[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4928-H4934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2985, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 334 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 334

       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 (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, 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 Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill 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. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 334 is a 
structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 2985, the 
fiscal year 2006 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, as well as five 
amendments. The rule provides for one hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on 
the Committee on Appropriations. It also provides for one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today appropriates $2.87 
billion for the operations of the legislative branch of government. The 
bill is fiscally sound and includes a modest 1.7 percent increase from 
the last fiscal year. It provides over a billion dollars for the 
operation of this House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1445

  This includes funds for Members' representational allowances, 
leadership, and committee offices. These funds will help our Members 
fulfill their duties to legislate, represent their constituencies, and 
oversee the executive branch. These funds are very important in that 
they provide for that possibility, which is constitutionally mandated, 
Mr. Speaker, oversight of the executive branch. The Constitution grants 
Congress broad powers that include the oversight power. This includes 
getting to know what the executive branch is doing, how programs are 
being administered, by whom and at what cost, and whether officials are 
obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.
  For the Capitol Police, the bill appropriates over $239 million. Also 
included is an Inspector General for the Capitol Police to help them 
with their financial management.
  The bill also includes an important piece of legislation, H.R. 841, 
the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005. As we all know, on 
September 11, 2001, Flight 93 was headed toward Washington, D.C. If it 
were not for the truly heroic acts of the passengers on that flight, we 
could have been facing a situation where Congress would not have been 
able to function.
  We have to do everything possible, Mr. Speaker, to prevent this from 
being a possibility even in the future. H.R. 841 would accelerate 
elections in case of a terrorist attack on the House of 
Representatives, in case such a terrorist attack left the House with 
over 100 vacancies. It provides for the expedited special election of 
new Members to fill seats left vacant in extraordinary circumstances.
  The House of Representatives passed this bill earlier this year by an 
overwhelming bipartisan margin of 329-68. In the 108th Congress, the 
House passed a similar bill, H.R. 2844, by a vote of 306-97. However, 
each time the Senate has failed to consider this vital piece of 
legislation. I think it is time that we have legislation that can 
handle such a horrible possibility and does not leave our 
constitutional duty to legislate and oversee in limbo.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2985 was introduced by Chairman Lewis and reported 
out of the Appropriations Committee on June 20 by voice vote. It is a 
good bill, essential to our continued ability to legislate, to our 
power of oversight, and to the continuity of our government. I would 
like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee for their leadership on this important issue, as well as the 
subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule governing the 
debate for the fiscal year 2006 legislative branch appropriations 
measure. Through this bill, we will fund the operations for our 
institution and the many supporting bodies that we rely upon, such as 
the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  While I will ultimately support the underlying bill, I would first 
like to address a few aspects of the rule about which I have serious 
concerns, specifically, the committee's addition of legislative 
language providing for the continuity of Congress. One of the results 
of September 11, and we all agree, is that we need a mechanism to allow 
States to replace Members of Congress in the event of a major disaster. 
However, adding continuity language in the manner we are today is 
inappropriate.
  While I am pleased that the Rules Committee voted to allow debate on 
the Baird amendment to remove this language from the bill, I am 
disappointed that this language was included in the bill at all. 
Legislation that will have a major impact on the representation of the 
American people, as this language unquestionably will, should be 
completely and thoroughly debated in an atmosphere conducive to debate. 
This proposal should be addressed in the same way any other authorizing 
legislation would be and as it was when the House passed this measure 
earlier this year in a stand-alone bill.

[[Page H4929]]

  But the Republican leadership has decided otherwise, and I raise the 
question that if we are to discuss this weighty issue today, why then 
would the Rules Committee not allow an amendment by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) which would set up a select committee to 
look into contracting abuses in the Iraq war? To date, $9 billion is 
missing or unaccounted for in appropriated funds for the Iraq war. This 
is an issue of equal significance, especially as we consider the tight 
budget constraints Congress faces.
  Regardless of how one would vote on the amendment itself, this idea 
deserves the same consideration and debate as the continuity of 
Congress measure. I am disappointed that this amendment was not made in 
order as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to resuming the debate on the issue of 
the continuity of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  This is an eminently fair rule. With regard to the issue of the 
continuity of government, twice before legislation has been brought to 
the floor on that issue, and there has been an extensive debate. So we 
certainly feel that the House has had a sufficient and very fair 
opportunity to consider this issue. In addition, as I stated before, 
the legislation we are bringing to the floor today includes H.R. 841, 
the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005, that is very specific on 
this issue. One of the great leaders in the House on the issue of 
making certain that even in a time, God forbid, of great crisis again 
in the Nation and specifically in the Congress, the Congress can 
function, is the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time 
and thank him for his very strong commitment to this institution and 
our country. That is really what this legislation is all about. The 
legislative branch appropriations bill is about the funding for the 
first branch of government. People often do not focus attention on the 
realization that article 1 of the U.S. Constitution is in fact the 
first branch, and we have a very important constitutional 
responsibility, and that is what this legislation is all about.
  As we looked at addressing this rule, it is a very fair and balanced 
rule which makes in order five amendments, makes in order amendments 
that will allow for the opportunity to address a wide range of issues 
that we obviously have a responsibility to address institutionally.
  One of the amendments that we chose to make in order is an amendment 
that was offered by our friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird). I believe it important that he again have an opportunity to 
address an issue that, frankly, has already been addressed by this 
institution. It has to do with the question of the continuity of 
Congress. As we sit here, I was just in a meeting with the Attorney 
General a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, and we were talking about 
September 11 and the PATRIOT Act and the challenges with which we 
contend on a regular basis, and one of the great tragic challenges that 
we do not even like to ponder is what would happen if there were to be 
an attack that would hit this building and that would see the loss of 
large numbers of Members of the people's House, the United States House 
of Representatives.
  We passed, with nearly every Republican and 122 Democrats supporting, 
legislation that we call the Continuity of Congress legislation. It 
calls for special elections to be held on an expedited basis in the 
districts, where, when we have seen in excess of 100 Members of the 
United States House of Representatives killed, it would kick into place 
the structure that would allow for those special elections to take 
place in those States across the country that have been impacted.
  Again, we do not like to think about this, we do not like to think 
about the possibility of this kind of attack, but we have a 
responsibility. We have a responsibility to this institution, to the 
Constitution, and to the American people to do just that. So what we 
have done is we have said, hold these elections, plan for these 
elections, and then the United States House of Representatives will 
remain exactly what it was envisaged as by James Madison, the Father of 
our Constitution.
  He is the author, wrote the Constitution, and spent a great deal of 
time thinking about these issues. And one of the things that he was 
very careful about was in realizing that every single Federal office 
that exists can see someone attain that office by appointment. We all 
know that in the other body, the United States Senate, the body of the 
States, if a vacancy occurs, if someone resigns, if they are killed, 
pass away, whatever, if there is a vacancy, the Governors of States 
make those appointments.
  We all learned in 1973 with the resignation of Spiro Agnew as Vice 
President that the then-minority leader in the House of 
Representatives, Gerald Ford, was, by appointment, made Vice President, 
and then when the resignation of President Nixon took place in 1974, 
Gerald Ford became President of the United States, having never had a 
single vote cast for him by the American people other than confirmation 
in the United States Senate.
  The House of Representatives is the only Federal office where you 
must be elected by the people to serve. That is why this Madisonian 
vision of making sure that this is the body of the people was 
maintained. That is what the legislation that we have passed again with 
a very strong bipartisan vote here is designed to accomplish.
  Unfortunately, since March, we have seen this legislation languish in 
the Senate, and we have not been able to have the kind of success that 
we believe is important to get what is a House issue addressed. It is 
not even a Senate issue. It is an issue for the House of 
Representatives. So what we have done is we have decided that the 
Appropriations Committee in its great wisdom include this continuity of 
Congress legislation with the legislative branch appropriations bill. I 
believe that in so doing, when we pass this bill to the Senate, we will 
have a chance to put into place very, very important continuity 
legislation for this institution.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) sees it differently. He 
would like to amend the U.S. Constitution, an amendment to the 
Constitution that would call for Members of the House of 
Representatives to serve here in a way that is other than an elective 
capacity. They would be appointed to serve here. I just think that that 
goes clearly against James Madison's vision for this institution, and I 
hope very much that we are able to maintain the language that has 
passed again with strong bipartisan support and is included in this.
  But there will be an amendment that is offered by the gentleman from 
Washington to strike that, and I am going to urge my colleagues to 
oppose that amendment that he will be offering.
  Again, if you look at the level of funding that we have for the 
legislative branch appropriations bill, it is actually lower than was 
requested by the President in his budget. So this is a very fiscally 
responsible bill. I believe that it is a correct measure for us to 
take. I urge support of this rule, it makes a number of amendments in 
order, and support of the bill itself.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Regrettably, although 
the Rules Committee apparently found it in order to allow in the 
continuity of Congress aspect, it did not make in order an amendment 
that I offered to establish a special commission, a committee, to 
investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct 
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. This amendment is critical toward 
ensuring that we effectively exercise our congressional oversight 
responsibilities.
  Congress has already appropriated some $277 billion for military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and that does not include the $45 
billion in so-called bridge funding which was part of the defense 
appropriations bill which passed the House on Monday. We have

[[Page H4930]]

repeatedly and rightfully recognized that we have to meet the 
operational, technical, and equipment needs of our troops that are 
stationed over in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is paramount.

                              {time}  1500

  However, the fact of the matter is that when it comes to ensuring 
that those funds that we have appropriated for that purpose are 
properly managed and monitored, Congress has been largely silent.
  I am heartened the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) 
subcommittee held a hearing yesterday, and I am heartened that the 
Committee on Armed Services held a hearing in a subcommittee back in 
2004. But that is not nearly the amount of activity this Congress 
should be taking. We must do much better. Every single dollar that is 
wasted or lost in Iraq and Afghanistan because of mismanagement or 
fraud in contracting is one less dollar that can go to protect our 
troops, one less dollar for body armor, and one less dollar for 
protective equipment that can save lives.
  To that point, on Monday the Boston Globe cited the Marine Corps 
Inspector General's report and reported that the estimated 30,000 
Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully 
protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to 
operate in a region the size of Utah.
  One of the functions of this select committee that is proposed would 
be to see that our soldiers are properly equipped to carry out their 
mission. In fact, the original Truman Committee that was put in place 
during World War II is believed to have saved thousands of lives as the 
result of its success in cutting through the bureaucracy and making 
sure that effective weapons and other war supplies were not a part of 
the problem in that enterprise. The bottom line in this Congress, 
however, is that we have not lived up to our oversight 
responsibilities. We have abdicated them. We have relied on the 
administration to perform that role for us, and they have not done it, 
and we have shunned our responsibilities.
  Here is their most recent record: In March and early April, we 
learned that the Pentagon auditors found that $212 million was paid to 
Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors for fuel that the Pentagon auditors 
concluded was exorbitantly priced. Halliburton then passed those 
payments on to the taxpayer. In late April, according to the Washington 
Post, the Government Accountability Office found that officials from 
the Departments of Defense and Interior who were charged with 
overseeing a contract to provide interrogators at Abu Ghraib ``did not 
fully carry out their roles and responsibilities, the contractor was 
allowed to play a role in the procurement process normally performed by 
the government.''
  In May, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction found that out of $119.9 million allocated for 
rebuilding projects, $96.6 million could not be sufficiently documented 
or fully accounted for at all.
  In June, a Committee on Government Reform report, prepared by the 
gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) staff, cited an instance of 
$600 million in cash being shipped from Baghdad to four regions in Iraq 
to allow commanders flexibility to fund local reconstruction projects. 
An audit of one of the four regions found that more than 80 percent of 
the funds could not be properly accounted for and that over $7 million 
was simply missing.
  A pattern exists here, whether it is revenues from the Iraqi oil 
sales or whether it is funds from the pockets of the American 
taxpayers. We are not taking our responsibility, and flagrant lack of 
contractor and bureaucratic accountability is taking place under our 
eyes. If we do not sufficiently account for these measures and have 
vigorous congressional oversight, how can we assure that our troops are 
going to get sufficient protection and that our taxpayers' interests 
will be protected?
  My colleagues know that this is not the first time that we have had 
this amendment on the floor. They have now had at least four 
opportunities to stand up and be accountable to the American taxpayer, 
to make sure that our troops are protected. In every instance it has 
been essentially a party-line vote, with only two Members of the 
majority standing up for the rights of the taxpayer and the rights of 
our troops in this instance.
  It is difficult to fathom that tomorrow this majority is going to 
bring on the floor of this House a bill for Health and Human Services 
and Education where they are going to cut to the bone, saying that 
there is no money. There will be less money for Pell grants for kids 
that want to go to college. There will be less money for elementary and 
secondary schools. We will fall further behind in our commitments to No 
Child Left Behind. We will not fund appropriate health care costs, like 
health clinics. We will not even fund the President's own commitment to 
high school reform and to community colleges. All, ostensibly, because 
there is no money. And yet the majority in this Congress refuses to do 
the oversight on over almost $300 billion where we know there have been 
flagrant abuses.
  We need to do the right thing in this Congress. This is time for us 
to take the previous question, defeat it, make sure that this amendment 
comes on the floor. We will give them yet another opportunity to show 
that this House will live up to its responsibilities and protect the 
integrity of this fine institution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this rule. I will be 
voting against the previous question on the rule. I will be voting 
against the bill itself. I will wait until debate on the bill in order 
to explain my vote on the latter.
  But let me simply say two things with respect to the rule. The 
leadership of this House, the Republican leadership of this House, has 
chosen to insist that their continuity of Congress proposal, which is a 
totally unrelated matter, be added to the appropriation bill to finance 
the operations of the Congress. Our committee gave this all of about 10 
minutes of consideration. No alternatives were presented. And what that 
means is that the House Republican leadership is insisting that a bill 
which the House has already passed once be passed again, because the 
Senate has declined to take up the bill that the House sent over in the 
first place.
  I think they were wise not to take that bill up. I am in a distinct 
minority on this proposition. But what this proposition does is to say 
that, within 45 days of the Speaker's determining that 100 or more 
vacancies exist in the House, that he will call a special election.
  A couple of problems with that. Number one, that means that a 
national election is left to the discretion of and to the timing 
selected by the Speaker. I do not think that is appropriate. Secondly, 
it means that for that 45-day period, if there are 100 vacancies in the 
House because of death and destruction associated with an attack, for 
instance, it means that those 100 districts would be unrepresented at a 
time when the most crucial decisions affecting the continuation of the 
Republic would be made. I do not think that is a good idea either.
  If we are going to be forced to vote on any of those propositions, 
then, even though I am a Democrat, I much prefer the alternative 
presented by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a 
Republican. The alternative that he presented in the last session of 
Congress would have provided that each and every year when we are 
elected, we also have to supply a list of persons whom we feel are most 
qualified to take our place if something happens and we are killed by 
such a disastrous attack. I would submit to the Members that it is far 
more appropriate to have someone who is revealed ahead of time to be 
the person of choice in case a tragedy like that happened. I would 
suggest that is a far healthier situation than to have a situation in 
which a district was unrepresented for 45 days.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) suggested that it was 
important to maintain the distinction the House has that one must be 
elected in order to serve in this body. Well, obviously I would much 
prefer to have an elected person representing my district, but an 
appointed official is preferable to no one at all. And yet that is

[[Page H4931]]

what we are stuck with under this misbegotten attachment that the House 
leadership is insisting that we add to this bill in a power play. So 
that is one reason I oppose this rule.
  The second reason is that the Committee on Rules steadfastly refused 
to make in order the creation of a Truman-like committee to review 
waste and fraud in the war in Iraq. When Franklin Roosevelt was running 
this country, Harry Truman was appointed to lead a congressional review 
committee. Truman held 430 hearings. He issued 51 reports. A Democratic 
Congress investigating the activities in a Democratic administration. 
It was good for the Democratic Party. It was good for the Republican 
Party. It was good for the Republic. A lot of money was saved. A lot of 
chicanery was exposed and corrected.
  But here we have horror story after horror story of waste, 
incompetence, fraud, theft in Iraq, all of the taxpayers' money. And 
yet what does this Congress do? Virtually zip in terms of the oversight 
that it is providing on these matters.
  I think this Congress is derelict in its duty by not appointing such 
a committee. And for that reason alone, I think we ought to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question so we can change the rule so we can at least 
provide some protection for the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  A few moments ago, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules was here, and I want to begin by expressing my appreciation that 
my amendment will be made in order to extract what I believe is an 
inappropriate clause inserted by the majority. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I think, articulated the issue well. It is true 
that we had a vote in this Congress already on the issue of the 
continuity of the Congress, but it is also true that there was not a 
hearing on various opportunities to solve this problem. Essentially one 
version of the bill was brought forward without adequate hearing. I was 
present at the markup of my own bill. The distinguished chair of the 
Committee on the Judiciary did not allow me to even speak to my own 
bill, though he mischaracterized it.
  Now, what the majority is doing is taking what is clearly 
legislative, and it is consequential legislation; let us be clear about 
this. What they are doing is taking legislation that provides for how 
we would replace this very body. Many of us, myself, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and others, tried to get this body, tried 
to get the leadership to say that we would have an open debate on 
multiple proposals, multiple proposals, with full amendments and full 
debate by this entire body. We are now years post-September 11. This 
body still does not have an adequate plan to ensure that every person 
in this country will have representation if this body is eliminated. 
Indeed, this body is fully willing, according to the clause in this 
legislation today and appropriately placed in this legislation, to 
allow the executive branch to function completely unfettered.
  I have to say to the distinguished gentleman from California, the 
chair of the Committee on Rules said I was contrary to Madison. 
Possibly so, in some ways; but I would warrant that he is even more 
contrary because Mr. Madison was absolutely clear that the fundamental 
principles of checks and balances are a core of this great Republic. 
The legislation being proposed by the majority would undermine that 
principle of checks and balances.
  More importantly still, the average American needs to understand that 
this body is considering legislation which would prohibit them from 
having representation in the Congress and prohibit the Congress from 
having a check on the executive at a time of national crisis, and that 
is disastrous. If Members care about this body, if they believe in the 
principles of checks and balances, they should reject this clause, 
support the Baird amendment. They should insist not that we ram this 
through on an inappropriate appropriations bill, where it should not 
belong, but that we have a full and open debate with our colleagues 
from the other body.
  I have to tell the Members that when I go home and talk to my 
constituents, and I would ask the Members to do this: Ask their 
constituents if they are comfortable, knowing that three or four people 
could serve as the House of Representatives under the rules we passed, 
which I believe are blatantly unconstitutional, if they believe that 
three or four people should be able to elect a Speaker of the House, 
that that person should then become the President of the United States, 
could declare martial law with absolutely no checks and no 
representation of hundreds of millions of Americans at the time that 
happens.
  This is irresponsible. Madison and Jefferson and the rest would be 
spinning in their graves if they knew what you are up to here.
  It is not just about germaneness, but that reason alone should cause 
Members to support the Baird amendment.

                              {time}  1515

  A matter of this importance should not be attached to an 
appropriations bill as a way to try to jam it through the Senate. It 
simply should not be.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe it to posterity, we owe it to this institution to 
solve this problem, to solve it properly, and this amendment that I 
have introduced would at least prevent us from doing something bad. 
First, do no harm.
  My friend, the gentleman from California, is wrong when he suggests 
that we are contrary to Madison.
  Let me underscore the agenda here. The chairman of the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United 
States House of Representatives said on this matter, we are going to 
have martial law anyway, we are going to have martial law anyway, so we 
do not need continuity provisions.
  If that is your agenda, be straight with the American people. If that 
is the agenda, let us go home now. If that is the agenda, to believe 
that when our Nation has been attacked, we are going to leave the 
American people without representation, without a House of 
Representatives, with the Senate functioning without a House because 
they can be replaced more promptly, with an unelected President, 
probably a cabinet member serving, if you believe we would solve this 
problem, you are kidding yourselves. You can kid yourselves, but 
history will not look kindly upon this body if we have shirked our 
obligation. And passage of this legislation today with this provision 
in it is an insult to the Framers and an insult to the principles of 
representative democracy.
  Vote ``no'' on the bill; vote ``yes'' on the Baird amendment.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to allow the House to consider the Tierney amendment on the 
Truman Commission that got defeated in the Committee on Rules last 
night by a straight party-line vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in 
the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the Tierney amendment will establish a 
select committee to investigate the awarding and carrying out of war-
related contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 1941, with the United 
States engaged in a major military buildup as part of World War II, 
Senator Harry Truman, a Democrat from Missouri, became aware of 
widespread stories of contractor mismanagement in military contracts 
and created a committee to investigate such spending.
  Since 2003, there have been many examples of the misuse of American 
taxpayer dollars and Iraqi contracting. Nearly $9 billion on money 
spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of 
inefficiencies and bad management, according to the Special Inspector 
General for Iraqi Reconstruction. Ensuring vigilant oversight of

[[Page H4932]]

taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue. The Truman Committee 
was created while Democrats controlled the White House, the House, and 
the Senate. We owe it to American taxpayers and to our brave soldiers 
to oversee how the billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. A new Truman Committee would allow us to get the facts 
on U.S. contracting in both military and reconstruction activities and 
to fix whatever problems exist.
  As always, Members should know that a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question will not stop consideration of the legislative branch 
appropriation bill. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to create a 
much-needed select committee to investigate government contracts in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. But a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will 
prevent the House from establishing this important select committee.
  Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  We are bringing forth a very important appropriations bill today, 
with an issue that has received a tremendous amount of discussion and 
study and debate and actually has been voted on twice in overwhelming 
fashions by this House favorably. The last time, in the 108th Congress, 
the measure on the continuity of government, specifically of this 
House, which is included in the underlying legislation, had passed with 
329 favorable votes and only 68 negative votes. Mr. Speaker, 122 of our 
friends on the other side of the aisle voted for this piece of 
legislation.
  By the way, the rule, Mr. Speaker, by which we bring forth this 
legislation, also is permitting, as an amendment, a motion to strike 
that legislation by the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird). His alternative was debated previously in this Congress and 
received 63 votes; and we are, as I say, we are permitting him, under 
this rule, to strike, if he has the provision on the continuity of the 
House. So we are bringing this legislation forth in a very fair way.
  In addition to the very important legislation which is included that 
has to do with, as we have heard debate about today, that has to do 
with continuity of this House in case of an emergency, the underlying 
legislation also provides for the funding of the legislative branch of 
government, and it does so in an efficient and effective way, and in a 
way which I think deserves the support of the entire membership of this 
House.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the support of our colleagues for the rule 
and the underlying legislation being brought forth by the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 334 Rule on H.R. 2985 Legislative Branch 
                          Appropriations FY06

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in 
     order as though printed after the amendment numbered 5 in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative 
     Tierney of Massachusetts or a designee. That amendment shall 
     be debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

     Amendment to H.R. 2985, as Reported Offered by Mr. Tierney of 
                             Massachusetts

       Page 6, insert after line 24 the following:


                            Select Committee

       Sec. 102. (a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     House of Representatives a select committee to investigate 
     the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct 
     activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on 
     terrorism (hereinafter referred to as the ``select 
     committee'').
       (b) Membership and Functions.--The select committee is to 
     be composed of 15 Members of the House, to be appointed by 
     the Speaker (of whom 7 shall be appointed upon the 
     recommendation of the minority leader), one of whom shall be 
     designated as chairman from the majority party and one of 
     whom shall be designated ranking member from the minority 
     party. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the select 
     committee shall be filled in the same manner in which the 
     original appointment was made. The select committee shall 
     conduct an ongoing study and investigation of the awarding 
     and carrying out of contracts by the Government to conduct 
     activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on 
     terrorism and make such recommendations to the House as the 
     select committee deems appropriate regarding the following 
     matters--
       (1) bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the 
     issuance of Government contracts;
       (2) oversight procedures;
       (3) forms of payment and safeguards against money 
     laundering;
       (4) accountability of contractors and Government officials 
     involved in procurement;
       (5) penalties for violations of law and abuses in the 
     awarding and carrying out of Government contracts;
       (6) subcontracting under large, comprehensive contracts;
       (7) inclusion and utilization of small businesses, through 
     subcontracts or otherwise; and
       (8) such other matters as the select committee deems 
     appropriate.
       (c) Rules and Procedures.--
       (1) Quorum.--One-third of the members of the select 
     committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of 
     business except for the reporting of the results of its study 
     and investigation (with its recommendations) or the 
     authorization of subpoenas, which shall require a majority of 
     the committee to be actually present, except that the select 
     committee may designate a lesser number, but not less than 
     two, as a quorum for the purpose of holding hearings to take 
     testimony and receive evidence.
       (2) Powers.--For the purpose of carrying out this section, 
     the select committee may sit and act at any time and place 
     within the United States or elsewhere, whether the House is 
     in session, has recessed, or has adjourned and hold such 
     hearings as it considers necessary and to require, by 
     subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such 
     witnesses, the furnishing of information by interrogatory, 
     and the production of such books, records, correspondence, 
     memoranda, papers, documents, and other things and 
     information of any kind as it deems necessary, including 
     classified materials.
       (3) Issuance of subpoenas.-- A subpoena may be authorized 
     and issued by the select committee in the conduct of any 
     investigation or series of investigations or activities, only 
     when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a 
     majority being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed 
     by the chairman or by any member designated by the select 
     committee, and may be served by any person designated by the 
     chairman or such member. Subpoenas shall be issued under the 
     seal of the House and attested by the Clerk. The select 
     committee may request investigations, reports, and other 
     assistance from any agency of the executive, legislative, and 
     judicial branches of the Government.
       (4) Meetings.--The chairman, or in his absence a member 
     designated by the chairman, shall preside at all meetings and 
     hearings of the select committee. All meetings and hearings 
     of the select committee shall be conducted in open session, 
     unless a majority of members of the select committee voting, 
     there being in attendance the requisite number required for 
     the purpose of hearings to take testimony, vote to close a 
     meeting or hearing.
       (5) Applicability of rules of the house.--The Rules of the 
     House of Representatives applicable to standing committees 
     shall govern the select committee where not inconsistent with 
     this section.
       (6) Written committee rules.--The select committee shall 
     adopt additional written rules, which shall be public, to 
     govern its procedures, which shall not be inconsistent with 
     this resolution or the Rules of the House of Representatives.
       (d) Administrative Provisions.--
       (1) Appointment of staff.--The select committee staff shall 
     be appointed, and may be removed, by the chairman and shall 
     work under the general supervision and direction of the 
     chairman.
       (2) Powers of ranking minority member.--All staff provided 
     to the minority party members of the select committee shall 
     be appointed, and may be removed, by the ranking minority 
     member of the committee, and shall work under the general 
     supervision and direction of such member.
       (3) Compensation.--The chairman shall fix the compensation 
     of all staff of the select committee, after consultation with 
     the ranking minority member regarding any minority party 
     staff, within the budget approved for such purposes for the 
     select committee.
       (4) Reimbursement of expenses.--The select committee may 
     reimburse the members of its staff for travel, subsistence, 
     and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the 
     performance of the their functions for the select committee.
       (5) Payment of expenses.--There shall be paid out of the 
     applicable accounts of the House such sums as may be 
     necessary for the expenses of the select committee. Such 
     payments shall made on vouchers signed by the chairman of the 
     select committee and approved in the manner directed by the 
     Committee on House Administration. Amounts made available 
     under this subsection shall be expended in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
     Administration.
       (e) Reports.-- The select committee shall from time to time 
     report to the House the results of its study and 
     investigation, with its recommendations. Any report made by 
     the select committee when the House is not

[[Page H4933]]

     in session shall be filed with the Clerk of the House. Any 
     report made by the select committee shall be referred to the 
     committee or committees that have jurisdiction over the 
     subject matter of the report.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. MATSUI. 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 219, 
nays 196, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 297]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     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
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Akin
     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Carter
     Conaway
     Doggett
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kucinich
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1548

  Messrs. STRICKLAND, MURTHA, LARSON of Connecticut, KANJORSKI, DINGELL 
and LEACH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MILLER of Florida changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). 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

  Mr. OBEY. 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 220, 
noes 192, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 298]

                               AYES--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays

[[Page H4934]]


     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     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
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Carter
     Conaway
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Tom
     Doggett
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kucinich
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Sabo
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1601

  Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________