Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 120 (Thursday, September 4, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 120 (Thursday, September 4, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7845-H7851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2989, TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 351

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2989) making appropriations for the
Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and independent
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived
except as follows: page 9, line 10, through line 15; page 12,
line 1, through page 13, line 2; page 14, line 16, through
page 15, line 2; page 17, line 6, through line 11; page 18,
line 3, through page 24, line 12; ``limited or'' on page 26,
line 9; page 27, line 14, through page 28, line 7; beginning
with ``Provided'' on page 28, line 19, through page 29, line
3; ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 31,
line 5; page 31, line 14, through line 21; page 31, line 24,
through page 32, line 17; ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of law'' on page 34, line 24; beginning with
``provided further'' on page 36, line 17, through page 37,
line 5; beginning with ``provided further'' on page 45, line
16, through line 23; ``Notwithstanding any other provision of
law'' on page 46, line 25; page 50, line 19, through
``project'' on page 51, line 4; beginning with
``Notwithstanding'' on page 51, line 12, through ``amended''
on line 13; page 53, line 3, through page 54, line 12;
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 54,
lines 13 and 14; page 72, line 22, through page 76; page 122,
line 4, through line 9; ``Notwithstanding any other provision
of law'' on page 126, lines 15 and 16; beginning with ``and
the prohibition'' on page 126, line 20, through
``2512(a)(1))'' on line 23. Where points of order are waived
against part of a paragraph or section, points of order
against a provision in another part of such paragraph or
section may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph or section. During consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 351 is an open rule that provides for
consideration of H.R. 2989, the Department of Transportation, Treasury,
and related agencies appropriations for fiscal year ending September
30, 2004. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill.
The rule also provides for one hour of general debate, to be equally
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that bill shall be
considered for amendment by paragraph. In addition, the rule waives
clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions
in an appropriations bill against provisions in the bill, except as
otherwise specified in the rule. Further, the rule authorizes the Chair
to accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their
amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides one
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first year that the Congress is considering
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and the Department
of Treasury along with Postal Service, the Executive Office of the
President and general government provisions in a single appropriations
bill. This change was necessary to make room for creation of a
subcommittee for the new Department of Homeland Security. The Committee
on Appropriations has worked diligently to combine these agencies and
produce legislation that meets the Nation's priorities in a multitude
of areas.
The bill provides $89.3 billion in total budgetary resources, which
is an increase of $2.7 billion above the current level. This funding
represents the firm commitment of this Congress to fund necessary
programs and projects across the Nation.
Total transportation funding in this bill is over $58 billion. This
funding, which is so important in my district and others throughout the
entire country, is significantly increased over current year spending.
From highways and transit programs to airports and Federal Aviation
Administration, the underlying legislation meets the needs of our
communities in previous years.
Some transportation programs have had guaranteed funding in
authorization acts. Even though such guarantees no longer apply to this
bill, the committee has provided at least a level of funding which was
guaranteed last year; in the case of highways and airports, even more.
The absence of these

[[Page H7846]]

guarantees means new choices in the allocation of funds by providing
the flexibility of fund programs that were not protected under the
previous guarantees but were equally important.
The underlying legislation also gives significant increases to the
Treasury Department, bringing their appropriation to over $11 billion.
Of those funds, $2.7 million is available for stronger agency
involvement in international affairs, including technical advisers for
rebuilding the currency, banking and financial systems in Iraq; $29.3
million is allocated for the new Office of Terrorist Financing and
Financial Crimes, and $5.3 million for IRS counterterrorism activities.
Additionally, funds are provided for the Office of Foreign Assets
Control and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to help fight money
laundering and track down terrorist financing.
All of these are important elements of the war on terrorism, and they
are funded at or above the administration's request, demonstrating our
pledge to keep America safe from terrorists and showing that national
security remains a top priority.
Many other agencies and programs that I have not outlined today are
also funded under this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member
of both the appropriations full committee and subcommittee for their
hard work on this difficult measure.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending the members of the
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies for
their hard work on this difficult bill. This subcommittee faced many
challenges, and with the help of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
they produced a bill for this House to consider today.
I especially want to thank and recognize my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the
subcommittee, for his leadership and his guidance in crafting this
bill.

{time} 1030

While our colleagues deserve praise for their work to improve this
bill, it still has serious problems. I am concerned about the removal
of the mandatory setaside for transportation enhancements. Funding for
Amtrak is half of what is needed to properly maintain and run this
system. This bill will make it harder, not easier, for low-income
families to receive the earned income tax credit. And despite pledges
made to protect the corporate expatriate language adopted by the full
committee, this rule allows this important provision to be removed from
the bill without a vote by the House.
Beginning with ISTEA in 1991 and continuing with TEA-21 in 1998, we
required that the communities receive the maximum benefit from
transportation investments. It is precisely because of mandated 10
percent setaside of surface transportation program funds that the
enhancement program has successfully leveraged State matching
contributions totalling almost $8.4 billion for 15,000 projects
spanning every part of this country. These funds have been used for
such worthwhile activities as the development of scenic bikeway and
pedestrian facilities, the preservation of abandoned railway corridors,
and the protection of historically significant transportation assets.
Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Massachusetts, more than $75 million
has been invested in a total of 228 community projects since 1992.
Sixty percent of that funding has been invested in devising a network
of bikeway and pedestrian trails which is rapidly becoming an important
part of our infrastructure. But section 114 of this bill would
eliminate the mandatory 10 percent setaside for transportation
enhancements that has made the program so widely popular and
tremendously successful. Furthermore, it undermines the national
transportation policy we reaffirmed in TEA-21 in order to allow States
to divert funding from small scale, locally selected projects to
massive transportation initiatives that do not have the same broad
community support.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) will offer an amendment to
strike this section from the bill, preserving the good policy set by
ISTEA and TEA-21. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this important amendment.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, also badly underfunds our national passenger
rail system. Amtrak's management has recently begun to stabilize its
finances, improve service, and increase ridership. Their reward for
that progress in this bill is to be given one-half, or $900 million, of
the $1.8 billion Amtrak needs to simply maintain existing operations.
One-half.
Although I am pleased that more than 40 percent of the $900 million
provided to Amtrak under this bill is designated by capital expenses
along the Northeast Corridor, we all need to take a more national
approach to Amtrak's funding. The money provided for Amtrak in this
bill is not only grossly insufficient; it is intended to bring Amtrak
to the brink of failure. That is wrong.
Once again, the subcommittee has included a provision that gives the
Secretary of Transportation the authority to arrange for an alternate
service provider for commuter rail service should Amtrak cease
operations. Mr. Speaker, that is not foresight. It is foreshadowing of
a disastrous transportation crisis for this country. By providing
Amtrak half of the funding it needs, this appropriations bill makes
such an event a self-fulfilling prophesy. Amtrak's management deserves
the opportunity to continue the progress it has made, and it deserves
the confidence and support of this institution.
More importantly, the American public deserves a first-rate national
intercity rail system to complement our aviation and highway systems. I
cannot believe we would walk away from the success of the
transportation enhancement program or retreat from the recent progress
we have made in setting Amtrak on the right course. This appropriations
bill, unfortunately, takes us backwards instead of forwards.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress strongly enough that although this is
technically an open rule, the opportunity to amend this bill is very
limited. The most substantive amendments brought before the Committee
on Rules last night required waivers, and as usual the Committee on
Rules did not grant any of those waivers.
House rules severely restrict the amendment process on all
appropriations bills. Therefore, even though the Committee on Rules
granted an open rule, one that technically does not restrict the
amendment process, by its nature the amendment process for
appropriations bills is still limited. For example, this rule does not
make in order a number of important amendments including one offered by
the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). That
amendment would have provided an additional $500 million above the $900
million currently in the bill for Amtrak.
This would give Amtrak sufficient funding to ensure solvency and to
begin to address the long-term capital needs that have been neglected
for so long. The amendment offsets the additional Amtrak funding by
reducing the tax cut that those earning $1 million or more would
receive in 2004 from $88,000 to $88,500 or by only $2,500.

This rule does not protect language currently in H.R. 2989 that would
prohibit the Treasury Department from contracting with expatriate
corporations, those companies which operate here in the United States
but set up shell corporations overseas for the expressed purpose of
avoiding their taxes. Amendments to allow both of these worthwhile
initiatives were defeated last night by the Committee on Rules
Republicans, I am sad to say.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me comment on two amendments regarding U.S.
policy towards Cuba. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and myself
and several of our colleagues

[[Page H7847]]

from the Cuba Working Group will offer a bipartisan amendment to
prohibit funds from being used to enforce restrictions on travel by
Americans to Cuba. Another bipartisan amendment will be offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) that will eliminate the cap on remittances to
Americans from Cuban households.
Each year for the past 3 years these amendments to end the ban on
travel have received overwhelming support by the Members of this House.
Last year it was approved by a vote of 262 to 167. The amendment to
lift the cap on remittances passed by a similar margin. The crackdown
on dissidents carried out earlier this year by the Cuban Government
demonstrated how completely ineffective U.S. policy over the past 40
years has been in protecting human rights in Cuba. Because of this,
many major human rights groups, including Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch, have called on the United States Government to end
the restrictions on Americans wanting to travel to Cuba. Most
importantly, the amendment affirms the basic right of all Americans to
travel freely.
Former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas said, ``Freedom of
movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. It
often makes all other rights meaningful.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support for the fourth year in a
row the Flake-McGovern amendment on ending the travel ban on the right
of Americans to travel to Cuba and support the Delahunt-Flake amendment
lifting the cap on remittances to Cuban family members living on the
island.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule, and there will be ample debate
throughout the day as we first have the debate on the appropriations
bill and then the opportunity for Members to submit amendments for
consideration throughout the day.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have just been told that this rule is an
open rule. That is an absolutely meaningless statement. What the
majority has done once again is to waive the rules of the House for the
majority product, but then refuse to waive those same rules for
amendments that the minority wishes to offer. In my view, that is a
gutless way to legislate. It is an unfair way to legislate. It does
discredit to this House and discredit to those who impose those kinds
of rules.
And to suggest that this is an open rule, implying, somehow implying
that this is business as usual, if this is business as usual, I think
the American public would hang their heads when they understand it.
I am against this bill. I am against the previous question on the
rule. I am against the rule itself. This bill is inadequate in a large
number of ways. It is a joke in terms of what it does to Amtrak. It
does not provide sufficient funding to keep Amtrak funded. And whether
some people like it or not, we need a national Amtrak system.
Secondly, it virtually guarantees that enhancement projects which
were a key in moving forward the transportation authorization bill the
last time it was on the floor have now been gutted. And that means that
municipalities are not going to have the opportunity for many of the
enhancements they have had in the past. I think that is a mistake.
You have a weird sense of priorities expressed in the EITC
precertification provision in this bill. The majority says, ``Oh, we
ought to spend $100 million on more IRS enforcement to go after the
poorest taxpayers in this society who take advantage of the EITC'',
when you could use that same $100 million and go after noncompliance by
large corporations and bring many times more dollars into the Treasury
than you ever will by the EITC provision.
This provision in this bill is not here to save the taxpayers money.
It is here for ideological reasons. The Republican majority for years
supported the earned income tax credit as an alternative to the minimum
wage increase. And now that there is no ``threat'' from a Republican
Congress on raising the minimum wage, now they go after the only tax
provision in the law to help the poorest taxpayers who ought to get a
minimum wage increase but do not get it.
We also have the issue of Cuba. I am very much in support of the
effort that the gentleman from Massachusetts will make because in my
view existing U.S. policy toward Cuba is stupid, capital letter stupid.
It is mindless, capital letter mindless. It is ineffective. All it does
is give that two-bit dictator Castro in Cuba an excuse to point to
somebody else for his island's troubles. Now, I do not mind . . . well,
I do mind because it is bad enough when we restrict the rights of
individual American citizens to travel where they want to travel, if it
is being done on behalf of a good policy; but I really do mind when it
is being done on behalf of a stupid policy. This policy is out-moded.
It has not worked. If it had worked, Castro would be long gone.
Again, what we have here is an ideologically driven policy. It is put
together by people who think with their spleen instead of their head.
It makes no sense whatsoever. The bill ought to be voted down. The rule
ought to be voted down. The previous question ought to be voted down
until this committee comes to its senses.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad it is an open rule that is going to
be considered by an amendment process that goes paragraph by paragraph
as is outlined here. And I also know, while I do not sit on
appropriations nor authorizing committees and just on the Committee on
Rules, that this particular one prohibits unauthorized or legislative
provisions in an appropriations bill against provisions in the bill
unless as specified before us today; and that as usual we recognize
those, the Chair or the speaker, according to the priority of
recognition of Members who have preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record to be heard. And it provides one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Amtrak is going to be a debate that we will continue. As a New
Yorker, I certainly watch that debate closely. But the Department of
Transportation has testified that Amtrak needs reform more than it
needs money. As a matter of fact, I believe that the witnesses, the
Chair, and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Treasury and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations
indicated that they also believe that money alone was not going to
solve Amtrak's problems. So my understanding is there is money there
and there may well be amendments later today that ask for consideration
of more or less.
When we look at the discussion of how much money and what categories
of programs, I suppose if there was unlimited money for transportation,
we could then unlimit the categories, whether you need roads or bridges
or bike paths. This legislation, while I wish there was more
transportation money for my district or my State or my region or the
country as a whole, has provided flexibility for the States in order to
make that tough decision. Do you need a bike path? Do you need a bridge
repair? Do you need roads reconstructed or constructed due to growth?
So some of that flexibility with the money we have gives States the
ability to make those tough decisions.
I listened carefully on the earned income tax credits as our
colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations talked
about it, but while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue
that $105 million in IRS for precertification of the EITC applicants
should be stricken, I just want to make the record known that every
other welfare program has a precertification, except the EITC.

{time} 1045

EITC automatically sends checks, and only after they begin to look at
the eligibility. So I am not sure how the system should work, and I
will leave that to the administration, but it is not as if this is
singled out.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7848]]

Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I did not say that that provision should be stricken. What I said is
that if you want to make money for the taxpayers, you can haul in a lot
more money to the Treasury by using that same hundred million dollars
to go after people with real bucks in their pockets, the large size
corporations in this country. What you will collect on this, if you do
indeed have scarce dollars, it seems to me you ought to put them where
you get the biggest bang for a buck.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for clarifying the
record.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to respond to the gentleman from New York on the issue of
Amtrak. The fact of the matter is that Amtrak's management has recently
begun to stabilize its finances and improve its service and increase
its ridership, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, their reward
for their progress in this bill is to be given one-half of what they
need to maintain existing operations.
If the gentleman does not want to support Amtrak, he does not want to
give Amtrak the money that they need to support their existing
operations, then that is his right and he can vote no on such an
amendment; but the Committee on Rules last night specifically denied
the right of my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) to offer his
amendment which would have corrected this shortfall, and I think that
is one of the concerns that we have about this rule.
Why this rule truly is not open is because a lot of meaningful
amendments to address some very serious issues were denied last night
by the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I had an
amendment which I had asked the Committee on Rules to allow but was not
made in order under the rule. That amendment would have added $500
million to the bill for Amtrak, bringing their total funding for fiscal
year 2004 to $1.4 billion, still $400 million less than Amtrak has
indicated that they need to begin to make a dent in the severe deferred
maintenance and inadequate capital investments that have been plaguing
them for years.
The amendment would have allowed them to begin to make an inroad in
those deferred maintenance and capital investment deferences that have
plagued them, as I have indicated.
My amendment would have done this by reducing the average tax cut for
those earning $1 million or more of taxable income from an average of
$88,000 to an average of $85,500 or about, on average, $2,500 per
person. This amendment should have been made in order if this Congress
believes in a national passenger rail system. And I would just point
out that for persons who are just reaching that threshold of what
sounds like a very large number of $1 million of taxable income, for
persons just reaching that threshold, that would have required a
reduction of less than $1,000 in their tax cut.
The bill before us provides only $900 million in fiscal 2004 for
Amtrak and, if enacted, will strangle passenger rail service in the
United States. No large private or public intercity passenger rail
system in the world has been profitable or been able to survive without
substantial public subsidy. When national governments no longer want to
support intercity rail service, the rail service disappears. The lesson
is clear. Passenger railways cannot operate without government support.
Over the last 5 years, Amtrak has received an average of $1.1 billion
per year, and this reduction in that level of funding has caused Amtrak
to defer important capital improvements to the point of danger to the
public safety of users.
Amtrak has a $3.8 billion backlog on infrastructure, $1.1 billion
backlog for fleet, and $9 million backlog for stations and facilities.
Without an adequate capital budget we will be playing Russian roulette
with the operability of Amtrak and the safety of its passengers.
We must continue to work to provide Amtrak the money it needs to run
a safe and national railway system. So because my amendment to provide
that necessary funding for the national rail passenger system has not
been made in order, I am urging a no vote on the rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my fellow Members to
oppose the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times in our Nation. We are fighting
terrorism on numerous fronts. Our economy is in serious trouble,
unemployment is at record-high levels, and our future budget deficits
are predicted to be the highest in the history of this great Nation.
Now is not the time for Members of Congress to be voting themselves a
pay raise. We need to show the American people that we are willing to
make sacrifices. We need to budget, live within our means and make
careful spending decisions based on our most pressing priorities.
Mr. Speaker, let us send a signal to the American people that we
recognize their struggle in today's economy. Vote no on the previous
question so we can have an opportunity to block the automatic cost-of-
living adjustment to Members of Congress. Regardless of how Members
feel about this issue, they should all be willing to make their
position public and on the record.
A no vote will allow Members to vote up or down on the COLA. If the
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule.
My amendment will block the fiscal year 2004 automatic cost-of-living
pay raise for Members of Congress. Because this amendment requires a
waiver, the only way to get to this issue is to defeat the previous
question.
Therefore, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I will be very brief and not take 2 minutes, but I want to bring to
the attention, particularly of the Members on my side, I will be voting
for the previous question. This is a procedure we have followed in the
past. It is an honest, in-the-daylight procedure.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) raises his point. He has
raised it in the past. I would urge Members to vote for the previous
question.
Then I think on our side we are very concerned about the rule itself,
and many of us will not be supporting the rule, but I would urge my
Members on this side to vote for the previous question.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, but I
reserve the balance of my time until my colleague is prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just close by urging my colleagues to vote no on this rule.
The majority says we have an open rule, but as my colleagues have heard
in this debate this morning, a number of very important, substantive
amendments have not been made in order.
The amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has
offered that would address this shortfall in funding for Amtrak was not
allowed by the Committee on Rules last night. This is our only
opportunity to fix this very, very serious issue. The Amtrak funding in
this bill is half of what is necessary to maintain existing services
and operations, and it is simply inadequate.
In addition, this rule does not protect language in this bill that
would prohibit the Treasury Department from contracting with expatriate
corporations. Again, these are these companies which operate here in
the United States but set up shell corporations overseas for the
express purpose of avoiding their taxes. We are at war. We have a
difficult economy. American citizens are being asked to sacrifice,

[[Page H7849]]

and yet we are going to protect companies that set up these P.O. boxes
in places like Bermuda to avoid paying taxes and to allow them to
continue to receive U.S. Government contracts. It is unconscionable
that we would try to protect those corporations.
I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am sure the underlying bill before us today was an arduous
undertaking. It represents funding for the Department of
Transportation, Department of Treasury, including the IRS, the General
Services Administration, the United States Postal Service, the Office
of Management and Budget, the White House, Office of Personnel
Management, among others. It is a brand new subcommittee that was put
together by this House.
It is a fair and balanced bill that seeks to continue programs that
are working and reform those that are not. By substantially increasing
many areas of the bill and maintaining funding in others, this Congress
has once again lived up to its commitment to our communities.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and a ``yes'' vote on
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MATHESON. 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 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 adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 173, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 463]

YEAS--240

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Baca
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Eshoo
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schrock
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Stark
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Towns
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)

NAYS--173

Alexander
Allen
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boozman
Boswell
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Costello
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Deutsch
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gingrey
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Hill
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
Kleczka
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Maloney
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McIntyre
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Obey
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wu

NOT VOTING--21

Andrews
Burton (IN)
DeGette
DeMint
Dooley (CA)
Engel
Gephardt
Graves
Hyde
Janklow
John
Kucinich
Payne
Pickering
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). The Clerk
advises that the wall display for the electronic voting system is not
displaying lights in one column. The Chair would ask Members in the
fourth column of names to verify their votes at a voting station before
the Chair announces the results of the vote.
Once again, the wall display for the electronic voting system is not
displaying lights in one column. The Chair would ask Members in the
fourth column of names to verify their votes at a voting station before
the Chair announces the results of the vote.

{time} 1132

Messrs. ROGERS of Michigan, DEAL of Georgia, BISHOP of Utah, NORWOOD,
LaHOOD, FRANKS of Arizona, KELLER, GERLACH, BURNS, DUNCAN, PORTER,
ENGLISH, FLAKE, NEUGEBAUER, PLATTS, HOLT, MURPHY, CHABOT, DEUTSCH,
ROYCE, FORD, SPRATT, SHAYS, TIAHRT, STEARNS, PEARCE, KLECZKA,
HOSTETTLER, MILLER of North Carolina, FOLEY, MICA, HAYES, TERRY,
SHUSTER, GIBBONS, COBLE, LEWIS of Kentucky, PETERSON of Pennsylvania,
RENZI, WELDON of Florida, BURR, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Ms.
HARRIS, Ms. KAPTUR and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. SHERMAN, BALLANCE, DICKS, BILIRAKIS, MEEHAN, MATSUI,
JEFFERSON, BERMAN, DAVIS of Illinois, OWENS, BOYD, PASTOR, BOUCHER,
Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs. BONO, Ms. MAJETTE and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I inadvertently voted
``yea'' on rollcall vote 463,

[[Page H7850]]

ordering the previous question for H. Res. 351, Providing for
Consideration of H.R. 2989, Departments of Transportation and Treasury
Appropriations Act of 2004.
I ask that, even though the record cannot reflect this statement, you
consider me opposed to the automatic pay increases that may result from
passage of this provision, by a vote of 240-173, this morning.
In the 106th and 107th Congresses, I was one of a handful of
Representatives to cosponsor legislation to eliminate these automatic
pay adjustments for Members of Congress. My voting record over the past
seven years reflects my strong opposition to automatic cost-of-living
adjustments for Members of Congress.
A ``nay'' vote would have best reflected my opposition to automatic
pay adjustments. I apologize for the way in which this inadvertent vote
may have misled you to believe I am in favor of such an automatic pay
increase.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 178, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 464]

AYES--235

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Clay
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
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
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Watson
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--178

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chabot
Clyburn
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
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
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wu

NOT VOTING--21

Andrews
Burton (IN)
DeGette
DeMint
Dooley (CA)
Engel
Gephardt
Graves
Hyde
Janklow
John
Kucinich
Payne
Pickering
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair would once again
remind Members in the fourth column to check their votes on the voting
machine. The voting machine is working correctly, but the display is
not displaying those names. Members should independently verify their
votes on a voting station.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1143

Mr. WAMP changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. OBEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the last vote.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) to table the motion to
reconsider offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 465]

AYES--205

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook

[[Page H7851]]

Jenkins
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--180

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--49

Andrews
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berman
Boehner
Burton (IN)
Camp
Carter
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeMint
Dooley (CA)
Emerson
Engel
Fattah
Gephardt
Graves
Greenwood
Hinchey
Houghton
Hyde
Janklow
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kucinich
LaTourette
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, George
Myrick
Nadler
Norwood
Pascrell
Payne
Pickering
Pombo
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Souder
Stark
Van Hollen
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1201

Messrs. COBLE, DICKS, FRANK of Massachusetts, RUSH, SPRATT, Ms.
WATERS, and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. LEWIS of California, SAXTON, TANCREDO, THOMAS, and WALDEN of
Oregon changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on September 4, 2003, this Member
unavoidably missed rollcall vote No. 465. Because this was a 5-minute
vote, in contrast to the normal practice of 15 minutes employed on the
floor when votes are not predicted, this Member returned to Committee
and was unaware that the normal practice was not pursued. Several other
Members were in the same position. Had this Member been present, this
Member would have voted ``aye'' on this procedural vote to table the
motion to reconsider the previous vote.

____________________