[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 124 (Tuesday, October 5, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8043-H8048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 878, CREATING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL
COURT JUDGESHIPS
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 814 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 814
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (S. 878) to authorize an additional permanent
judgeship in the district of Idaho, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
[[Page H8044]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of
debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us is a well-balanced, structured
rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration
of the bill, and provides that the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment and shall be considered as read.
It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, and makes in order only those amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the
resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. These amendments shall
not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments
printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for S. 878, a
bill to authorize the creation of a number of much-needed Federal
judgeships, as well as in strong support of the underlying legislation.
This legislation already enjoys strong bipartisan support in the other
body, where it was sponsored by my good friend, Senator Larry Craig of
Idaho, because it would greatly improve the ability of the Federal
judiciary to handle its caseload and increase the number of cases and
appeals that sit before them weighing the merits of each case.
By passing this legislation, Congress can help to lighten the load on
some of our most overworked Federal judges and reduce the amount of
time it takes them to review and process cases for appeal. By adding
these new judgeships, Congress will be taking a meaningful step towards
making justice in the Federal Judiciary more swift and fair in the
United States of America.
We are bringing this legislation to the floor today in response to a
survey conducted every 2 years by the Judicial Conference of the United
States. The Judicial Conference makes an objective, biennial review of
all U.S. Courts of Appeal and U.S. District Courts to determine if
additional judges are needed in the Federal Court system. Recently, the
Conference determined its benchmark caseload standards for Federal
courts at 430 weighted cases per judgeship for district courts and 500
weighted cases per panel for circuit courts. This benchmark was then
used to recommend to Congress what new judgeships are needed according
to how many cases above the benchmark a particular Federal Court is
handling.
The Judicial Conference process also took into account additional
criteria that may influence the judgeship needs of each court,
including the presence of senior judges and magistrate judges that help
to relieve caseloads, geographical factors, unusual caseload
complexities, and temporary caseload increases or decreases. Based upon
these findings, the Conference then made a recommendation to Congress
about how many new judges are currently needed to fill the judgeship
gap in the Federal Judiciary.
The Judicial Conference of the United States completed its last
review in March of 2003 and submitted a list of recommendations to the
House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. The legislation that we
are considering today reflects those recommendations and creates 11 new
circuit court seats and 47 new district court seats. In addition, under
this legislation, four other temporary district judgeships are
converted to permanent status.
Mr. Speaker, my father, Judge William S. Sessions, was a Federal
District Judge in San Antonio, Texas, for 13 years, so I have firsthand
experience in understanding how overworked judges are and the need we
have for additional judges. However, this legislation is not just about
making life easier for our Federal judges; it is about providing people
with cases before Federal courts with the appropriate recourse to a
speedy resolution of their complaints.
A judicial system that is unable to complete its work in a timely
fashion compromises the integrity of that system, and this bill will
help to restore our Federal courts' ability to rule on matters before
them in a fair, deliberative, and expedited fashion. I believe that it
is our duty, as Members of Congress, to address the concerns raised by
the Judicial Conference of the United States; and by passing this rule,
and this legislation, Congress will help address the overwhelming
backlog in our Federal Court system.
I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for our Judiciary by
supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for far too many Americans, justice
delayed is justice denied in our Federal Court system. Regrettably,
today's Federal courts find themselves without the resources to
adjudicate the cases in a timely fashion. Compliance with the Speedy
Trials Act of 1974 must seem like an unachievable goal to judges all
across this Nation, that struggle to keep our Federal court systems
functioning.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us is a restrictive rule that allows for
1 hour of general debate on this bill to create 47 new Federal district
judge positions and add 11 circuit judgeships to the Federal bench. It
allows consideration of only two of six amendments offered in the
Committee on Rules last night.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that adding new judgeships would help address
the backlog in the Federal courts; however, to do so without addressing
the congestion in the Federal Bankruptcy Courts is analogous to trying
to stop a hemorrhage with a Band-Aid.
It is worth noting that the other body's version of this bill would
create 34 bankruptcy judge positions. It is also worth noting that one
of the rejected amendments offered by our colleague, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), in the Committee on Rules last night would have
created 36 new permanent and temporary bankruptcy judgeships.
{time} 1030
We would have a better debate on this bill today if this body were
allowed to debate the thoughtful amendments that the rule does not make
in order.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal courts are hurting. Just last week, the
Judicial Conference of the United States voted to delay 42 court
construction projects across the country to save $225 million and to
avoid laying off as many as 3,500 employees. Last year, Federal courts
had to cut 1,000 jobs. The lack of staffing resources only compounds
the backlog problem, and the remaining staff is grievously overworked.
Even with this extreme action, the Judicial Conference reports that as
many as 4,800 court clerks, probation officers and other support staff
could still lose their jobs in the next year.
According to the chief judge of the bankruptcy court for the Western
District of New York, the number of bankruptcy cases filed has steadily
increased nearly 10 percent for each of the last 4 years. Yet despite
the increased workload, the court's funding was substantially reduced
over the past 2 fiscal years, and it is bracing itself for a 15 percent
reduction in fiscal year 2005. Judge John Ninfo writes that ``the
immediate impact is the need for the court to terminate the employment
of four to five people, all of whom have served this court extremely
well. The
[[Page H8045]]
adverse impact upon the families of those people will be substantial.''
Judge Ninfo goes on to say, ``The court anticipates the need to
significantly reduce services to the bar and the public, which will
cause hardship on debtors and creditors during a time that is already
difficult and stressful.''
Mr. Speaker, we must do more to address the backlog in the Federal
courts than simply adding new positions to the bench. We must provide
the resources necessary for staffing and the efficient operation of
justice. We must show more respect for the third branch. Vilifying the
courts or singling out so-called activist judges is counterproductive.
Certainly, stripping jurisdiction away from the courts to hear cases
relating to the Pledge of Allegiance or same-sex marriage is not
helpful and, I do not believe, constitutional.
The current push to strip the courts of jurisdiction when
controversial decisions are issued is not novel. It has been tried
before. In the 1960s and 1970s, in the aftermath of the historic
decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Congress repeatedly attempted
to strip the courts of the power to hear school desegregation suits or
to order busing to achieve integration. More recently, it has been
tried to strip courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to laws
prohibiting abortion or suits against public schools that require
prayer. These shortsighted efforts raise significant balance-of-power
questions and demean this austere body. Lest we forget the words of
James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who two centuries ago
explained that the courts are the ``impenetrable bulwark'' that
transform the Bill of Rights into enforceable rights, a very important
statement.
I, therefore, caution my colleagues to consider the full
ramifications of court-stripping action. It does little good to have an
abstract constitutional right if no court can ever enforce it.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today provides this body with the
opportunity to take a look at the state of the judiciary. Adding new
judgeships will help, but we need to do more to ensure the strength and
the independence of the judicial branch, the protector of our
constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Mr. Speaker, I call for a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman).
(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me
this time, and I rise very disappointed in the rule proposed for the
consideration of S. 878 and intend to vote against it and urge my
colleagues to oppose it.
This rule makes in order only two amendments, both offered by
Republican Members. It rejects four other amendments, including one
that I myself offered. There is no defensible substantive rationale for
this decision. There is a political rationale that is barely
defensible. While my amendment would have required a waiver, both
amendments that the Committee on Rules chose to make in order also
required waivers. While my amendment has not been formally considered
by the Committee on the Judiciary, the committee has also not
considered the amendment proposing to split the Ninth Circuit. The
Committee on Rules has once again decided to stifle an open debate. To
make matters worse, its rule furthers a partisan political objective to
the detriment of an important policy goal.
I think the American public deserves to hear a little about the
amendments that the Rules Committee does not want debated. The
amendment that I sought to offer would have provided parties in a court
proceeding with the opportunity to petition for an appeal of a judge's
refusal to recuse himself. The amendment would have left it to the
discretion of the courts to decide the appropriate circumstances in
which such petitions should be granted. Unlike the judicial misconduct
statute, the recusal statute currently provides no opportunity to
appeal a judge's refusal to recuse himself. My amendment would have
simply brought the procedures for addressing recusal and misconduct
decisions into line with one another.
Chief Justice Rehnquist himself highlighted this statutory anomaly in
a letter to several U.S. Senators. These Senators had expressed concern
that Justice Scalia did not recuse himself from a case in which Vice
President Cheney was a named litigant. While this case was pending,
Justice Scalia had taken a duck-hunting trip with the Vice President.
Not only did they hunt together for several days, but Justice Scalia
had traveled with the Vice President aboard Air Force Two. In a public
document explaining his refusal to recuse himself from a case involving
his hunting buddy, Justice Scalia wrote that he did not believe ``his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'' In commenting on Justice
Scalia's decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted, ``there is no formal
procedure for a court review of a decision of a justice in an
individual case.''
My own feelings about the propriety of Justice Scalia's refusal to
recuse himself are not important. What is important, however, is the
opinion of the American people. The efficacy of our court system
depends entirely on the perception that the courts will administer
justice impartially. If the courts lose the trust of the people, they
lose their only real power. Reasonably or not, many folks around the
country did question whether Justice Scalia could be impartial in a
case involving a hunting buddy. It is clear that Justice Scalia's
declaration of impartiality did not, in and of itself, put these
questions to rest. To the extent these questions persist, our court
system suffers.
The amendment I wanted to offer would have gone a long way to
addressing this problem. If this amendment had been the law when
Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself, the litigants in the Cheney
case could have petitioned the Supreme Court to review Justice Scalia's
decision. Dismissal of that petition by a panel of justices would have
gone a long way to quelling questions about Justice Scalia's
impartiality. Unfortunately, without such review, those questions
persist; not in my mind because my guess is Justice Scalia could have
gone duck hunting with my colleague from California (Mr. Waxman), and
he would have still ruled on Vice President Cheney's side of that case.
The thought of Justice Scalia and Congressman Waxman duck hunting
together is an interesting one. Without such a review, the questions
persist in the eyes of the American people. Their persistence rots the
foundation of our judicial system.
I presented my amendment to the Rules Committee because we must act
before further questions arise and the public loses more confidence in
the judiciary. Apparently, the Rules Committee is less concerned about
this crisis in confidence than about the prospect of an uncomfortable
debate.
In addition, a number of other amendments that were offered in the
Rules Committee were denied: one dealing with the issue of cameras in
the courtroom; one with the absence of this bill to provide the
bankruptcy judges that are needed in our Federal bankruptcy system; a
third dealing with the loss of COLAs by judges during the years that
Congress did not pass the COLA increase for itself and the Federal
judiciary, an issue which definitely impacts on the ability of the
Federal courts to attract the best possible candidates for the Federal
judiciary.
What it did allow was an amendment proposing to split the Ninth
Circuit, at tremendous cost, against the opposition of the overwhelming
majority of the Ninth Circuit justices, into three different circuits.
I vigorously oppose that amendment. I will not use this time to speak
on that amendment. I will speak on it when it comes up. My only point
in mentioning that is one very controversial amendment that required a
waiver was allowed by the Rules Committee; three other amendments which
may have also been controversial and required the same kind of a waiver
were denied by the Rules Committee. I think that makes for an
unsatisfactory rule, and I urge opposition to it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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. Mr. Speaker, I think the American public
[[Page H8046]]
should know that we are addressing today the reconfiguration of Federal
courts, and there are several crises that I think are abounding without
the appropriate amount of time to debate this very important question.
First of all, in my own Southern District, we reported just a couple
of days ago that our courts are having to lay off personnel, having to
delay court decisions, and that means the access of constituents into
the courthouse of justice--because of the lack of dollars that provide
resources that are necessary to administer the courts--is denied. Over
the years, we have attempted to increase compensation to our Federal
judges, and my disappointment in the fact that the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) to increase Federal judges' salaries by 16.5 percent was
not allowed. Over the years, we have overlooked the increasing need for
increased compensation for these judges who are lifetime appointees.
But the most egregious amendment that was allowed was to be able to
divide the courts, the Ninth Circuit in particular, into three
different circuits. One would think that that was done for the
efficiency of justice, but I can clearly denote for those who are
listening that it was really done to water down the kind of open and
free decisions that are being made by the Ninth Circuit. What they are
doing is, if you don't like the decisions, let's implode the court and
make it into the 13th and the 12th. Here we go again trying to
undermine the rendering of justice and the freedom of judges to look at
the facts and to make the right decisions. I would hope that, any time
we come and discuss the Constitution, the Federal court system, the
Supreme Court, the district courts, the circuit courts, that we do it
with an eye toward freedom and enhancing justice and opening the courts
so that all petitioners might feel free to go in, and that the judges
will not be intimidated by those who take offense to both lifetime
appointees and the courts' decisions, and certainly we should question
those who want to take and destroy the court system by their own
amendments and their own views.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
simply want to make the point that on a party-line vote, the Rules
Committee Republicans rejected making the following four bipartisan
amendments in order under the rule:
The first one was offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to increase Federal
judges' salary;
A Democratic amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
permitting Federal judges to allow photographing or televising court
proceedings at their discretion;
An important amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) that would allow a party to petition for a three-judge panel to
override a Federal judge's refusal to recuse herself or himself from a
case;
And the Republican amendment, a very important one, by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to create 36 new permanent and temporary
bankruptcy judges.
I think that renders this bill fairly useless, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The points that have been made by my colleagues on the other side, I
think it is important for us to recognize that the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals has 48 judges. That is twice the number of total judges of
the next largest circuit.
{time} 1045
The Ninth Circuit represents some 56 million people, roughly one-
fifth of this Nation's population. And this is 25 million more people
than the next largest circuit. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner), the wonderful chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary here in the House, held hearings on this subject to gain
information to be able to render a reasonable observation about how
important this would be; and, in fact, we do believe that addressing
this problem by breaking up and adding more circuits would be
beneficial, would be beneficial to not only other States and other
petitioners, but also to make sure that the effective enforcement of
justice was properly achieved in the United States of America.
So I am proud to say that the Committee on Rules did yesterday hear
the debate about the amendments that were before us. We looked at and I
believe properly rendered a decision to say that we are concerned about
the number of judges, we are concerned about the way the courts look in
terms of the circuit courts that are available to people for
litigation, and we moved forward with a bill that I believe is
balanced, one which I believe will pass, one which I believe will
mirror the other body to make sure that the effective use of judges,
effective use of resources, and effective legislation by the United
States Congress, hopefully to be signed by President George W. Bush,
will be achieved with this legislation.
I wholeheartedly support not only this legislation but would ask each
of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
And I want to thank, for his exemplary service, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the fabulous chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing forth this bill today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on
ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 198,
nays 171, not voting 63, as follows:
[Roll No. 490]
YEAS--198
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
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)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H8047]]
NAYS--171
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
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
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Langevin
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
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
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--63
Abercrombie
Alexander
Baird
Boehlert
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Cannon
Clay
Cubin
DeMint
Doggett
Engel
Forbes
Gephardt
Goode
Greenwood
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hostettler
Isakson
John
Jones (OH)
Kirk
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Majette
McGovern
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Otter
Payne
Portman
Quinn
Rothman
Souder
Stenholm
Sweeney
Tauzin
Terry
Toomey
Towns
Turner (TX)
Waters
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wicker
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida) (during the vote).
Members are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1112
Messrs. RANGEL, PASCRELL, SCOTT of Georgia and ACKERMAN changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Tuesday, October 5,
2004, the House had rollcall vote No. 490. Unfortunately, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on
the rollcall vote.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 490 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 173, not voting 53, as follows:
[Roll No. 491]
AYES--206
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--173
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
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
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--53
Abercrombie
Alexander
Baird
Boehlert
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Cannon
Clay
DeMint
Doggett
Engel
Forbes
Gephardt
Goode
Greenwood
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Isakson
John
Jones (OH)
Kirk
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Majette
McGovern
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Norwood
Oberstar
Payne
Portman
Quinn
Souder
Stenholm
Sweeney
Tauzin
Terry
Toomey
Towns
Turner (TX)
Waters
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida) (during the vote).
Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1120
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H8048]]
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________