[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 132 (Wednesday, September 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8802-H8815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2657, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2004
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the
House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2657) making
appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report
is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
September 18, 2003 at page H 8385.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston)
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the legislative branch
appropriations
[[Page H8803]]
conference report for fiscal year 2004 to the House for consideration.
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), ranking
member, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) on the committee for their work in putting
together what I think is a fairly good and balanced bipartisan package.
I also have to thank all the staff, Democrat and Republican staffers,
for the many hours of hard work and overtime and the countless
questions that they had to answer during this process.
Again, I think the bill came to a fairly good conclusion and,
excluding the Senate items and the Capitol visitor center, the bill
provides no increase above fiscal year 2003; and I think that is very
important when we consider the deficit situation that we are in, that
the legislative branch, and that would be the campus here with the
offices of Congress, the Capitol Hill Police, the Government Printing
Office, the Library of Congress, all of this is somewhat in line with
last year; and I wish that more of our appropriation measures were that
way.
Unfortunately, our friends in the other body, the Senate, they do not
quite stick to the fiscal restraint that we do in the House, and they
did overspend. We negotiated a lot of this back, which I was glad
about; but unfortunately they still bumped up the spending a little bit
more than we wanted to, and with the Senate items and the Capitol
visitor center, they increased what originally left the House a little
bit below last year, 1 percent below. They put it at $87 million above,
but it is 2.5 percent above fiscal year 2003; and again unfortunately
for Washington that is still an achievement. I wish it could be a lot
less than that. But we are fighting to make sure that we are spending
the taxpayers' money the way we would spend our own money.
In terms of the levels, I want to say that the staff on the
legislative branch, which does work very hard, long hours, and many
people do not realize it, in Congress and in Washington we tend to
broad-brush every employee up here as a bureaucrat, but in fact there
are a lot of entrepreneurial hard-working government employees; and I
am glad to say that they will be getting their full 3.7 percent COLA
and other related cost increase; so we are trying to look after our
employees, which I think is very important.
I also want to note that although no increase was provided for sworn
personnel at the United States Capitol Police, we have provided for 75
new civilian positions to address administration, financial, and legal
personnel needs. Because of the 75 new civilian positions, this will
allow 30 officers who are sworn officers to return to regular police
functions and relieve them from civilian administrative functions.
It is important for our colleagues to understand that if the Capitol
Police strategic plan and associated staffing plan are completed and
approved by the House and the Senate, there is ample funding for
emergency response to fund and hire additional sworn positions, but we
want to be sure that that is merited. One of the things that is
important is that the County of Fairfax, Virginia, has about 1,800
officers. Capitol Hill Police, the request actually was above 1,700,
and we just have to balance it. We do not want the Capitol campus to
become a police state. I already have Members asking me about the
police officers standing on the top of the steps of the Capitol with
machine guns in their hands, what kind of signal does that send to
school kids who come here to see their Capitol building? And it is
something that I hope as we move away from the shadow of 9/11 and as we
continue to win the war against terrorism that we can readdress some of
these things and make this again a more porous and a more open campus
because this is the people's House and that should not just be a
slogan. It should be something that means that the doors are open.
We on a bipartisan basis, though, are very gungho about the Capitol
Hill Police and all the good work that they do to protect us in all the
oddball situations that we may get into.
[[Page H8804]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.229
[[Page H8805]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.230
[[Page H8806]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.231
[[Page H8807]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.232
[[Page H8808]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.233
[[Page H8809]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8\1/2\ minutes.
I rise, regretfully, to say that I have a problem with this
legislation. But my issue is not with title I or title II of the
conference agreement, the legislative branch appropriations bill. I do
not have any problem with that appropriations billing. It is actually a
good bipartisan bill and a final conference agreement. In fact, the
conference agreement went very quickly, as did the markup on the bill
itself, done in a bipartisan manner. My problem is with the third title
of the bill which provides additional supplemental funds for wildland
fires, NASA's Columbia Space Shuttle disaster, and emergency natural
disaster assistance. But I agree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston) that the legislative branch titles are worthy of bipartisan
support. The third title, though, should be sent back to conference.
While the discretionary caps made the legislative branch
appropriation bill tight, the chairman and the subcommittee acted
appropriately with the funds that we had available. We are just $87
million above last year's funding level. The legislative branch
agencies and offices will be able to support and improve the operations
of the legislative body. The agreement does not shortchange our
security needs. It provides tight but sufficient amounts for Members'
offices and legislative branch agencies. Sufficient funds have been
provided to cover all mandatory expenditures, and the budget assumes a
full 3.7 percent COLA increase.
The architect will have the funds to complete the visitors center,
but with greater oversight and accountability. The bill also supports
and respects the men and women in law enforcement who serve on the
Capitol Police force. I know that they have toiled under very stressful
and difficult circumstances. At the same time, we all need to live
within the constraints of our allocation. Since the terrible events of
September 11, the Capitol Police have seen their manpower grow by 37
percent. In this bill, the police have funds to hire an additional 75
new civilian positions. Upon completion of a strategic plan and
committee approval, additional sworn officers may also be hired. In
this agreement the current complement of officers will receive full
funding for overtime pay for the Capitol Police. The COLA increase, the
longevity differential, the special training, the specialty pay, and
the other recruitment and retention incentives are all preserved and
fully funded in this bill. The employees and the agencies that work for
us are essential if we want this great experiment in democracy to
perform well.
Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement before us today is a sound and
responsible measure. When we concluded the conference last Wednesday,
September 17, we had a good agreement.
{time} 1330
Hurricane Isabel changed that. The funds the agreement provides in
Title III, the emergency supplemental funds for disaster assistance,
are insufficient.
On this issue, I have to elaborate further. Just a few days ago, we
had a very damaging hurricane, Hurricane Isabel it was called. Tragedy
struck. Lives were lost, thousands of homes were damaged, businesses
ruined, and daily conveniences and routines were greatly disrupted.
Seven days later thousands of families and hundreds of businesses are
still without power.
My hat goes off to the local fire, police, and emergency response
crews that have responded in every way possible. It goes to the Red
Cross, the thousands of volunteers, and to all the great neighbors who
lent a hand clearing debris, cooking meals, and providing shelter.
I also want to express my appreciation to the people at FEMA, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. They and the Small Business
Administration have put in long hours responding to urgent needs. I met
those Federal officials firsthand. We have toured the businesses and
homes. We have talked about the local residents. I know that many of my
colleagues have done the same who were also very adversely affected by
Hurricane Isabel.
There are some real tragedies out there, but everyone is doing their
part and then some; that is, with the exception of the Congress if we
do not provide sufficient funds.
The conference agreement that is now before us fails to provide an
appropriate or adequate amount of money to replenish the disaster
assistance fund. So far this year there have been 62 disaster and
emergency declarations.
In its supplemental request the White House stated that this has been
the most costly and deadly tornado season in years. And the National
Weather Service hurricane outlook suggests that disaster costs for the
hurricane season we just entered could be much higher than anticipated.
We now know that the disaster costs for the hurricane season are
higher than the Bush administration anticipated. For fiscal year 2003,
which is going to conclude in a few days, the Congress originally
appropriated $776 million for disaster relief. The President released
another $500 million in emergency funding that was appropriated in
fiscal year 2002, and the Congress appropriated another $983 million in
the August supplemental. So a total of $2\1/4\ billion has been
provided for disaster relief this year.
Historical obligations, though, for the disaster relief program, not
including major disasters, have averaged a total of $2.9 billion per
year on average for the last 5 years. If we provide the $441.7 million
in funds contained in this conference report for disaster relief, we
will have only provided $2.7 billion in 2003, or $200 million less than
the historic averages, never mind the additional funding that is now
needed for Hurricane Isabel.
It is too early for FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security to
tell us how much Hurricane Isabel will cost, but they can point out to
us the cost of disasters in the past similar to Isabel. We have the
record for Hurricanes Floyd and Fran. FEMA spent about $700 million on
each hurricane.
If we were to provide the $1.5 billion included in the Senate bill
instead of the amount that is in the conference report, we would be
providing at least some funding for Hurricane Isabel that we know is
going to be needed.
So, what we have here is a low-balling of estimates in this very
conference report. This conference report, within days of Hurricane
Isabel, low-balls the estimates we know that FEMA is going to have to
spend. That has happened in too many cases.
We should not, cannot tell disaster victims to wait until we take up
the next supplemental. There is no reason why we should not do it
today, provide adequate money. Today's backlog, we are now told, is
$300 million. FEMA admits that it has restrictions on the disaster
relief activity that is being funded. Any funding, for example, needed
beyond the current month is not being provided. So we should not make
those that have been disrupted by Hurricane Isabel and other disasters
wait for that funding.
The disruptions are not just limited to residents and businesses
either. In a strange twist of irony, it has even affected an agency
within the Department of Homeland Security. Staff tells us they just
got notification that the United States Coast Guard headquarters
building has experienced severe electrical and infrastructure problems
due to Hurricane Isabel. Coupled with flooding, fire, main system and
sanitation problems, Coast Guard headquarters remains closed to all but
essential personnel for the foreseeable future.
We should see to it that the Coast Guard's disaster problems are
quickly fixed, as well as those of our constituents.
So I urge Members to support this motion to recommit. It is timely,
it is necessary, it is appropriate, and it is the least we can do for
families who have lost so much in the last few days.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Kingston)
on doing a fine job, a very good job, on this legislative branch
appropriations bill. This is the first conference report of the
gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Kingston) as a subcommittee chairman,
and I would like for our colleagues to know that he provided valuable
and effective oversight of all of
[[Page H8810]]
the legislative branch accounts, which is what he should have done. He
did a really good job at it, along with the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran), the ranking member. He was very much of a partner through
the process. While we do have a little difference on the part of the
bill that I am going to talk about, it is not that big a difference, I
do not think.
But I thank the chairman for being willing to include in his
conference report the supplemental, the mini-supplemental, that we
dealt with early on. In fact, the Committee on Appropriations
considered it back in July, and it is included as a part of this
conference report. Disaster relief funds, which have been discussed,
total $442 million in this bill. That is in addition to the $983.6
million that we passed back in July. So there is a substantial amount
for FEMA already being appropriated here.
There is $319 million for wildland fire management. As we know, we
had severe fires this year, especially in the West. There is $50
million for NASA to deal with the Columbia disaster; $32 million for
costs of the courts, for the judicial branch of government; and $60
million for the flood control activities of the Army Corps of
Engineers.
So we worked hard on this supplemental to make it something that we
thought that the House would be willing to support, and that would
primarily meet the needs of the United States as a supplemental, in
addition to all of the regular appropriations bills that we have passed
or are in the process of passing.
So, again, I want to thank the chairman for allowing us to use his
bill as a vehicle for this supplemental, this mini-supplemental. We can
get the decks cleared, because we have a $87 billion request that we
will be starting to deal with this afternoon at 2 o'clock. We have a
hearing with Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid.
The Subcommittee on Defense this weekend is on its way to Iraq to do
the investigations they feel compelled to do, and they will follow up
with hearings back home when they return. There will then be additional
hearings next week with the State Department. So we are going to vet
this $87 billion request as effectively as we can.
We believe it is in the best interests of the President, the best
interests of the effort against terrorism, and in the best interests of
our colleagues in the Congress to get as many answers as we possibly
can on the major questions surrounding this $87 billion request. So
that is under way, and I would like to get the deck cleared on this
bill so that we can be free to give our full attention to the $87
billion request.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to bear
in mind that while we are looking at $87 billion on top of another $80
billion already provided for Iraq, what we are asking for here is well
less than $1 billion for our own people. I know we are mixing apples
and oranges a little bit, but not necessarily in the perspective of the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, once again we are
considering a supplemental appropriations bill that ignores the crisis
affecting many of our community service organizations around the
country.
Before the August recess, this House, at the insistence of the
Republican leadership, sent the other body a take-it-or-leave-it
supplemental package that omitted the $100 million the other body
proposed for AmeriCorps. That omission, unfortunately, remains in this
conference report.
Failing to provide this funding will deny hundreds of faith-based and
community-based organizations around the country many of the AmeriCorps
positions they depend on. We are talking about groups like Habitat for
Humanity, Teach for America, and hundreds of homegrown programs in the
districts of everyone here that make a difference every day.
For some organizations that depend on AmeriCorps, unfortunately, the
damage is already done. But for others, an infusion of funding to
support additional volunteers could still make a difference between the
elimination or weakening of a program and sustaining and building their
efforts to support our communities.
Without this funding, AmeriCorps will see its numbers reduced by
something like 40 percent overall to around 30,000 participants.
Every Member, Mr. Speaker, of the legislative branch appropriations
subcommittee in the other body favored this funding for AmeriCorps. It
had the support of Chairman Stevens and the support of Senator Bond,
the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over AmeriCorps. The
other body voted to sustain this AmeriCorps funding by a strong
bipartisan vote of 71 to 21.
These faith-based and community-based groups are doing good works in
our communities on a daily basis, and it should shame this House to let
them down. This conference report is another missed opportunity; in
fact, it is a missed obligation, because we owe it to the community and
faith-based groups who depend on AmeriCorps volunteers to help them
sustain the programs on which our communities depend.
Mr. Speaker, the supplemental appropriation attached to the
legislative branch bill has a second glaring weakness, and this is one
which Members will have an opportunity to remedy in just a few minutes.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) will be offering a motion to
recommit the bill with instructions to include the level of funding
provided in the Senate bill for disaster relief.
Mr. Speaker, North Carolina is again facing the daunting challenge of
recovering from a major hurricane that has devastated our coast, caused
major damage to homes and public facilities, and displaced thousands of
families. Other States, including Virginia and Maryland, have been
severely affected and are counting on Federal disaster programs to help
them recover.
FEMA personnel are on the ground as we speak doing what they do so
expertly, providing relief to the victims and initiating an assessment
of the damage. It is our job to make sure the disaster relief account
has sufficient resources to ensure that once the assessments are
complete, relief funding can quickly flow to those in need.
The supplemental we are considering today provides only $442 million
for disaster relief, the level recommended by the House, while the
Senate proposed $1.55 billion. Some may argue that $442 million is
enough, but that is not correct. When combined with the money we
appropriated in late July, it will still fall short of what the
administration initially requested, $1.55 billion. And the
administration request was meant to cover disasters we already knew
about, not Hurricane Isabel.
The Homeland Security bill for next year contains $1.8 billion for
disaster relief, but I can guarantee you that this amount will not be
enough to carry us through the coming fiscal year, and we still have
several weeks of hurricane season to get through this year.
Now, when the disaster relief account begins to get low, FEMA is
obliged to slow the relief funding flow to victims of existing
disasters because they just do not know what new disaster might be
around the corner. We should not, Mr. Speaker, put FEMA in that
position. Let us not put the victims of Hurricane Isabel in that
position, the position of unnecessarily having to wait for the disaster
relief they urgently need.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit to be offered
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) later today, so that timely
relief for the victims of Hurricane Isabel can be assured.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
{time} 1345
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say a special thanks
to the chairman of the subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Legislative,
for the first time in really trying to exert a tremendous amount of
leadership in getting his arms around the Capitol visitors center. I
think for the first time, the Subcommittee on Legislative has taken
some jurisdiction over this very, very significant expenditure and
maybe the biggest construction project to go on since the constructing
of the Capitol itself. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston)
deserves a lot
[[Page H8811]]
of credit for really trying to make sure that the money that is needed
is there, but also to make sure that we are not really overspending,
and really trying to get his arms around a very important project that
I think people on this subcommittee have paid little attention to. And
I think a pretty loud message has been sent that the Subcommittee on
Legislative is going to take a great deal of interest in this issue,
watch it very carefully, and work closely with the Architect and others
in leadership to make sure it is done correctly. So I applaud the
gentleman from Georgia for his efforts.
This bill is probably not the most dramatic appropriations bill that
we will pass of the 13, but I would urge every Member to vote for it,
because it is the bill that keeps this beautiful Capitol running. It is
the bill that pays for all of the staff people, all of the people who
get little or no thanks for keeping this beautiful Capitol open, for
making sure that visitors are warmly welcomed, to making sure that
visitors are safe when they come to the Capitol complex, to making sure
that Members' words are taken down correctly and printed the next day;
to all of the things that go on under this dome, both in the House and
in the other body.
And we give little credit and should give a lot more credit to the
people who make this institution run. Frankly, it is not the Members;
we do not deserve that much credit. It is the people that are here 24/7
in many instances that keep this great institution running. That is
what this bill is about. It is about making sure that these people who
do the hard work to make us look good and keep this facility running,
they are the ones who really deserve the credit; and we pay them a
certain amount of credit by passing this bill today and making sure
that they have the money that is needed to keep this great institution
running. Not only this House, but the other body.
So I congratulate all of the people who work in the House and the
other body, all of the law enforcement people who secure this facility
whom we take so much for granted.
The other thing I want to say is this bill includes a pet project of
mine that I hope some day will be a reality, and that is some kind of a
health fitness center for our employees. Those of us who are Members of
this body benefit from an ability to have a health fitness center.
Those who work in this body and in the other body do not have that same
kind of health fitness opportunity, and we should create it for them.
We should give our staff who work long hours the opportunity to remain
healthy, to stay healthy, and to have the opportunity to do it right
here on this campus. This bill continues to include our opportunity to
do that for all of the employees who work in the House and in the other
body.
We talk a lot around here about obesity and fitness. Well, what we
are trying to do in the legislative branch bill is to make sure that
there is a plan somewhere on this campus to take care of all of the
people who work on this campus; and I am pleased that there is language
to continue that process, as I see the Parliamentarian and others
buttoning up their coats. They are the ones that need this opportunity,
and we want to make sure we provide it.
So in any event, I thank the chairman for his leadership. This is a
good bill. Every Member should vote for it. Even if the motion to
recommit does not pass, the ranking member should have the leadership
to persuade his Members to vote for this so we can keep the lights on.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell my
friend from Illinois that the ranking member fully intends to vote for
the bill; it is just such an attractive bill, but they loaded it down
with the baggage of a flawed supplemental.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo).
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
LaHood), he has convinced me; and to the gentleman from Northern
Virginia, he convinced me also that he has a very good motion to
recommit to add some money for FEMA, $1.1 billion, I understand.
I, for one, had concerns when we created the Department of Homeland
Security and put FEMA in it that it would mean that what was a very
efficient, small, responsive governmental agency would get lost in the
maze of the new Department. And in some ways, and especially as it
relates to funding, I think that has happened. FEMA's funding had been
allowed to dip to a very low level, down to $44 million, before the
administration insisted to Congress that they should have some
supplemental funding. This is not good for the program or for the
country, to have such low balance.
The gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Moran) motion to recommit would
put the disaster relief program back on sound financial footing. So I
would urge Members to vote for the Moran motion and do good things for
the country and do good things for FEMA.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring up what the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. LaHood) had mentioned too on the Capitol visitors center. This
committee, on a bipartisan basis, has taken a real close look at the
Capitol visitors center. It is perhaps one of the largest construction
projects we have had on this campus since the actual construction of
the Capitol, and I do not know if it approximately will double our
size, but it is big.
This project started out at $265 million, and right now it is at $456
million and perhaps on its way up from there. Congress did add some
additional office space, and there were some considerations for
security that caused the $265 million to go to about $365 million or
$370 million range, but the rest is just kind of work-in-progress add-
ons. We need to be very careful that this does not become the poster
child for congressional disaster spending.
One of the things that we have taken a real close look at, and I am
glad that the House and Members of the majority and the members of the
committee recommended changing the way the Architect of the Capitol
makes decisions. There were too many bosses telling the Architect what
to do day to day. So the Architect, being, I guess, a good public
servant, responded to these requests; but, as a result, the project
somewhat got away from him. And we on this committee have tried to rein
this in so that he can run the project. We think that is going to save
millions of dollars in outlays.
We also recommended, but were unable to get the Senate to agree with
us, to cut out a $10 million tunnel to the Library of Congress. I just
want Members to know there was some discussion and misunderstanding on
the Senate's part that has to do with security, but when I met with the
Sergeant at Arms, he said that tunnel had nothing to do with security
in terms of escapes out of the Capitol. Number one, the last thing we
would want is 100 Members of Congress confined to a tunnel area,
particularly if there is some kind of a chemical attack. But as my
colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, we have a tunnel that goes to the Rayburn
Building; we have a tunnel that goes to the Cannon Building; we have a
tunnel, a utility tunnel that goes out of the front of the Capitol
visitors center towards the Library of Congress already; we have a
tunnel that goes to the Dirkson Building; a tunnel that goes to the
Russell Building, and a tunnel that goes to the Hart Building.
In addition, there will be a new truck service tunnel entrance. So to
say on top of all of those tunnels we need another tunnel to the
Library of Congress so Members will not have to degrade themselves by
carrying umbrellas when they go to the Library, which we all know is a
daily routine anyhow, but let me just say for the record it is,
unfortunately, not a daily routine. But I think that this eliminating
this tunnel to the Library would have been a sign that we are willing
to give a tangible example that we are ready to cut out some of the
spending on the Capitol visitors center.
But more importantly, in the conference we did accept the Obey
amendment that limits the spending on the tunnel to $10 million. I hope
we can do it for less than that. The Architect recently said that we
can do it for perhaps as little as $ 9.4 on the top end and perhaps as
little as 7-and-some-change on the bottom end.
The reality, though, is that this tunnel is going to go over an
Amtrak tunnel; the train line that goes to Union Station, it is going
to go under the
[[Page H8812]]
road. So what we are actually talking about is boring a tunnel, not a
trench, but boring a tunnel in between the Amtrak line and the road.
This tunnel is not straight; it is a dog leg. I think we are going to
have some problems with it. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had
said if we spend over $10 million when we are in conference, that the
Architect should be fired. I do not know about that. We are already in
an overspending situation, and there does not seem to be anybody who is
suffering because of it. The contractor is not out of money; nobody who
planned or estimated the job is out of work; nobody has really been
called on the carpet.
But I am glad to say that this committee had a 2- or 3-, maybe a 4-
hour hearing on the spending of the Capitol visitors center trying to
get this thing under control. Most Members are, unfortunately,
oblivious to what is going on out there, because we are focused on
Medicare, education, terrorism, and things like that; and we have not
really focused on this enough. This committee found out that the
cafeteria there will be the largest cafeteria in the city of
Washington, D.C. This committee found out that there will be three
theaters inside the Capitol visitors center, even though across the
street at the Library of Congress there is already an alternative
theater that is designed for Members of Congress to meet in the event
that we are unable to meet in this legislative Chamber.
So these are some of the concerns that we had about the tunnel and
the Capitol visitors center in general. Yet, despite the fact that my
own desire, my own amendment to eliminate the tunnel did not make it, I
still think on balance we have done a lot of good work on the Capitol
visitors center, trying to get control of the spending. I think on
balance we have done a good job addressing some of the issues with the
Capitol Hill Police and the other legislative branch agencies, and I am
proud to say that we worked very closely with the Democrats and
everyone involved on this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first, I yield myself 10 seconds
just to tell my friend from Georgia that the minority appreciates the
majority's decision to fund the Congress's Big Dig project on their
watch. So that was fortuitous.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the public has a right to ask the Congress why
it sometimes ignores the obvious. This bill today, despite all of the
good words said about it, in one respect ignores the obvious. When we
passed the conference report on the supplemental, I said I did not
believe that it provided sufficient funds for disaster relief, since we
knew that Hurricane Isabel was then about to arrive. Well, as we now
know, it arrived; and now we know the extent of the damage of Isabel,
even though we do not know the precise costs.
Mr. Speaker, 34 people lost their lives; flooding and wind damage was
widespread. Many people in the hundreds of thousands still do not have
electricity. FEMA tells us that a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the
cost of Isabel is about 700 million bucks, the cost of Hurricane Fran
and Floyd. Yesterday, the Richmond Times Dispatch reported that one
official said, ``Too many times Federal, State, and local officials
have acted or reacted on the basis of poor information, while FEMA is
worried about keeping the headlines down rather than fixing the
situation.''
{time} 1400
Today it seems to me that we have both the unique opportunity and a
unique obligation. Given the funding level for disaster relief of $1.5
billion that was included in the Senate bill to provide funding for
Isabel and to help fix the situation, if we wait for the President to
submit a supplemental request, it is likely that we will be in the
situation next spring where FEMA is out of money, there is a crisis at
hand, and people will once again say, well, what in God's Earth? Did
those guys think they knew what they were doing? Why did not they
anticipate this? Why did they not take care of it when they knew the
problem was at hand?
In my view, we need action, not reaction. That is why we ought to
support the Moran motion. We know this damage has occurred. We know the
Federal Government is going to be getting the bill. We should not be
hiding the cost today, as we are hiding the costs of so many other
items. We should fess up and face up to the problem and deal with it
now, not after the fact next spring when it can get in the way of
orderly relief when we have more problems.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Briefly, I just wanted to readdress some of the points that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) had made briefly on this disaster
money that the motion to recommit requests $1.55 billion to be funded,
which is what the administration's original request was for FY 2003.
However, this bill already has money in it. So if we went ahead with
this, this is in addition to the $983 million that we put into disaster
relief in July, that would mean we would be a billion dollars above the
President's request.
Now, that might be good, but we do not know how much Isabel actually
costs. The preliminary damage assessments started on Tuesday. It will
be several days, weeks, in fact, months before we really know how much
money is, in fact, needed for this disaster. This committee member and
all of us, the chairman is from Florida. I am from coastal Georgia. I
represent the entire coast. I am very sympathetic to hurricanes.
On a personal basis, I went down one week to prepare my house in
Savannah for Isabel, and then came back to Washington and ended up
evacuating Washington and going back to Savannah. Hurricanes are
something that we in coastal Georgia do take very, very seriously. I
know that the money will be there for FEMA when we know what that
amount is, but at this point, we just do not know. The fiscal year's
closing is less than a week away, and I think the prudent thing to do
right now is to hold off on this motion to recommit, vote no on it and
then to pass the bill as is.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
What we are doing on this supplemental is to respond to the
President's request. What we have in this bill that we were asked to
vote on is less than the President himself asked the Congress to
provide, and that was before Hurricane Isabel. So we know the money is
going to be needed. The question before the Congress is: Do we provide
it now, or do we leave future victims of national disasters waiting,
wondering whether the Congress is going to provide sufficient funds?
We know the funds are going to be necessary. What we are asking for
is much more consistent with what the President himself has requested.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro), one of the Democratic Caucus's leadership.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep
disappointment.
For months after the September 11 tragedies 2 years ago, America was
a changed Nation, bound by a common purpose, steeled by our sense of
community and shared responsibility. Americans from all over
volunteered their time and energy to help those who were most in need,
and President Bush created USA Freedom Corps to capitalize on that
spirit, to energize our community. He called on America's volunteers,
and all across this great Nation, we answered his call.
But now, at a time when our volunteers are calling on him, no one is
home at the White House. Today, 20,000 committed AmeriCorps volunteers
are ready and willing to serve, but they are on the brink of being
turned away, all because of management problems that they had nothing
to do with. But management problems exist and management problems are
being addressed as they should be addressed.
The success of AmeriCorps is not in doubt. In only a decade, it has
given a quarter of a million Americans to serve their community through
fighting poverty, tutoring and mentoring neglected
[[Page H8813]]
youngsters, cleaning up the environment, and providing long term care
to the elderly.
Just ask the over 350 college and high school students who depend on
this funding in Connecticut's LEAP program. They give their valuable
time to provide mentoring and service opportunities to 1300 kids. Every
last one of LEAP's junior counselors graduate from public high schools,
80 percent go on to college. They know what the rest of America knows,
that AmeriCorps is without question the premier national service
program in the United States.
All President Bush needed to do to keep these young people on was to
use his moral leadership, call upon his leadership in the Congress to
include the $100 million in emergency funding that AmeriCorps needs.
Instead, he has only expressed vague support for the program, knowing
full well that in doing so, he is effectively punishing the millions of
people in communities who depend on the services that AmeriCorps
provides.
If we could bottle the spirit that guided this country 2 years ago
through some of its hardest times, I honestly believe there is no
challenge we could not meet. But by turning our backs on AmeriCorps, we
squander one of the greatest resources, our young people, who are
eager, willing and who want to be involved. That is not merely
unfortunate, it is a tragedy.
We should follow the lead of the other body. There was a bipartisan
vote to include $100 million in emergency funding so that we can help
to sustain AmeriCorps, help to engage young people in the good work of
this country, and give them an opportunity to give back what America
gives to all of us.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston) has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can finish up now and vote a little earlier
than people thought. Mr. Speaker, I know that many of us recognize very
few votes are influenced by floor debate; but I would like to offer a
couple points to our colleagues who may be watching this on television.
The first point is that this bill includes less money than President
Bush requested for emergency assistance, less money, and he requested
that money before we suffered the ravages of Hurricane Isabel. We know,
from FEMA's own estimate, that they are going to need more money. What
we are providing today is insufficient. That is point one.
Point two is an argument that may be lost on the general public, but
I think many of our colleagues are going to understand it. What we are
asking for is money under the fiscal year 2003 supplemental. That means
that it does not get counted against the fiscal year 2004 budget
resolution. Now, it is emergency funding. So it does not come up
against the caps that we would otherwise have imposed on us.
Now, if the majority wants, we will be in a position to have to get
more money in fiscal year 2004, money that is going to have to compete
against the money for Iraq and against any number of other domestic and
foreign needs. The simplest, the most efficient, and, I think, the most
responsible thing to do would be to provide sufficient money now in
fiscal year 2003. There is only a few days left in this fiscal year.
This is our last opportunity. There is not going to be any other train
that leaves the station.
The money, of course, will be held over and available in 2004. So I
think that those Members of Congress, and it includes the entire
Congress, who are increasingly budget-conscious as we all should be,
this is the time to do it. The money is needed, desperately needed, and
anyone that had constituents that were adversely affected by Hurricane
Isabel, and there is a whole lot of them up the East Coast,
particularly the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, I think it would be a
tough argument to explain to your constituents why, when you had the
opportunity, you did not provide the money, hoping that the money might
become available at a later opportunity. The opportunity is now, and it
should be seized by voting for this recommittal.
Now, I want to thank some people who greatly deserve it. First, the
chairman of the subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). We have not agreed totally on
everything, but we got a good bill, and we reached consensus, and I
want to thank him for this good bipartisan bill.
The staff is terrific. Liz Dawson knows everything going on up here
on Capitol Hill, and is responsible for a whole lot of things that we
take credit for. Chuck Turner. Chuck has been terrific. Kelly Wade,
Jack O'Neill with the leadership staff, they all did a great job. I
want to thank Tom Forhan, who is responsible for this bill on the
Appropriations staff. And Tim Aiken, who has been terrific; he is on my
own staff assigned to this bill. They have both been great. Beverly,
David; we have wonderful staff, and that is one of the reasons why the
legislative branch appropriations bill does so well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran) who does such an extraordinarily good job, not only on this
bill, but on so many other issues, and I thank him for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my support for H.R. 2657,
which responsibly meets the needs of the legislative body, the body
designed by our Founders to make sure that our Federal Government works
as our citizens want it to; and this bill provides for the resources to
accomplish that objective.
Let me also join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in
congratulating not only his staff, but Liz Dawson, who has done such an
extraordinary job for the Committee on Appropriations, not only this
subcommittee but other subcommittees as well, for the work that she
does.
Mr. Speaker, one matter that should concern every Member of this body
is the fair treatment of the folks who work for us and with us,
including temporary workers employed by the legislative branch. Section
133, Mr. Speaker, of the Legislative Appropriations Act of 2002, which
became law on November 12, 2001, prohibits the Architect of the Capitol
from employing temporary workers for long periods without providing
eligibility for employee benefits.
Notwithstanding that, this is not happening much to my dismay and the
dismay of the subcommittee and the chairman and the ranking member. The
Architect has refused to implement section 133, despite the clearest of
Congressional intention and the fact that the General Accounting Office
has determined that section 133 provides the Architect with the
authority to treat temporary workers fairly.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today's conference report includes
language that strengthens section 133. I thank the chairman and the
ranking member and particularly Liz Dawson for that objective. I
strongly support this language.
My expectation with this language is simple: That Mr. Hantman will
finally appreciate that Congress meant what it said 2 years ago, when
it instructed his office to fairly treat temporary workers.
I thank the committee for its work and thank the ranking member for
yielding me time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, in my senior moment there, I neglected to mention
Beverly Pheto and Dave Pomerantz.
{time} 1415
We have got great staff. We have a wonderful institution here. We
need to adequately fund it.
I support the legislative branch appropriations bill, but right now
the right thing to do is to vote yes on the recommittal to provide
adequate emergency assistance, and we will get that legislative branch
appropriations bill funded as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). It has been a great
pleasure to work with him on this bill, and
[[Page H8814]]
we have had some agreements, and we have had some disagreements, but we
have made a lot of progress together. It has been a great process for
all of us, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
ranking member, for his help and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) for her issues, although I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, they have
been fiscally as prudent as somebody from Georgia might want them to
be, but we have had those discussions in the past as well.
Let me just close, Mr. Speaker, and urge folks to vote no on the
motion to recommit and vote yes on the bill.
I also wanted to join the distinguished ranking member in thanking
all the staff who have been such a part of this bill. I want to say to
Tom Forhan, he has done a great job and appreciate his great working
relationship. Liz Dawson and Chuck Turner and Kelly Wade and Jack
O'Neill on our side have worked long and hard. Ms. Dawson has called me
at home and Blackberried me and told me when I am wrong, and every now
and then tells me when I am right, which has been very few times this
year, but I hope to improve on that record, Mr. Speaker. But with that
let me urge support of this bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to
recommit the Conference Report on H.R. 2657 with instructions to the
House managers to increase funding for Disaster Relief.
I do so as I continue to receive reports from my home State of
Maryland about the damage caused by Hurricane Isabel. Hurricane Isabel
cut a path from Maryland's Eastern Shore to Maryland's western mountain
range. In Baltimore's world famous Inner Harbor, one of the city's
major arteries was transformed into a river by a seven-foot water
surge. On Maryland's Eastern Shore, record breaking tides left 60
percent of Dorchester County under water. In my own district, 5 days
after Isabel struck, thousands of people still have no electricity.
How is it possible that, almost a week after the hurricane, in the
richest country on the planet at a time when we are considering funding
the reconstruction of Iraq, we refuse to provide adequate funding to
our own Federal Emergency Management Agency. I urge my colleagues to
support this motion.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman
Kingston and Ranking Member Moran for giving me the opportunity to
speak this morning.
Today's legislation includes funding for dozens of important
projects, and I want to thank the Conference Committee for their work.
I rise today to express my disappointment that this Congress was
unable to fund one of our nation's most successful programs--the
AmeriCorps program.
AmeriCorps provides educational opportunities for young people who
serve their communities in myriad ways.
In my district of Kansas City, AmeriCorps members have partnered with
professional and non-profit agencies to provide children from low
income families with badly needed educational assistance, revitalize
and clean up inner city neighborhoods, and install smoke alarms in the
homes of the elderly.
One of my constituents has served for two years as a Kansas City
Jumpstart volunteer.
The children involved in the Jumpstart program enter with skills
rated lower than their peers, but through the dedication and leadership
of volunteer mentors, these deficiencies are often eliminated by the
time they complete the program.
This AmeriCorps Jumpstart volunteer recently wrote a letter to our
hometown newspaper urging support for full funding of the AmeriCorps
program so that other children can achieve as much as a child he
mentored, who entered almost ``completely non-verbal and is now talking
in complete sentences.''
Failing to adequately fund AmeriCorps will deprive thousands of
children and young volunteers in my district and across the Nation this
experience, and leave many children behind.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this Congress could not find the
additional funds to continue these successful programs.
President Bush has supported AmeriCorps in the past. In the coming
months, I would hope that we can work with the Bush Administration to
resolve AmeriCorp's funding shortfalls and leave no child behind.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Moran of Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Moran of Virginia moves to recommit the conference
report on the bill H.R. 2657 to the committee of conference
with instructions to the managers on the part of the House to
insist on inclusion of the level of funding provided in the
Senate bill for Disaster Relief.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. 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 the electronic vote on the question of adoption of
the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202,
nays 225, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 516]
YEAS--202
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)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
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)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
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
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
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
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--225
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
[[Page H8815]]
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
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
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Bishop (UT)
Dingell
Gephardt
Lewis (GA)
Osborne
Pastor
Watson
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte) (during the vote). There are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1439
Mr. JONES of North Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BURR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 371,
nays 56, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 517]
YEAS--371
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--56
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Berry
Burgess
Chabot
Coble
Costello
DeMint
Doggett
Duncan
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hefley
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
Kline
Kucinich
Lofgren
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nussle
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (MI)
Stearns
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Tiberi
Toomey
NOT VOTING--7
Bishop (UT)
Dingell
Feeney
Gephardt
Lewis (GA)
Osborne
Pastor
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1447
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________