[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 148 (Tuesday, October 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9743-H9747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 73, FURTHER CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 407 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 407
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 73)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2004, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 407 is a closed rule providing for
the consideration of H.J. Res. 73, which is a continuing resolution
that makes further appropriations for fiscal year 2004. The rule
provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution, and provides for one motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution provides an additional week of
funding for government agencies because the fiscal year 2004
appropriations bills have not yet been enacted into law. Specifically,
this resolution extends until November 7, 2003, the provisions of the
previous continuing appropriations resolution that were to expire on
October 31, 2003. In addition, this resolution conjoins the six fiscal
year 2004 appropriations bills that have passed the House, but have not
yet been considered by the other body.
Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the completion of the first session
of this 108th Congress, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this rule so we may proceed to the consideration of the
underlying continuing resolution. While the House has passed each of
the appropriations bills, it is clear that there are issues left to
resolve in the other body that will require additional time to complete
the
[[Page H9744]]
work on the remaining appropriations bills. I am hopeful that the
continuing resolution covered by this rule will give us the time we
need to complete the appropriations process in a thoughtful and orderly
manner.
The rule was approved by the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I urge
my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with general date and
consideration of the joint resolution. The House hopes to complete the
appropriations process as soon as possible, and this resolution will
provide the time to resolve the issues that remain outstanding.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the new deficit numbers came out yesterday,
and they confirm what we already know: this Republican government has
given America the biggest government deficit in our history, nearly
$400 billion in fiscal year 2003, the year just concluded, plus an
additional $500 billion deficit in fiscal year 2004, the year we just
started, according to the Bush administration.
Mark my words, these Republican deficits will end up raising taxes,
and worse, raising our children's taxes. The Republican leaders are
going to do everything in their power to hide their abominable record
of fiscal mismanagement.
Just listen to the Bush administration's Treasury Secretary in
today's New York Times. He predicts that this jobless recovery will
somehow magically add 2 million new jobs before next year's elections.
He is saying this economy, which has lost nearly 3 million jobs since
President Bush took office, the worse job records since Herbert Hoover
and the Great Depression, is now going to create 200,000 new jobs a
month. Perhaps the Bush administration still believes in Santa Claus,
and perhaps they really believe that 2 million jobs will magically
appear under the election Christmas tree next year; but the American
people know a snow job when they see one. And make no mistake, they are
seeing one today on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, this so-called continuing resolution is a procedural
shell game to hide Republican mismanagement of the government. This is
not trick or treat, Mr. Speaker, just tricks. This entire process today
makes clear that this is a Republican government that refuses to do its
job, at the same time that too many hard-working Americans are still
suffering from the Republican recession. While millions cannot find any
jobs, Republicans refuse to do the job that they have and that
taxpayers pay them to do.
As my Republican friend on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), once said about another continuing resolution,
``Congress is failing to fulfill its obligations in a timely and
responsible way, choosing to fall back on one CR after another instead
of putting in the time to do our jobs.'' Or as he said another time,
``a continuing resolution erodes the credibility of the Congress.''
{time} 1030
After misleading the American people for too long, neither this
Republican Congress nor this Republican administration has much
credibility to erode anymore. And as for ``putting in the time to do
our jobs,'' this Republican Congress hardly even bothers anymore. This
House has not put in a full week's worth of work in months. And this
week we are not even going to be here for 24 hours. It has gotten so
bad that this resolution is the only so-called substantive legislation
before the House this week, and everyone knows that it will not
actually do anything. It is just a procedural shell which they will use
to hide from the taxpayers the massive omnibus spending bill that they
are going to sneak through this House later this year. And mark my
words, when this resolution comes back to the House in its massive and
bloated form, you will not even recognize it.
My friends in the majority will tell you that the House did its work.
They will tell you that the other body caused the problem they are
addressing today with this shell game. Mr. Speaker, they want Americans
to forget one simple truth. The Republican Party controls the Senate
just like it controls the House, just like it controls the White House
and the entire executive branch. And Republicans refuse to use that
power for the people still suffering from the second Bush recession and
the third Republican recession in the past 20 years. For example, some
1.4 million Americans have been unemployed so long in this economy that
they have exhausted their unemployment insurance. After the end of this
year, Americans who lose their jobs, people like the nearly 3 million
jobs lost since President Bush took office, will not be able to enroll
in unemployment insurance. But Republicans refuse to help them before
this Congress closes up shop for the year. Some will say that
Republicans are simply incompetent, that they cannot figure out how to
run the government. That would be bad enough. But I do not think it
gives the Republican Party the credit it deserves, because this
Republican government can be ruthlessly effective when its priorities
are involved. Unfortunately for the American people, the priorities of
this Republican government are largely limited to the political
priorities of the Republican Party.
Mr. Speaker, time and again Republican leaders have proven their
willingness to use their power over the government to get more power
for the Republican Party. As the Washington Post suggested last week,
Republicans are creating an almost Soviet-style system. They treat the
people's government as just another arm of the Republican Party.
Republican leaders have moved heaven and earth to protect big
corporate tax dodgers, but they will not give military and working
families the same tax credit that they gave to the wealthiest. Just
last week, House Republican leaders twisted enough arms to block a
Democratic pay raise for the military which would have given soldiers
in Iraq and Afghanistan a $1,500 bonus, but they cannot be bothered to
do anything about high health care costs. And earlier this year Tom
DeLay's office used Federal resources to track down his legislative
opposition in Texas, and even urged the FBI to arrest the Democratic
State legislators who dared to stand up to him. But now House
Republican leaders will not use the Federal resources of the Congress
to help the millions of Americans who need unemployment insurance in
the midst of President Bush's jobless recovery.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a government of the people, by the people
and for the people. It is a government of the Republican Party, by the
Republican Party and for the Republican Party. And if the Republican
Party wants this Republican government to raise the debt tax on
Americans, while at the same time shortchanging education and veterans'
health care, then they should at least have the courage to be honest
with the public about it.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. Do not help the
Republican leaders keep Americans in the dark this year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me share with my colleagues my initial thoughts as I
was beginning to read the continuing resolution that was on the floor
of the House. I read it with disbelief. I was reading and thought maybe
that there had been a misprint. And so I come to oppose this rule,
because I happen to come from the school of thought that this House and
this body, this Congress, has to do its work on behalf of the American
people.
I join in acknowledging that we are now facing the largest deficit
that we have had in the last decade, or at least in the last 5 years
since we were able to undermine that deficit in 1993 with House
Democrats, not one single Republican vote, on that budget resolution
that provided us in the spring of
[[Page H9745]]
2001 with a $5.3 trillion projected surplus over the next 10 years.
That, of course, has gone to heck in a handbasket because we do not
have that surplus anymore. What we have is the $400 billion deficit of
2003 and now projected $500 billion deficit in 2004. But what we also
have is an $87 billion supplemental that is still sitting on the table
and we have no way of paying for it. This resolution wants us to put in
place, as standing bills, five House bills without any consultation
with the other body and any conference.
How do we know, for example, that we have put in more money for NASA
safety dollars after the Columbia 7 tragedy? Have we put any money for
food security in the foreign operations bill when we have given
millions of dollars to the countries that are facing famine like
Ethiopia to feed them, but we have given no money to provide them with
the opportunity for irrigation and food science, agricultural science
so they can learn to feed themselves, as opposed to giving them only
moneys to help feed them during this famine? Do we have any hope for a
good Medicare bill that is now in conference? Is there any debate on
that where we are now raising the cost of Medicare for our seniors and
leaving many seniors aside? Is our appropriations process going to be
able to address the question of how we fund Medicare? None of that is
taken into account in this continuing resolution. It is a blind eye, if
you will, a blind-sided effort to come to this floor and blindside us
with smoke and mirrors by telling us to vote for a continuing
resolution that will not work. And then for them to say that we are
going to make these bills, Commerce-Justice, Foreign Ops, VA-HUD, the
bills that we will ultimately pass is ludicrous, is outrageous, they
know it will never happen. And then the real question is, how are we
going to pay for all of this?
I would ask my colleagues to vote against this rule and vote against
this continuing resolution.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, every year this House has a responsibility to pass the
13 appropriations bills that fund the activities of the Federal
Government. Once the House passes those bills, the United States Senate
is supposed to pass them. After that, the House and the Senate get
together on a conference committee to resolve the differences between
the two versions. Those final bills are passed and then sent to the
President for his signature. This is all supposed to happen before the
fiscal year ends on September 30.
I think it is important to review this material from the perspective
of a ninth grade civics class because the Republican leadership seems
to have forgotten it. Despite the fact that they control the House,
they control the Senate, they control the White House, they even
control the courts, they cannot seem to get their act together and do
the people's work. So we are forced once again to pass a continuing
resolution.
It used to be that the Republicans blamed President Clinton for all
the delays in legislation. They really got good at blaming him for
everything. In fact, I think they kind of miss him. I know I do because
the economy was so good and the budget was in surplus. Now, the economy
under their leadership is lousy, and we have record deficits. In fact,
we have the largest deficit in the history of the United States of
America. Then the Republicans used to blame the Democratic Senate for
everything. That excuse is gone now, too. We are here for one simple
reason. The majority of this House has failed. They did not do their
job. They do not want to do their job. And the American people deserve
to know that. And what is really amazing is that the House is in
session for a day and a half this week. It is Tuesday and this is the
last day of business scheduled for the week. I am not sure about other
parts of the country, Mr. Speaker, but in Massachusetts, a workweek is
generally 5 days and sometimes it is longer, given that in this
economy, people have to work sometimes two or three jobs. I doubt that
firefighters or steelworkers or teachers or accountants in my district
could skip work on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and expect to get a
full paycheck.
The American people deserve a Congress that functions, that does the
job given to it by the Constitution and they are not getting it. We all
know what is going to happen in the next few weeks. We are going to see
some huge, omnibus bill that a few people in a back room have worked
out over pizza and cigars and be told that it is a fait accompli, take
it or leave it, all because the leadership cannot or will not do their
jobs. They did not do their job on the Iraq supplemental because we
were not allowed to debate and vote on amendments, amendments that
would have paid for the package, as opposed to adding $87 billion to
the national credit card burdening our children and our grandchildren
with debt.
This continuing resolution represents failure and not progress. But
failure, Mr. Speaker, has become business as usual around here. Mr.
Speaker, we are supposed to be a deliberative body. We are supposed to
debate issues. We are supposed to amend bills to make them better to
represent the concerns of our constituents. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker,
we have a leadership in this House that does not believe in democracy,
that does not believe in open debate, that does not believe in the
deliberative process. We have a Committee on Rules that kind of acts
like the State of California. It does not believe in debate. The fact
of the matter is under the Constitution, this is supposed to be a
deliberative body. We should debate issues regarding education,
regarding unemployment, regarding the economy, regarding health care,
regarding things that matter to our constituents each and every day.
Yet under this process, we are just kind of kicking the ball down the
field and we are told we are going to put this off for another day. And
when we put it off, it is going to come back to us in a huge package
and no one is going to know what is in the bill.
This process is broken. The American people need to understand that
the Republican leadership in this House is not doing its job. The
Republicans wanted power. It appears they wanted power just for the
sake of power. The fact of the matter is they cannot even get along
with each other. This is a disgrace that we are at this moment. I would
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, once again we are being asked to pass a
resolution that keeps the government open because Congress has not
finished its work on appropriation bills. That is not unprecedented.
Many times in the past we have faced this situation. But I do think
that it is harder to understand when we have one party in control of
all of the tools of government. When one party is in control of the
Presidency and both the House and the Senate, it ought to be somewhat
easier to get the work done on time. Over the past 34 years, one party
has been in control of all three of those power centers, the
Presidency, the Senate and the House, 6 years. The average number of
appropriation bills that had been passed by the time the fiscal year
ended in those 6 years was twice as high as it is today. Today we have
only three appropriation bills passed. That, in my view, is no
reflection whatsoever on the majority leadership of the Appropriations
Committee. I think if things were left to the committee, we would be
much further along the road. The reason that we have not completed our
work is largely because the majority party leadership in this House has
determined that they only want to pass appropriation bills on the
majority party's side of the aisle.
The majority party has a right to define itself and lay out what its
first preferences are. The minority party has a similar right and
obligation. But then both parties, in the end, are supposed to seek a
way to resolve those differences. I recognize, being a member of the
minority, that the majority party is likely to, and under our system is
entitled to, win most of those fights. That is the way the system
works. But for the good of the system and for the good of both parties,
there
[[Page H9746]]
are some occasions where the issues are so tight that you can use a
little help across the aisle.
{time} 1045
And it is the obligation of the minority party to try to do that if
and when some legitimate compromises are made, not so that the minority
party wins the argument on those bills but so that the minority party
can at least feel that some of its concerns have been modestly attended
to. That has not been the case in this Congress on appropriation bills
and outside of the appropriation realm.
I, for the life of me, do not understand why we do not have bills on
energy and water before us, why we do not have the military
construction bill before us. On bills like that, those are relatively
simple bills. They are normally fairly noncontroversial, and on bills
like that what we have today is the majority in a fight with itself,
and so far it has not been able to triumph. So we are stuck with those
bills in limbo. On the labor, health, education bill, which I had hoped
would be passed on a bipartisan basis eventually, we are stuck because
the majority party is insisting on a fairly extreme approach to that
bill.
The administration asked the Congress to vote for No Child Left
Behind. We did. But now the funding for No Child Left Behind is being
left behind.
The bill that we have on labor-H is some $7 billion short of where it
ought to be in order to meet those promises.
And then we have similar problems with respect to the Commerce-
Justice-State bill where efforts are being made to pretend that more
money is being provided to local law enforcement than in fact is being
provided because to understand what is being provided, we have to
compare both homeland security and regular crime funding.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that we could be a lot further
along if there was any indication whatsoever that there would be a
conciliatory approach coming on any of these bills from the majority
side of the aisle. Even outside of the appropriations process, we see
efforts made to really radically change Medicare in the prescription
drug bill, whereas if people were to back off of that, we could easily
pass a decent prescription drug bill.
So I would say, I used to think we had a good shot at getting out of
here by November 1. It is obvious we are going to be very lucky, Mr.
Speaker, to get out of here by Thanksgiving. I regret that because I
think the longer the Congress is in session, the more damage is being
done to the Republic. But because of these disagreements we will be
here next week with another continuing resolution. The Members can bet
on it. I just hope that sooner or later the majority party recognizes
that in the minority they have a willing partner in passing some of
these if they are willing to compromise in the slightest on some of
these issues before us.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee
on Rules for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we are all going to vote for this CR; but I think as we
consider it, it is appropriate for us to reflect on the allegations of
mismanagement that were made over the years about how Democrats ran
this House, to reflect on that and relate it to present performance and
look at how well the appropriations process has been managed since the
Republicans took over in 1995.
I want to look at the facts here. It is now October 21, 21 days since
the start of the fiscal year, 2004, and this Congress has passed and
President Bush has signed only three of the 13 annual spending bills
into law: defense, homeland security, and the legislative branch
appropriation bill. The Members will notice in addition that the
military construction bill, one of the least controversial bills
considered by this House every single year, is still mired in
conference, although I would observe it is going to have maybe the
distinction of being the only real conference that we have had in some
period of time. If that is not indicative of this Congress's
mismanagement, then I am not sure what is.
The fact of the matter is since the majority party regained the House
majority, this Congress has had to pass an omnibus appropriation bill
in 7 out of 9 years. That is right. In only 2 years since consideration
of the fiscal 1996 spending bill did this Congress pass stand-alone
legislation for all 13 appropriation bills. By comparison, and I hope
everybody on my side of the aisle will note this, and the other side of
the aisle, of course, will discount it and not believe it, by
comparison in fiscal year 1994, that is 1993, and fiscal year 1995,
that is 1994, when we had a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, and a
Democratic Congress, we passed every single spending bill as a stand-
alone piece of legislation, every one, which meant that we could fully
debate and not hide anything in those bills.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of our side of the aisle can hardly wait to
hear what excuse is now used by our colleagues on the majority side for
failing to complete the appropriation work on time. It is going to be
tough to blame poor Senator Daschle who was the scapegoat last year
when not only did we not pass the fiscal year in the year in which we
were supposed to, we had to go to the next year and did not pass most
appropriation bills until January of the following year. They certainly
cannot blame the Democrats on this side because we do not make many
decisions on this side.
So what is their excuse? We all know what the truth is, and it is not
that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our
committee, or anybody on the committee has mismanaged the appropriation
process. It is the direct result of the majority party's inability to
agree with itself. It is an affliction that is not just holding up the
appropriations process. It is also preventing us from passing an energy
bill, from extending the child tax credit to 6.5 million working
American families, and from giving our seniors a real prescription drug
benefit that is not designed to destroy Medicare. The truth is we have
not completed our work on time and the majority party is the only group
that is responsible for this failure.
Mr. Speaker, we will vote for this continuing resolution, which is an
admission and a perfect example of not getting the work done that the
American people expect us to get done on time and for their benefit and
for the benefit of this country.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
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.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 189, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 566]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
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
[[Page H9747]]
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
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
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
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
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--26
Andrews
Bell
Burton (IN)
Case
Coble
Cubin
Doggett
Engel
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Kelly
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Marshall
McCollum
Owens
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Vitter
Wexler
Whitfield
Young (AK)
{time} 1117
Messrs. ISRAEL, DAVIS of Illinois, CRAMER, HALL, HOLT and JOHN
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________