
resolution this year that we will begin then to mark up our bills and 
bring them to the floor, but let us get this behind us, let us get this 
off the table, get it off the desk, get it out of contention. Pass the 
CR and let us get on to the business of the 108th Congress.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, only one day into the new Congress and 
the Republican Leadership's procedures for advancing legislation are an 
outrage that purposefully seeks to limit meaningful debate. By stifling 
opportunities to present alternatives by either Democrats or 
Republicans, the House leadership is showing its unwillingness to 
legislate and its lack of fiscal responsibility.
  This morning we passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits 
for millions of Americans out of work. Unfortunately, due to the 
Republican leadership procedures, provisions could not be added to 
provide benefits to 1 million whose benefits have already expired.
  Now, with this Continuing Resolution, we are faced with a provision 
for the Department of Homeland Security that would allow the 
Administration to bypass a normal review by the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and win blanket approval on the House floor 
for its plan to lease up to 575,000 square feet at a cost of up to $250 
million. There are important security, infrastructure, and fiscal 
considerations left undiscussed by this approach.
  The Republican leadership is not just afraid of the Democratic 
proposals, but they are afraid of their own moderate members and the 
American public. Decision-making that leaves out normal congressional 
and committee processes is an attempt to remove democratic debate and 
public opinion from the table. This is a horrible way to begin the new 
Congress. The American public deserves better.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J. 
Res. 1, the continuing resolution to fund the Federal Government 
through January 31. It is an abomination that only two appropriations 
bills have been passed by this Congress--the Defense and Military 
Construction bills. We have essentially been operating without set 
spending levels for the Federal Government since the fiscal year began 
October 1.
  My priorities include funding for education, protecting Medicaid, and 
providing funds for HIV/AIDS in Africa. I understand the fiscal 
constraints, but I also realize that Federal agencies and our 
constituents need funding provided from the various appropriations 
bills.
  This resolution does extend entitlement payments including Food 
Stamps, Medicaid Grants to states and veterans' entitlements. The 
appropriations bills that fund these programs have not been passed. We 
simply cannot keep passing continuing resolutions with set spending 
levels. Congress is not living up to its responsibility as stated in 
the U.S. Constitution in Article 1.
  Congress must do its work. We have eleven appropriations bills that 
have yet to be passed by Congress and enacted into law. The Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill funds the Department of Education, the Department 
of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
  The Democratic priorities in education health care must be fully 
funded. Last year, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, but have yet 
to fund the bill at levels to ensure the adequacy of the measures 
contained in the education bill.
  I am concerned about the increasing spread of AIDS/HIV in Africa. I 
support funding for research in this area and getting the necessary 
medical supplies and medicine to combat this disease to Africa.
  Congress adjourned last year with much unfinished business. Passing 
the appropriations bills must be on our list of priorities. We cannot 
continue this uncertainty in the budget process. This is the sixth 
continuing resolution.
  The president will soon release his fiscal year 2004 budget and we 
have not yet passed eleven funding bills for fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). All time for debate has expired.
  The joint resolution is considered read for amendment, and pursuant 
to House Resolution 15, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the 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 joint 
resolution?
  Mr. OBEY. I think the Speaker can safely assume that, yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J. Res. 1 
     to a select committee consisting of Mr. Young of Florida and 
     Mr. Obey of Wisconsin with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendments:

[[Page H117]]

       Page 1, line 5, after ``2003'', insert the following:
       ``Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this joint resolution, $776,000,000 is available for the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, Salaries and expenses.''
       At the end of the joint resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 7. Public Law 107-229 is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 138. In addition to the amounts made available by 
     section 101, and subject to sections 107(c) and 108, amounts 
     made available in Public Law 107-206 only to the extent that 
     an official budget request is transmitted by the President 
     shall be considered available for obligation.''.

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion 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.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
motion to recommit because it violates section 302(c) of the 
Congressional Budget Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman care to argue further on 
his point of order?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Section 302(c) prohibits the 
consideration of any amendment that provides for new budget authority 
for a fiscal year until the Committee on Appropriations has made the 
suballocations required by section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget 
Act.
  This motion to recommit increases the amount of budget authority 
provided by the measure. The suballocations published by the Committee 
on Appropriations on October 10 of 2002 lapsed upon the adjournment of 
the 107th Congress, and no 302(b) suballocations have been made for the 
108th Congress. Hence I make the point of order that this motion to 
recommit violates section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Minnesota is asserting 
is that the minority should not be allowed to offer a legitimate 
amendment because the majority did not fulfill its responsibilities to 
abide by certain provisions of the Budget Act and by the timetable of 
that act. I find that highly objectionable especially since the 
Committee on Rules has already waived the requirement as far as the 
majority party is concerned. It seems to me that the House rules 
certainly ought to allow the minority the same privilege that the 
majority has arranged by rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 
is recognized.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, when we have points of 
order, they are important because they establish precedents, and for 
that reason I intend, if the Chair rules in favor of this point of 
order, to join in trying to overturn it because I cannot think of a 
more damaging precedent.
  What this does is to take advantage of the fact that the House did 
not complete the fiscal 2003 appropriations when it should have in the 
last calendar year. Thus we are now dealing with fiscal 2003 
appropriations in a Congress later than we should, not just a year 
later but in a Congress later than we should. Because it is a later 
Congress than it should be, the 302(b) allocations expired. Instead of 
routinely reenacting them, the majority waived the requirement for 
itself in a rule and did not waive it for any amendment; so the 
precedent being set will be as follows: Do not get the work done on 
time, let it go over until the next Congress months after it should 
have been done; then abstain from the routine act that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin mentioned, give yourself a waiver from your failure to 
act, and do not give it to anyone else. So the precedent is that if you 
delay the appropriations bills, you can bring them to the floor in an 
unamendable fashion, totally unamendable so that when we complain about 
the underfunding of the Securities Exchange Commission we are told do 
not despair, we have introduced a bill and one of these days we might 
even act on it. Nothing could be more damaging to the democratic fabric 
of this House.
  And I will say that I often, when an appeal to the Chair is made, 
will vote to uphold the Chair even when I disagree with the legislative 
consequence, but in this case we are not talking about a standing rule 
of the House. We are not talking about interfering with those rules 
that try to govern our deliberations. We are talking about objecting to 
a deliberate scheme to bring the appropriations for the entire 
government to the floor of the House in an absolutely unamendable 
fashion.
  The leadership on the other side used to boast, the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, about we always get a motion to recommit. This is a 
motion to recommit, an entirely germane motion to recommit on the 
substance that is being ruled out of order on this ground, and for that 
reason I hope the Chair will not sustain this degradation of democracy.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts is one of the experts when it comes to the rules of 
the House, and I commend him for that, but just to be technically 
correct with regard to his statement, it is not because we failed to do 
appropriation bills that the 302(b) allocations did not carry forward. 
It is because the Senate failed to produce a budget that the 302(b) 
allocation did not carry forward. Had a budget resolution been 
completed, the 302(b) allocations would have carried forward even 
though it was a new Congress.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and 
that is true. But it is also true that we could have in this House 
passed those appropriations bills without any action from any other 
body, and it is a fact in addition that we did not finish the work last 
year that put us in the situation which the majority takes advantage of 
by denying the House the chance to have even a germane recommit on the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would take this opportunity to 
remind those who are speaking to the point of order that their comments 
should be directed through the Chair.
  The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I support the point of order. The gentleman 
from Massachusetts is correct that certainly appropriation bills could 
have moved forward. We deemed the budget in order for that process to 
continue. There are many reasons why appropriation bills did not move 
forward, but the only fact I wanted to make clear for the Record and 
for the purpose of precedent setting, if there will be precedent 
setting this evening, is that in fact it was the failure of a budget to 
be produced by the Senate and not failure of appropriation bills to be 
produced that causes this extraordinary procedure to occur this 
evening. I hope this is not precedent setting because it is very 
unfortunate that in fact for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act 
was passed that the other body failed to produce a budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unless the gentleman from Minnesota desires 
to speak further on the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I will let the Chair rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) 
makes a point of order that the amendment proposed in the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) violates 
section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Section 302(c) 
precludes consideration after the Committee on Appropriations has 
received a section 302(a) allocation for a fiscal year of a measure 
within the committee's jurisdiction that provides new budget authority 
until the committee makes the suballocations required under section 
302(b).
  The amendment proposed in the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin provides new budget authority, and the Committee on 
Appropriations has not made the required section 302(b) suballocations, 
and as such, the motion to recommit violates section 302(c) of the 
Budget Act. The point of order is sustained, and the motion is not in 
order.

[[Page H118]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the 
decision of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                Motion to table Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) to lay the appeal on the 
table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 192, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     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
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Baird
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Cardin
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Hayworth
     Janklow
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Miller, Gary
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Payne
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Towns
     Weldon (PA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter) (during the vote). The Chair 
would advise Members of the House that there are 2 minutes remaining on 
the 15-minute clock.

                              {time}  2045

  Ms. BONO and Mr. ISSA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair was 
agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2045


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an alternative motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). Is the gentleman still opposed 
to the joint 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 joint resolution, H.J. Res. 
     1 to a select committee consisting of Mr. Young of Florida 
     and Mr. Obey of Wisconsin with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       (1) On page 3, line 8, of the joint resolution, strike 
     everything after ``December 24, 2002,'' to the end of the 
     section and insert the following ``shall require approval by 
     the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
     and a select committee of the House consisting of Mr. Young 
     of Alaska, Mr. LaTourette of Ohio and Mr. Oberstar of 
     Minnesota.
       (b) Prohibition on Delegation.--The authority of the 
     General Services Administration to lease space under this 
     section may not be delegated to any other department or 
     agency.''
       (2) At the end of the joint resolution, insert the 
     following section:
       ``Sec. 7.--Public Law 107-229 is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new sections:
       ``Sec. 138. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to implement section 1717 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 or the amendments to section 2133 of the 
     Public Health Service Act made by sections 1714, 1715 and 
     1716 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (other than to 
     process, adjudicate or pay claims for compensation under the 
     program established by subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public 
     Health Service Act).
       ``Sec. 139. None of the fund made available by this Act may 
     be obligated by the Secretary of Homeland Security in 
     violation of section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002, which for purposes of this section shall be applied (1) 
     by inserting immediately before the period in subsection (a) 
     `or with any direct or indirect subsidiary of such an entity' 
     and (2) by substituting the phrase `before, on or after the 
     date' for `after the date' in subsection (b)(1) of such 
     section 835.''.''

  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.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.

[[Page H119]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The House will be 
in order.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would do three things: 
It would modify the language in the Department of Homeland Security 
legislation to prevent existing corporations who moved offshore to 
avoid paying their fair share of taxes from getting government 
contracts from that agency. It would bring the bill back in line with 
the language this House voted to include by a vote of 318 to 110 on the 
motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) last July.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that over the next 10 
years corporate expatriates would cost us more than $4 billion in funds 
that could help pay for our Nation's security.
  The second point of this motion to recommit would be to suspend the 
operation of one of the most egregious provisions inserted into the 
Department of Homeland Security legislation at the last minute last 
year. That is a provision apparently designed to shield the giant 
drugmaker Eli Lilly & Company from lawsuits that have been brought by 
parents of autistic children claiming that their children's disease was 
caused by a vaccine preservative.
  There may be good reason to ultimately require claims of this type to 
be brought under the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, but 
if that is done, it should be done openly in the sunshine after proper 
hearings and deliberation, not in a back room deal at the last moment.
  Thirdly, this motion would restore the authority of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure to review the leasing of space for 
the new Department of Homeland Security, replacing the provision in the 
CR that simply approves the administration proposal without any 
congressional oversight or scrutiny whatsoever.
  We do not stop them from going forward, we simply say that they must 
follow the procedure of having some review by the committee of 
jurisdiction before they proceed to spend a great deal of taxpayers' 
money on leasing property which at this point has been reviewed and 
overseen by no one whatsoever in the Congress.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me.
  I just wanted to remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that in fact 
there were 318 people in this body last year who came together and we 
voted to end the practice of rewarding those corporations who take 
their corporations overseas just for the ostensible purpose of not 
paying their taxes, of avoiding their most basic responsibility. We 
said no, they can no longer do that and get rewarded with government 
contracts.
  Why? Why are we weakening the language that 318 or 319 people voted 
on? It is what we expect of American citizens, to pay their taxes every 
year. Why are we going to weaken this law with regard to these 
corporations? We have an opportunity tonight to right this wrong.
  When push came to shove, this House weakened its language. We put 
good corporate citizens at a permanent disadvantage by protecting these 
companies who have moved overseas to avoid their most basic 
responsibility, and tonight we have the opportunity to right that 
wrong. We will not be acting responsibly this evening if we in fact 
vote to allow a small number of people who, quite frankly, put aside 
their American responsibilities, at a time when this Nation in fact is 
ostensibly on its way to war, and allow them to do what we would not 
allow anyone else to do.
  We ought to right this wrong, we ought to vote for this motion to 
recommit, and live up to our responsibilities as the representatives of 
the good people of this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
rise in opposition to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I definitely rise in opposition to 
the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case, the 
motions of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) are creative and 
appealing, and address subjects that should be addressed.
  What I would ask the House to do is to reject the motion to recommit. 
Let us get on with the regular order of dealing with these issues in 
the regular order, which we expect to do in a very expeditious manner.
  At this point, because we do not want to make too many major 
decisions in the dark of night, as we hear so often, let us simply vote 
against this motion to recommit, pass the continuing resolution, deal 
with House Joint Resolution 1, and get out of here for tonight.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  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, if 
ordered, on the question of passage, and, after that, on the motion to 
suspend the rules and adopt House Resolution 10.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 220, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 11]

                               AYES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.

[[Page H120]]


     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Baird
     Ballance
     Cardin
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Hayworth
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Miller, Gary
     Nethercutt
     Payne
     Rush
     Towns
     Weldon (PA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter) (during the vote). The Chair 
would advise Members that there are 2 minutes left on the 15-minute 
clock.

                              {time}  2112

  Mrs. MALONEY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________