[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20296-20304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 122, FURTHER CONTINUING 
                          APPROPRIATIONS, 2003

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 580

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     2003, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is, Will the 
House now consider House Resolution 580.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 580.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of 
debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 580 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 122, making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the joint resolution, and provides one motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 122 makes further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003 and provides for funding at 
current levels. We had agreed in the Committee on Rules that this would 
be through November 22.
  At the conclusion of the debate on this, by consent on both sides 
there will be an amendment offered to change that date of November 22 
to October 18, 2000, a week from tomorrow. This measure is necessary in 
order that all necessary and vital functions of government may continue 
uninterrupted until Congress completes the work on the spending 
measures for the next fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the rule, as we will amend 
it, and of course the underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Members here in the Chamber and Members watching 
this on television in their offices are a little confused, there is 
very good reason that they should be confused. Let me kind of review 
the bidding here, what has gone on today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is in a total and utter state 
of disarray and denial.

                              {time}  1715

  First today we were told, well, there would be a continuing 
resolution until next week, until October 18. And then, no, they 
changed their minds; and it was going to be a continuing resolution 
until November 22. Now, apparently they have changed their minds again 
and now the resolution is going to be until October 18, which is next 
week.
  The question really is, Why are they doing this? Why can they not 
decide to let the House work its will on the appropriations bills? Why 
do they say one thing to Members at one moment, another thing 5 minutes 
later, another thing another 10 minutes later?
  This is a disgrace, a disgrace, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, on September 30 the fiscal year ended, and the deadline 
passed for House Republicans to do their most basic job, passing the 
appropriations bills to fund priorities like education and health care. 
In the 10 days since then, the stock market has dropped to a 5-year 
low, and we have learned that another 417,000 Americans filed 
unemployment claims at the end of last month.
  By stubbornly refusing to do their jobs they are getting paid to do, 
the Republican leaders are hurting the millions of Americans who are 
busy looking for work. This House has failed to fund important 
initiatives in education, health care, and other key priorities.
  Well, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Republicans are still fiddling 
while America's economy burns. So in a few minutes we will vote on a 
continuing resolution that was November 22. Now it is October 18. Who 
knows what it will be an hour from now.
  Republican leaders want this CR so they can hide evidence of their 
fiscal mismanagement. It is the same cynical strategy they are using to 
hide their secret plan to privatize Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, why will Republicans not be honest with the American 
people? Not too long ago they insisted that Congress had to vote on an 
Iraq resolution before the election. As the President himself said, and 
I quote, ``I cannot imagine an elected United States, elected Members 
of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, `I 
think I am going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision.'''
  To paraphrase the President, I cannot imagine being a House 
Republican who has presiding over this failed economy and saying, I am 
not going to do anything about it. Because that is exactly what House 
Republicans are going to do, postpone action on important domestic and 
economic issues. They are desperate to hide their failed economic 
policies and dangerous Social Security plan from the voters. But they 
cannot hide the truth.
  The Republicans' refusal to govern is hurting American priorities 
from the economy to education. In a recent memo to the Speaker, the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations outlined just how harmful 
this refusal to govern is. According to the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young), ``A long-term continuing resolution would have 
disastrous impacts on the war on terror, homeland security and other 
important government responsibilities.''
  The gentleman's memo pointed out that a long-term CR, and we do not 
know how they define long term, is it a week, is it a month, that a 
long-term CR would undermine the war on terror by denying nearly $40 
billion in additional homeland security funds requested by the 
President. It would short change our veterans by funding VA medical 
care at 2.5 billion less than what is needed to meet their needs, and 
would hurt our children's education by underfunding Pell grants by 
nearly $1 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans' failed economic policies have driven 
America into a huge deficit ditch that poses a grave threat to Social 
Security and other priorities like education, prescription drugs, and 
homeland security. So Republican leaders hope that by refusing to fund 
the government no

[[Page 20297]]

one will notice the fiscal straitjacket they have put the country in.
  The shell game is most obvious on education. Many Republican Members 
want to go home to tout their bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act we 
passed with so much fanfare last year; but they refuse to actually 
provide schools with the resources they need to carry out the reforms 
Congress mandated. Indeed, the bill funding the Departments of Labor, 
Education and Health and Human Services backed by most Republican 
Members would gut education and other priorities, and that is why they 
do not want to bring it to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to be straight with the American people and 
start digging out of this fiscal ditch. That will require Republicans 
owning up to the disaster they have made of the Federal budget. For 
that reason, Members are going to be called on in just a moment. We 
will have very serious questions about this particular continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve honesty from the Republicans 
on critical domestic issues. There is no excuse for this House putting 
off its most basic work. The economy is weak, prescription drugs are 
still sky high, the budget is back in deficit, and many Republicans 
want to privatize Social Security.
  It is time to quit playing politics. It is time to get back to doing 
the American people's business and to actually pass appropriations 
bills rather than this shell game of ``Maybe we have a one week CR, 
maybe we have a one month CR. Gee, we do not know. We just want to 
leave so we can go home and campaign.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what now? We have since Labor Day focused 
almost exclusively on Iraq, Iraq, and then Iraq. And then Iraq. We have 
now finally finished that business.
  And the average American family is sitting home and they are saying, 
``You know, I wonder when those guys and gals are going to get around 
to doing the stuff that deals with our family security. I wonder when 
they are going to get around to dealing with unemployment. I wonder 
when they are going to get around to dealing with the fact that people 
are losing their shirts in their 401(k)'s, their now 101(k)'s.'' And 
they are asking, ``I wonder when they are going to get around to 
protecting the integrity of our pension plans from corporate marauders. 
And I wonder when they are going to get around to dealing with the fact 
that a lot of Americans have lost their health insurance in the last 
year.''
  I do not understand this institution's reaction. I know virtually 
every Member of this House, some a lot more than others. And I know 
that when I talk to each and every one of you that you are, 
individually, people of good will who want to solve the country's 
problems. But when you get together, the collective result of that 
individual talent and concern is disastrous. Because instead of 
producing a determination to attack problems, what apparently is 
produced is a determination to avoid them.
  Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has described the confusion 
on the Republican side of the aisle today. Here is what I think is at 
the root of that confusion. You have passed a budget resolution at the 
beginning of the year that told fibs. It pretended that you could hold 
education spending to a level that would stop and grind to a halt the 
progress we have made in expanding investments in education over the 
past 5 years.
  You pretended you could afford a health care budget which cuts a 
billion and a half dollars out of health care services to the American 
people. And you have pretended a lot of other things, and now those 
pretensions are coming home to roost. And so the leadership is trying 
to figure out how they can get out of town without having to face up to 
those irreconcilable contradictions. And so their original game plan 
today was to have a continuing resolution that puts us over until 
November 22, after the election, conveniently putting aside until after 
the election all issues.
  The administration, which has made so much of its desire to see 
accountability in our schools, is doing as much as it can possibly do 
to avoid accountability for each and every one of us in our 
stewardship. And so what happened in the Republican Caucus is that some 
of the Members got a little ditsy, and they said, ``Gee whiz,'' some 
Members said for instance, ``You mean we are going to go home without 
dealing with the drought? Gee, we want more time to deal with the 
drought.''
  So all of the sudden the November 22 date is changed to next week 
because the leadership still has not figured out how to resolve that 
because they have a problem. Because while some of their Members want 
to attack the drought problem, their President, our President, has 
already said that he is going to veto a bill which pays for those 
drought expenses. So they have that problem.
  Then they have the huge problem of wanting to hide from their 
constituents the fact that they were bringing progress in education 
investments to a screeching halt. They have their votes from the No 
Child Left Behind Act which promised all kinds of progress on teacher 
training, on handicapped education, on education for kids who need help 
with language skills. They have that vote, but the problem is that bill 
does not deliver the money. The appropriation bill that delivers the 
money is being bottled up because they do not want to have to admit 
that they are not going to provide the money to fund the promises they 
made just a few months ago. So as a result this place looks silly.
  We have done our dead-level best as an institution to try to deal 
with the challenges facing us in Iraq. We ought to turn to those same 
challenges at home. This continuing resolution does not allow us to do 
that. I will, therefore, vote against it. I am against any continuing 
resolutions that are more than one or two days at a time. When I see 
that the majority has scheduled action on education and on health care, 
I will vote for them and not until.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, less than 40 minutes ago we were in the Committee on 
Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), myself, all of us 
were there to pass a rule. We passed a rule. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) was there. The ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) was there. We passed a rule that allowed that we would have 
a continuing resolution until the 22nd of November.
  I came down here to the floor of the House and began talking with 
Members indicating that we would have the CR until the 22nd, and lo and 
behold, telling them that it is distinctly possible that we may be back 
next week or at some other point in time; but then I hear the Clerk 
read and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) stand up and say 
that it has changed.
  What has happened in this institution? Do we have a phantom Committee 
on Rules somewhere? Why is it that I continue to go upstairs thinking 
that I am participating in a process of importance?
  Somewhere along the lines we are losing our rudder; and we have 
things that need to be done, and Republicans need to do it and 
Democrats need to do it. Liberals need to do it, and conservatives need 
to do it on behalf of this country. We cannot continue down this path.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my very good friend.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time. I want to speak on the substance, but I want to 
spend 30 seconds on the process.
  I want to tell those of my colleagues who were not here prior to 1994 
that their side of the aisle was regularly outraged at procedures that 
were pursued, none of which were as egregious as some of the process 
that we are confronted with. I do not believe this is a

[[Page 20298]]

process that anybody on the Committee on Appropriations would sanction, 
on either side of the aisle. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
is absolutely correct, and I join him in those comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit this House can point to 
real legislative accomplishments this week. We considered our most 
solemn duty, a resolution authorizing our Commander-in-Chief to use our 
Armed Forces. We finally passed two appropriations conference reports; 
two down, 11 to go. We will soon take up landmark election reform 
legislation, the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
  But, Mr. Speaker, one week does not a session make.
  There is little doubt that the preceding 5 weeks were anything but an 
evasion of leadership and responsibility. While we bobbed and weaved, 
the American people took it on the chin again and again and again.
  The unemployment rate showed a tiny reduction from 5.7 to 5.6 percent 
from August to September, but it still was far above the rate of 3.9 
percent in October, 2000.
  There are 8.1 million unemployed Americans today, according to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, an increase of 2\1/2\ million Americans 
from just 2 years ago.
  The year before President Bush took office, the economy created 1.7 
million new jobs. Since January of 2001, we have lost 1.5 million jobs.
  The poverty rate increased for the first time in 8 years in 2001. In 
the first year of the Bush administration, 1.3 million Americans 
slipped back into poverty, with 32.9 million now living in poverty and 
this the richest nation on the face of the earth.
  The median household income fell 2.2 percent in 2001, after 
increasing every year since 1992. More than 400,000 bankruptcies were 
filed in the second quarter of this year, an all-time high. In the same 
quarter, 1.23 percent of home loans were in foreclosure, a record high, 
but that is not all.
  The number of Americans without health insurance increased by 1.4 
million people from the end of 2000 to the end of 2001. Health 
insurance costs increased 12.7 percent in 2002, the largest annual 
increase since 1990. Prescription drug prices increased by nearly twice 
the rate of inflation in 2001. And then, of course, as all of us know, 
the stock market has lost $4.5 trillion in value between January, 2001, 
and September, 2002.
  But the topper, the most egregious statistic for which we have a 
large share of the responsibility, has been the historic reversal of 
the Federal budget.
  The $86.6 billion surplus inherited by this administration, excluding 
Social Security, that President Bush inherited has turned into a $314 
billion deficit, almost half a trillion dollars; and the only medicine 
the Republican party's economic gurus can prescribe is this--cut taxes.
  As we consider this continuing resolution, I urge the American people 
to ask themselves Ronald Reagan's famous question: Are we better off 
today than we were 2 years ago? The answer tragically and unfortunately 
is we are not.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last week we went through a very similar debate when we 
passed the CR last week to get us to this point. There was some heated 
discussion on the floor, and there was a bit of finger pointing. I do 
not think it does this institution all that good to point fingers, but 
I suppose that is just the nature of a political body that that has to 
happen.
  I think in that light it may be instructive just to review where we 
started in the 107th Congress and the start of this year and where we 
are right now. That perhaps has added to some of the sounds of 
confusion that we are going through this time.
  We are required by law, as we all know, to pass a budget and agree on 
some numbers between the House and the Senate. We have talked about 
that at length on the floor of this House, and we all know that the 
House responded to that in a way and passed a budget according to the 
rules and laws that we abide by. We also know that the Senate did not 
do that.
  It presents a problem, obviously, simply because we do not have an 
agreement on both sides by which to argue about our differences. It 
causes some dissension, certainly does not make the appropriators' job 
very easy, but that is the framework by which we have to work with this 
appropriation process.
  So we have tried then to get bills out at least and have broad 
consensus. Five of them, if my number is correct, have passed the 
House, now await action in the Senate, and we have some contentious 
appropriations bills that need to be acted on later.
  Every year, as a matter of fact, the same bills tend to pop up that 
are contentious, and the appropriators are working very hard to try to 
work out the differences so we can narrow that gap, but unfortunately, 
this year happens to be an election year. Everybody, or at least one-
third of the other body and everybody in this body, desires to go home 
to campaign and hopefully come back and start the 108th Congress anew, 
but before we do that, of course, we have to finish this process.
  It is true when we were up in the Committee on Rules meeting earlier 
this afternoon, the CR was to take us until November 22. The reason for 
that time between then and now was to give the appropriators a little 
bit more time to work out the differences that they may or may not have 
and try to take a deep breath, come back after the election and get it 
resolved.
  Of course, in this body there are a lot of discussions that go on 
under the radar, and it was felt, probably through a signal of Members 
perhaps on both sides of the aisle, that a resolution carrying the CR 
to November 22 may not have passed. We do not know that, we did not put 
it to a vote, but sometimes we take a gauge and we learn where the 
levels are.
  The determination was made, because there had been talk not only last 
week but the week before, that probably the last CR would be on the 
18th of this month, a determination was made then that we would have 
the CR until the next week to allow the appropriators to go back to 
work, and that is what this rule is all about, is to allow us to have a 
CR to take us into next week. We will come back next week.
  I suppose that we will hear the same sort of rhetoric next week as we 
try to get all of our business done, but I think this is a responsible 
way to do it.
  There are some major issues, I might add, that are overhanging the 
whole Capitol, not just this body. Today, we passed a very historic 
piece of legislation that, as my colleagues know, we debated for 2\1/2\ 
days regarding the Iraqi situation. But in line with the Iraqi 
situation and the potential that we may have to go to war is the issue 
of homeland security, and we have acted on that.
  When the President came to the Congress with his proposal for 
homeland security, there were Members, probably on both sides of the 
aisle, that said would it not be great if we could create an Office of 
Homeland Security and have that done by September 11. We did not get it 
done by September 11, but the House did act on that bill, and that is 
waiting in the other body, again, for that bill to pass so we can work 
out whatever differences we may have.
  I think it would be unconscionable for us as a Congress, in view of 
what we did today and the action on Iraq, to leave here, to leave here 
and not pass the homeland security bill. I hope that the other body 
will work on that. I hope they work extremely hard on that in the next 
week so that when we come back, we will have to come back next week to 
at least, if nothing else, respond to the CR.
  I believe that for us as a Congress one of the things that we need to 
do is to put the final exclamation point on what I think all Americans 
want us to do, in lieu of the threat that we have coming from the 
Middle East and particularly Iraq, is to make sure that our homeland 
security is as strong as it can be. It can only be stronger, in my 
view, if the Senate acts on that bill, we can go to conference and work 
out the differences and pass it.

[[Page 20299]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker be so kind as 
to inform us as to the amount of time remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I was going to ask my good friend and namesake, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), whether or not we needed a budget resolution 
to pass the Defense bill today.
  We did not need one.
  And are we going to take up appropriations measures next week when we 
return?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in the best of all worlds, 
of course, it would be nice if we could do that. Anything is possible. 
It is likely probably not, in all honesty.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, did my colleague not just say, 
though, that that was the purpose of the CR?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I am sorry if the gentleman misinterpreted what I 
said on that. The purpose of the CR is to fund the government for one 
more week, if, in fact, under that period of time these things can come 
together.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my 
colleague is not going to answer my question. They did not need a 
budget resolution, as argued that we needed, in order for us to go 
forward with the Defense bill today. The answer to that is, no, we did 
not. The answer to are we going to take up appropriations measures next 
week, absolutely not. We are going to come back here and do another CR, 
and we need to get on with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I am wondering if my friend from Wisconsin would answer a 
question.
  I am very curious about this explanation that we cannot act on 
appropriations bills because there is no conference agreement on a 
budget resolution. As our friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) indicated, we passed two final bills today. Is that not 
right? How could we do that?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. When they had the 
will to pass a bill, they passed it. When they do not want to pass the 
bills, they do not pass them. They were not trying to hide what they 
were doing on Defense, but they are trying to hide what they are doing 
on Education and Agriculture and Transportation.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, do we have a number of bills that have been 
passed out of committee available for floor action?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, you 
bet. We have the Agriculture bill. We have the Labor H, could be ready 
very quickly if they would let us bring it to a vote. We have the HUD 
independent offices bill. We have a number of others as well.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I will have another question for the 
gentleman.
  I read this continuing resolution, and there is something that 
bewilders me. As we all know, our economy is fragile and there is 
always a dispute about what we can or should do at the Federal level to 
help speed up the economy.
  Clearly, one of the areas in this country where we have major 
problems is our transportation and infrastructure.

                              {time}  1745

  Am I right that this year we are having highway obligation limit of 
about $31.8 billion?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
language in this CR----
  Mr. SABO. No, this year.
  Mr. OBEY. Right now we are operating under the level the gentleman 
described, yes.
  Mr. SABO. In our previous continuing resolutions we were told we had 
an obligation limit of $31.8 billion.
  Mr. OBEY. Right.
  Mr. SABO. What is this language in the bill today? I read it, and it 
seems to me we are writing into law something about 31.8, that appears 
to be a smoke screen to make people feel good, then there is an 
exception for it which indicates and takes us back to a highway 
obligation limit to 21.7.
  Mr. OBEY. That is correct. This resolution cuts the amount that would 
be available to the States to $27.7 billion. So the gentleman's State 
is going to lose $54 million, my State will lose $69 million, if it is 
carried to term, and so on.
  Mr. SABO. This is confusing. I know that there is disagreement 
between House and Senate bills, but from all the interpretations of 
what we have been doing, I think it is clear that no one can dispute 
that if we want to spend money that has impact on jobs, maintaining or 
creating jobs, the best money spent is on existing programs, where 
plans are made, where States are ready to spend it. Am I wrong?
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman is 
right, and what is at stake here is 200,000 jobs.
  Mr. SABO. And so this bill goes contrary to what we have done in our 
first couple of CRs and actually writes into the CR that we are 
reducing funding for highways next year.
  Mr. OBEY. That is right. Instead of having a disagreement between the 
House and the Senate, we have a disagreement between the House and the 
House.
  Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I feel a sense of frustration similar to some who 
have expressed it on the floor today, because I joined some of my 
colleagues in the Committee on Rules in seeking support for a rule to 
allow the CR to be brought up to do one primary thing, to keep the 
government running beyond tomorrow night at midnight.
  Now, there may be some who would like to see the government close 
down and play the blame game: ``it is your fault, or it is your fault, 
or it is our fault, or it is their fault.'' The problem is, the blame 
game does not get us anywhere.
  Now, we are here today with a CR because the appropriations bills 
have not become law. Today we passed the conference reports on the 
defense bill with a very healthy bipartisan vote and on the military 
construction bill with a very bipartisan vote. Those are two good 
bills, and we had promised the President we would get them to his desk 
before any others. But if anybody listening to this debate believes 
that we have not passed the appropriations bills because the Committee 
on Appropriations has not done its job, they are mistaken. If anyone 
believes that the appropriations process has broken down, they are 
mistaken.
  There was a breakdown. The breakdown was in the budget process. It 
totally collapsed. And it collapsed because the law was not followed. 
The Budget Act was not obeyed. The Budget Act provides that the House 
pass a budget resolution; send it to the other body, the way we do 
other legislation; the other body passed a budget resolution; the two 
Houses come together in a conference committee and work out the 
differences; and then report back to the House and report back to the 
Senate the ideal budget resolution with the same numbers and the same 
words. As all my colleagues know, a conference report has to be 
identical.
  Here is where the breakdown occurred. The House passed a budget 
resolution. Whether you voted for it or did

[[Page 20300]]

not vote for it, whether you liked it or did not like it, the House 
passed a budget resolution. The other body did not. So during the 
appropriations process we have been dealing with a broken budget 
process because the top number, the 302(a) number which is the overall 
budget number for discretionary spending, is one number in the other 
body and a different number in the House.
  Now, I have been seeking a mathematician ever since that happened to 
tell me how we can reconcile these appropriations bills when one top 
number is $9 billion higher than the other one. Either the high one has 
to come down or the low one has to come up or they have to meet in the 
middle somewhere. This has not happened so the budget process totally 
collapsed.
  Nevertheless, the Committee on Appropriations has continued to do its 
work. We have already passed and sent to the other body a number of 
appropriations bills, including the two we passed today, the Defense 
and Military Construction bills. We have also sent the Interior bill to 
the other body and, we have sent the Treasury, Postal bill the 
legislative branch bill to the other body. And I would report to you, 
Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared to send all the other bills to the 
other body after they are considered here. The committee has marked up 
those appropriation bills and they are ready for consideration.
  Someone asked about an omnibus bill, and I would have to suggest that 
at this late period in this process that may be the way out, that is, 
to do an omnibus bill. As a matter of fact, seeing this day coming, I 
could prepare an omnibus bill, and I could add it to a CR. We are going 
to be back here next week. By the time we get back here next week, I 
could have another CR ready that would have an omnibus appropriation 
bill on it that would finalize our business as far as the House is 
concerned.
  So that is sort of the history of where we are and why we are here. 
The appropriations process did not break down; the budget process did. 
And most of the bills that we reported from committee had general 
support from both parties; and all of those bills were reported out of 
the committee with good solid votes. But now the bill we are 
considering today, Mr. Speaker, has to do with a continuing resolution 
to keep the government functioning beyond midnight tomorrow night.
  After writing and rewriting several different continuing resolutions, 
we introduced the first one last night. Since then, we have introduced 
three additional ones. We went to the Committee on Rules, they gave us 
a rule that would allow us to take up the CR that would take us to the 
22nd of November. That does not mean we will quit and run and go home 
tomorrow or tonight. That means we have that much more time available 
to work on trying to conclude our business.
  But along the way we ran into another obstacle, and that obstacle was 
that there are some people who did not think there was enough in this 
CR for an interest that they had. And I think their interest is 
legitimate, but there are legitimate interests all over this Congress 
that are not included in this CR because a CR is a temporary funding 
measure.
  So we were hoping to bring this rule to the floor, get a bipartisan 
vote for it, take up the CR, and keep the government functioning so 
that the Congress could continue to do its work. Now we have found out 
that we may not have all the votes we need on our side to pass it and 
we may not get any votes on the minority side. That doesn't make it 
very bipartisan, to say the least. I have asked a number of my friends 
on the other side if we could have some votes to help us pass this 
rule, to make up for the votes we may lose on our side; and the answer 
was no, we are not going to vote for it.
  If we could have had a little bit of cooperation, this rule could be 
out of here, the CR could be out of here, and all my colleagues could 
be on airplanes headed for home; and I would go back to the office and 
put the finishing touches on that omnibus appropriation bill and have 
it ready by next week. But instead, we are here.
  We could use a little cooperation. Some of my friends on this side 
would not like it if we passed the rule the way it is currently written 
because they want their interests in this resolution, and I do not 
blame them. But sometimes we have to settle down, cut, and go to the 
finish line. And that is where we thought we were today, but evidently 
we are not.
  Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody has a nice day, nice 
weekend; and we will see everyone next week.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland if I 
have any time left, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. I believe there is time, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker.
  We have heard much about the budget and the fact we have not passed 
the budget in the same form through two Houses. But as I recall, we 
passed a deeming resolution budget, which means the House numbers are 
the numbers we are supposed to adhere to. Am I not correct that we used 
that deeming resolution to pass the five bills to which the gentleman 
previously referred that have passed the House? Is that correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
is correct. We are functioning under the deeming resolution.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, could we not, 
therefore, have passed the other eight bills in the same manner?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to think that we could. The 
problem would be that conferencing those bills would be impossible, at 
least if we did all of them.
  Mr. HOYER. I agree with the gentleman, because there are very 
substantial differences. The gentleman mentioned a number of 
differences in our priorities. But what that would have done, Mr. 
Speaker, is to make it clear what those differences are for the 
American people in terms of education, in terms of health care, in 
terms of biomedical research.
  So we could have done that and set before the American people the 
differences that exist between our body and the other body, could we 
not?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am only going to respond 
to the gentleman in this way: that we deemed a budget number because we 
could not get a real budget, and we had to have a top line that the 
House had previously agreed to. As I pointed out in my remarks, I know 
a lot of Members did not vote for it. Nevertheless, the House worked 
its will, and that is the budget number we are now working with.
  It would have been much easier for me and for the gentleman from 
Maryland, as the ranking member on a very important subcommittee, and 
for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as the ranking member on 
the full committee, and for all of us, if we had a common top number so 
that we could have then created common 302(b) numbers and we could have 
been well on our way to conferencing these bills.
  Mr. HOYER. Again, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I agree that would have been easier; and, furthermore, I 
believe, had there been agreement and a majority for the House-passed 
budget numbers, we could have passed our bills.
  It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the votes are not 
there to sustain the budget the House passed and put forward, and that 
really is the nub of the problem, that we passed a budget that was not 
realistic and that, therefore, we and the Committee on Appropriations 
are unable to pass bills which can garner the requisite votes to pass. 
And I sympathize with the gentleman's challenge.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland, is very smooth in the way that he makes his 
points, but his comment would be speculation because there are those of 
us who believe that we could pass those bills at the number that we 
deemed. And if the other body would have had the same number, whether 
it was $768 billion, $759 billion, or $749 billion, we could have made 
this work.

[[Page 20301]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we did not have the same numbers on the five 
bills we did pass.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct, but he understands 
that we did not get to conference on those bills.
  Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I wish we could conclude this 
business today and let the Members have a weekend at home, because for 
those who have strong election campaigns, they need a little bit of 
time at home to reconnect with their constituents. But I am not sure 
that is going to happen today. We will do the best we can, and I thank 
the gentleman for yielding me all of his time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this discussion and 
wonder what the American people might be asking themselves about this 
inside-the-beltway discussion of budget resolutions, continuing 
resolutions, and deeming resolutions.
  Let me bring it back home to Americans in real terms. Because we have 
not done the one thing Congress has the responsibility to do each year, 
pass appropriation bills, the children of military families who might 
be put at risk in a war against Iraq, and I voted for that military 
authorization today, the children of military families, their schools, 
will not be getting the Impact Aid funding as they should be this 
November.

                              {time}  1800

  The Fort Hood school district in my congressional district will be 
losing millions of dollars that they otherwise would have gotten in 
November.
  I am told Fort Leavenworth in Kansas might have a serious financial 
crisis in the next month or two because of Impact Aid funding not 
having been passed in the appropriation bill.
  What all this esoteric discussion means, the children of the military 
families, those families which we might be sending into combat in Iraq, 
are not going to get the education funding they deeply deserve; which 
is somewhat ironic on the same day that we just voted to authorize the 
use of military force in Iraq.
  Secondly, this means a lot in regard to highway spending and American 
jobs. A vote for this rule is a vote to cut highway spending by $4.1 
billion. What does that mean? It means the loss of over 190,000 jobs in 
an economy which has already lost 2 million jobs. It means the loss of 
good-paying jobs from New York to California to Texas. It means we 
cannot repair the aging highway infrastructure in America at the rate 
that we were even doing last year, considering the fact that 21 percent 
of the bridges in the Federal highway system are substandard and many 
of those are unsafe.
  It means that the 4 days a year that Americans already spend in 
congestion away from their work, it means more pollution, more time 
away from their families and less efficient businesses. According to 
the Texas Transportation Institute, a loss of $75 billion a year 
because of congestion, extra fuel and lost time because of inadequate 
highways and inadequate transportation systems.
  So this is not an esoteric, inside-the-Beltway debate, it is a debate 
about jobs and cleaner air and more efficient businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, we have not met our responsibility. Because of the 
leadership in this House, we have not been allowed to do our one 
responsibility that we must do: pass appropriations bills. What I think 
has happened is a combination of a slow economy, the war against 
terrorism, and an irresponsibly large tax cut which has cut the budget 
so drastically that we cannot afford to fund the Leave No Child Behind 
education bill, and many Members want us to not vote on these until 
after the election. That is irresponsible. We should do our work. It is 
our responsibility.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office watching this 
debate. If I could do one thing in this Congress, being one of the 
longest-serving congressmen, it would be to shut off the television. 
The nonsense I heard from that side of the aisle that affects my 
committee is pure, pure BS. That is exactly what it is. And they are 
playing the political game on television so the people at home can 
watch this dishonesty as they present it.
  I worked very hard on this and I must tell the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I worked 
very hard, including the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), who 
is the ranking member, to make sure as it came down that we reinstated, 
and $31,799,104,000 is going to be spent. Yes, that is what it is. Just 
read it. Has the gentleman read it?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Yes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. I reclaim my 
time.
  This was an agreement we reached, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and myself, to in fact have the money spent as a continuing 
resolution to the level of $31,799,104,000, and it reverts back to 
$27.7 billion. That is what this House agreed to.
  It also says that none of the obligated funds will be affected. That 
is in there, too.
  It also says, by the way, it can be changed at a later date; and that 
will probably be true, too.
  But to allude to those people that depend upon our highways, and no 
one defends those highways better than I do, no one works harder to 
make sure that the transportation system is improved. It is so much 
better than what was proposed.
  Mr. Speaker, to stand up on television and play the political game on 
this floor of the House is wrong. The Committee on Appropriations 
chairman is trying to do his job. I have 64 bills over in the other 
body that have not been acted on. How many bills in the other body 
belong to the gentleman that the majority leader in the Senate has not 
acted on?
  Do not ask us to play the political game against my leaders in this 
House and say it is all their fault. Look at the Senate side. Look at 
the Senate side. What have they done? Have they passed a budget? Have 
they looked at the appropriating bills? No, they have not.
  In addition, when we get done, I will probably insist on the Senate 
side to bring us more money. But, in reality, they worked in good 
faith. Our leaders worked in good faith. I worked in good faith. My 
ranking member worked in good faith. And to stand up on this floor and 
play the political card is absolutely wrong for this House.
  If the gentleman wants to have power that bad, go at it. But I am 
thinking of the people of the United States right now. I am thinking 
about the people who depend on transportation and on the bridges the 
gentleman talked about. There is more money in this. We have $4.4 
billion put back into it when we passed the budget. And the gentleman 
voted for it.
  I am a little excited right now because my back hurts, but the fact 
of the matter is I have watched this 30 years. I have watched this body 
for 30 years, and ever since we put the television cameras in, debate 
on this floor has deteriorated and is for political purposes instead of 
solving problems.
  Our job is to solve the problems and represent the people of this 
Nation for the best of this Nation, not for political purposes.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair reminds Members 
not to characterize Senate action or inaction.
  The Chair would also ask the courtesy of all Members to engage in 
debate only when yielded time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
is suffering some back pain today; and, unfortunately, it is affecting 
his ability to read. If he would read the language, it says, 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution, the 
annual rate of operations for Federal aid highway programs for fiscal

[[Page 20302]]

year 2003 shall be $31,799,104,000, provided that total obligations to 
this program while operating under joint resolution making continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2003 shall not exceed $27.7 billion 
unless otherwise specified a subsequent appropriation act.''
  That means, baby, all you get to spend as far as the States are 
concerned is 27.7 billion bucks, unless you pass different language 
than the language that is in this resolution.
  I do not know if the gentleman is reading in Turkish, Russian, or 
Egyptian, but if you read it in English, that is what it says. If you 
vote for this rule, you are voting to cut highway funding by $4 
billion.
  And as Lily Tomlin used to say, ``That's the truth!''
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, until just a few minutes ago, I was up in 
the Speaker's rostrum and I was listening to all of this debate. I will 
try to not get too emotional about this, but the gentleman is probably 
correct. That is what it says, but this resolution is only for one 
week.
  And as the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) just said, what that 
means is for the period of one week, yes, it may be reduced; but they 
also have language and an agreement it will not be reduced. So we are 
straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel.
  The issue is, will the House agree with a resolution that will keep 
the Federal Government open for one week? That is a pretty simple 
question, and I think the answer is, or should be, yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations. I think he said it correctly. The House from the very 
beginning has been prepared and willing and has done its work. The 
problem is the House is only one part of Congress, and we have had 
problems from the very beginning because we have a budget resolution 
which we have deemed and which we will abide by, and the other side has 
not. Now, that makes it impossible to come to an agreement.
  Somebody said earlier, Well, does the House have the will to pass 
appropriation bills? I think the answer to that question is, yes. But 
we do not have an agreement. If there is no agreement, what is the 
point?
  I think the gentleman from Maryland said, what are our priorities? 
Let me ask a question. What are the priorities of the other side of the 
aisle? Not only for the first time in 26 years did one branch of the 
Federal Government not pass a budget, in violation of Federal law, but 
our friends on the left never offered a budget resolution. They ask 
what our priorities are, what our blueprint is. We have a budget. We 
can tell the American people, this is what the Republican blueprint 
was.
  Now, how do we compare that to the plan on the other side of the 
aisle? The other side of the aisle never offered a budget plan.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht) just asked what are our priorities. Here is what they are.
  Our priority is not to run the government by spending Social Security 
money the way theirs apparently are.
  Our priorities are to increase funding for special education, a 
prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, superfund cleanup and 
other things the American people support, and many things the majority 
side of the aisle would like to support.
  The reason we are going through this exercise is the majority does 
not wish to be held accountable before the election for the choices 
that it has presented to itself. When the majority enacted its tax cut 
in 2001 and the recession was prolonged and the unforeseen events of 
September 11 occurred, the majority put itself into a box. Because it 
refuses to reconsider the speed and scope of the tax cut, the majority 
has only two choices to fund the government.
  The first choice is to dramatically reduce what we spend on schools, 
on the environment, on health care, on veterans' benefits and other 
desirable programs; and they do not want to cast those votes before the 
election.
  The other choice is to fund those problems at a higher level but dip 
into the Social Security surplus and spend Social Security money to run 
the government, and they do not want to do that before the election 
either.
  So their strategy is to play rope-a-dope, is to come back week after 
week, continuing resolution after continuing resolution, and not own up 
to the consequences of what they have done. What they are doing is 
wrong.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been somewhat of a peculiar situation that we 
find ourselves in. The other side, after being all over the ballpark 
all day, has now decided on a one-week CR. That is fine. That is their 
prerogative. They are in the majority. It would have been nice if they 
decided this 12 hours ago. Presumably, we will be back on Tuesday, 
maybe Wednesday or maybe Thursday.
  The only regret I think any of us have is, while the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
is an honorable man, and certainly his committee has completed a lot of 
its work, he has been prevented by his own leadership from bringing his 
work product to the floor. He has only been permitted to bring five 
appropriation bills to the floor. Eight have not been brought to the 
floor. They should have been. Most of them have been completed by the 
gentleman's committee. It would be nice if they were brought to the 
floor so they could be voted on one at a time and resolve the problems 
that face this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a rollcall vote on this rule. A 
number of our Members will be voting ``no'' to express their 
displeasure in the way that the majority has been handling this matter.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of what we have been able to 
accomplish here. Some of us were just going through the litany of items 
which the 107th Congress, specifically the House of Representatives 
with this very narrow 5-to-6-vote margin that we have been able to do. 
And it is true, one of the first things we did, as the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) has pointed out so well, we were able to pass a 
budget, and no budget has passed in the Senate; but we have been able 
to pass a budget here, and we have gone through a rigorous debate on 
that. But let us look at some of the other things that we have been 
able to accomplish to help the American people, and I think it is very 
important to note that one of the greatest successes we had back in 
1996 has proved to be passage of welfare reform. We have been able to 
pass a very meaningful, positive welfare reform measure from this House 
of Representatives.
  One of the other items obviously, as we have looked at now bipartisan 
support for President Bush's initiative to potentially use force in 
dealing with the horror of Saddam Hussein and Iraq and, along with 
that, the potential for some kind of response to that from Iraq, we 
have passed out of this House a measure that was called on by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, to do it 
by September 11; and we have passed a bill establishing a Department of 
Homeland Security. That is something we are very proud of as we deal 
with the war on terrorism.
  We also are very proud of the fact that in a bipartisan way, both 
Houses of Congress and with the President's signature ultimately, we 
passed the No Child Left Behind Act, dealing with education, what 
before September 11 of last year was our number one priority.
  Prescription drugs, a very important issue which was talked about in 
the Presidential campaign, we are proud of the fact that we have been 
able to pass out, within the guidelines of our budget, a $350 billion 
prescription drug program so that seniors can have access to

[[Page 20303]]

affordable prescription drugs. The other body has not taken action on 
that.
  We have been able to pass out of this body a very, very meaningful 
reform of the pension structure; and we all know with the economic 
challenges that we are facing, our retirees, those who are looking 
towards retirement in the future, the challenges they are facing, we 
have been able to bring about meaningful reform on that issue.
  I am very proud about something that we worked to try to give 
President Clinton beginning back in 1994 when it expired, we have been 
able to pass Trade Promotion Authority. Both Houses of Congress have 
done that. The President signed it. Our ambassador, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, Mr. Zoellick, is in the process of trying to work out 
new market-opening opportunities for us. That is going to provide an 
economic boost for the United States of America; and we have been able 
to pass that out of this House, again something we have not been able 
to do in 8 years.
  We also were able to bring about meaningful middle-income taxpayer 
tax relief. We have heard this criticism of the tax package, but it was 
focused towards middle-income wage earners with the provisions that we 
have had in there on the marriage penalty, the death tax, the child tax 
credit. These are things that have been designed to help working 
Americans.
  We also have been able to deal with the challenge of corporate fraud, 
and we all have been horrified by the actions of some top executives in 
this country. We have been able to pass out of this House and the other 
body meaningful reform when it comes to corporate fraud.
  We hope very much that we will be able to get election reform passed. 
We have had what I believe to be a very good conference package. Again, 
it started right here in this House of Representatives. We did it in a 
bipartisan way. I am very, very proud of that. We have been able to 
increase veterans benefits. We have much to be very proud of, much of 
it done in a bipartisan way.
  So let us not criticize what we have got. We have got a 1-week 
continuing resolution; let us pass it and continue with our work.


  Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Hastings of 
                               Washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Hastings of Washington.
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) making 
     further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, 
     and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment specified in 
     section 2 shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution, as amended, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the joint 
     resolution, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of 
     this resolution is a follows:
       Page 1, line 4, strike ``inserting `November 22, 2002'.'' 
     and insert ``inserting `October 18, 2002'.''

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. 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 225, 
nays 193, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 459]

                               YEAS--225

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

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo

[[Page 20304]]


     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Baker
     Berman
     Bonior
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Ganske
     Gutierrez
     Lewis (CA)
     Meek (FL)
     Ortiz
     Reyes
     Roukema
     Stump

                              {time}  1842

  Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. BOUCHER and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on table.

                          ____________________