[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.

                          ____________________