[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 95 (Monday, July 12, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5497-H5501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, owing to weather-caused flight delays, I was
regrettably absent on Monday, July 12, 2004, and consequently missed
recorded votes numbered 359 and 360. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no'' and ``aye'' respectively on these votes.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4755)
making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 707, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
[[Page H5498]]
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Sherman
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SHERMAN. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sherman moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4755, to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
bill promptly with an amendment prohibiting the use of funds
for postage expenses of any single committee in an aggregate
amount exceeding $25,000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, under this motion, the bill would be
amended so that we would have a $25,000 limit on the amount that any
single committee would spend on postage during fiscal 2005.
Before I discuss why such a limit is necessary, I will enter two
letters into the Record.
National Taxpayers Union,
July 12, 2004.
Hon. Brad Sherman,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Sherman: On behalf of the 350,000-member
National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I am responding to your
request for NTU's views on a proposal to limit each
Committee's expenditure on postage to the sum of no more than
$25,000 per year.
Even as overall postage and printing expenditures have
declined from the $100 million-plus levels once seen in
Congresses 15 years ago, franking remains a source of fiscal
and political interest to NTU. The already-generous limits
governing the use of postage by House Members' personal
offices were lifted in 1999, while new computer technologies
have allowed lawmakers to maximize the impact of their
mailings in ways that were not feasible as recently as ten
years ago. Today, it is still possible for an incumbent House
Member to spend as much on franking in a year as a challenger
spends on his or her entire campaign. Rules regarding the
content and proximity of mailings to elections only modestly
offset this tremendous political advantage.
During our 15-year campaign on behalf of franking reform,
NTU has focused on Member offices because they are the
primary source of unsolicited mass mailings and associated
expenditures. We were thus surprised to learn of a single
Committee's FY 2005 postage request for $250,000 in the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill.
NTU is greatly concerned over the prospect of any Committee
in Congress receiving postage funding in these amounts, as it
would mark a significant expansion of the franking privilege
that had traditionally been utilized in large part by Member
offices. Such concern is irrespective of the immediate policy
issue at hand or the parties involved. If the House sets a
budget precedent now, taxpayers will very shortly face the
unwelcome prospect of tens of millions in addition franking
expenditures in future Congresses. Equally important,
Americans would be forced to contend with a new set of issues
affecting the balance of the political process.
Years of efforts from groups like NTU and reformers within
Congress have yielded an improved, yet imperfect, franking
disclosure process. Despite instances of poor recordkeeping,
inadequate disclosure, and overly-permissive rules, today
constituents at least have limited access to basic franking
information--giving them a chance to hold House Members
politically accountable for the unsolicited mass mailings
they send into their districts at taxpayer expense. Allowing
such a practice at the Committee level, where ties between
Members and constituents are less direct, would undermine
even this limited progress.
It is especially galling that Congress would even consider
an additional taxpayer-financed expansion of the franking
privilege under the current fiscal and political
circumstances. Amidst FY 2005 budget deficit estimates
approaching $400 billion, and a campaign finance law that
further hamstrings political challengers, allowing such a
huge postage funding request for any Committee will further
reinforce Congress's reputation as an institution incapable
of self-restraint.
Given the historic patterns of Committee expenditures, a
$25,000 annual limit on postage for each Committee is more
than adequate for any legitimate communication needs.
Seemingly minor budget requests such as the one before
Congress now can have major consequences for taxpayers in the
not-too-distant future. For this reason alone, the House of
Representatives can and should restrict Committee postage
expenditures--and a $25,000 annual limit is a reasonable
first step.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any
additional questions regarding our position.
Sincerely,
Pete Sepp,
Vice President for Communications.
____
Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste,
July 12, 2004.
Representative Brad Sherman,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sherman: The more than one million
members and supporters of the Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste would like to express their appreciation for
your cost-saving effort to limit each Committee to spending
$25,000 a year on postage.
Sincerely,
Thomas Schatz,
President.
I will quote them in part. The first is from the National Taxpayers
Union, and it states in part, ``The House of Representatives can and
should restrict committee postage expenditures, and a $25,000 limit is
a reasonable first step.''
The second states, on behalf of the 1 million members of Citizens
Against Government Waste, that they would like to express their
appreciation to me for my cost-saving efforts to limit each committee
to spending $25,000 and no more per year on postage.
This is the first time that any of my legislative proposals have been
endorsed by both the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against
Government Waste.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that does not count against my time, but it is so
nice to be applauded by my colleagues on that side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, in the history of this House, as far as I can determine,
no committee up until the 108th Congress ever found it necessary to
even spend $10,000 on postage.
In the 107th Congress, the committee that spent the most on postage
spent an average of $7,000 a year during the 2 years of the 107th
Congress.
In the 108th Congress, a new philosophy was born. That philosophy
caused one authorizing committee to seek $500,000 just for postage just
for the 108th Congress. That was $250,000 a year. That request
represented a 4,445 percent increase over what that committee had
requested for the 107th Congress. The Committee on House Administration
allowed that committee only $50,000 a year, only $100,000 for postage.
{time} 1930
But we are not talking about prior fiscal years. If we do not change
this bill, committees will be asking for half a million dollars a year
again, and in a few years it will be commonplace for individual
committee Chairs to have half a million, a million, several million
dollars of postage. And an equal amount for printing in political slush
fund that they can use to mail into Members' districts, hit pieces or
praise pieces. It is just around the corner. And we will hear from the
gentleman or gentlewoman who rises against this motion that maybe it is
a good thing and maybe this House should determine that it is a good
thing that each committee Chair controls millions of dollars and sends
out mail, perhaps justified by field hearing programs, without a field
hearing, but either way with attacks or praise for individual Members
mailing into their districts.
Now, this one committee on just one day in December spent $49,587 on
postage and another $40,732 printing up the material that was to be
mailed.
Now, when I say this bill is about the future and people on this side
of the aisle need to hear this, this motion affects the 2005 fiscal
year. It restricts Chairs; and when I talk about 2005, I mean
Democratic Chairs, or perhaps Republican. Either way it is important
that the Chairs of either party not be tempted to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars punishing or rewarding individual members of their
committee. This is especially important because the House rules are not
clear, and it is possible that you can send out committee mailings
right until election day.
Now, how is this different than Member mailings? Mr. Speaker, when a
Member mails to his or her own district, the recipients of that mail
can punish the Member if they think that sending that mail is a waste
of government resources. When a Chair mails into some district that is
not his or her own, there are not ways to hold that Chair accountable.
This is the one chance we have in this House to vote to draw the
line. We can think of some perfect world where
[[Page H5499]]
we have an authorizing bill where we can vote. We will not have this
chance. Do not fool yourselves. You can open Pandora's box by defeating
this. You can open Pandora's box to a day when committee Chairs have
hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars to spend on postage
attacking individual Members, or you can vote for this motion and draw
the line now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Does the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) oppose the motion?
Mr. KINGSTON. Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Pombo).
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I could take the entire 2\1/2\ minutes
allotted to me to try to correct all of the facts that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Sherman) just put out over the last week or so
here. Unfortunately, 2\1/2\ minutes is not enough time to do that, so I
would like to get to the substance of what his amendment is trying to
do.
Earlier in the debate, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman)
said that this was a new day in politics for committees to begin to
frank. And committees have franked before, but I hope it is a new day.
I hope it is a new era that we are entering into because when I took
over as chairman of the Committee on Resources, one of the things that
I did commit to was getting Members of Congress outside the Beltway,
out across the country to listen to people that are affected by the
laws that we pass in this House.
As a result of that, we have held 41 field hearings on the Committee
on Resources. And members of my committee, Democrats and Republicans
alike, have gone all over this country from Maryland to California,
from Florida to Washington to listen to the people that were impacted
by the issues that are under our committee. And, yes, we have franked.
We have gone into areas and said we are holding the field hearing in
this region and we have told people that we are coming and we are going
to be there. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) said
earlier in the debate that if it was an interesting enough hearing that
the press should be able to cover that and we should not have to frank.
And I found that quite interesting coming from him, seeing that last
year he sent out 12 notices telling people he was having town hall
meetings in his district. So if they were interesting enough, you would
not have had to do that.
Well, quite frankly, sometimes it is in the best interest of good
government to tell people that you are having a field hearing and you
are going out there.
One of the things that the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman)
has intimated over and over and over in this debate over the last week
was that this was partisan. We sent out pieces in the Democrat
districts, in the Republican districts. Everything we sent out had all
of the names of the members of the Committee on Resources on it. It was
done in a bipartisan fashion.
One of the things that we have tried to do on this committee is to
work in a bipartisan fashion. And with the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Rahall) and myself, we have accomplished that over the last 2
years. And to have you come in and try to do this, I think, is
absolutely ridiculous. This is something we should be doing. Vote
against the motion to recommit.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear, first of all, because we
have heard the half a million dollar figure bandied about a couple
times now. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) never asked me for
half a million dollars.
Now, I can produce today about nine to 10 different sheets that we
have had over the last 4 years in House administration of people asking
for all types of money, minority and majority. So the half a million
dollar figure is absolutely erroneous. And to actually stand here today
and think that House Administration would be able to produce a half a
million per committee in the future is also ridiculous. And I also
think the gentleman does not want to start to talk about the history of
spending in House Administration in this House, especially in the last
9 years when we, in fact, have pared down hundreds and hundreds of
staff and cut one-third of the size of this House, in fact.
So I do not think you want to get into today the spending history.
But let me make it clear. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)
followed the rules to the T. This was bipartisan. This was mailed out
for Democrats. This was mailed out for Republicans.
Another statement today that is incorrect, I am sure the gentleman
did it in error, is about the fact of limits, Members in this House are
unlimited in how much they would spend. Your 70-some mailers in the
last 2 years, you are unlimited, and that is your choice; and I do not
today disparage you for mailing those. That is a Member's choice.
As far as the committee affects the entire United States, they have
every right, every right to communicate in today's society. These were
bipartisan. This was bipartisanly approved by House Administration. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) followed this to the T. But I can
assure you, House Administration has been responsible with the last
ranking member to the current ranking member, and I am sure it is going
to be responsible in the future. There is absolutely no way there is
going to be millions of dollars of accounts. That is a type of fear
spreading that simply will not occur. But I will close.
I respect the gentleman's tenacity. And also, it was a pleasure to be
here in the pinnacle of your year when you got the National Taxpayers
Union because I am sure it is the last time I will see it.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes as ordered on the question of passage and the Speaker's approval
of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163,
noes 205, not voting 65, as follows:
[Roll No. 361]
AYES--163
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Herseth
Hill
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
[[Page H5500]]
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--205
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Baca
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
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
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
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
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
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--65
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Bell
Bishop (UT)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Burton (IN)
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Collins
Conyers
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Engel
Fattah
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Goss
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hostettler
Houghton
Isakson
Johnson, E. B.
King (NY)
Lee
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Meehan
Menendez
Miller, George
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Quinn
Sabo
Sanders
Scott (VA)
Shays
Shuster
Stark
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Vitter
Waxman
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1959
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
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 327,
nays 43, not voting 63, as follows:
[Roll No. 362]
YEAS--327
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
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-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Greenwood
Grijalva
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--43
Bartlett (MD)
Berry
Coble
Costello
Davis, Jo Ann
Doggett
Duncan
Flake
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Goode
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hulshof
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Matheson
McCollum
Miller (FL)
Moore
Neugebauer
Obey
Otter
Paul
Petri
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Wu
NOT VOTING--63
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Bell
Bishop (UT)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Burton (IN)
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Collins
Conyers
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Engel
Fattah
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Goss
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hostettler
Houghton
Isakson
Johnson, E. B.
King (NY)
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Meehan
Menendez
Miller, George
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Quinn
Sabo
Sanders
Shays
Shuster
Stark
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Vitter
Waxman
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2005
Mr. JONES of North Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H5501]]
____________________