[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17883-17886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2944, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 245

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2944) making appropriations for the government 
     of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
     in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for the other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, 
     for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. 
     The amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules may be offered only by a Member designated 
     in the report and only at the appropriate point in the 
     reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendment printed in part B of the report are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering and 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for the purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. At the conclusion of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 245 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2944, the Fiscal Year 2002 District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act. Overall, this bill provides a total of $7.1 billion 
in local funding and a $398 million Federal payment to the District of 
Columbia. By way of comparison, the final fiscal year 2001 D.C. 
appropriations bill provided a total of $6.8 billion in local funds and 
$464 million in Federal payment. The rule waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 245 provides for 1 hour of general debate, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, and it waives clause 2 of 
rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative 
provision in a general appropriations bill) against provisions within 
H.R. 2944. The rule also provides that the bill be considered for 
amendment by paragraph.
  The rule provides that amendments in part A of the Committee on Rules 
report accompanying H. Res. 245 shall be considered as adopted.
  It also waives points of order against the amendment printed in part 
B of the Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule also allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides for 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule on H.R. 2944, which will 
allow the House to work its will on the various funding and policy 
matters contained in this bill. I should note that the bill is the 11th 
of 13 regular appropriations bills that the House will need to consider 
and enact in order to complete the fiscal year 2002 discretionary 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me the customary one-half hour, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking minority member, was consulted 
throughout the process of developing this legislation, along with the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who is a fine chairman and a

[[Page 17884]]

great Member, in the process of developing this legislation, a trend we 
hope will continue with developing other appropriations measures in the 
days ahead. I would further note that this version of the D.C. 
appropriations bill is much improved over past years. In fact, 35 of 
the 69 riders included by the subcommittee were eliminated at the full 
committee markup.
  Far too often, Congress takes it upon itself to micromanage the 
citizens of the District to advance an agenda that few of its residents 
share. Every year, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton), my friend, has made eloquent pleas to this body, asking it to 
refrain from making social policy in the city that she represents. But 
it is not to be.
  While this is a much-improved bill, it is still flawed. The measure 
includes controversial prohibitions against using local funds, not a 
dime of Federal money, for abortion services and the needle exchange 
programs. Moreover, the Committee on Rules took it upon itself to make 
in order an amendment that prohibits Federal as well as local funds 
from being used for the implementation of the District of Columbia 
Domestic Partnership Act which was passed in 1992 and never implemented 
because the House of Representatives does not like it. This amendment 
was defeated in the full committee on a bipartisan vote. But a gift 
from the Committee on Rules puts it before us today.
  I look forward to the day when Congress gives the Mayor and the 
council of the city an opportunity to govern and make the kind of 
decisions with their own money that other governments are allowed to 
make without interference by the House and by the Congress.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, may I begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member, for their 
very hard work on this bill, the best bill in some time for the 
District of Columbia.
  I must say that there was a very good chance that for once we might 
be able to support a rule, especially since the Committee on 
Appropriations, to its credit, made substantial progress on the 
infamous social riders by voting to eliminate one that had long plagued 
this bill, a rider that provides for health care benefits if paid for 
by a partner who may be a grandmother or mother, or may be a gay 
person. So the Committee on Appropriations decided that wherever they 
stood on gay rights, it was not worth taking down everybody at a time 
when health care is so important and when this body has not done its 
job to make sure that everyone has health care.
  This, I say to my colleagues, is no time to make hay or to make 
politics over the local budget of a city. A city where Congress time 
and again has shown it has no expertise to get into its local budget, 
who could expect Congress to? I do not have any expertise on the D.C. 
budget. We have limited interest, and the District of Columbia respects 
that interest, because of the Federal presence here.
  My side has tried to respond to the crisis we are in. We agreed to a 
limited time for general debate, for example. We have agreed to limited 
time for amendments. Otherwise, of course, we would not be acting in 
the national interest. If, in fact, what we do is to crowd this bill 
with the usual riders, we will not only look silly, this year we would 
look careless and insensitive to the suffering and the felt needs of 
the American people.
  At the very least, in recognition of the uniquely serious crisis we 
are in, I am asking Members to forebear attachments and amendments, 
even if protected, which they know are opposed by D.C. law. I thank the 
Committee on Appropriations for, in fact, not including, not including 
a domestic partners rider in this bill. I ask my colleagues to respect 
what the Committee on Appropriations did when its position is put 
before us here today. After all, we are defending democratic values 
more than rhetorically this session. At a time when the world is 
watching, this body must not be seen as engaging in patently 
undemocratic actions such as overturning local laws against the 
democratic will of the people of the District of Columbia.
  I was prepared, absent actions taken on social riders, to support a 
rule this time, even with some serious imperfections; and let me say 
what has happened to those imperfections, because there was a puzzling 
decision made to delete completely noncontroversial budget provisions 
which had never been bothered before in the history of home rule. I 
brought this to the attention of the chairman and the ranking member, 
and I must say I am deeply appreciative for the way both have worked 
with me to make substantial progress. As they have had the time to 
study these provisions, we have made many of them consistent with the 
will of the Mayor and the city council of the District of Columbia. 
Moreover, the chairman has promised me that he will continue to work 
with me, even into conference, if necessary.
  What he has done shows very substantial good faith. He has, in his 
manager's amendment, included provisions that went before the Committee 
on Appropriations. We made very substantial progress on the remaining 
deletions, and the chairman had already removed 35 redundant and 
duplicative amendments and provisions beforehand. In other words, the 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member, and I 
have tried to behave like grown-up Members of Congress, not able to get 
all we wanted, understanding that we had some disagreements, each 
reciprocating; and I was prepared not to object to moving forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that this rule must be opposed. I hope that if 
this bill does, in fact, make it to general debate, we will respect the 
chairman's call. He made it known as soon as he became chairman that he 
would like no attachments on his bill. I recognize some have been made 
in order. I hope that my colleagues who have such attachments will 
reconsider, in light of the chairman's call. He simply wants to get his 
bill through. He wants to be an appropriator. If my colleagues have 
other matters, I am willing to take them to the D.C. City Council or to 
take them to the authorizing committee.
  Matters such as domestic partners, abortions, other matters of 
controversial local concern do not belong on this bill. Let us get this 
bill done; let us make this a banner year for D.C. We are off to a bad 
start on the rule. I ask my colleagues to oppose the rule. If my 
colleagues vote for the rule, I certainly ask my colleagues to be 
mindful of the fact that this is a local appropriation and to follow 
the lead of the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the council when 
it comes to how to respond to any attachments that may come forward.
  Once again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for very 
important progress and for the respect they have shown the people and 
the government of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying 
legislation, and I would like to compliment the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Knollenberg), the majority chairman, and the staff for their hard 
work on this legislation.
  However, even as I rise to support the underlying legislation, I have 
difficulty with this rule, for it seems to lack any respect for the 
work product of the subcommittee or the full Committee on 
Appropriations and wants to reverse a bipartisan vote in the full 
committee. I think that that is unwise and inappropriate. I 
particularly feel that, at this particular hour, there would be other 
uses of all of our time than to get

[[Page 17885]]

into the micromanaging of the District's affairs. But nonetheless, I 
oppose the rule, but I support the bill; and I hope that we can move 
beyond this at some point to the underlying legislation.
  I think that the chairman has done a remarkable job in terms of 
building a consensus around how we should move forward in terms of the 
District of Columbia, the capital city; and I would hope that we will 
be able to get there from here, but I think that there has to be 
respect for the committee's position. I think that the rule is one that 
should be revisited and, therefore, I oppose it.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I have not thought of myself as naive in a 
long time, but I guess I am. I have heard and read and even 
participated in saluting unity, in arguing that divisive issues ought 
to be deferred at this time; indeed, while I continue to think spending 
billions on missile defense is a diversion from the real defense needs 
of this country and a waste, and destabilizing at a time when the world 
does not need that, I understand the decision not to press that at this 
time.
  So I was deeply shocked to be told yesterday that the Republican 
leadership has chosen to use this bill to make an assault on millions 
of gay and lesbian Americans in general, and on those who live in the 
District of Columbia, in particular.
  Not only are they launching this assault, but they are going to 
extraordinary lengths to do it. A nongermane amendment has been 
protected by the Committee on Rules so that a decision of the Committee 
on Appropriations, recognizing the right of people in the District of 
Columbia to make their own choices about how their money will be spent, 
can be overruled.
  The District of Columbia, by its small ``d'' democratic processes, 
decided to say that if two men or two women were in love and were 
prepared to commit themselves to each other legally and financially, as 
well as emotionally, the District of Columbia, if they work for the 
District of Columbia, they would honor that.
  For reasons I do not understand, that willingness to accept a mutual 
declaration of responsibility from two people in love deeply offends 
some of my colleagues.
  On a personal level, it does not matter to me what they think. They 
are entitled to their opinions, prejudicial as I might think they are. 
But to tell the 550,000 people of the District, who have voted through 
their democratic processes, that they may not use money raised in the 
District by taxation voted by the District on residents of the 
District, that they may not use that money to carry out a policy that 
recognizes that love, shame on those who perpetrate it, and 
particularly now.
  Everybody in America is concerned about the people who died, and gay 
and lesbian and bisexual and transgendered people are no different than 
others. In addition to the general mourning, there is discussion of 
those in that particular community, of which I am a member, who died.
  Indeed, we have the military announcing what we call a ``stop loss'' 
policy, which says that gay and lesbian Americans in the military who 
are, I think, wholly unfairly and incorrectly and unwisely subject to 
being thrown out, may not be thrown out now. In other words, at this 
time of terrible crisis, when we are going to ask Americans to go and 
risk their lives for the defense of freedom, overwhelmingly supported 
here, we are going to make an exception in some cases to the policy of 
excluding gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian people who have been 
asking for the right are going to get it. They are going to be allowed 
to die for their country.
  But according to some, we are just not allowed to live here freely, 
because this bill says that we will violate what some have said is a 
philosophical principle that local people at the local level ought to 
be able to decide how to spend local money.
  We are not talking formally about States' rights. The District of 
Columbia is not a State, it is a self-governing group of Americans who 
have voted through an open and democratic process, through a public 
policy, which they are prepared to support with their money. And the 
Republican leadership says, no, no, we cannot let them do that. We 
cannot let them do that, because if two women are allowed to express 
their love for each other and one of them works for the District of 
Columbia and wants to extend health benefits to her partner, we cannot 
allow that. That somehow is going to undo the great fabric of this 
Nation.
  And we will even violate the normal rules of the House, because it is 
the one amendment that is nongermane. In our technical terms, it is 
legislating in an appropriations bill.
  And by the way, how seriously do they take this terrible assault on 
the dignity and freedom and emotions of gay and lesbian Americans? They 
give us 10 minutes to talk about it. There will be 5 minutes in which 
those of us who are appalled by this intrusive, divisive assault on so 
many millions of their fellow citizens, because those of us who do not 
live in the District on a legal basis, share the pain of those in the 
District who will be penalized by this punitive amendment, and they 
give us 5 minutes to talk about it.
  I do not see how anyone who has talked about not being divisive, who 
has talked about unity at this time, can agree to dealing with this 
amendment at this time, and certainly not to a 5-minute debate on each 
side, where people's fundamental rights, the right of the District to 
self-governance, that is to be disposed of in 5 minutes? Have people so 
little concern for the rights and feelings of others? I hope the rule 
is voted down.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
in yielding time to me to speak briefly to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, like the previous Member, I am deeply concerned that, in 
a time when we should be coming together as a Congress, lifting up our 
eyes to deal with big issues and finding ways to bring Americans 
together, that this Congress sees fit to, sadly, divide people by 
playing with the budget for the District of Columbia.
  It seems to me that responsible businesses across the country and a 
number of local governments, some of which I represent, have seen fit 
to extend in a reasonable fashion insurance coverage to their employees 
and their domestic associates, people that they have an insurable 
interest, people that they care about. This is something that is 
reasonable.
  I had an opportunity in my prior life to help craft provisions like 
this. It was good for our employees, it was the right thing to do.
  For the last 8 years, the District of Columbia's government has 
chosen to do this with their own resources. Yet, Congress, in its 
wisdom, has intervened, seen fit to deny them the right to do what is 
being done by progressive people across the country. It is wrong. It is 
particularly wrong to do it now. We do not need to have these 
gratuitous efforts at bringing forth unnecessary political battles. 
This ought to be one time that we can move beyond it.
  Mr. Speaker, I was also embarrassed that the Congress of the United 
States saw fit, in dealing with needed resources for emergency 
planning, that we were going to micromanage the District of Columbia 
and withhold some of its funds in dealing with the $16 million in 
special Federal payments for emergency security planning.
  I find that particularly ironic, Mr. Speaker, when I consider that 
the events of the last 2 weeks demonstrated that the Federal Government 
did not have its act together regarding the District of Columbia; and 
further, that if the standard for preparedness is what we as Members of 
this House have done in terms of preparing our offices and our 
employees for these emergencies, that bar is very low.
  Every man and woman who serves in this Chamber knows that we were not 
ready, and has doubts about whether

[[Page 17886]]

we are ready today. Yet, for the committee to therefore overlook our 
shortcomings and try to manage the District of Columbia by withholding 
funds, I find egregious and embarrassing. I hope we will reject the 
rule and reject the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I call for a no vote on the rule, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so we can get 
on with the debate on the important appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. Sweeney). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 183, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 351]

                               YEAS--236

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf

                               NAYS--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Conyers
     Farr
     Hoyer
     Owens
     Peterson (MN)
     Rush
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Watson (CA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1103

  Ms. McKINNEY, Messrs. SMITH of Washington, KUCINICH, DAVIS of 
Illinois, ROEMER, DOGGETT, MOLLOHAN, RAHALL, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. 
LOFGREN, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Mrs. JOHNSON of 
Connecticut changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the voted was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening a tornado ripped through 
several towns and I was in Maryland surveying the damage.
  I would like the Record to reflect that had I been present I would 
have voted ``no'' on rollcall 351.

                          ____________________