[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.

                          ____________________