[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20647-20651]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of 
the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) making further 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 70

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 107-44 is further amended by striking the date specified 
     in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``November 
     16, 2001''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Wednesday, October 24, 2001, 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, the legislation before the House this morning is H.J. 
Res. 70. Its purpose is to extend the current continuing resolution 
through November 16. We had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that this would not be 
necessary, but as all of our colleagues know, the House was really not 
able to function for nearly a week because of the anthrax contamination 
that was located in some of our areas. In addition to that, some of the 
House office buildings were closed and we were not able to actually 
recover the information, the papers and the materials that we needed to 
carry on some of our appropriations work.
  I might say, Mr. Speaker, we actually offered to put on some of those 
moon suits that the decontaminators were wearing so that we could 
actually get into the building and recover the files and the 
information we needed, but, of course, that suggestion was rejected and 
so we have had a delay. That is the reason why we come to the floor 
with another continuing resolution, but absent any further delays over 
which we have no control, we expect to complete our appropriations 
business by the end of this continuing resolution.
  The terms and conditions of the previous CRs remain in effect. All 
ongoing activities will be continued at current rates under the same 
terms and conditions as fiscal year 2001. Last week, Mr. Speaker, we 
passed two conference reports, Interior and Military Construction. 
Yesterday, the committee reported out the Defense appropriations bill. 
We expect to file that bill sometime early next week.
  In addition to the CR today, we hope to be appointing conferees on 
the Foreign Operations bill. We will meet in conference on the 
Treasury-Postal bill this afternoon and have that conference report on 
the floor next week. Next week, we also hope to go to conference on the 
Legislative Branch, the VA-HUD, and the Energy and Water appropriations 
bills. We also expect to appoint conferees on Agriculture which the 
Senate hopes to complete today, and also Transportation which they 
passed in August but we have not yet received a request to go to 
conference.
  Next week, we also plan to put together a package to allocate the 
funding provided in the emergency supplemental bill to address 
military, domestic security, humanitarian assistance and recovery 
requirements related to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, I would explain that in the $40 billion supplemental 
that we enacted immediately after the attacks on September 11, $10 
billion of that had no strings attached, the President was able to use 
it quickly in any legal way that he chose. The second $10 billion, the 
President is able to use, after he notifies the Appropriations 
Committees of the House and the Senate 15 days prior to releasing the 
funds. The last $20 billion, according to the law, had to go through 
the regular appropriations process.
  Actually, we just received information on the $20 billion from the 
White House on Wednesday afternoon last week as this building was being 
evacuated, and so we have not really had an opportunity to review what 
they have proposed relative to the $20 billion. But we will do that 
very quickly now and hopefully will include it as part of the Defense 
appropriations bill when it comes to the floor.
  We have a lot of work to do, and I appreciate the bipartisan 
cooperation and spirit that we have had here in the House all of this 
year and especially since the September 11 terrorist attacks. This 
Congress has come together. As one Member, it makes me extremely proud 
of my colleagues in the way that they have responded and joined with 
the President to assure the perpetrators of that tragedy, that terrible 
attack, are going to be punished and that we are going to do everything 
to disrupt their ability to ever do something like that to the United 
States again.
  Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the hoarseness that overcame me there 
for a few seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 minutes.
  I would simply observe for the gentleman from Florida that many of my 
constituents would say that the Republic has never yet been harmed when 
a Member of Congress has been hoarse, but let me simply make some 
points about the issue at hand.
  Mr. Speaker, this body is an odd mixture of being both a legislative 
institution and a political institution. Sometimes I believe the fact 
that the cameras have come into this place have created all kinds of 
incentives for this place to be much more a political institution than 
it is a legislative institution, and I regret that.
  I also think that we have another problem in the House. Woodrow 
Wilson wrote in his famous book a long time ago that Congress did its 
work in committee, and in my view Congress does

[[Page 20648]]

its best work in committee. And I think there is always a tension in a 
legislative and political body between efforts of the two parties to 
get their messages out and to get their will forced through the House, 
and, on the other hand, the efforts of the committees of the House to 
do the work of the House on behalf of every Member and on behalf of the 
country. We have a committee system because none of us can be an expert 
on everything, and we are, through the committee system, given the 
opportunity to specialize and develop knowledge in discrete areas of 
government.
  I think this is one of those times when the committee system needs to 
be allowed to work on behalf of the House rather than being frustrated 
by other pressures, and that is what drives me to make the comments I 
want to make today.
  This continuing resolution certainly deserves to be supported by 
every Member. It will allow the committee to begin to produce 
conferences, conference reports, between the two Houses now that the 
mini-filibuster is over on the other side of the Capitol, but I think 
there is a fundamental problem that we face as we go into dealing with 
each of those conference reports. As Members understand, after the 
events of September 11, we appropriated a $40 billion package to the 
President: $10 billion was to be used pretty much as he saw fit on an 
emergency situation; the next $10 billion is supposed to be spent after 
serious and involved consultation with the Congress, the President 
essentially has 15 days during which he is supposed to work out any 
potential differences with the Congress before he proceeds to spend 
that money; and then, lastly, we indicated that we would at a later 
date provide the other $20 billion that we had agreed to provide at 
that time. But during that debate, it was made clear many times over by 
people on both sides of the aisle that that $40 billion was just a down 
payment, not a ceiling, it was just a down payment. It was a limitation 
on how much could be spent immediately until the Congress and the 
executive branch got its act together and could make a more informed 
set of judgments about what else we needed to protect the country. And 
now I think we have to face the question of whether or not we are going 
to be asked to proceed with these bills under that $40 billion cap or 
if we are going to recognize that the world has changed a whole lot 
since that $40 billion package was passed.
  We will be bringing to the floor next week a defense bill which is 
essentially a peacetime defense bill. We are no longer at peace. In my 
view there are significant portions of the Pentagon budget that will 
need to be augmented above the levels provided in that appropriation 
bill. But there are a great many other items which I believe are going 
to cost far more than that $40 billion that we have so far provided 
authority for, and I think that money needs to be directed specifically 
and directly at homeland security issues. And without an understanding 
that we need to go above that $40 billion, we will not be able to 
provide the public or the Nation with the degree of safety that it has 
a right to expect.
  We have heard a lot of comments about airline security this morning. 
Obviously that has to be the first order of business. I think it is 
amazing that we have not passed an airline security bill more than a 
month after the tragic events of September 11. But even if we were to 
do that today, that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a great 
many other security-related items which we need to focus on.
  We have had a lot of reference made to the fact that the House went 
out of business last week after the anthrax problem was discovered. 
That afforded me an opportunity to get a series of briefings that I 
otherwise would not have had time to get at this point in the year, and 
so I spent the next 4 days when this House was out of session being 
briefed by the NSA, the CIA, HHS, CDC, FBI, a whole range of agencies 
that have responsibilities directly related to homeland security.

                              {time}  1045

  It is clear to me on the basis of those discussions that we need to 
move significantly beyond the amounts that the administration has 
provided in its budget submission of last week if we are to really do 
the job of securing the home front as well.
  We just passed a tax bill yesterday, not with my vote; but we gave 
large amounts of money to the largest corporations in this country: 
over $2 billion to Ford; $1.6 billion, or $1.4 billion, I believe, to 
AT&T $600 million to GE, not exactly the most needy clients in the 
country.
  If we can do that, well, I do not think we should have done that. I 
think we should have instead protected the integrity of the budget 
process and protected the integrity of the fiscal bottom line by not 
providing them those outlandish reductions, and instead we should have 
used that money for security-related items. I do not want to get into a 
debate about what happened yesterday, but I want to give you some 
examples of the things I think we need to do that will require us to go 
far beyond the $40 billion that we are talking about.
  First of all, you cannot talk about the National Security Agency and 
what it does in public; but I am telling you, seeing what they are 
doing and seeing the work that they are trying to do to help us track 
terrorism, there is no doubt in my mind that they are going to need 
more people above and beyond those being provided right now.
  The same with the FBI. If you take a look what they are trying to do, 
the FBI asked for almost $1.5 billion in additional funding. They have 
been provided in the budget request submitted by the administration so 
far a little more than one-third of that amount.
  The Customs Service, we have had everybody talk about the 
vulnerabilities of this country on the Canadian border. The Customs 
Service, I am told, requested $800 million to do something about that. 
The budget submission provides only $114 million to meet that problem. 
I think that action is at great variance with our needs.
  We also have a number of other efforts at the CIA which I think need 
augmenting.
  In the area of public health, we have been told by my good friend the 
Secretary, who was formerly the Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, 
we have been told that they are going to buy 300 million units of 
smallpox vaccine. I think that is terrific. But it will not do us much 
good if we have not strengthened the ability of public health officials 
down to the local level in every community in this land to actually 
deliver those vaccines, and, more importantly, to do the detection work 
and the detective work to make certain that we are not 2 weeks into an 
epidemic before we realize that we have got an epidemic.
  In transportation, I would challenge anyone to show me that we are 
buying all the bomb detection equipment that can be produced to provide 
greater security for this country. Rail passengers, how often have you 
had your bags checked when you get onto a train in this country? Amtrak 
has requested $500 million for increased security. That request was cut 
by $495 million, or 99 percent.
  The Coast Guard, we have a huge number of ports of entry in this 
country. The Coast Guard is taxed to the limit. They need more 
resources to protect this country and the security of this country, as 
far as I am concerned; yet they are not getting, in my view, nearly the 
resources they need.
  Food safety, we inspect less than 2 percent of the food that comes 
into this country. We desperately need to upgrade FDA, USDA and other 
agencies' ability to protect the Nation's food supply, both 
domestically and imported; and they are not getting sufficient 
resources to do that.
  There are many other areas of security-related concern that I could 
go into. I take this time simply to make the point that we cannot 
afford ``business as usual'' in dealing with these appropriation bills. 
In my view, we are going to have to live up to the words that we 
uttered on this House floor just a few weeks ago when we approved that 
initial $40 billion package. We are going to need to provide additional 
funds above $40 billion, in my view, to meet all of these threats.

[[Page 20649]]

  I want to make clear, I think that it is very likely that many of the 
requests from agencies that were turned down by OMB were turned down 
for very justifiable reasons, because we know that agencies will use 
almost any excuse to put their hand out to get more money. So I do not 
object to OMB scrubbing those numbers hard, but I do object to us 
having to live within an artificial dollar ceiling when the home base 
security of the United States is at stake.
  If we are at war, then we indeed ought to heed the words of the Vice 
President, who correctly said that this may be the first war in this 
country's history where we suffer more casualties at home than we do 
abroad. If that is the case, then we need to prepare for it; and we 
need to make the investments that are necessary.
  So I would urge every single Member of this House over the next 3 or 
4 days to think through what they have heard from their own 
constituents and what they have seen as they travel around the United 
States when it comes to other areas of security that we need to deal 
with.
  Now, we know each party has our own preferences in terms of economic 
policy in this country, in terms of tax policy, in terms of spending 
policy. That is fine. Those differences are healthy, at least most of 
the time. But today I am not talking about that. There is nothing 
philosophical, there is nothing ideological, about the idea of spending 
whatever is necessary and whatever can be usefully spent in order to 
upgrade the security of our transportation system, of our food supply, 
of our schools, and every other point of vulnerability in this country.
  We are in a new era. We need to think like it, and that means we need 
to get rid of these artificial ceilings and think more clearly about 
what is the best use of our time and what are crucial uses of public 
money.
  I have no problem whatsoever stacking up the list of items that I 
just mentioned and comparing them to some of the tax items that this 
Congress passed yesterday. If you ask any citizen on the street, 
including many citizens who benefited the most by those tax cuts 
yesterday, I would bet you by at least a seven or eight to one ratio, 
they would say, look, put security first.
  That is all I am asking. We have got, in my judgment, about a week 
for the House to make some concrete judgments, or else all of these 
decisions are going to be made by the Senate. They may make some good 
decisions, but I think it would be kind of nice if we participated. I 
think as the body charged with the responsibility to initiate 
appropriations, I think that we ought to be dealing from the House 
document, rather than dealing from the Senate document that they put 
together at a later date.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) and I have discussed the issues that he has just spoken about 
numerous times at great length, and I certainly agree with what he 
said.
  I think it is important to note that many of the appropriations bills 
that the House passed, actually passed prior to the terrorist attack on 
September 11, and were all peacetime budgets. The defense bill that we 
marked up yesterday was actually a peacetime budget. It dealt with the 
issues and the dollars that were available prior to the September 11 
terrorist attack.
  So the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is exactly correct. We 
have to move. Except for the $40 billion supplemental, we have to move 
into a wartime status here in the Congress, as we have done 
emotionally, as we have done by statements of support for the 
President, as we have done by changing some laws to give our law 
enforcement and our military more ability to move quickly to do what 
has to be done.
  The post-September 11 budget has to be considered real. As for the 
$40 billion, I do not think anybody believes that it is going to be 
enough to do what we have to do. What we have to do, the list is long, 
includes eliminating and bringing to justice bin Laden, his 
lieutenants, and the al Queda, and to remove them from any position of 
being able to influence terrorist attacks anywhere in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, America is not the only target. Other nations in the 
world are also targets. In the World Trade Center, for example, on that 
fateful day of September 11, there were nationals from 68 different 
countries who lost their lives in that attack on the World Trade 
Center. At our own Pentagon here, just outside of Washington, D.C., not 
only were members of our military killed in that attack, but also 
civilians, who were representing industry and meeting with Pentagon 
officials, military officials.
  So the target is very large, and it is important that we eliminate 
and disrupt the ability of any terrorist to carry out any additional 
attack, whether it be airplane bombs or truck bombs or anthrax or 
bacteria or disease germs, or whatever it might be. It is important 
that people do not have to live in fear, and they should not. It is 
important that places in our country are not under attack.
  I am satisfied that we are doing everything humanly possible to make 
sure that does not happen again, but there is a lot that needs to be 
done. We are prepared, and we have advised the President and our 
leadership knows that we, the Committee on Appropriations, are prepared 
to move quickly without any hesitation on addressing whatever the needs 
are. We are going to provide whatever it takes to keep America and our 
people secure and free from the terrorists who would try to damage our 
people and our country.
  Mr. Speaker, as we proceed through this appropriations process in the 
next few days and the next few weeks, we will be addressing the issues 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just discussed. We will be 
addressing the issues of what the needs really are. We will meet those 
needs, to the best of our ability; and as the needs arise, if there is 
something else that needs to be done, we are going to do it. We are 
going to do whatever it takes to stop the bin Ladens of the world, the 
Al Quaedas of the world, and those people who would bring terrible 
tragedy upon this Nation of ours. We are not going to stand for it, and 
I am committing this Committee to this, Mr. Speaker. We will provide 
whatever is necessary to make this guarantee and to support our 
President and our military in this effort.
  The Members of our Army, our Navy, our Marine Corps, our Air Force 
and our Coast Guard, our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement, 
the FBI, are all doing tremendous work. In briefing after briefing, 
about none of which we have revealed anything that is classified, by 
the way, Mr. Speaker, but after receiving many, many briefings, I am 
really impressed with how well they have come together, how well they 
are doing their job, how well they are beginning to disrupt the ability 
of any terrorist organization attempting to bring additional tragedies 
upon this great Nation of ours.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we remain united in this House, in this Congress, in 
this government, with the President leading us in this effort. We stand 
in strong support of all of our military and civilians who are on the 
frontline in this battle. We are going to do what has to be done; and 
the terrorists of the world might as well understand that, because we 
are coming to get them. If we have to get the rats out of the rat hole, 
we are going to get into the rat hole with them, but we are going to 
get them out.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Florida and commend him for the way he and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have had this discussion this morning, and 
say in that spirit that there are some things that are

[[Page 20650]]

a little bit disturbing and puzzling to some of us on this side of the 
aisle as we not only strive to, but hopefully perform, in 110 percent 
of support of our President and the bipartisan dedication of the United 
States in winning the war on terrorism internationally, as well as 
domestically.

                              {time}  1100

  Many of us were puzzled at the bringing of yesterday's tax bill to 
the floor and the discussion and the debate that ensued around it 
because, to some of us, it did not fit the spirit of the times and we 
respectfully disagreed. Why some folks's blood pressure went up as high 
as it did, I do not know.
  But here is my concern, and I say this for the benefit of both sides 
of the aisle. The day before yesterday, Mitch Daniels, Director of OMB, 
stressed, ``There are very, very few things more important to President 
Bush than the State of American agriculture. But at the moment, there 
are at least two things more important. One is concerning international 
terrorism; the other is protecting Americans here at home. The 
President deserves the chance to work on those and then he will turn 
his attention to the other more important issues such as farm policy 
and a new farm bill.''
  Now, this request was being made to the Senate, in saying please do 
not bring the farm bill up now, deal with it next year. As my 
colleagues know, we passed the farm bill in the House bipartisanly, 
equal support, 290 to 130 votes, indicating that the will of the House, 
the wisdom of the House, in the same spirit as the budget that the 
gentleman from Florida talked about, where the budget numbers came 
from, it was the budget that passed the House. Well, it seems to me 
that yesterday, at least in the House and the House leadership, tax 
policy became more important than winning the war, or certainly more 
important than passing a farm bill.
  Now, I hope I am wrong on that, because I do believe that it is still 
critically important to us and our food policy that we deal with this 
issue this year. But it is a little bit puzzling when we have messages 
that seem to contradict each other being sent at the same time most of 
us, if not all of us, and I would say all of us, bipartisanly are 
sincerely interested in doing everything we can to back our President 
in his excellent conduct of this terrible situation we find ourselves 
in. But somehow, we have to find a way to communicate on domestic 
policy and seemingly, right now, we have a mixed message going on 
concerning agriculture that bothers some of us greatly. I hope in our 
discussions we will be able to plug that back in and get back on track.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is an important 
step today to keep this thing going. We are operating under somewhat 
duress and unusual circumstances, but I am glad to see that the 
Committee on Appropriations, on a bipartisan basis, is keeping the ball 
rolling. I hope that the other body, sometimes known as the United 
States Senate, which we are not allowed to refer to by name, would also 
move as quickly as we have been moving. We have passed the DOD bill, 
which is pending only because of a paperwork snafu in the Rayburn 
Building, we cannot actually get to the physical bill, but we will have 
passed 13 out of 13 appropriations bills, and I hope that the folks in 
the other body will move quickly so that we can get this thing resolved 
and we can get to the war on terrorism and focus all of our energies on 
that and stimulating the economy.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 
70, a continuing resolution which extends temporary funding for all 
Federal Government agencies until November 16, 2001. This resolution 
provides further continuing appropriation for FY 2002 by extending a 
previous continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, since September 11, 2001, the legislative work of both 
bodies of the Congress has been significantly hampered for a number of 
reasons which required our immediate attention. As a result, we have 
not been able to complete all of the appropriations bills for fiscal 
year 2002. Nevertheless, we must make sure that essential services of 
the Federal Government continue uninterrupted without any diminution in 
Federal services to the American public.
  In this time of national unity and pride, we must keep our museums 
and monuments open to the public to show the world that America will 
continue to enjoy its rich heritage and civil liberties. Also, we must 
provide continued funding for federal law enforcement, transportation 
and health care agencies so that our country may respond effectively to 
unforeseen emergencies.
  I support this resolution, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time for debate has 
expired.
  The joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, October 24, 2001, 
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.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on House Joint 
Resolution 70 will be followed by a 5-minute vote, if ordered, on 
approving the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419, 
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 405]

                               YEAS--419

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly

[[Page 20651]]


     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ballenger
     Barr
     Callahan
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Everett
     Fattah
     Gallegly
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hoeffel
     Istook
     Miller, Gary

                              {time}  1129

  Mr. BAIRD and Mr. KLECZKA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________