[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 126 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8645-H8649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4567, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for 
the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Sabo

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. SABO moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 4567, be instructed to insist on inclusion 
     of the highest possible level of funding for each homeland 
     security, first responder, domestic preparedness, emergency 
     management performance grant, fire grant, flood map, and 
     disaster mitigation program within Titles II and III.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XX, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

[[Page H8646]]

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct House conferees is 
straightforward. It is a motion to insist on the highest possible level 
of funding for each homeland security first responder, domestic 
preparedness, flood map and disaster mitigation program in the bill.
  In the conference on the fiscal 2005 Homeland Security appropriations 
bill, we have the opportunity to provide additional homeland security 
resources to close known security gaps and to strengthen our first 
responders.
  Going to the higher funding levels for each of these programs means 
that we would provide $945 million more than the House-passed bill. We 
should instruct our conferees to do just that.
  We all know that first responders, our local police, firefighters, 
the emergency response personnel, will be the first at the scene of a 
terrorist attack. We know only too well how many of them lost their 
lives on 9/11.
  Yet, the Senate bill provides $400 million less for the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness grant programs than the House bill does. This 
motion would direct conferees to include the highest level for each of 
the programs funded under ODP.
  The conferees should insist on the $1.25 billion provided by the 
House for the formula-based preparedness grants to all States.
  The conferees should insist on $500 million provided by the House for 
law enforcement preparedness grants to all States.
  The conferees should insist on the $1.3 billion provided by the 
Senate for urban area security grants.
  The conferees should insist on the $50 million provided by the House 
for metropolitan medical response system grants.
  We should insist on the $236 million the Senate provided for 
emergency management performance grants. These grants directly support 
the States' emergency management programs.
  The conferees should also insist on the additional $100 million 
provided by the Senate for fire grant programs, which would still only 
fund our fire departments at this year's level.
  A year ago, the Council on Foreign Relations released a report 
entitled, First Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously 
Unprepared. The report stated that billions of dollars, $98 billion 
specifically, are needed to properly equip first responders. Yet, the 
Bush administration and the Congress continues to cut this funding, not 
increase it.
  Another recent survey shows that fire department needs are immense 
and are not being met. Is this where we should be 3 years after 9/11?
  The motion also addresses funding for our border patrol and 
immigration investigation operations. A recent Time magazine cover 
story entitled, ``Who left the door open?'' exposes the weaknesses in 
our land border security efforts. These are troubling homeland security 
gaps that we must fix.
  While these problems cannot be solved by money alone, additional 
funding is critical to help harden our security barriers, increase our 
deportation efforts, and expand our border patrols. We should provide 
these resources.
  House conferees should be instructed to insist on the additional $211 
million that the Senate provided for northern border air surveillance 
operations. We have not yet done what we need to do to protect our 
northern border.
  House conferees should be instructed to insist on the $136 million 
the Senate provided for increased alien detention efforts, including 
additional bed space and detention alternatives.
  As the 9/11 Commission noted, we have an immigration system that is 
``not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support 
counterterrorism.''
  The Air Marshal program is also critical to enhancing our aviation 
security. The Bush administration has allowed the number of air 
marshals to fall below the levels they recommended after 9/11. The 
Senate bill contains an additional $50 million to increase the number 
of air marshals. House conferees should be instructed to insist on this 
higher funding.
  At the current rate, it will take over 10 years to install checked 
baggage explosive detection systems in airports with the most critical 
problems. While TSA is trying to replace unwieldy temporary systems 
with permanent explosive screening solutions, our progress in this 
effort is directly related to resources. The Senate bill contains $96 
million more than the House. Conferees should be instructed to insist 
on the higher funding level.
  The recent hurricane and flooding reminded us how important it is for 
communities to have accurately mapped flood areas and funding to 
mitigate disasters so they do not recur. The Senate bill provides $100 
million more than the House for these efforts. Our conferees should be 
instructed to insist on this higher funding.
  All of these programs are needed to close homeland security gaps and 
better prepare our Nation. The motion to instruct directs the House 
conferees to agree to the highest funding levels possible for homeland 
security, first responder, domestic preparedness, flood map and 
disaster mitigation programs.
  We should be doing all we can to close known security gaps today so 
that we are not sorry tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report for the fiscal year 2005 
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, which we will be 
considering on the House floor soon, will provide $32 billion for the 
Department of Homeland Security. This funding level is consistent with 
the subcommittee's spending allocation, and it is $496 million above 
the amounts proposed by the President and $1.1 billion above fiscal 
year 2004 enacted levels.
  The conference allocation will allow us to aggressively support 
critical homeland security missions identified in the gentleman's 
motion, including first responder, domestic preparedness, emergency 
management, firefighter assistance and disaster mitigation and relief 
programs.

                              {time}  1045

  The motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota is consistent with 
my intentions to secure our Nation's homeland by providing the most 
robust funding possible for all aspects of homeland security: 
Protection, preparedness and response. But we must do this within our 
spending allocation.
  For the 22 agencies that now make up the new department, Congress has 
provided more than $73 billion through fiscal 2004. With the additional 
$32 billion in this bill, the totals provided to the Department is more 
than $105 billion in fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
  Tremendous progress has been made in making our Nation more secure 
using the right mixture of people and technology to strengthen our 
borders and close security gaps. Let me give some success stories:
  Since its creation, the Department has inventoried the Nation's 
critical infrastructure to include more than 33,000 facilities and 
begun identifying and reducing vulnerabilities at chemical plants and 
facilities, nuclear power plants, national monuments, subway and light 
rail systems, and commercial sites, among others.
  Two, the Department has streamlined the process used to get money out 
to first responders by setting up a new one-stop shop and eliminating 
choke points so that money can flow where it is needed more rapidly.
  Three, we have enhanced aviation security by searching all checked 
bags for explosives, modifying airports to install explosive detection 
machines in-line, improving air cargo security through increased 
screening and enhancements of the known shipper program, and developing 
antimissile devices for commercial aircraft.
  Four, we have increased the presence of the container security 
initiative to more than 38 foreign ports which ship us over 80 percent 
of our container freight, meaning that we are prescreening most high-
threat cargo before it ever reaches our shore.
  The next point. We have made capital improvements, investments in 
innovative technologies, including radiation detection for our ports 
and nonintrusive inspection technologies for cargo screening which are 
deployed at our busiest land and seaports.

[[Page H8647]]

  And we have created standards for first responder equipment, 
established three Homeland Security Centers of Excellence and expanded 
the presence of sensors in high-risk cities for detailing biohazards.
  Those are just some of the accomplishments that we can count on and 
be thankful for since 9/11.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the highest possible funding levels for the 
critical functions of the Department of Homeland Security. I also 
believe in the responsible use of taxpayer money. As we move towards 
conference, my goal is to do all we can to ensure both our Homeland 
Security operators as well as our first responders get the tools they 
need to keep our hometowns safe and secure.
  I certainly believe in doing all we can to make this country safe, 
and in that spirit, I accept the gentleman's motion as a good one.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking 
Democrat on the House Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I am pleased that the gentleman from Kentucky has accepted 
the Sabo motion, but I want to express a caution. It does the country 
no good, it does this institution no good if that motion is accepted 
for purposes of moving us to conference and then discarded the moment 
we move into conference.
  I do not want anybody to vote for this motion to accept today unless 
they intend to oppose any bill that comes back from conference which 
short-sheets the funding levels described in the Sabo amendment. To do 
that would be legislative hypocrisy.
  Mr. Speaker, I think a number of things need to be pointed out. This 
President and this administration have a long history of trying to 
prevent this Congress from providing all of the funding that we think 
is necessary to protect Homeland Security. After we were hit by 
anthrax, and our committee on a bipartisan basis put together a list of 
crucial additions to the Homeland Security budget, we went down to the 
White House and tried to show them to the President. Before we could 
say one word, the President said, ``Well, I want you to know that if 
you appropriate a dollar more than I have asked for for Homeland 
Security I will veto the bill,'' without even listening to what it was 
that we had to say. We had to point out to him that there were four 
different Federal installations that his own security people had said 
were under grave threat of terrorist attack, which his budget was not 
doing one blessed thing to protect, and he still resisted us.
  So we had to come back to the Congress and, despite the President's 
threat of veto, we had to add several billion dollars to the bill that 
year.
  The next year, the President pocket vetoed $1.5 billion in additional 
funding for Homeland Security that this Congress had provided on a 
bipartisan basis. Ninety-eight percent of the Republicans and the 
Democrats in both Houses had voted for those add-ons, yet the President 
declined to allow that money to go forward.
  So today we are still far behind where we should be in protecting our 
courts, far behind where we should be in protecting the northern 
border. We have 2,000 fewer inspectors on the northern border than the 
PATRIOT Act itself said we ought to have.
  So I am frankly amazed at the footdragging that this administration 
has done or has engaged in when it comes to providing adequate funding 
for these items. We have only 13 percent of America's fire departments 
who are fully equipped to respond to a full-blown HAZMAT incident. We 
only have one-third of firefighters per shift who are adequately 
equipped with self-contained breathing apparatuses, and we still have a 
minuscule percentage of cargo inspected as they come into our ports.
  The gentleman from Kentucky talks about how we have 38 ports we are 
now trying to put the new Customs system in. There are 38 ports we are 
trying to get that done in, but it is not done yet. And as far as China 
is concerned, we are barely off the ground at inspecting the huge 
amount of cargo that comes into this country from China. So we have 
huge additional holes.
  So I hope this House and this committee will not be disingenuous in 
accepting this amendment now and then walking away from its 
requirements as soon as we get to conference later today.
  What we have been doing consistently is moving bureaucratic boxes 
around, rather than providing adequate resources to do the job. What we 
did 2 years ago on Homeland Security, we had 133 agencies that had 
something to do with homeland security. This Congress took 22 of them, 
not including the FBI, not including the CIA, the two most important 
agencies, we took 22 out of 133 agencies, lumped them together, called 
that the Homeland Security agency. We still had 111 agencies on the 
outside looking in. They were not included in the reorganization. As a 
result, we have a huge percentage of key personnel positions in the 
Homeland Security agency today that are still not filled, and almost 25 
percent of the positions that are filled, are filled with political 
appointees.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have not done, while we have rearranged the 
boxes, is to provide enough adequate financial resources to this 
agency. So I hope we are serious in accepting this motion today.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin knows that our subcommittee does a lot 
of closed-door briefings. They are not hearings, they are briefings. 
They are behind closed doors because we are dealing with classified 
materials and procedures and practices. Therefore, there is a lot we 
cannot talk about here in these surroundings. There is a lot going on 
that we cannot describe. And I really resent those who would take 
advantage of the fact that we cannot describe all that we are doing to 
say we are not doing enough.
  I resent that. If the gentleman would attend some of those closed 
briefings, he would know better.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I have attended a lot of briefings that I have never seen 
you at, with the CIA, the Homeland Security Agency, and a number of 
others.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, if you would attend one closed Homeland 
Security briefing, I would appreciate it.
  Mr. OBEY. You don't know the briefings I have attended.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Get your facts straight.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The gentlemen will direct their 
comments to the Chair.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Suffice it to say on, for example container security, there is a lot 
more going on than the gentleman has described, or perhaps even knows 
about. And I would hope that we could keep this discussion based on 
facts, and based on the fact that we cannot talk about publicly a lot 
of the classified procedures and operations that are being done and 
easily demagogued by those who want to buy some political insurance in 
case we have an unfortunate incident in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, to make just a couple of 
comments.
  I am not sure we get anyplace by talking about who has been at 
meetings or who has not. I have been at lots of meetings with the 
ranking member as it relates to Homeland Security. I also have been at 
lots of meetings that do not relate to Homeland Security but relate to 
another subcommittee I am on in which Mr. Obey has been at. Frankly, it 
is interesting to hear intelligence from two different perspectives. It 
is helpful at times. Other times, they still leave you wishing you knew 
more.
  But let me just make this observation. It is true we have limited 
dollars. It is also true we have an immense new challenge. I hear all 
this rhetoric that we are in a war on terrorism and that we are and 
have potential targets in

[[Page H8648]]

this country. It only strikes me from open and closed hearings that I 
have been at that we are pretty casual about the threat we face in this 
country.
  Clearly, we have spent billions, and some progress has been made. But 
the gaps are there, and they are large and they are substantial. It is 
always impossible to deal with every potential gap that someone can 
think of. That is impossible in a free society. On the other hand, we 
know that there are large targets in this country that, frankly, we 
have not done enough about. We also know that there are significant 
gaps in the funding of our first responders, and we know that in the 
last couple of years, rather than going forward, we are going backwards 
in the funding of first responders in this country.

                              {time}  1100

  This committee and this House have been better than the 
administration. The administration has regularly cut funding in their 
budgets for first responders. We have added, but have not been able to 
add back everything they are cutting. And we are into this same pattern 
again. The bills that we have will be significantly better than what 
the administration requested. But what the administration requests as 
it relates to first responders in this country is simply tragic.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking Democrat on the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think Members on both sides of the aisle have the same 
intention, that is, to make America as safe as it needs to be, but I do 
think there is a very different view of what it will take to ensure the 
safety of the American people against the threat of al Qaeda and the 
threat from bin Laden.
  When we look at the current level of expenditures for homeland 
security, what we see is there is much that we have not done. We have 
not secured the loose nuclear material that is around the world and 
which represents the greatest threat to our security, that is, the 
possibility and likelihood that a terrorist would try to detonate a 
nuclear bomb within one of our cities. We spent more money trying to 
secure loose nukes in the 2 years prior to 9/11 than we did in the 2 
years after 9/11.
  We look at the results of the efforts that have been made and how 
they fall far short of our goal. We do not yet have a unified terrorist 
watch list. We had 120,000 hours of untranslated wiretaps at the FBI 
that was reported in the newspaper just this week. We know there are 
20,000 illegal immigrants who were caught and released into our country 
last fiscal year because there was no funding for the detention space 
to hold them, illegal immigrants from places other than Mexico.
  We know that in 2004, last year, we had invested about $20 billion 
more in homeland security than we did in the year prior to 9/11. We 
know that is a lot of money, and yet we also know that in terms of our 
priorities and in terms of our $850 billion discretionary spending 
budget, it was not a major change in commitment.
  The truth of the matter is, we need to do better. We must make 
America safer. It is all about choices. It is all about priorities.
  When you look at the tax cuts that were given to the top 1 percent of 
Americans in fiscal year 2004, they totaled four times more than the 
additional investments we made in homeland security over the year prior 
to 9/11.
  We have a whole list of unmet needs. We are told we need $2.7 billion 
to secure our rail and public transit systems. We are told we need at 
least $200 million more to install all of the radiation portal 
detectors this year to make sure we do not have a nuclear weapon 
shipped into our country by land or sea or air. We know that we need 
$100 million to hire additional security personnel on the northern 
border and an estimated $1 billion to truly secure the southern border. 
We know that in this appropriations bill we have zeroed out the funding 
for interoperable communications grants, such a critical issue to our 
first responders all across this country.
  I recognize that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has 
made his best effort and worked within the constraints that he was 
handed, and I am pleased that we have close to half a billion dollars 
more in this bill than the President has requested. But it was very 
telling to me the other night during the debate when John Kerry 
enumerated several of these needs that we have to improve our homeland 
security, and the President replied, ``He doesn't tell you how he is 
going to pay for this.'' He said it is like a big tax gap.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are borrowing half of our discretionary 
spending, and if the President really believes that we are in a war on 
terror, as I do, I think he would place homeland security as a priority 
in terms of what we do.
  So, yes, under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers), we are appropriating more money than the President 
even asked for to protect the homeland, and yet it is still far from 
meeting the needs that we have.
  When you look at the amount we are spending and you compare it to 
what we are spending in other places in our budget, the spending for 
fiscal year 2005 is about $1 billion above the level for last year. 
That $1 billion is equal to about a week of what we spend in Iraq.
  I would say to you, if the threat is, as I believe, a threat of 
international terrorists attacking us on our own soil and this is a war 
we must win, I would suggest that we change our priorities. We will 
make different choices, and we will ensure that America is safe.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky says that he 
resents the fact that I have raised some of these shortcomings on the 
House floor. I am sorry he takes so many things personally. We all 
recognize that his committee has added $800 million to the 
administration budget; and as far as it goes, that is fine. But that 
does not mean that we are meeting the needs of this country.
  He likes to talk about things that people do not know, ``classified 
information.'' Rather than hiding behind that classified information, I 
would simply say I will tell you what is not classified: the fact that 
we have fewer air marshals today patrolling the skies than the 
President and the Congress promised in 2001.
  I will tell you what is not classified: the fact that the President 
of the United States himself said that 40 percent of people who are in 
this country illegally have overstayed their visas, and yet that 
backlog of cases has grown by 40,000 a year.
  I will tell you something else that is not classified: the gentleman 
says we need to be fiscally responsible. The President in the debate 
with Mr. Kerry last week said, ``Well, it is interesting to see how 
much Mr. Kerry wants to provide for homeland security, but where is he 
going to get the money?''
  I will tell you where we tried to get it. We tried to say, instead of 
giving people who make $1 million a year a $128,000 tax cut next year, 
let's cut that back for those folks who make over $1 million and put 
that money into additional port security, put that money into airline 
security, put that money into screeners. And do you know what? The 
gentleman from Kentucky voted against that. So he had a choice between 
homeland security and additional tax cuts for millionaires, and he made 
the wrong choice.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SABO. 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.

[[Page H8649]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to instruct on H.R. 4567 will be followed by 
5-minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4661, 
as amended; on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5213, as 
amended; and on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5186, as 
amended.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395, 
nays 16, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 502]

                               YEAS--395

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--16

     Bachus
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Garrett (NJ)
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Linder
     Musgrave
     Pearce
     Shadegg
     Tiberi
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Boehlert
     Culberson
     Filner
     Gephardt
     Hulshof
     Israel
     Johnson (CT)
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Majette
     Millender-McDonald
     Neal (MA)
     Norwood
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Slaughter
     Sullivan
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Vitter
     Weldon (PA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1133

  Messrs. GARRETT of New Jersey, BACHUS, and EHLERS changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, and Messrs. TERRY, GRAVES and 
HOSTETTLER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 502, I was in my 
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________