[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 25303-25311]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of 
House Resolution 646, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

[[Page 25304]]

  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 118 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 118

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 106-275 is further amended by striking the date specified 
     in section 106(c) and inserting ``October 29, 2000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 646, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this is another of those 1-day CRs, 
continuing resolutions, that are necessary because the President of the 
United States has refused to sign anything other than a 1-day 
continuing resolution. It does not make any other changes to the 
current CR; it just continues the appropriations process until midnight 
tomorrow night. I assume there will be some lengthy debate, as there 
was yesterday, on the last one-day CR, but we will get to a vote as 
soon as we can.
  I would like to just briefly report that at the conclusion of 
business yesterday, we did resume negotiations with the other body and 
with White House representatives, and we made some progress. We will 
make more progress today, and we will make more progress on Sunday. If 
we could offer instructions to the conferees in the other body and 
instructions to the White House, the same as our colleagues want to 
offer instructions to the House conferees today and tomorrow, things 
might move along a lot more expeditiously. However, we only have the 
authority here to make non-binding instructions to ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, there is more than the House involved in this process. I 
would just point out once again, as I have so many times before, the 
House did all of its appropriations business very early, and what is 
delaying the completion of the appropriations process today is not 
really appropriation issues. By far, the most part of the controversial 
issues that are out there have nothing to do with appropriations. They 
are philosophical in nature, they are political, and they are 
authorization issues as opposed to appropriation issues.
  But, since appropriations bills are the bills that have to pass, they 
become very, very fertile vehicles for those who would like to add 
extraneous items to the appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I guarantee my colleagues, we will get to the end of 
this process; we will conclude this business, and we will have Members 
home at least in time to vote on Election Day.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take 30 minutes. Let me simply say 
that the gentleman from Florida is right. We have to approve this 
resolution again to keep the government open.
  I am concerned about two developments. Number one, early yesterday it 
appeared, in fact we were told, that the conference needed to be 
wrapped up by the end of the day yesterday so that we could have a bill 
on the floor immediately when we came back to the House on Monday or 
Tuesday. It will take about 2 days to go through all of the 
technicalities to do what is called a readout so that everybody's staff 
is sure of what every item is in that bill, so that at least somebody 
understands what each item is. So we were told that we should have all 
the work done Friday.
  Then, after the meeting reconvened, we were given another schedule, 
which indicated, for instance, that we would not even be able to 
resolve the issue with respect to school construction until after the 
fate of the tax bill is resolved on Tuesday or so. That means that 
there is a high potential that we will be stuck here not just Tuesday, 
but Wednesday or Thursday, because if we are not going to be making 
those decisions until Tuesday, and if we have to go through the usual 
readout requirement, we could have a real problem.
  In addition, as the gentleman from Florida says, I do not know 
exactly how many extraneous items there are on the bill at this point, 
but if we were to add all of them, many of which I would support if 
they were on individual pieces of legislation, but if we were to add 
all of them to this bill, this bill would wind up being longer than the 
Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, and add to it every comic book ever 
printed in the history of the United States. I think we would have 
results that were just about as silly as those comic books.
  So there are going to be a lot of people who are disappointed, 
because we are being asked by authorization committee members on bill 
after bill after bill after bill to include this or that provision and 
some of them are very meritorious, and some of them would fit the needs 
of my district, some of them would fit the needs of some of others' 
districts, but we are going to have a very tough time producing a bill 
that is not the laughing stock of the Western world if we are not very 
disciplined in terms of what we wind up adding.
  So I think we will see both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
and myself, and probably the two conferees from the Senate, rejecting 
dozens of provisions which we ourselves personally favor, simply trying 
to keep this bill to a manageable size. I would ask for the forbearance 
of each individual Member who has a hot idea about what ought to be 
included in the last minute.
  No question, there are some that are emergencies, and we will have to 
try to act on them. But this is not going to be an easy weekend, and I 
would say that my only point of disagreement with the gentleman who 
spoke, and it is not a disagreement with the way he has tried to 
perform. The very first bills that he brought to the committee this 
year were bipartisan in nature.
  The first three bills that came up in committee could have had this 
year and last year bipartisan support, but somewhere along the line we 
all became prisoners of a set of assumptions in the budget resolution 
that was passed by the House at the direction of the leadership, a set 
of assumptions which were highly unrealistic and did not at all reflect 
what, in fact, this Congress intended to spend on these items in the 
end. That, to me, is the real problem.
  I just want to say as an institutionalist in this House, I know a lot 
of us, every time we come to the end of the session, start shooting at 
the Committee on Appropriations and saying, if only the appropriators 
could get this done, we would not be in this mess. I honestly believe, 
if we left it to the appropriators to decide the appropriations issues 
without extraneous pressures, we could have a deal on all of this stuff 
in about 3 hours. I really believe that. The problem is that lots of 
other things are intervening.
  I would also note that the real problem we have is that when we start 
with a budget resolution which is not real, that means that we cannot 
produce real appropriation bills until the budget resolution does get 
real, and it has taken about 8 months to do that.
  I will give one example. Lest I be accused of partisanship, I will 
give one example of how that occurred in the deep dark distant past, in 
1981. In 1981, when the budget resolution was before us in the first 
Reagan year, the last item holding up the conference on that budget 
resolution was whether or not the agriculture number was real. To meet 
the targets in the Republican budget resolution, it was decided that we 
had to cut, I believe it was, $400 million out of agriculture. In order 
to get the votes to pass that, the grain State representatives were 
told that that money was going to come out of dairy, and the dairy 
State representatives were told that the money was going to come out of 
grain. So we had two false assumptions that were used to pass a number 
that was unreal.
  That has occurred many times over on the budget resolution that this 
committee was forced to operate under this year, and that is why the 
first 10

[[Page 25305]]

months were essentially wasted. So now, our committee is being asked to 
perform an impossible act and correct 10 months of disingenuousness in 
about 2 weeks, and that is just almost impossible to do, especially 
when we are not being given free reign to make the choices that you 
know would solve the problem.
  So I hope that we will have a cooperative spirit in the conference, 
but we are going to have to have some choices made that allow the 
conferees to actually make some choices, because yesterday, on three 
successive major items, when we tried to resolve them, we were told, 
``Well, we do not have any authority to deal with that; that is going 
to be made by somebody else.'' If that is the case, it is going to take 
a lot longer than anybody wants, because the people who we expect to 
put the deal together, we are told, are not being given enough reign to 
actually make those choices.
  That is the institutional problem that I see; and until it is dealt 
with, I am afraid that we may wind up getting stuck in the ditch, even 
though on the Committee on Appropriations, both sides would like to 
make a deal and get the blazes out of here and go home.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, we said earlier that we realized that 
President Clinton is signing concurrent resolutions for only 1 day at a 
time. If he were to sign a 3-day resolution yesterday, for example, we 
could all be in our districts, the appropriators on both sides of the 
aisle could be doing their respective work, and we could have come back 
here Monday or Tuesday.
  I would like to put a question to the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, if he would yield. I am told that one of 
the reasons the President has insisted on 1-day concurrent resolutions 
is his disagreement with the Republican majority regarding blanket 
amnesty being extended to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Is 
this one of his reasons?

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have my own ideas as to why the 
President wants us here day after day, one day at a time, but I do not 
know for sure what his reason is.
  However, on your question of amnesty, I would remind the gentleman, 
that during the development of the Commerce, Justice appropriations 
conference report, in the closing hours, the President did request a 
broad-based general amnesty for illegal aliens.
  The House responded and the conference committee responded with a 
compromise that would provide amnesty for family reunification. Some of 
the families had already been granted citizenship, and this would allow 
them to unify their families. We did that in the Commerce, Justice 
bill.
  We have been advised that the President is going to veto the 
Commerce, Justice appropriations bill, and one of the main reasons is 
because we did not give him the general broad-based amnesty that he 
requested.
  Now, whether or not that becomes a major issue on the development of 
the Labor, HHS conference report, I am not really sure at this point. I 
think it is going to depend on what action he takes relative to the 
Commerce, Justice bill; and if he vetoes that, then we will have to 
determine how best to deal with that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  With respect to the last question, Mr. Speaker, on the, Commerce, 
Justice, State bill, as I think most people understand, there are five 
major issues that are dividing the President and the Congress in my 
view. One of the most important is the privacy issue, the illegitimate 
use of Social Security numbers to allow anyone who uses the Internet to 
invade the privacy of each and every American if they are shrewd enough 
on how to go about it. That is a very serious issue.
  With respect to the immigration issue, it is important to understand 
that all the President is asking is that we provide the same rules for 
people who came from countries like Salvador as we provided at the 
request on two occasions of members of the majority party, for refugees 
from Nicaragua and several other Latin American countries. All of these 
people are here already.
  There is not one additional person who would come into the United 
States. You have already made the decision to provide an easier way for 
people to stay in this country for those people, and we are simply 
asking that that same principle be applied to others. You are just as 
dead if you have been killed by the Salvadoran death squads, as you are 
if you were killed by the Sandanistas. And I think the President is on 
perfectly good ground.
  We also have major environmental problems associated with that bill 
as I think everyone knows.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, we are at gridlock. We are 3 
weeks plus the date that we are supposed to adjourn this Congress, and 
we still have not really sat down to negotiate the differences between 
the White House and the Congress. And the Members on my side of the 
aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, have been left out of most of 
the negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, the Baltimore Sun papers got it right, and let me quote 
if I might, Mr. Speaker, Republicans gridlock again in Congress. GOP 
leaders cannot strong-arm Clinton to get their way on tax cuts and 
budgets. Whatever happened to the fine art of compromise? It seems to 
have vanished within the lexicon of Republicans on Capitol Hill. The 
result is more gridlock in Washington as Republicans try to force their 
political agenda down President Clinton's throat. This tactic has 
repeatedly backfired on the GOP.
  The editorial goes on to say Republicans seem determined to send Mr. 
Clinton a take-it-or-leave-it tax cut plan that tilts benefits in favor 
of the well-to-do at a cost of $240 billion over 10 years. It would, 
for instance, give 58 billion in tax breaks to those able to buy long-
term health care insurance, but it would not do what the President 
seeks to provide, care for 4 million uninsured parents at a fraction of 
the costs. Similarly, the Republican bill heavily favors HMOs, which 
have the political muscle over hospitals and nursing homes and 
restoring money cut by Congress in 1997. That is not fair, especially 
because nursing homes were devastated by the prior budget cuts.
  There is room for compromise, but the GOP hard-liners will not budge. 
They want a partisan agenda enacted. Other Republicans think they can 
influence voters if they force the President to veto their tax cut 
bill. That is a poor way to run government. And I agree.
  We should be sitting down and working together to try to resolve 
these differences. We should have done that 3 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago.
  Now we are surprised that it is getting political when we are a 
little over a week before a national election? The reason why we are 
here day in and day out is because we need to break this gridlock by 
honest negotiations between all parties. And I urge my colleagues to do 
that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the statement of the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I do not think he was talking about the 
appropriations bills, because for the appropriations bills, I think the 
minority would concede that we have worked together very well with 
them.
  We have not kept them out of any meetings or any consideration of 
appropriations bills and appropriations issues. And the gentleman's 
original statement that we had not yet begun to negotiate, I would ask 
him to talk

[[Page 25306]]

with his distinguished leader, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
because I cannot tell the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) how many 
hours and how many days we have spent negotiating with the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) at the same table along with our subcommittee 
leadership and including the White House.
  We have been honestly negotiating; and as I pointed out, the 
appropriations issues have basically all been negotiated. They have all 
been settled. It is the extraneous legislative-type, philosophical-type 
issues that are holding us up, not appropriations issues.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would say that, Mr. Speaker, I have no complaints with the way the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has dealt with the appropriations 
Democrats. I think he has been perfectly fair. That does not mean that 
appropriations bills have been produced with Democratic input, as the 
gentleman knows, with respect to Justice-State. In the end, the 
decision was made by the majority leadership to simply put together a 
package on their own without further consultation with us.
  It contained a number of provisions which the majority knew were 
nonstarters with us; and if we had been in the room when those 
decisions were made, I think we could have avoided the veto that is now 
going to occur.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, very frankly, the majority party has put a kinder, 
gentler face on what it has done over the last 8 months. That kinder, 
gentler, principled face is the face of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the chairman of our Committee, the Committee on Appropriations; 
and like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I have no quarrel 
with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said the Democrats were not 
included in the appropriations process, in the Committee on 
Appropriations, in the Commerce, Justice, State.
  I will say, on my committee, that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) and I dealt together openly. The shame of it was that the 
Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations were not always included 
in the appropriations negotiation. That is one of the problems, one of 
the significant problems.
  Mr. Speaker, 9 days ago, the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) came on this House floor and made some interesting and, I 
believe, incredible statements. He said this Congress, the 106th 
Congress, is one of the most productive Congresses in recent history. 
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said that flipping through a 
document that apparently listed bills that were approved by this 
Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. I did not see that 
document, none of us did.
  Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I can tell my colleagues with 
certainty, there was no meaningful patients' bill of rights in it. 
There was no Medicare prescription drug benefit in it. There was no 
targeted tax relief in it. There was no real campaign finance reform in 
it; and there was no school modernization, class-size reduction, and 
teacher quality initiative in that document. No, not one of those 
pressing critical issues which show on my colleagues polls and our 
polls as being the Americans focus.
  As a matter of fact, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella), has an ad running today on TV that I saw this morning 
that she is for patients' bill of rights, for school construction, for 
campaign finance reform; the only thing that ad lacked was a tag line 
of vote Democratic.
  The bills that the majority in this Congress has refused to pass 
could go on and on.
  Then, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) charged, and again I 
quote, ``We remain here today because some people simply will not 
support the principles of fiscal discipline.'' Hooey. I am pretty sure 
he was not talking about the Members on this side of the aisle, but now 
we know the truth.
  Those are precisely the people who should have been listening. If 
nothing else, this do-nothing 106th Congress has finally debunked the 
myth of the free-spending Democrat and unmasked the fiscally 
irresponsible Republicans and who they are.
  This majority has wasted the last 2 years trying to enact a tax 
scheme that would drain the entire projected budget surplus over the 
next decade and threatened to eat into that portion of the surplus set 
aside for Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, now, they are loading up spending bills at funding level 
over and above what the President requested in his budget.
  As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my good friend, 
pointed out earlier this week, the nine appropriations conference 
reports to date provide outlays that exceed the President's 2001 budget 
by $11.4 billion. None of them could pass. None of them could get to 
the President without the majority party's support.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) also 
noted that the 106th Congress is on track to increase spending on 
nondefense appropriations, and we ought to listen to this. We ought to 
listen to this figure, and I see the gentleman from Western Maryland, 
(Mr. Barrett), my colleague, that the majority is going to pass, yes, 
the President can veto and my colleagues can say, gee, whiz, we could 
not get our way. I understand that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am talking about what my colleagues are going to pass 
and send to him.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) noted that the 106th 
Congress is on track to increase spending on nondefense appropriations 
at the fastest growth rate, 5.2 percent, since the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 was enacted. The House is going to pass, not the President 
is going to sign and propose, the House is going to pass the largest 
increase in domestic discretionary spending since 1974.
  Since enactment of the Budget Act, nondefense appropriations have 
grown an average of 2.1 percent when Republicans controlled the House, 
and only 1.2 percent, half of that, per year when Democrats controlled 
the House. That does not comport with the facts that my colleagues 
would like to portray. Those are the facts, and my colleagues can check 
with your CBO on whether I am inaccurate.
  So tell me, who needs a lecture on fiscal discipline? I do not think 
there is a soul in this House who does not understand why our budget 
process is broken down this year and why this eighth continuing 
resolution is necessary.
  The Republican majority insisted, not the appropriators, not the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the 13 cardinals, 
insisted on passing a phony budget resolution last spring that turned 
our appropriations process into a sham.
  As The Washington Post stated, and I quote, ``The Republicans 
continue to insist on a make-believe fiscal policy. The familiar fable 
is that they can cut taxes, finance the boomers' old age and increase 
defense and selected other spending while maintaining fiscal 
discipline.''
  Mr. Speaker, it cannot be done. It has not been done, and it is a 
shame.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, why do we have a loggerhead? Republican 
fault? Democrat fault? There is a very strong difference of opinion on 
who should control people's lives, either people or Washington, D.C.
  The gentleman that just spoke in the well just talked about no 
Patients' Bill of Rights. Many of us feel that it is wrong, absolutely 
wrong to have unlimited lawsuits which would drive up health care costs 
and would force HMOs out of business. Many Americans like HMOs. Some do 
not. They have legitimate concerns on that side of the aisle and on our 
side of the aisle.

[[Page 25307]]

  But then the liberal trial lawyers would go down and sue the small 
businesses that hire those HMOs or care providers in good faith, and it 
would hurt small business. That is why National Federation of 
Independent Business, Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Associations 
were opposed to it. There is a legitimate concern on our side of the 
aisle that it hurts the economy and hurts business. So, no, we did not 
support it.
  School construction. We feel within the Labor-HHS bill, I serve on 
that subcommittee, that if we want to give school construction dollars, 
my colleagues want amnesty to 4 million illegals in the Commerce, 
State, Justice, we have got 43 million uninsured Americans. We agree 
that that is terrible. But, automatically, we are going to have 47 
million uninsured Americans on health care. They petition their 
families, and now we are going to have over 50 million uninsured 
Americans. Think what that is going to do to the cost of health care. 
Think of what it is going to do to our overburdened schools.
  So, yes, we have a difference of opinion. In the school construction, 
we feel that, if we give Federal dollars down to the schools for 
construction, then it ought to be bid between the unions and private 
enterprise so that we can get the best quality and the best amount of 
construction for our schools.
  But my colleagues on the other side want only the union wage, the 
prevailing wage, which costs about 35 percent in some States down to 15 
percent in some States. We are saying, let it be bid, let the schools 
keep the extra money for class size reduction, teacher pay, those kinds 
of issues. But my colleagues on the other side, the President is 
saying, no, I want it for the unions.
  I see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Minority Whip on 
the floor. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) has gotten over $2 
million from the unions. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), 
$1.7 million from the unions. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
$1.4 million. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), $1.3 million 
from the unions. They want to continue giving the money to the unions 
that goes to Democrats campaigns.
  We are saying we want the money, not to go to the union bosses, but 
to go to the schools. There is a difference of opinion. I choose the 
schools over union bosses and campaigns.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) has, in my view, questioned the motivation 
for Members' votes on the House floor. The use of innuendo may be 
clever, but it is not constructive. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) is a good man, and he ought to be able to do better than 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from California tell those gentlemen 
the he just named that he was going to use those names before he used 
them on the House floor, knowing they were in a Democratic caucus so 
they could not respond to him? Does he regard that as the gentlemanly 
thing to do?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) 
was on the floor. I looked at him face to face.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how many men did the gentleman from California 
name?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Four.
  Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman from California see all four of them on 
the House floor?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were, Mr. Speaker, two of them were.
  Mr. OBEY. No, they were not. Two of them were in the caucus. One of 
them happens to be the caucus chairman.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is for the record, Mr. Speaker. That is right 
off the Web page.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, with all due respect, 
regardless of what the rules allow, I think it is simply not fair to 
raise individual Member's names on the floor and, through innuendo, 
question what their positions are without informing them ahead of time. 
I find it most unfortunate. In the case of the gentleman, I find it 
also to be habitual.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Wisconsin was 
offended, I apologize. But the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) was 
on the floor.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California named the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). He named a number of other people. It 
seems to me that, if a Member is going to be attacked personally, that 
at least they are entitled to know that so that the TV audience does 
not get the impression that no response was given. The reason no 
response was given is because several of the gentlemen who were 
attacked were not even on the floor when the attack was made. I do not 
think that that suits the rules of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the people that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned. He is right. I am proud of 
the fact that working men and women of America who are organized 
support me. They do so because they believe I support them. The 
gentleman is absolutely correct.
  He moved in committee to strike provisions. We could build a lot of 
things a lot cheaper. But do my colleagues know, two Republicans, a 
gentleman named Davis and a gentleman named Bacon, two Republicans from 
New York said that they did not want cheap labor, scab labor, people 
who were brought in to work for wages that could not support themselves 
and their family? Two Republicans said that is not right. If we are 
going to spend public money, we ought to pay the people who build them 
fairly.
  Now, we just passed a resolution, I will tell the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), some weeks ago about slave labor building 
this Capitol. It was much cheaper to do it that way, I will tell the 
gentleman from California, much cheaper; but it was wrong.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have just got to say I am very encouraged about coming 
back to the 107th Congress, because it appears a new era of civility is 
dawning, because it seems to me, in the past 4 years, Members' names 
were thrown around all the time on this floor without advanced calling. 
In fact, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who was just 
offended, I believe, used the name of the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella). I will be talking to the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella) this morning to see if she got a postcard before that 
happened.
  I understand why the Democrats are frustrated and upset. They got 
news last night that their Presidential candidate is down 13 percent. I 
would be upset, too. But they come to the floor, and they say that we 
have not done anything, and we have not passed anything this year.
  In fact, one gentleman from Maryland came to the floor and actually 
said that we were in town because the tax bill did not pass. They know 
that is not the truth. It is not the tax bill that is keeping us in 
town. While he can quote a newspaper whose editor obviously does not 
know how Congress works, I am a bit disappointed he does not know any 
better. I expect the President to sign that bill after the election is 
over, but we will see. But that is not what is keeping us here.
  I do want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
ranking member. I think he set a very positive tone this morning. I 
thank him. But others coming to the floor saying we have done nothing 
this year is disappointing.

[[Page 25308]]

  We heard the gentleman from Maryland say we passed no prescription 
drug benefit. That is not true. We did. In fact, while we were working 
on the bill, the Democrats exited that door right there because they 
could not have their way. The same thing goes with the Patients' Bill 
of Rights.
  I disagree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). I 
think HMOs should be sued. But do my colleagues know what, we sit down, 
we talk about it, we negotiate it, we do not try to make it an election 
year issue. But what do they do? They run away and say we have done 
nothing on the issue.
  The same thing with education. We actually want to fund education 
just as much as Democrats. The difference is we want teachers, parents 
and educators and hometowns to make the decision how that money is 
spent instead of Washington lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats.
  There is a difference, and we can talk these differences out. But one 
cannot have one's way all the time. I learned that. I have been here 
for 6 years, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) will tell 
you, I had a rough 2 or 3 years, because I thought it had to be my way 
or the highway. Well, I hope I have grown a little bit and understand 
the need to compromise.
  Unfortunately, too many of our Democratic friends here today say we 
must have it our way or else the Republicans have done absolutely 
nothing over the past 2 years. That is not the case. One cannot have 
100 percent of the pie.
  Like George W. Bush says, and the reason why he is 13 points ahead, 
we need to change the way Washington works. We need to come together, 
make this institution work, and unite, not divide, not have Presidents 
flying to fund raisers across the country, not having Senators flying 
home whenever they feel like it, but people sitting down at the table.
  Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) yield me 30 
additional seconds?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, since I would acknowledge that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) has in fact grown considerably 
during his time here, I yield him another minute.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I have grown. I thank the gentleman 
from Florida very much.
  But now is the time for everybody to follow my example of growing, 
come together, let us sit down, talk this out. Again, I commend the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, today. I thought that his comments were 
very positive, that the appropriators are willing to sit down, talk 
this out, do the people's business and go home and not use all this for 
election year issues.
  So I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for the 
additional 30 seconds and for recognizing my amazing growth over the 
past 4 years.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise us as to the 
time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) has 18 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrist).
  Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not much else I can add to what the other 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) has just said in a very 
eloquent way.
  But there has been a lot of discussion here this morning that the 
Republicans are responsible for gridlock, phony numbers, and partisan 
politics. All I will say to that is this Chamber does allow each Member 
to be a responsible advocate for what they believe. What that means is 
there is, fundamentally, opportunity for a difference of opinion. So 
gridlock is each of us having the freedom, as Members of Congress, as 
do all Americans, to express their heartfelt opinions.
  It has also been said this morning that the Republicans are spending 
$11 billion over what the President requested. That is true, because we 
are spending more money for health care and more money for education. 
That is where the dollars should go, and that is where the dollars are 
directed.
  Now, the third point I want to make is that some of us on our aisle 
have a difference of opinion from those on the other side of the aisle 
dealing with health care, more specifically dealing with Medicare.
  The President wants the Federal Government to be entirely in charge 
of the Medicare program; that is, Medicare part A, Medicare part B, and 
probably a prescription drug program or any other +Choice programs for 
our senior citizens; for the Federal Government, through HCFA, to pay 
all those expenses.
  Those on our side of the aisle want a mix of Federal Government 
participation and the private sector. We want that mix, because when 
the baby boomers retire, we know that the Federal Government cannot 
sustain that program unless they increase the payroll taxes by about 
500 percent. It is just not going to happen.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about politics 
today, so I figured I would weigh in on an issue that is of extreme 
importance to women and one that I am very critical of the President 
over. I want to express my absolute outrage over President Clinton's 
decision to play politics with women's health.

                              {time}  1015

  Early this month, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act 
cleared the Congress and was sent to the President for his signature. 
This measure is critical because it covers the cost of treating low-
income women who are screened through Federal programs and found to 
have breast or cervical cancer. Thousands upon thousands of low-income 
women in America are affected by this very, very important measure and 
President Clinton knows it. That is why he signed it into law 
yesterday.
  Unlike so many other bills, however, he signed this one into law with 
no White House ceremony, no fanfare, not even a press release, 
apparently, even though he of all people knows that such ceremonies are 
the best way of getting the media attention to focus on this issue. 
This month is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It was a perfect 
opportunity for him to hold a ceremony to draw attention to a new 
option that will literally save thousands of lives. But he chose not to 
highlight it. And why? Because his wife is running for the Senate seat 
for New York against one of the main authors of the bill, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Lazio).
  Apparently, the President did not want New York women to know that 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has been instrumental in 
ensuring passage of something that may mean so much to so many of them. 
And, Mr. Speaker, I think the decision to play down the importance of 
this bill because of petty politics is one of the most awful things I 
have heard of.
  Two weeks ago, the President invited Republicans and Democrats onto 
the White House lawn to celebrate the signing of the Chinese trade 
bill. I guess he invited all of us there for bipartisan cover in case 
something goes wrong with the Chinese trade pact. But not for women, 
not for women with breast cancer, not for women who need treatment will 
we have a ceremony of such lavish proportion.
  In a few minutes we will hear about the importance of home heating 
oil in New York. And when we had that bill and, unfortunately, one of 
our Members missed a vote, he was roundly and routinely criticized by 
his opponent in the New York Senate race for not having voted on that 
very important issue. So I would ask the next speaker, when we move 
into the next bill, to possibly explain to me why the President did not 
place an issue important to women at the same level of importance as he 
did the Chinese trade bill; why he did not choose to let women around 
America, who are of low-income stature,

[[Page 25309]]

know that they now have a new option; and why he did not seem to think 
it was so important to let every woman in America know about this vital 
bill?
  Several of my friends have been stricken with breast cancer at very 
early ages in recent days, and I have been traumatized to watch them 
suffer through chemotherapy and lose their hair, while their families 
had to take care of their children, and it saddens me to think that 
while we are here in the waning hours of the 106th Congress that our 
President could not find it in his heart because of petty politics to 
have a bill signing that would bring to the attention of millions of 
Americans that, in fact, this Congress has acted on cervical and breast 
cancer.
  So I plead, beg, and urge my colleague from Connecticut, who will 
occupy the next 45 minutes after we close debate, to join me in a 
chorus of urgency to tell the President of the United States, please, 
before the election day, sign the bill in a public ceremony, let 
Americans know the importance of this issue. After all, if I am not 
mistaken, it was his own mother that was stricken by breast cancer.
  Too many women are dying in America, and we are sitting here on a 
Saturday hearing the story about how the Republicans have failed to 
pass landmark legislation. I voted for a patient's bill of rights. I 
voted for hate crimes legislation. I voted for a number of things that 
I think are bipartisan in nature and important to this country. But if 
we are going to hurl adjectives of blame at the other side of the 
aisle, we better stand up and be ready to take it; and we better let 
our President know that women deserve to be treated better than this.
  The Chinese got a signing ceremony on the White House lawn with every 
major corporate fat cat in America. And we talk about campaign finance 
reform, look at the guest list that came to that even. Were women 
included in that event? Yes. But when it comes to women's health, I 
guess we should just let it go quietly; let us not make a commotion 
about it; let us protect the candidacy or future possibilities of a 
woman running for the Senate in New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this Chamber to stop arguing, and I urge the 
President to sign these bills and let us move on.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I quickly would like to say to my colleague 
who just spoke that I too share the gentleman's pain about what is 
happening to women with breast cancer or cervical cancer, being a 
cancer survivor. But I have a bill in this body, the Breast Cancer 
Patient Protection Act. This is a bipartisan bill, with 220 cosponsors, 
providing women with 48 hours of coverage in the hospital for a 
mastectomy, 24 hours for a lumpectomy, or a shorter time if doctor and 
patient decide that that should be the case.
  The House leadership, the Republican leadership of this body, would 
not bring this bill to the floor. Let us not talk about caring about 
women in this institution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I hope the public is paying close 
attention to this debate. I am sorry for using the name of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), but the gentleman is here, and so 
I thought I would confront him with this personally because the issue 
of illegal immigration means a lot to me and a lot to those people in 
California.
  In fact, all over the United States people are upset with the fact 
that we have had this massive illegal flow of illegal immigrants into 
our country. What the President is suggesting is not as the gentleman 
suggested earlier. The point is that the gentleman is incorrect, or at 
least he has left an incorrect impression when he stated that the 
President's blanket amnesty demand on this body had something to do 
just with El Salvadorans and making things right.
  No. The fact is that what the President is asking for is a blanket 
amnesty, an amnesty for millions of people who have been here illegally 
since 1986. That is what the President is holding us hostage for. All 
this other rhetoric about health care or about whatever issue we are 
here on, the surplus or education funds, just keep in mind that the 
President is demanding that we have millions of illegal aliens granted 
amnesty so they will be eligible for government benefits.
  What does that mean? It means draining money that should be going 
perhaps to pay down the deficit or perhaps to bolster Social Security, 
perhaps to help the education of our own people, to provide health care 
for our own people. Instead, the President wants a blanket amnesty for 
millions of people, which will drain scarce resources from using it to 
help our own people, to using it to help people who have come here 
illegally. In so doing, we put out a welcome mat, a shining light above 
the door saying, come on in, anybody who can get here, we are going to 
give amnesty and all will be able to get all of the resources and money 
that should be going to help our own citizens; whether that would be 
women who need health care or anybody else who needs health care; or 
our young people who need education. Perhaps we could even give a 
little bit of that money, and I know this does not sit very well on the 
other side of the aisle, a modest tax relief for our American people.
  Instead, the President wants to grant a blanket amnesty for millions 
of illegal immigrants. This is a sin against our own people, and that 
is why he is keeping us here. That is the demand.
  Let us remember this: the President of the United States vetoed 
welfare reform twice. Even though Al Gore is taking credit for welfare 
reform and the President takes credit for welfare reform, he vetoed it 
twice. What was the issue on which he vetoed it? I know what it was. It 
was whether or not noncitizens were going to be eligible for welfare. 
That is why the President vetoed that. Now he takes credit for all the 
welfare reform that we have had and the wonderful success that it has 
been.
  Who is loyal to whom? Why are we here? The American people need to 
listen very closely.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. One simple 
question. The people the President is concerned about have been in this 
country for 15 years. If the gentleman does not want these people who 
came from the countries they come from to get the same treatment that 
prior immigrants got, then the gentleman ought to stand on the floor 
and repeal the changes in the law that the gentleman's party helped 
push through in order to allow people from Nicaragua and other 
countries to get the same treatment the President is now asking for 
these people.
  Does the gentleman really want to come here and repeal the law for 
those folks? If he does not, then he is not for equal justice.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who would like to respond.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this is a blanket amnesty being 
proposed by the President for people who came here after the conflict 
in Central America was totally over.
  The fact is that we are talking about a blanket amnesty. We are not 
talking about something to make it fair for certain people in Latin 
America. No, we are talking about people who have come here from all 
over the world, thumbing their noses at the United States, and the 
President wants to give them all the benefits; education, health, all 
the money we should be using for our own people would go to providing 
those people the benefits.
  It even dilutes our vote by having a blanket amnesty. Those millions 
of people who come here illegally will end up voting citizens, diluting 
even the substance of each American's vote. That is what the issue is.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentleman's 
comments are so far from the point that they do not even merit 
response.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise how much 
time is remaining on each side?

[[Page 25310]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) has 7 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 6 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time 
for a closing statement.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, so much for trying to keep this debate low key 
this morning. I think both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I 
tried to do that; but I do not think we succeeded very well. No harm in 
trying.
  All I would say in response to what I have heard is that I plead 
fully guilty in resisting the idea that American prosperity can only be 
expanded by further suppressing worker wages. In my view, when we try 
to disallow Davis-Bacon rules, that is what we do.
  Now, my colleagues may call that big labor bosses, but I call that 
hard-working construction workers in towns like Wausau and Stevens 
Point and Superior and Park Falls and Wisconsin Rapids who work 
physically a whole lot harder than anybody in this Chamber that I am 
looking at right now, whose bodies wear out a whole lot faster than the 
bodies of anybody I am looking at right now in this Chamber. Lots of 
folks wearing suits, very comfortable on comfortable salaries, 
lecturing unions about how they ought to keep their wages down for 
their members because they are too inflationary. What a joke. What a 
joke.
  I also make no apology whatsoever about wanting to be able to hold 
HMOs accountable in a court of law if they take actions or require 
doctors to take actions that injure patients. The rules, as they stand 
now, say that if a doctor in an HMO follows the rules of that HMO, he 
can get sued, he can get hung out to dry. But the guy who sets the 
rules, the board that sets the rules in the HMO, they cannot be sued 
under many, many of those same circumstances. Why should the guy 
following the rules get stuck with the lawsuit while the guy who makes 
the rules gets off scot-free if somebody's health is damaged or if 
their life is ended?

                              {time}  1030

  There are a lot of good HMOs in this country, but everybody ought to 
be held accountable in a court of law when it is required for the sake 
of elemental justice. That does not have a whole lot to do with the 
continuing resolution because most of the remarks I have heard on those 
subjects did not have anything to do with the continuing resolution. 
But I did want to make clear those two points.
  I am unapologetic when it comes to supporting higher wages for 
workers, higher COLAs for seniors and health coverage for workers with 
repetitive motion injury. I think that government needs to be a big 
enough umpire to get between Mike Piazza and Roger Clemens in the 
economy. And the problem is that in the economy, workers usually are 
not as big and as powerful as the institutions they are up against. We 
are supposed to be here to help make certain that government is an 
umpire with enough powers to at least provide an even playing field for 
those workers. If you want to oppose the Labor-H bill and hold up the 
Labor-H bill because of our concern on issues like that, be my guest. 
That again says more about you than it does about us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, people are all over the country, if they are up on a 
Saturday morning and not doing their chores, are watching us here, some 
of them, anyway, on C-SPAN and asking themselves, well, why are you 
meeting on a Saturday morning? I would like to offer a brief 
explanation.
  We are here because instead of addressing the issues and the real 
needs of American families, reducing school class size, making 
prescription drugs available and affordable through Medicare, passing a 
strong Patients' Bill of Rights, the Republican majority instead made a 
conscious decision not to do these things. They have not done the work 
of functioning and making the government work by passing the 
appropriate money bills. We are almost a month past the deadline for 
having done that. Instead of behaving as legislators, they have opted 
to become unlegislators. As the Washington Post put it, instead of 
being a Congress, this has been an un-Congress, a body that ``for 2 
years has mainly pretended to deal with issues it has systematically 
avoided.''
  That is why today we are faced with the need to pass the eighth 
stopgap measure just to keep the government from shutting down. This is 
not to say the Republican majority has not had any priorities. Just ask 
their friends at the HMOs. The Republican leadership is trying to give 
them a $30 billion subsidy. Never mind that the HMOs have abandoned 
literally millions of Americans. Never mind that hospitals and nursing 
homes and hospices are getting shortchanged in the process.
  Then again what do you expect? The HMOs did give almost $5 million to 
the Republicans in just the first half of this year alone in campaign 
contributions.
  Let me remind my colleagues something else from an editorial that 
appeared today in the morning's Baltimore Sun, and I quote:
  ``Whatever happened to the fine art of compromise? It seems to have 
vanished from the lexicon of Republicans on Capitol Hill. The result is 
more gridlock in Washington, as Republicans try to force their 
political agenda down President Clinton's throat.'' The Baltimore Sun.
  The editorial continues: ``There's room for compromise, but GOP hard-
liners won't budge.''
  It has been said that, in a democracy, people get the kind of 
government they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, we deserve much better.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I listened carefully to my friend's statement that was just made on 
the floor as to why we are here, and he mentioned a number of 
continuing resolutions. Well, the reason we are here today, Saturday, 
and the reason that we have an excessive number of continuing 
resolutions is simply because the President of the United States would 
only permit us to do one continuing resolution for one day at a time. 
Had he been a little more reasonable, we could have done a continuing 
resolution until Monday night or Tuesday night and then the 
appropriators who are involved in the negotiations with the White House 
could have had the weekend undisturbed to do those negotiations rather 
than spending all of our time here on the floor Saturday and probably 
tomorrow, Sunday. That is why we are here today.
  Are there differences? Of course there are differences. That is why 
we have the two different parties involved. There are major 
philosophical differences between the two parties. If there were not 
differences, we would probably only have one party, or no party. But 
compromise, when we have a very evenly divided House, a very evenly 
divided Senate both controlled by one party and the White House, the 
President of another party, is essential.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have spent a lot of 
time together. In fact, I think our families are keeping score and have 
decided that he and I are spending more time with each other than we 
are at home with our families. But that is okay. That is what we were 
hired to do. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the 
willingness that he shows to compromise as we approach these difficult 
issues.
  One of the big problems here is, though, that, as I have said before, 
there are three parties involved. There is the House of 
Representatives, there

[[Page 25311]]

is the Senate, and there is the President of the United States. Now, 
sometime we run into these negotiations with the President, and we find 
that compromise is compromise only if it is his way. Compromise means 
everybody gives a little, everybody gets a little and you try to come 
to a conclusion. In some cases the President has done this, but in 
other cases he has been stonewalling, and compromise is either his way 
or no way. In my opinion, that is not true compromise. That is not true 
negotiation. But, nevertheless, after we finish our work here on the 
floor today, the gentleman from Wisconsin and I are going to continue 
working with our counterparts in an attempt to reach the compromise on 
this one remaining appropriations bill where the appropriations issues 
have basically been decided. It is items that have nothing to do with 
appropriations that are holding up the compromise on that particular 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 646, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. 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 339, 
nays 7, not voting 86, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 571]

                               YEAS--339

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--7

     Baird
     Capuano
     DeFazio
     Dingell
     Ford
     Miller, George
     Stupak

                             NOT VOTING--86

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barr
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hulshof
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Morella
     Neal
     Owens
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Porter
     Radanovich
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Spratt
     Stark
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wynn

                              {time}  1057

  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________