[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H308-H312]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of
the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 18) making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of H.J. Res. 18 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 18
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 ``February
20, 2003''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of today, 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).
[[Page H309]]
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House, H.J. Res. 18, will
extend the current CR and allow the government to continue to operate
until February 20, 2003. I think all Members know that we are currently
working to conclude the conference agreement for an omnibus
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. It is our hope that we are
finally reaching a point in this process where we can look forward to
having a vote on that conference report.
It is our plan to meet in formal conference on Monday evening, to
conclude that conference as soon as possible, and to have this
conference report before the House either Tuesday or Wednesday. We do
hope to conclude fiscal year 2003 business. It has been a long time
coming. There have been a lot of reasons why the fiscal year 2003 bills
have not reached conclusion, but I will tell Members that the Committee
on Appropriations in the House reported all of our bills except two
which we introduced directly to the floor. I would stand in strong
support and commendation of the Committee on Appropriations on both
sides of the aisle because, as a committee, we did our job.
There were other obstacles placed in our path as we moved along the
process. Hopefully, we have overcome those, and we are now deciding how
to settle the differences between the House and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I think it might be interesting for Members to see this.
This is not a copy of the bill. This in small, fine print is merely a
copy of thousands of differences between the House and the Senate that
we have been working with diligently for the last couple of weeks. I
hope that we can expedite this process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is the eighth continuing resolution to come before
this body necessitated by the fact that we are now in the fifth month
of the new fiscal year and still do not have a budget. We have not
provided the funds that should be provided for homeland security. The
Congress has not provided the funds that should be provided for first
responders, for education, to deal with some Medicare and Medicaid
problems, and there are many other concerns as well associated with the
late action of the Congress on the appropriation bills.
None of that fault lies with the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations. He has tried his dead level best to bring
appropriations bills to the floor in a timely fashion. He has been shut
off by decisions made at a higher pay grade. At this point, this House
has no choice except to once again extend the continuing resolution.
But there are, nonetheless, some items which I think are necessary to
take action on because time is running out. The clock is running on a
number of crucial problems. For that reason, and I will take the time
to explain it now so I do not have to do it twice in the interest of
saving time. For that reason, at the appropriate time I will offer a
motion to recommit which instructs the Committee on Appropriations to
report back an amended version of the continuing resolution that adds
two urgent provisions related to payment rates for medical services to
Medicare patients.
The existing continuing resolution already contains several
provisions relating to entitlement benefits, including extensions of
the Transitional Assistance to Needy Families program, TANF, and the
transitional Medicaid benefits program. This motion simply adds two
more time-sensitive items relating to Medicare.
First, the motion calls for continuation of Medicare payment rates
for doctors at the current level, thereby suspending the 4.4 percent
cut now scheduled to take place on March 1.
There has already been a 5.4 percent cut in Medicare payments to
doctors that took effect in January, 2002. These payment cuts make it
difficult for doctors to meet their expenses and can only make it
harder for Medicare patients to find a doctor willing to treat them.
The problem is especially acute in rural areas which are already
suffering from shortages of doctors and other health care providers.
Second, the motion would take a first step toward redressing the
imbalances in the Medicare payments rate that right now puts rural
hospitals at a serious disadvantage. Under current law, hospitals in
large urban areas receive a base payment rate that is higher than the
rate for all other hospitals. The Medicare Payments Advisory Commission
has recommended eliminating this differential, noting that Medicare
operating margins for rural hospitals are now substantially lower than
for large urban hospitals. That just confirms what many of us have been
hearing back home, that most rural hospitals are facing serious
financial difficulty that jeopardizes their ability to provide quality
care.
This motion calls for raising base payment rates for rural and small
city hospitals up to the rate for large urban areas. These two
provisions are just first steps toward redressing imbalances in
Medicare payment rates. Congress needs to overhaul the faulty formulas
that led to the steep cuts in payment rates and to address a range of
issues that place rural areas and many States at a disadvantage. But to
gain time for the appropriate committees and the Congress to deal with
these broader issues, we need immediate fixes to the immediate problem.
That is what this motion seeks to do.
Both of these items in the motion are also included in the Senate-
passed omnibus appropriations package that is now in conference, the
conference to which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) just
referred. Hopefully, a conference agreement on that measure will be
finished quickly and with these items included. But we should also
include these measures in the continuing resolution as a backup, which
is what this motion would do.
Furthermore, adoption of this motion would also send a strong signal
to House conferees on the omnibus appropriations package and to the
House leadership regarding the sentiment of the House on the urgent
need to fix Medicare payment rates. Even though the 4.4 percent cut in
Medicare physician payments is just weeks away, the House has done
nothing effective to forestall that cut. The problem is urgent. The
House needs to act now. That is what this motion will attempt to do.
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
California (Mr. Stark).
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for bringing this bipartisan motion to recommit and giving us all
an opportunity to correct some technical problems in Medicare that both
parties have agreed to.
The physician payments were cut last year; and if nothing is done,
they will be cut again. There is absolute agreement between the
administration and those of us on the Subcommittee on Health of the
Committee on Ways and Means that that was an error in the calculation
formula and it must be fixed. There has been a great deal of
gamesmanship over this area, but I think it is time to take care of it.
The Senate in its omnibus funding bill increased the Medicare
payments for physicians and rural hospitals. This provision for
physicians is temporary but would be in effect for the rest of this
year.
{time} 1815
I do not normally favor, much less encourage, legislating Medicare
provisions in an appropriations bill; but it is clear that this is the
only way to get this done in a timely fashion. The Senate has passed
these provisions. And so it clearly need not hold up the CR. A few
hours ago, in a hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means, when
asked whether the President supports the Senate-passed physician fix,
OMB Director Daniels testified that he did. In fact, he said yesterday
that the President would support any number of measures to fix it.
I realize that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means may
not be happy with this, but the Committee on Ways and Means has looked
the other way when the leadership puts wage reclassifications and other
targeted Medicare provisions in appropriations bills. So I would hope
for those of you who come from rural districts, and we are only talking
about $250 million for rural hospitals, it is a provision that was
consistent with the nonpartisan adviser to the House,
[[Page H310]]
MedPAC, who recommended that we help these rural hospitals with this
small amount. It is consistent with the Health and Human Services
provision that we must change the physician reimbursement. It is not
permanent. It helps cure the problem for the remainder of this year.
I hope that all Members will take this opportunity to see this as a
carefully crafted way to help our physician community and to provide
for the rural hospitals this small amount that is needed. There is no
reason to oppose it. I know of no reasonable opposition. It has been
passed in the Senate overwhelmingly, I think unanimously; and it is
under the Republican leadership. With the White House supporting it,
with Health and Human Services supporting it, who could be against it?
I urge all my colleagues to accept the motion to recommit.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), well known for his objection
to short debates.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, knowing that we are not going to vote before
6:30 regardless of the situation, I thought I would put my suggestion
in about Medicare reimbursement. I see the chairman of the committee
here, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). There
is no person that has more concern about the hospitals than him. In my
latest campaign, all I heard from my hospitals, in a rural area, We
need more reimbursement. I know this is not the right vehicle. I know
the vehicle should be the Committee on Ways and Means. I understand
that. But these hospitals are bleeding. They are losing money. The
biggest employer in every single community that I have is the hospitals
and people related to the hospitals. If we do not do something, and I
do not have to tell the Members who are here on the floor, if we do not
do something, the doctors' reimbursement is going to go down 4.4
percent.
This will raise, not a lot, but it will raise the percentage that
rural hospitals get equal to the urban hospitals. There can be all
kinds of excuses why urban hospitals ought to get better reimbursement,
but their problem is, the facts of life, we are having a difficult time
in Pennsylvania, in my district in western Pennsylvania. Because of
malpractice, we are losing doctors. That has got nothing to do with
this bill, but the other thing is reimbursement for small hospitals. I
meet periodically, I would say every 6 months, with administrators from
hospitals. These instructions do not mean anything. It is like some of
the resolutions we pass. They do not mean a damn thing, and all of us
know they do not mean anything; but the point is we would send a
signal, hopefully, to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means
that we have got to do something about this.
A lot of times we passed instructions by unanimous vote and we went
into committee and we obviously had no jurisdiction; we did not do
anything about it. But here where this is so serious and so many
hospitals are suffering, we need to voice our concern about the
reimbursement in rural hospitals. I would hope that my good friend, the
chairman of the committee, would listen to us and when he comes into
his first meeting, one of the first things that he does in the
Committee on Ways and Means, and I hope he would join us today in
urging that something be done about this. I know, I voted a lot against
instructions, because I felt like we did not need to be instructed; but
in this particular case, I think it is so important that I would hope
that all the Members would join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
in passing this instruction to the conferees to do something about
Medicare.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, again, this continuing resolution merely extends the
date of the previous CR until February 20 to give us time to conclude
the conference meetings. For those who were not on the floor when I
made the point before, what I am holding in my hand here is not a copy
of the bill. It is a copy of the thousands of differences that we have
in this bill between the two bodies. We are closing in on this. We plan
to have the conference meeting on Monday evening. I would really not
like to interrupt the process that is ongoing now that looks like it
might give us a successful conclusion. So when we get to the issue of
the motion to recommit with instructions, I would hope that the
membership would understand that we are at that delicate stage now. We
are about to wrap up the fiscal year 2003 business. We are already
beginning the fiscal year 2004 process. Let us defeat the motion to
recommit with instructions.
I compliment my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Every one of his motions to instruct is really appetizing and they are
really inviting and they are really votes that you would like to cast;
and he works hard at developing these really good motions. I would make
a deal with him if we cannot conclude this by the 20th, then I think we
will give serious consideration to his next motion to instruct, but I
really feel confident that we are going to conclude this with this last
CR.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we defeat the motion to instruct and
that we pass the CR; and hopefully the next time Members see me here at
this microphone, I will be promoting a conference report that we will
all love to hate. I do not think any of us are going to like it, but it
will be a way to conclude the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered read for amendment, and pursuant
to the previous order of today, 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. Without the motion's adoption, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am.
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.
18) to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report the same back promptly with an amendment further
amending Section 101 of Public Law 107-229 to:
1. Maintain Medicare payment rates for physician services
at FY 2002 levels; and
2. Set the base amount for computing Medicare payments to
hospitals in small urban areas and rural areas equal to the
higher base amount applicable to hospitals in large urban
areas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the 5 minutes. I have already
explained the motion. Let me simply say I think the need for it is
self-evident. It is certainly obvious that small rural hospitals are in
a tough financial situation and need relief, and it is certainly
obvious that if the scheduled reduction in physician payments under
Medicare goes into effect that it will negatively affect many, many
Medicare patients.
I might not offer this amendment if I thought that the conference was
going more smoothly than it is, but certainly in a number of
subcommittees there are raging controversies yet to be resolved, and I
think under those circumstances it is important that we go on record in
support of this proposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Florida in opposition
to the motion to recommit?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to
the motion, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
Well, here we go again. I heard the gentleman from Wisconsin say that
he was opposed to the continuing resolution without the motion to
recommit added to it. If you read the motion to recommit very
carefully, it uses a word
[[Page H311]]
which, if that word is used and the motion to recommit passes, it will
kill the continuing resolution. I know one word sometimes does not mean
a lot. If you say ``I you'' and do not say ``love'' or ``hate,'' you
really do not get the meaning of what you are trying to say.
The word the gentleman from Wisconsin included in his motion to
recommit is ``promptly.'' What in the world is the difference between
``promptly'' or, let us choose another word, ``forthwith''? The
difference is the difference between ``I love you'' and ``I hate you.''
Why? Because if you include ``forthwith'' in the bill, it means it
would be immediately changed as the gentleman says he wants, it is
reported right back on the floor, and we go forward. If you include the
word ``promptly,'' it kills the bill.
So do not pay attention to anything that is said after the word
``promptly,'' because it does not mean anything. If you pass the motion
to recommit with ``promptly'' in it, it kills the measure.
Let us examine what he says he wants. He has picked two items out of
the motion to recommit. There are more provisions, you can imagine the
Senate could not limit itself to two provisions, that they would want
to try to legislate on an appropriations bill. They also said, Let's
help Home Health Services, $40 million. Let's put $492 million in for
bioterrorism. Let's put $120 million in for community access. Those are
not in here.
So if you really want to help folks, they should have put everything
in that the Senate did. The trouble is, it is all headed with
``promptly,'' which means it does not make any difference what you put
in here.
My friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, made an offer to my friend from Wisconsin about future
motions to recommit. I will give you a flat-out promise. If you will
change ``promptly'' to ``forthwith'' and if you will heed the advice of
our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and say,
Let's have malpractice reform, and you put that in your motion to
recommit, the House has passed it a number of times; the Senate will
not.
If we really wanted to make a difference, we would not stand up here
with a motion that kills the bill and say, This is what we want. Let us
get serious. Do we have to address problems in Medicare? Of course we
do. Do we have to do something about the flawed physicians formula? Of
course we do. Will we? Yes, we will.
What we should not be doing is holding out a false promise of part of
what the Senate wants to do under a motion to recommit, that if you
believe the promise is real and vote for the motion to recommit, you in
fact kill the continuing resolution.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
{time} 1830
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, tell me then, is the gentleman objecting to
the fact that the Republican chairman of the Committee on the Budget
and the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has asked
us to take this action?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the term ``promptly''
is in a motion to recommit, you kill the CR. You do not help it. You do
not nurture it. You do not defend positions that the Senate has placed
in the appropriations. You kill it.
If the gentleman had put ``forthwith,'' he would have been helping. I
cannot believe, based upon the time and experience the gentleman from
Wisconsin has had in this body, that he does not know that ``promptly''
kills it and ``forthwith'' helps it. That is the difference between ``I
love you'' and ``I hate you.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue to Iowa and
many States, but am I understanding the gentleman correctly? Not only
will it kill this bill but does it not also shut down the government?
So if I vote for this and it fails and the CR does not pass, it shuts
down the government and we do not get anything we want?
Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman is absolutely correct. It not only kills
the bill; it stops the government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate on the
motion to recommit has expired.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
passage and then on the question of adoption of H. Res. 51.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195,
nays 215, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 18]
YEAS--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
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
Payne
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
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--215
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
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
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
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
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
[[Page H312]]
McHugh
McInnis
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
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
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--24
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Costello
Cubin
DeGette
Doyle
Filner
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Jefferson
Lipinski
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Ose
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Sullivan
Tanner
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members
are advised that there are approximately 2 minutes remaining on this
vote.
{time} 1849
Messrs. TANCREDO, WALSH, CRENSHAW, LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida,
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN and Ms. DUNN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. MATSUI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 18, the Obey
motion to recommit with instructions, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 18, due to the arrival of my
first grandchild, Madeline, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 18, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
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.
____________________