[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21313-21316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4475, 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2001

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 612 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 612

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The Conference report shall be 
     considered as read.
       Sec. 2. House Resolutions 586, 592, 595, 599, and 600 are 
     laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); 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. Speaker, House Resolution 612 is a standard conference report 
rule providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 4475, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2001.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. Additionally, the rule provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule lays 
House Resolutions 586, 592, 595, 599, and 600 on the table.
  Mr. Speaker, whether cross-town or cross-country, by car, train or 
plane, ensuring the safety and efficiency of our transportation 
networks is one of the Federal Government's highest responsibilities. 
The conference report accompanying H.R. 4475 continues the Republican 
Congress' focus on safety for all modes of transportation.
  This bill improves and invests in the Nation's infrastructure and 
safety by targeting funds to critical programs such as air traffic 
control modernization, airport improvement grants, motor carrier 
safety, and increasing investments in highway safety research.
  The bill enhances the safety and capacity of the aviation system and 
the highway and rail networks. It makes runway prevention systems and 
devices eligible for airport improvement funds and directs the FAA to 
make such requests for discretionary funding the highest priority. 
Under this bill, air traffic services continue to make up an integral 
part of aviation safety.
  The bill provides a total of nearly $17.8 billion in discretionary 
budget authority for our Nation's infrastructure and transportation 
safety, including the Federal Aviation Administration, transit program 
spending, the United States Coast Guard, and the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration.
  The bill includes $279 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, an increase of more than 50 percent from last year's 
levels, to improve the safety of the trucks of our Nation's roads. The 
underlying legislation also increases investments to critical highway 
safety research and development of smart vehicle technologies.
  Another significant piece of the Transportation Appropriations is to 
fund the drug interdiction activities carried out by the U.S. Coast 
Guard. The bill provides for $565 million for these activities, helping 
the men and women of the Coast Guard prevent addictive and deadly 
narcotics from ever reaching our shores, let alone our neighborhoods 
and school yards.
  Additionally, the bill meets the funding obligations for the highway 
and aviation accounts, as prescribed under TEA-21 and AIR-21 
reauthorization bills. These programs are critical to improvements and 
modernization of our roadways and our airways, providing desperately 
needed funds across the Nation.
  The bill also contains an increase in funding for pipeline safety, an 
increase of 25 percent over last year.
  I am also pleased the underlying bill makes available a $2 million 
continuing appropriation for the Rochester Genesee Regional 
Transportation Authority bus project, an important public 
transportation project that will serve my district and region. It also 
contains an additional appropriation for reverse commuting that will 
help those most in need to reach their jobs, wherever they may be, 
demonstrating our commitment to better, safer public transportation.
  Similarly, the conference report provides much needed funding of $2 
million for the Niagra Falls Transportation Authority in the Buffalo 
area. Under this legislation, Western New York will be able to be 
better served with more reliable and safe bus transportation and 
improve job access and reverse commute efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, safety should remain the Federal Government's highest 
responsibility in the transportation area, and clearly this bill 
addresses those needs and concerns.
  In conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for their hard 
work in bringing this measure before the House today. I would also like 
to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo), the ranking member, for their hard work and continued commitment 
to our Nation's infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 21314]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will waive all points of order against the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 4475. This is the bill that makes 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies in the year 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill funds much of the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. It includes money for the construction, the 
maintenance, the operation of highways, airports, public transit 
systems and Amtrak. It also supports transportation safety and research 
for all modes.
  The bill spends $3.5 billion in discretionary spending, more than 
last year. This is an investment that will pay off in safer and more 
efficient transportation for most Americans.
  The conference agreement sets a national standard for drunken 
driving. Drivers will be considered legally drunk if they have a blood 
alcohol level of 0.8. This standard will save lives and reduce traffic 
accidents.
  I am also pleased with the bill because it includes funds for the 
Centennial of Flight Commission. This is a national commission helping 
to coordinate and promote the celebration of the centennial of the 
Wright Brothers' first flight. The anniversary will take place in the 
year 2003.
  The bill also funds programs on the Department of Treasury, Executive 
Office of the President, General Services Administration, National 
Archives and Records Administration.
  This will be the last House vote on the Transportation appropriations 
bill under the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
will be leaving this particular position of chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation in the next Congress.
  And despite many of the tensions around here, the Transportation 
appropriations bill has emerged largely without partisanship. That is a 
tribute to the leadership and fairness of the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). I join my 
colleagues on both sides today in thanking the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) for a job well done.
  This is the way I think in the House of Representatives that we are 
to conduct our business, in a very good, very efficient, very 
bipartisan way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
have any further speakers?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, former chairman of the committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that this conference report 
demonstrates that people who too frequently promise regular order 
should be regarded in the same way that Blaze Starr regarded men who 
used the phrase ``trust me.''
  The process by which this bill is being brought to the floor is truly 
amazing. The normal process, the legislative process is for both Houses 
to pass bills. Then we have a conference between the committees 
representing both Houses. They produce a document, and then each House 
has an opportunity to vote on that document.
  If the Senate has adopted amendments out of the normal scope of the 
conference, then House Members are protected and authorizing committees 
are protected by having the ability to have a vote on those amendments 
on the House floor.
  Instead, this rule today takes the conference report on this bill, 
and instead of bringing it back as a conference report, it introduces 
as a new bill the conference report.

                              {time}  0945

  It then files a report that refers to that conference report. So to 
figure out what is in this bill, Members do not have to just go and 
look at the document accompanying this conference report, they have to 
go look at a second document. It is a two-step operation and it has two 
convenient results: Number one, it makes it just a little bit more 
difficult for the average rank-and-file Member to figure out what has 
been done in the conference; and, secondly, it guts our ability as an 
institution to deal with subject matters that individual Members, 
rather than a few power brokers in this House, feel that they ought to 
have an ability to comment on.
  Now, this abuse on this bill would be far less disturbing if it were 
not part of a broad pattern of abuse of the legislative process which 
is having the effect of depriving the great majority of Members in this 
institution in both parties from having a real opportunity to play a 
meaningful role in the resolution of these issues.
  One Member told me earlier this week that we are evolving into a 
system in which no more than 30 or 40 people have any meaningful input 
on the major decisions happening here, and nearly half of those people 
are staff. That is a sad reality. That means that well over 400 of the 
435 Members of this institution are effectively cut out of the process, 
and that means 400 congressional districts, representing 200 million 
Americans, virtually have little league say, at best, in the decisions 
that are made here. And that simply is not fair.
  In fact, one Member observed to me that, given the way this House has 
approached appropriation bills for the past year, most Members really 
do not have to show up in this place for real until October because the 
institution spends most of its time passing meaningless resolutions 
trying to nail the people on the other side of the aisle on 
controversial issues, or else we pass appropriation bills that have no 
relationship whatsoever to what is expected to finally be in those 
bills when they emerge as a final product. So we debate political press 
releases, unfortunately, instead of debating our real convictions on 
these bills, and that is a destruction of the process that needs to 
stop.
  I would note that the reason that this is being done today is simply 
to get around Senate rules, because we are apparently afraid that an 
individual Senator on the majority side of the aisle is unhappy with 
the contents of this bill and wants to read the bill on the floor. Now, 
the problem is that this House's rules are being destroyed in order for 
us to deal with the Senate rules as an institution, and the leadership 
of the House is making that worse.
  In the Senate, major appropriation bills in the Senate, major 
appropriation bills involving half of the departments of the Federal 
Government, were never even taken to the Senate Floor. And we have 
gotten so far from the regular order that I fear that if this 
continues, the House will not have the capacity to return to the 
precedents and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to 
the term Representative Democracy. The reason that we have stuck to 
regular order as long as we have in this institution is to protect the 
rights of every Member to participate. And when we lose those rights, 
we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body left in 
the world.
  Last night, for instance, we had, after 2 months of waiting to go to 
conference because the majority party leadership was trying to decide 
what the contents of the agriculture bill should be, after 2 months we 
finally went to conference, after we had a motion to instruct the 
committee to have a full-blown conference on the Agriculture bill, and 
we had a very meaningful debate in that conference. But even then, at 
the end of that conference, we had to have the majority members march 
up to the leadership offices to find out what their marching orders 
were for the rest of the conference.
  Now, I just do not believe that we ought to be proceeding in this 
manner. And what I find ironic about this is that the very people in 
this institution and in the House leadership who cry the most about 
central government power in Washington, are the very same people who 
are day by day centralizing power in this institution. And

[[Page 21315]]

that is not only wrong, it is dangerous. There needs to be a happy 
medium between power that lodges in the hands of individual Members, 
committees and the leadership.
  I believe that this incredible centralization of decision-making in 
the hands of staff in the House leadership offices means that for most 
Members representing their districts in this body is diminishing every 
day in terms of their ability to have a say in what goes on around 
here. And that is the real problem with this rule.
  I have problems with the underlying bill. I intend to vote against 
it, and I will explain why during the debate on that bill. But even 
more important to me is the increasing abuse of process. This House 
works best when we take advantage of the expertise that all Members 
have in each and every one of our committees. They bring that expertise 
to bear. It is leavened by the judgment of the leadership, which is a 
perfectly appropriate role.
  But when we wind up having the judgment of the leadership come down 
like a hammer and prevent committees from doing their work in an 
orderly manner, and then they prevent individual Members from having a 
say on nongermane Senate amendments, it reminds me of the fights we 
used to have when the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Brown) and the Republican counterparts, when the 
Republicans were in the minority, used to raise ``you know what'' 
because all kinds of nongermane amendments were being offered in Senate 
and the authorizing committees had no way here to protect themselves. 
That is why we built in some of these rules and protections. Today they 
have been stripped away in the name of one word: Convenience. There 
ought to be a higher standard in this place.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to not disagree with my 
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This is not the normal 
procedure. But I do rise to tell the Members of the House that no 
Member of the House is disadvantaged by using this procedure.
  The conference report on H.R. 4475, and the new bill that is numbered 
H.R. 5394, are identical. The language of the new bill has been 
available to the Members at the same time as the conference report on 
H.R. 4475 because it is printed in the statement of the managers. So no 
Member of the House has been disadvantaged.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, this was 
done to accommodate the other body. Whether that is the best procedure 
or not, it has been done before, but it is not really the regular 
order. The main issue here is Members of the House have not been 
disadvantaged by this procedure. The words in the copy of the bill in 
the statement of the managers on the conference report and the new bill 
are identical and they have been available to the House Members. 
Members are not disadvantaged because of timing and thus disadvantaged 
because of the language in the introduced bill.
  So I think we ought to go ahead and pass this rule, and then I think 
we ought to go ahead and pass this conference report. As usual, as many 
Members often say, it is not perfect. There are things in there Members 
can be opposed to, but there are a lot of good things in there. This 
conference agreement provides for the highway needs and the 
transportation needs of the United States of America. And I believe, 
Mr. Speaker, that we ought to get on with business.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against 
H. Res. 612, the rule on the conference report for H.R. 4475, the 
FY2001 Transportation Appropriations bill. Like many of my colleagues, 
I voted ``no'' to signal my frustration at the chaotic manner in which 
this bill was fashioned. I would also like to take this opportunity to 
express an additional concern I had relating to the National Corridor 
Planning and Development Program.
  First, let me thank the conferees for including significant 
investments for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system. I am 
pleased that the bill includes my $70 million request for DART to 
construct the North Central Light Rail Extension. This funding fulfills 
the federal government's commitments under a full funding grant 
agreement reached between DART and the Federal Transit Administration 
in October, 1999, and will ensure that the North Central extension can 
proceed on schedule.
  I would also like to thank the conferees for including $2 million for 
DART to acquire new buses that will be used throughout the 13 member 
jurisdictions within DART's service territory.
  I was extremely disappointed, however, that the conferees could not 
fund my $12 million request for the I-35 Bridge under the National 
Corridor Planning and Development Program. In recognition of the 
increased trade and traffic that NAFTA would bring to Texas, I-35 was 
designated as a corridor under the National Highway System Designation 
Act of 1995. The I-35 Bridge project is necessary to alleviate the 
heavy local and trade-related traffic that now traverses the Dallas 
area. Although the conferees did include $1.325 million for I-35 
construction in the Waco, Texas area, I was disappointed that no 
funding was provided for the heavily congested part of I-35 that 
traverses Dallas.
  Moreover, I am extremely concerned that the State of Texas has again 
been short-changed under the National Corridor Planning and Development 
Program. Under H.R. 4475, total earmarks for this program total 
approximately $95 million. However, only $5.675 million, or less than 6 
percent, was targeted toward projects in Texas. Even more disturbing 
was that the bill provided funding for two individual projects that 
both individually exceed the total amount earmarked for Texas, and that 
these two projects are located in states that are not adjacent to 
Canada or Mexico.
  Thd distribution provided in the National Corridor Planning and 
Development Program is fundamentally unfair to Texas. The corridor and 
border programs, authorized in TEA-21, were designed specifically to 
target assistance to nationally significant roadways that foster 
international trade and economic growth and that improve the flow of 
commerce at U.S. ports of entry. Texas has four nationally significant 
corridors, two of which (I-35 and I-10) carry almost 50 percent of all 
NAFTA trucks. Texas border crossings carry nearly 80 percent of 
international truck traffic, with 40 percent of this traveling through 
the state to other destinations in the U.S. and Canada. However, in the 
first two years of the programs, Texas has received only $36 million 
out of approximately $245 million, or less than 15 percent. By 
decreasing this meager amount to 6 percent, H.R. 4475 certainly goes in 
the wrong direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed in this aspect of the 
Transportation Appropriations bill, and I now intend to redouble my 
efforts in this area so that future distributions to Texas will be more 
equitable.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 136, not voting 53, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 515]

                               YEAS--244

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)

[[Page 21316]]


     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--136

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Crowley
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Price (NC)
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--53

     Ackerman
     Baker
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Cannon
     Carson
     Clay
     Conyers
     Crane
     Cummings
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Foley
     Franks (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Goss
     Hansen
     Hefley
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Paul
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Shadegg
     Shows
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Strickland
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1015

  Messrs. HILL of Montana, DOGGETT, ALLEN, PASTOR, WATT of North 
Carolina, MINGE, and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CLYBURN, McNULTY and OLVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 515, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________