[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20752-20760]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 123, FURTHER CONTINUING 
                    APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 585 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 585

       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. 123) 
     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.
       Sec. 2. House Resolutions 550, 551, and 557 are laid on the 
     table.

  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 Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), my namesake, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 585 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of H.J. Res. 123, Making Continuing Appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2003. 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. The rule also 
provides that House Resolutions 550, 551, and 577 are laid on the 
table.
  Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 123 makes further continuing appropriations 
for fiscal year 2003 and provides funding at current levels through 
November 22, 2002. This measure is necessary in order that all 
necessary and vital functions of government may continue uninterrupted 
until Congress completes its work on spending measures for the next 
fiscal year.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass both the rule 
and the underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Washington, my namesake, 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the House engages in a very important debate today. It 
is a debate about priorities like the economy, Social Security, and 
education. More fundamentally, it is a debate about whether the 
American people will have a Congress that does the job it was elected 
to do.
  Nearly 2 years ago, Republicans took control of the Federal 
Government in Washington. They quickly forced through their own very 
partisan, very ideological economic plan, one centered around big 
budget-busting tax breaks for some of the wealthiest in our society.
  Mr. Speaker, what has happened since the Republican economic plan 
passed? Long-term unemployment is at an 8-year high, and nearly 2 
million Americans have lost their jobs. Consumer confidence is at its 
lowest level since November of 2001, and prescription drug prices are 
still sky high, leaving senior citizens unable to afford vital 
prescription medicine.
  Corporate scandals, the massive criminality at Enron, WorldCom and 
the like, have rocked the economy and devastated the retirement plans 
of millions of Americans; but my colleagues, the House Republicans, 
overwhelmingly voted against real pension protection legislation a few 
months ago, blocking Democrats' efforts to protect Americans' 
retirement plans.
  The DOW has hit a 5-year low. Overall, the stock market has lost $4.5 
trillion in value since Republicans took control in Washington last 
January.

                              {time}  1645

  How have Republicans responded to the weakest economy in 50 years? 
Well, the President is busy traveling the country on a record-breaking 
fund-raising binge. And let me add a footnote right there, because a 
lot of people talk about the previous President having done the same 
thing. But during that same period of time, he managed somehow or 
another to deal with the economic undertakings of this country.
  Instead of working with Democrats, the President is traveling rather 
than seeking to stimulate the economy. He is busy raising money to 
stimulate Republican campaigns. And I would add a footnote there. That 
is his right and his prerogative, but it should be his absolute 
responsibility to ensure that the economy is strong.
  Also, Republicans are pulling out all the stops to do as my friend, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says: cut and run before the 
public realizes that they really have done nothing to address the 
economic mess they have created. Simply put, they are more interested 
in saving political skins than in saving the American economy, or at 
least that is how it appears to me.
  One week ago, I came to this Chamber and made the following 
statement: ``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.'' Well, guess what? We are continuing down this path, and I feel 
that this must end and it must end now.
  The majority, not content with doing nothing, will not even allow our 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), for example, to 
offer her amendment, which would bring needed Federal dollars for 
children's health care needs. I consider this to be shameful.
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a similar 
vote on the underlying continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as my friends on this floor know, I usually 
quote my old friend Archie the Cockroach in trying to comment on 
actions being taken by an institution which is often as wacky as the 
Congress of the

[[Page 20753]]

United States, and so last night I went all through my book from Archie 
and I could not find anything that was appropriate, because this 
situation is so ludicrous.
  So I finally, looking for inspiration, thought of Ronald Reagan. In 
the movie King's Row, he woke up and was told that he had lost his legs 
in a train accident. He looked up from his hospital bed and said, 
``Where's the rest of me?''
  Mr. Speaker, if I were the Federal budget, I would be saying to the 
Republican leadership of this House, ``Where's the rest of me?'' 
Because even though we have been in session since January, the only two 
appropriation bills that are going to become law if this resolution 
passes, the only two appropriation bills that will become law before 
the election, will be the defense appropriation bill and the military 
construction appropriation bill.
  So those Members in Congress who think that the only thing government 
ought to do is defend the shores and deliver the mail will get at least 
half their wish. At least they will be defending our shores, but we 
will not even have passed the bill that deals with the post office. And 
we also will not have passed the bills that deal with the Nation's 
education budget, the Nation's health care budget, the Nation's 
environmental protection budget, the Nation's science budget, nor will 
we have passed the agriculture appropriations bill. We will just put 
the government on automatic pilot.
  Also, this Congress will run out of town, not doing one blessed thing 
to deal with the problem of unemployment compensation, not doing one 
blessed thing to deal with the shortfall that many States have in the 
Medicare program, not doing anything at all to help the providers with 
respect to any givebacks on the Medicare program, and not doing 
anything to stimulate the economy by providing additional jobs for 
highway construction.
  This Congress has lost all claim to respectability. It has lost all 
claim to go to the public and ask for another 2-year contract, because 
this Congress, at the direction of the Republican leadership of this 
House, is walking away from its responsibilities to deal with virtually 
every domestic problem we have. The American public thinks that we 
ought to be good enough to walk and chew gum at the same time, and they 
think that now that we have spent every day but Labor Day dealing with 
Iraq that we ought to be able to deal with our own domestic problems. 
But, instead, the Republican majority wants to walk out of town and 
say, ``Oh, sorry, folks, we ran out of time.'' I do not think people 
will be very impressed by that.
  Now, I know this is not the wish of the majority on the Committee on 
Appropriations. They are as willing as we are on the minority side to 
do our job, but they are not being allowed to do it by their own 
caucus, by their own leadership. So people will go home and what will 
they talk to their voters about instead? Oh, they will have one 
rollcall in this pocket talking about the fact that we have 
memorialized ourselves about National Motherhood Week, and they will 
have another rollcall in another pocket talking about some other 
useless resolution that has passed putting us on the side of God, 
motherhood, and apple pie. But when it comes to actually attacking the 
domestic problems, oh, no, no, too busy.
  The fact is that we know what the reason is. There is an internal war 
in the Republican Caucus. They have lost their ability to govern. They 
have lost their ability to do things. And so the only thing they can 
apparently agree on is not to do things. That is some recommendation to 
take to the American people.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this rule, and I am going 
to vote against the resolution that follows because, in my view, any 
resolution which says we are going to stop doing what we are supposed 
to do until November 22, way after the election, is a spectacular 
abdication of responsibility not worthy of this body.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), who is a real leader in 
this body, in fact in the Congress, on health care issues
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
from Florida who says we have things that need to be done, and also the 
sentiments of my colleague from Wisconsin who says we need to get 
things done.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise because we have gotten things done. We passed a 
budget resolution. The Senate did not act. We passed a number of budget 
bills. The Senate did not act. We passed a prescription drug bill, the 
biggest expansion of Medicare in its history; the Senate did not act. 
We provided prescription drugs for 44 percent of our seniors, 
essentially free, only a $2 copayment for generics and up to $5 for 
prescriptions; the Senate did not act. We passed a payer package, 
because if we do not fix the problems of how Medicare pays physicians, 
we will see physicians dropping out of the program. They are facing the 
most startling and incredible increase in malpractice costs that we 
have ever seen in a single year. And the current law is going to cut 
their reimbursements by 5 percent, when they got cut last year 5 
percent last year.
  The House has acted. We passed a package that changes the law so that 
our physicians will not be forced out of Medicare. And we are already 
seeing the effects of our failure to act at home. Doctors are taking 
fewer new patients and they are reducing the number of operations they 
will perform, avoiding the high-risk ones so that they can keep their 
malpractice costs under control. This House passed malpractice reform; 
the Senate did not act. This House passed payer reform for hospitals, 
for doctors, for home health agencies, for nursing homes; the Senate 
did not act.
  This House passed regulatory reform, bipartisan. All but three or 
four people in the whole House of Representatives voted for this bill 
that will take an enormous paperwork burden off our providers, free 
time to care for patients, reduce paperwork costs, and, by gum, provide 
a much fairer regulatory environment for a lot of our smaller providers 
who will simply be pushed out of the system if we do not reform the way 
we manage Medicare. It was totally bipartisan. The Senate did not act.
  The House passed a bill that will cut prices for prescription drugs 
to our seniors more dramatically than any bill that has ever come to 
the floor of this House, because we inserted a provision that allows 
the negotiators to go below the best price rule. That alone, just that 
one provision, $18 billion off the price of drugs for our seniors. The 
Senate did not act.
  I support the bill, and I support adjourning at the call of the 
Chair. Because if the Senate acts, then we can come back on homeland 
security, on prescription drugs, and on anything else that they find at 
their convenience to do.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume just to respond to my colleague from Connecticut, who very 
movingly points to things that we have done and that the other body has 
not done. But I note that she made no mention of the fact that our 
exacting responsibility is to pass appropriations measures, and my last 
count was that we have not done all of the appropriations at this time.
  Now, I do not think that is the responsibility of the chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), or the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), in the sense that they did not do 
their job. I think it is the fact that the Republicans are in disarray 
and cannot seem to get those appropriations measures here to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), my good friend and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, for those who heard the debate last week, I would like 
to come

[[Page 20754]]

somewhere between Turkish and Russian, although I can probably do this 
in French, in Creole, in Italian, and a few other languages; but let us 
try English, and explain that under the first two continuing 
resolutions, Congress provided for all programs to continue ongoing 
activities at a pro rata share of the fiscal year 2002 funding level, 
October 1 through October 11. We clearly intended the Federal aid 
highways program to continue at the level of $31.8 billion, and the 
Congressional Budget Office scored the resolutions accordingly.

                              {time}  1700

  However, along comes the Office of Management and Budget and based on 
some vague language they derived out of section 110 of the CR, 
misinterpreted that law to cut highway funding and establish a pro-rata 
share of only $27.7 billion, which is $4.1 billion less than the fiscal 
year 2002 funding level.
  This is consistent with the Administration's attempt to cut highway 
infrastructure investment as expressed in its message to Congress, but 
it is not consistent with Congressional intent. It had to be corrected. 
So the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), and I worked together to include language in the third 
continuing resolution to reverse the OMB interpretation and ensure that 
the Federal-aid highways program obligation limitation be continued at 
the fiscal year 2002 rate, that is, $31.8 billion, until Congress 
passes the Transportation Appropriations Conference Report.
  Congress, not OMB, makes that determination. Our language did reverse 
the OMB interpretation. So far so good.
  But then along came the House Republican leadership. They insisted on 
some additional language to reintroduce the $27.7 billion number of the 
Transportation Appropriation committee-reported bill.
  Well, a week ago the director of OMB, Mitch Daniels, said ``I think 
$27 [billion] is the right number''; but that is not what the CR said. 
So we insisted, I think we got OMB's attention, and OMB and the Federal 
Highway Administration have now issued guidance to States to provide 
the pro-rata share at the $31.8 billion level. Unfortunately, that 
language that the House Republican leadership insisted on has clouded 
the picture.
  Suffice it to say, I think we have a short-term fix that keeps the 
transportation program on the level provided for in TEA-21 up through, 
perhaps, August of next year. Then the whole program will crash back 
down to the $27.7 billion level, and States will lose a lot of money 
and a lot of construction jobs.
  Now the wish is and the hope is, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 
and I both hope that Congress will come to its senses and fix that 
problem between now and then. But the reality is that States have to be 
able to plan long term. They cannot plan much longer than August of 
2003, at which time the program crashes back to $27.7 billion and we 
lose 195,000 good-paying jobs in our economy.
  What is worse is that States now are looking ahead and saying I do 
not think we can plan that far ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, we will on our side move to defeat the previous question 
and offer an amendment that will fix this problem, and we ought to 
defeat the previous question. We ought to come back with fixed language 
that restores the total intent of TEA-21 and keep our transportation 
programs on schedule. These are Highway Trust Fund dollars. These are 
monies that could be set aside in the guaranteed account. They will 
help lift this economy up; and if Members believe in transportation and 
are sick of sitting in traffic congestion and believe in moving America 
forward, then they need to defeat the previous question and restore 
those dollars now, rather than waiting for some future point next year 
when we may or may not be able to restore the $31.8 billion. This 
provides short-term benefit, and long-term uncertainty which is bad for 
highway programs, bad for transportation programs, bad for American 
jobs.

               COMPARISON OF DISTRIBUTION OF HIGHWAY FUNDING UNDER TEA 21 ENACTED (FY2002) AND ONE-YEAR CONTINUING RESOLUTION (FY2003)\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     TEA 21 enacted        One-year cont.       Highway funds cut
                              State                                      FY2002           resolution FY2003          FY2003              Job losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................................................           561,362,701           498,655,044          (62,697,657)                -2,978
Alaska..........................................................           314,793,656           282,429,537          (32,364,119)                -1,537
Arizona.........................................................           486,222,525           428,846,983          (57,375,542)                -2,725
Arkansas........................................................           362,646,673           325,701,045          (36,945,628)                -1,755
California......................................................         2,516,921,592         2,255,787,099         (261,134,493)               -12,404
Colorado........................................................           353,162,510           315,841,503          (37,321,007)                -1,773
Connecticut.....................................................           408,915,843           367,360,962          (41,554,881)                -1,974
Delaware........................................................           119,922,108           107,962,722          (11,959,386)                  -568
Dist. of Col....................................................           110,272,767            97,845,344          (12,427,423)                  -590
Florida.........................................................         1,288,949,611         1,139,860,823         (149,088,788)                -7,082
Georgia.........................................................           988,683,758           875,763,739         (112,920,019)                -5,364
Hawaii..........................................................           142,269,483           126,325,910          (15,943,573)                  -757
Idaho...........................................................           211,274,214           188,471,331          (22,802,883)                -1,083
Illinois........................................................           933,052,868           829,768,384         (103,284,484)                -4,906
Indiana.........................................................           637,416,428           572,668,258          (64,748,170)                -3,076
Iowa............................................................           329,539,179           295,706,501          (33,832,678)                -1,607
Kansas..........................................................           324,853,609           288,585,950          (36,267,659)                -1,723
Kentucky........................................................           483,773,648           429,395,471          (54,378,177)                -2,583
Louisiana.......................................................           433,572,935           392,556,488          (41,016,447)                -1,948
Maine...........................................................           147,086,603           130,479,750          (16,606,853)                  -789
Maryland........................................................           444,585,693           402,894,442          (41,691,251)                -1,980
Massachusetts...................................................           514,199,794           460,954,117          (53,245,677)                -2,529
Michigan........................................................           894,928,134           794,183,563         (100,744,571)                -4,785
Minnesota.......................................................           408,422,237           367,652,312          (40,789,925)                -1,938
Mississippi.....................................................           355,303,061           318,446,942          (36,856,119)                -1,751
Missouri........................................................           646,921,711           580,568,320          (66,353,391)                -3,152
Montana.........................................................           266,186,472           239,510,196          (26,676,276)                -1,267
Nebraska........................................................           215,987,903           191,081,515          (24,906,388)                -1,183
Nevada..........................................................           197,993,516           176,029,565          (21,963,951)                -1,043
New Hampshire...................................................           140,214,707           126,902,623          (13,312,084)                  -632
New Jersey......................................................           724,629,766           644,437,408          (80,192,358)                -3,809
New Mexico......................................................           268,590,255           240,780,600          (27,809,655)                -1,321
New York........................................................         1,401,040,155         1,262,949,423         (138,090,732)                -6,559
North Carolina..................................................           773,663,974           688,032,994          (85,630,980)                -4,067
North Dakota....................................................           179,364,219           160,210,847          (19,153,372)                  -910
Ohio............................................................           961,276,478           860,311,210         (100,965,268)                -4,796
Oklahoma........................................................           428,332,860           379,797,789          (48,535,071)                -2,305
Oregon..........................................................           337,795,085           304,194,090          (33,600,995)                -1,596
Pennsylvania....................................................         1,391,590,528         1,243,282,020         (148,308,508)                -7,045
Rhode Island....................................................           164,111,783           146,157,429          (17,954,354)                  -853
South Carolina..................................................           461,159,042           411,996,298          (49,162,744)                -2,335
South Dakota....................................................           199,167,503           178,669,157          (20,498,346)                  -974
Tennessee.......................................................           622,352,003           564,991,230          (57,360,773)                -2,725
Texas...........................................................         2,146,241,884         1,898,429,283         (247,812,601)               -11,771
Utah............................................................           216,502,048           192,439,532          (24,062,516)                -1,143
Vermont.........................................................           124,154,439           111,927,901          (12,226,538)                  -581
Virginia........................................................           709,623,612           641,862,481          (67,761,131)                -3,219
Washington......................................................           493,764,590           439,213,963          (54,550,627)                -2,591
West Virginia...................................................           308,053,178           278,926,511          (29,126,667)                -1,384

[[Page 20755]]

 
Wisconsin.......................................................           545,543,085           483,447,684          (62,095,401)                -2,950
Wyoming.........................................................           188,996,676           171,131,402          (17,865,274)                  -849
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      State total...............................................        27,885,409,102        24,911,435,691       (2,973,973,411)              -141,264
Allocated programs..............................................         3,913,694,898         2,788,564,309       (1,125,130,589)               -53,444
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total...............................................        31,799,104,000        27,700,000,000       (4,099,104,000)              -194,707
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Prepared by Transportation Committee Democratic Staff based on information provided by the Federal Highway Administration and the American Road and
  Transportation Builders Association. Employment loss is spread over 7 years, with most loss occurring in 2003 and 2004. Assumes 47,500 jobs per $1
  billion of federal highway program investment.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and 
his presentation. The gentleman and I participated and both signed off 
on the language in this resolution. That was last week. Nothing has 
changed. I am happy to say that this week my back does not hurt quite 
as much as it did last week, but the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri) raised this point, and I will say it again, this is for 
political purposes. It is really not the way to do business.
  If Members remember, in fact, when the President came down with his 
budget, there was about $23 billion in the highway program. We on a 
bipartisan basis raised it to $27.1 billion, and this House voted on 
that level. But under a continuing resolution, I want to spend the 
money actually at $31.8 billion; and that is what we will do under this 
resolution as long as we are working under a continuing resolution. But 
there is a lot of what-ifs being brought up here. No Member believes 
that we will be working under a continuing resolution until August. 
That is very unlikely. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
will not allow that, nor will myself.
  The Senate has not acted, nor have we in the final conclusion of this 
highway program. I see the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and 
his staff, and they signed off on this. The gentleman signed off on 
this. Everybody signed off on it. That really bothers me when I see 
Members trying to distort this on the floor of the House again for 
political purposes. I think that is improper. We have been a very 
bipartisan committee, and I will continue to do that; but do not use 
this floor to try to convey something that is not all true. Not all 
true.
  We will be able to spend this money and the States will be able to 
program this money until August under this resolution. I expect 
truthfully when the Senate and the House get together, we will arrive 
at the $31 billion. I expect that to happen. So what we are doing is 
saying what if. We are in this position now. This is where we are going 
to be. I heard we are cutting jobs. We are not cutting anything in this 
resolution. I think it is improper to try to convey the idea that we 
are trying to do something that we did not agree to beforehand.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Did the gentleman hear my distinction of the funding at 
the $31.8 billion level until August of next year at which point it 
crashes; and is that inaccurate?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Absolutely. I heard and I agree if we were 
working under a continuing resolution that would happen, and by August 
we would not be able to spend the money at $31 billion; but that is not 
going to happen.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that is what 
I said. I did not politicize it. That is simply a statement of fact.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. What is fact? The fact is we are going to spend 
money at $31 billion which we did not have prior to this until August 
if we work under a continuing resolution. We are not going to work 
under a continuing resolution, and the gentleman knows that. There will 
be a solving of this problem with the Senate if the Senate ever gets 
busy, and we will probably arrive at a figure of around $31 billion.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I would hope 
that we solve the problem. But I want to point out in all fairness, 
what we agreed to with the gentleman was $31.8 billion. The $27.7 
billion language was added later. I do not know where it came from.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Wait a minute. The gentleman saw the language.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. That was an OMB insistence which I hope has been fixed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, it has been fixed with this 
letter, which I include for the Record.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                 Washington, DC, October 15, 2002.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportion and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: OMB has reviewed section 137 of Public 
     Law 107-240, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for 
     Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, which passed the House on October 11, 
     2002. The enactment of section 137 will have no impact on the 
     level of highway jobs or the level of highway spending for 
     states.
       The effect of section 137 is to retain the FY 2002 rate of 
     operations for the Federal aid highway program at $31.8 
     billion for the duration of the continuing resolution by 
     requiring OMB to apportion funds at an annualized rate of 
     $31.8 billion during that period. As of today, OMB has 
     apportioned funds in accordance with section 137.
       Much confusion has surrounded the language in section 137 
     that limits total annual obligations for this program while 
     operating under continuing resolutions to no more than $27.7 
     billion. This provision, as many of the terms of the current 
     resolution, is subject to section 107(c) of P.L. 107-229, 
     which establishes the date of expiration of the continuing 
     resolution. H.J. Res. 122 sets that date of expiration at 
     October 18, 2002. Consequently, it is mathematically 
     impossible for the highway program, spending at an annualized 
     rate of $31,8 billion, to reach the $27.7 billion cap on 
     total obligations prior to mid-August 2003, well beyond the 
     expiration date of this or any other continuing resolution 
     that is expected in the future.
       Therefore, the effect of section 137 is to provide that the 
     highway program continue at the FY 2002 enacted level of 
     $31.8 billion until the final FY 2003 funding level is 
     determined in the context of House, Senate and Administration 
     negotiations of the FY 2003 Transportation Appropriations 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
                                         Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), who has been a leader in trying 
to help the neediest children in this land.
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. Because of our inaction on 
August 1, nearly $1.2 billion in funds intended for low-income children 
reverted to the Federal Treasury. We had a chance in this continuing 
resolution to make a change for the better, for the children.
  More than 80 percent of the funds that have reverted were awarded 
just 6 months ago to States such as Indiana, which had programs 
enrolling a large number of children. These States include Alaska, 
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North 
Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

[[Page 20756]]

  Because of the national recession, many of these same States have 
experienced a slowdown in their SCHIP enrollment and record levels of 
participation in Medicaid. This is due to many low-income parents being 
forced to work reduced hours which forces parents into Medicaid 
programs along with their children. Not extending these funds will put 
the most successful programs at great risk when the economy improves 
and the SCHIP rolls again swell rapidly.
  Indiana has already lost $105 million of funding. Knowing that 
Indiana would likely receive additional funding from other States, 
State officials last year asked HHS to use it for new initiatives, 
including one to fund the replacement on windows painted with lead-
based paint. Indiana wanted to take an aggressive approach and help 
more children by preventing lead poisoning, a significant problem in 
Indianapolis and throughout the State. Federal officials denied the 
request because Indiana would not limit the program to homes in which 
children already showed evidence of lead poisoning.
  Allowing States to keep reallocated and redistributed fiscal year 
1998 and 1999 allotments, along the lines of what the President 
proposed, is the simplest and fairest way to stabilize the program and 
help States to maintain critical services for low-income children. 
These are the funds that just expired and may be lost forever if 
Congress takes no action.
  My Governor, who chairs the Human Resources Committee of the National 
Governors Association, recently told the New York Times that 
``Governors fear that, if this money is lost, the Federal Government's 
growing budget deficit will make it difficult to recover this money at 
a later date.''
  Without this funding being kept in States during uncertain financial 
times, Congress is risking leaving thousands of low-income children 
behind.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members know, $2.4 billion remaining from the regular 
SCHIP allotment is scheduled to be redistributed this year because of 
the agreement Congress made 2 years ago.
  Congress must act, otherwise we are shortchanging more than 4.6 
million children throughout America and in Indiana who need health care 
most. I plead that, indeed, we leave no child behind.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the joint 
resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
2003.
  Much has been said about the highway funding provision that was 
included in last week's continuing resolution and which remains in 
effect under this resolution.
  This provision was necessary to reverse the administration's decision 
to reduce the highway program to a $27.7 billion annualized rate of 
funding while under the first two continuing resolutions.
  As a result of the highway funding provision in last week's 
continuing resolution, the Office of Management and Budget issued a new 
apportionment for the highway program, increasing the rate of funding 
from $27.7 billion to $31.8 billion, on an annualized basis.
  This proves beyond any doubt that the highway funding provision 
enacted last week had the desired effect of requiring the highway 
program to be continued at the fiscal year 2002 funding level of $31.8 
billion, while the continuing resolution remains in effect.
  I am pleased to insert into the Record a copy of the OMB 
apportionment as well as a letter from OMB regarding this issue. From 
this letter, it is clear that the $27.7 billion limit on total 
obligations has no practical effect under a short-term continuing 
resolution.
  If at some point in the future the House considers a longer-term CR, 
one that remains in effect well into next year, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, as has been indicated by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), will work to ensure that the $27.7 billion limit on total 
obligations is removed.
  Should that become necessary, we look forward to having the support 
of all those friends of the highway program who have spoken in favor of 
the $31.8 billion funding level here on the House floor over this past 
week.

                              {time}  1715

  I am hopeful that a long-term CR will not become necessary and that 
this year's final highway funding level will be appropriately 
determined in the context of House and Senate negotiations on the 
budget 2003 transportation appropriation bill.
  I urge support for the resolution that will be brought forward by the 
rule before us.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                 Washington, DC, October 15, 2002.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: OMB has reviewed section 137 of Public 
     Law 107-240, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for 
     Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, which passed the House on October 11, 
     2002. The enactment of section 137 will have no impact on the 
     level of highway jobs or the level of highway spending for 
     states.
       The effect of section 137 is to retain the FY 2002 rate of 
     operations for the Federal aid highway program at $31.8 
     billion for the duration of the continuing resolution by 
     requiring OMB to apportion funds at an annualized rate of 
     $31.8 billion during that period. As of today, OMB has 
     apportioned funds in accordance with section 137.
       Much confusion has surrounded the language in section 137 
     that limits total annual obligations for this program while 
     operating under continuing resolutions to no more than $27.7 
     billion. This provision, as many of the terms of the current 
     resolution, is subject to section 107(c) of P.L. 107-229, 
     which establishes the date of expiration of the continuing 
     resolution. H.J. Res. 122 sets that date of expiration at 
     October 18, 2002. Consequently, it is mathematically 
     impossible for the highway program, spending at an annualized 
     rate of $31.8 billion, to reach the $27.7 billion cap on 
     total obligations prior to mid-August 2003, well beyond the 
     expiration date of this or any other continuing resolution 
     that is expected in the future.
       Therefore, the effect of section 137 is to provide that the 
     highway program continue at the FY 2002 enacted level of 
     $31.8 billion until the final FY 2003 funding level is 
     determined in the context of House, Senate and Administration 
     negotiations on the FY 2003 Transportation Appropriations 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
                                          Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who 
fights hard for the Nation's Capital as well as the rest of this 
Nation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding this time to me because of the urgency of what 
this CR, yes, even this CR, does to your Nation's Capital. While we 
have broken one impasse, the CR week-to-week impasse that allows 
Congress to go home, but I cannot believe that Congress understands 
what it is doing to the great American city called the District of 
Columbia. They are simply leaving this city hanging by a thread.
  First, let me personally thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fattah) for doing their job. It was the smoothest D.C. appropriation in 
many years, they got it done, but there is not a sufficient realization 
of the Congress that the District of Columbia is not a Federal agency. 
It is an anomaly that it is here, anyway. This money is the money of 
the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, but we cannot spend any of 
it until we bring it over here. We have brought it over here. There 
have been no changes made in our budget, but D.C. cannot now go about 
allocating its money and spending the money of its own taxpayers.
  The urgency of the matter is revealed in a letter that I would like 
to insert in the Congressional Record from the Mayor and the City 
Council chair. They have done an extraordinary job in making needed 
cuts because the national economy has caused that to be necessary for 
local jurisdictions and States throughout the United States.

[[Page 20757]]

But now they cannot make the cuts, they cannot move the money around 
the way Maryland and Virginia and every other State is doing, because 
we are on some kind of continuing resolution that works well for HHS. 
Well, it does not work well, but at least does not bring HHS down, does 
not bring the Department of Labor down, but leaves your Nation's 
capital really on the ground.
  The District has done a magnificent job of balancing its budget in 
difficult times. It had the same problem that your jurisdictions have 
had, where the problem with the national economy has not just trickled 
down, it has dumped on the States and localities. In 10 days' time the 
Mayor and the Council did not whine about it. When they discovered this 
problem, they cut their budget by $323 million. They are ready to go 
now. But the Congress is not ready to go so they are holding us back 
for completely unrelated reasons.
  There is vital new Federal money in there, the kind of Federal money 
that helps the Congress more than it helps us. We had to go to the 
Treasury in order to ask the President, and I am pleased that the 
President did in fact forward some money to us when we could not get 
the 2002 supplemental out, so that we could protect this city when the 
IMF demonstrations were just held here. But we cannot get public safety 
reimbursement money for, in fact, demonstrations that are likely to be 
held here, for example, against the war before you get back. This city 
is torn up, however, because we have to spend on a day-to-day basis. 
Everybody will wonder: Why did the city not get protected?
  You have no dispute with the District of Columbia. This is a dispute 
between the Congress and the President and, for that matter, among 
quarreling factions within the Congress of the United States. Nobody in 
this Congress means to hurt this city. Wherever you stand on the 
District, I think everybody wants this city to thrive. But to leave us 
even in a month-long CR is to leave us not only in pain, it is to leave 
the good people of the District of Columbia with pain and suffering. I 
am asking you to help us free D.C. from this CR.


                                         District of Columbia,

                                                 October 15, 2002.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We thank you for your past assistance to 
     the city and for the special sensitivity you have shown 
     toward matters affecting the District of Columbia since 
     becoming Speaker. We write to ask that you allow the 
     District's budget to be disconnected from the current 
     congressional appropriations stalemate out of respect for the 
     nearly 600,000 taxpaying residents of the nation's capital 
     who fund city services contained in that budget. The 
     District, of course, is a major city, not a federal agency, 
     and residents experience unique hardships when the D.C. 
     appropriation is delayed with agency appropriations. We 
     appreciate the expeditious consideration and close 
     cooperation the city received in this year's appropriation 
     process from the Chairs Bill Young and Joe Knollenberg and 
     Ranking Members David Obey and Chaka Fattah. The continuing 
     delay of passage of the District's budget, however, poses a 
     special threat this year when the city has had to make last 
     minute calls and must reallocate funds accordingly.
       As you are aware, nearly all of the District's 
     appropriation is derived from local, not federal funds, and 
     Congress has traditionally approved the District's local 
     budget without revision. This year, both the House and Senate 
     appropriations committees passed the D.C. appropriation bill 
     with unanimous bipartisan votes. The city is both grateful 
     and proud of this achievement because just weeks before the 
     start of the fiscal year, the city's Chief Financial Officer 
     released revenue estimates projecting a $323 million 
     operating deficit in Fiscal Year 2003 due to the twin shocks 
     of 9/11 attacks and the faltering national economy. Of 
     course, the District's decline in revenue mirrors similar 
     declines in cities and states across the country, but the 
     District quickly corrected the imbalance with cuts to city 
     programs and achieved a balanced budget within the record 
     time of approximately ten days. We appreciate that after 
     inspecting the city's figures to assure the budget was 
     balanced, the House appropriations committee was able simply 
     to insert the District's new numbers into the bill. The 
     District has shown that it can act quickly to avert potential 
     fiscal crisis. We hope that the Congress will respond.
       In December 2000, you generously worked with us to free the 
     District's appropriation from a similar national budget 
     impasse. We are asking for your intervention again because 
     further delay in the passage of the city's budget threatens 
     our administration of many city services that must be 
     adjusted because of extensive cuts. We appreciate your 
     consideration of our request and look forward to working with 
     you and your staff on this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Eleanor Holmes Norton,
       Congresswoman.
     Anthony A. Williams,
       Mayor.
     Linda W. Cropp,
       Chairman.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we would never know it was an election 
year on the House floor, would we? I am joking, of course. It is 
sickening, the partisan attacks that go back and forth on this floor. 
Unfortunately, we are just a few weeks out from an election.
  My colleagues on the other side will say, well, it is the mean 
Republican leadership; they are the ones that will not allow us to pass 
appropriations bills. All those other guys are okay; it is just the 
leadership. Casting aspersions and a dark cloud on the leadership 
damages the party for an election.
  The House has passed appropriations bills, and my colleagues will 
say, ``They don't need the Senate to act for us to pass our 
appropriations bills.'' On the floor, the rules state that I cannot 
talk about what the Senate has done and the reasons for it, so I will 
not do that. I will not violate those rules. So what I will do, let us 
just say the House of Commons in England, let us say the House of Lords 
in England, and let us say the House of Commons passes a budget and 
they look at fiscal responsibility across the board so that we do not 
go out into debt and that we can get back to a balanced budget and the 
things that we hold dear. But let us say the House of Lords does not 
pass a budget and they know that the House does not want to pass their 
appropriations bills, the House of Commons, because they can attach any 
number above ours. Not ours, of course, in England because that would 
be against the rule, Mr. Speaker, if I spoke if this was the House. But 
let us just say that they would speak against the House of Commons with 
any budget number and say, ``Look at that mean House of Commons. 
They're cutting education. They're cutting veterans bills. They're 
cutting prescription drugs.''
  Let us just say, for instance, the House of Commons put $340 billion 
to a prescription drug plan and the House of Lords put $1.3 trillion. 
The House of Lords would go out and tell all the seniors, ``Look at 
those mean Republicans.'' Well, excuse me, I do not know if they are 
called Republicans. Let us say ``the House of Commons folks. Look how 
mean they are. They're going to hurt you, seniors.'' And let us say 
that if they had a bill on education and labor, that they put $278 
billion more in the House of Lords than the House of Commons and they 
say, ``Look, those mean rascals are cutting.'' But why will they not do 
their budget? Because the House of Commons will not play the game prior 
to an election and pass bills that the House of Lords knows will never 
get done, but for political reasons they want to do it.
  But I would never, of course, attach the House of Lords to the Senate 
of the United States, Mr. Speaker, because that would be against the 
rules.
  There was a bill, or a headline, Washington Post and Washington Times 
last week assigned and said, Congress Votes a Continuing Resolution Not 
to Shut Down the Government. You can spin it any way you want. You can 
try and blame the Republicans for shutting down the government or not 
doing their job, but we are not going to go home and not do our job 
just like the House of Commons would not in England. If you want to 
vote ``no'' on this rule and continuing resolution, you can spin it any 
way you want, but you are voting to shut down the government. We are 
not going to play that game either, Mr. Speaker.
  If my colleagues on the other side, whether you be the House, or the 
House

[[Page 20758]]

of Lords, you ought to get after the Senate. We passed in this House, 
with 118 Democrat votes, a bill giving confidence in the stock market 
to help the economy. We passed that in the House. The Senate has not 
acted. I, Mr. Speaker, would question anyone that would hold up a 
homeland security bill because they wanted their union brothers to fill 
those jobs. To me, that is unpatriotic.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I heard the gentleman speak, 
I expected the Royal Family to show up any time here on the floor, but 
I am sure that that is not going to be the case.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we hear from the other side of the aisle that 
it is the Senate's fault that we have not done our work. It has been 84 
days since the House last considered an appropriation bill. We have 
been here for 84 days. Our number one job has been to pass the 
appropriation bills. And because of an internal war in the Republican 
Caucus, these 84 days have been wasted. They have been blown. It is 
time to quit being the Alibi Ikes of the Cosmos. It is time to face up 
to our duty. It is time to use at least 1 day in these 84 days to get 
the country's work done.
  We have done the military bills. We have done Iraq. This House has 
not finished work on a single domestic appropriation bill. It ought to 
be ashamed of itself.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. More 
than that, I rise in strong support of the leadership of the 107th 
Congress. In what will likely be the last time that I have the chance 
to stand on this blue carpet prior to Election Day 2002, it is truly 
astounding for me to hear anyone, any Member of any party rise in this 
institution and talk about the 107th Congress not having done its work, 
when I will in my years, whether I am a private citizen or a public 
servant, when I look back on these years, doing the people's work will 
be precisely what I know we have been about for the last 23 months: the 
people's work in passing, not once but twice, historic tax relief 
measures for working families, small businesses and family farms; 
passing a $350 billion Medicare modernization and prescription drug 
benefit. We brought about types of reforms in virtually every area of 
government which, standing completely alone, Mr. Speaker, would qualify 
for this Congress having done its work for not 84 days but for the 
entirety of the 107th Congress. That would be not even require us to 
mention the way this Congress and this leadership responded to national 
tragedy. Our leadership in this institution stood with broad shoulders 
against the avalanche of tragedy on 9/11. We sped relief to the people 
immediately affected. More than that, we sped needed military resources 
to respond in the war on terrorism and a historic increase in military 
spending to prepare us for what may come. As biological and chemical 
weapons made their way into our Nation's Capital, it was this 
leadership that had the courage to stand against the wind of the 
national media's ridicule and take every member of the staff and every 
Member of this institution out of harm's way, demonstrating in a 
bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, courage and vision and foresight. As we 
have gone forward doing our work in these humbling days that have just 
recently passed, as the President today signed a resolution authorizing 
the use of force, this Congress has done its work.
  It is time to pass this rule and pass this continuing resolution so 
that every one of us of goodwill in this institution can go home and 
tell the people that we proudly serve of that work that we have done. I 
am proud of the Republican leadership of the 107th Congress. I am 
proud, and will ever be throughout my life, to have been part of this 
important and critical work during this time in the life of our Nation.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to respond to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) by 
reminding him that a considerable number of people are out of work; the 
stock market is certainly not in a bullish mode. It is bearish, to say 
the least; and it is certainly down, although I do not know whether 
that is the best barometer, but when it comes to whether or not this 
House has really been about the business of helping people with their 
health care and with the workers in this country, even when the 
gentleman mentions 9-11, and, yes, I agree that we did a tremendous job 
in a bipartisan fashion in speeding along some relief for some, but 
those airline workers, many of them still have not received any of the 
benefits that were offered by Congress at that time.
  Thus I say not only have we not done everything we are supposed to do 
first fiscally by law, we also may have done some things that made this 
economy worse; and I for one stood in opposition to many of the tax 
cuts offered by the other side, and I would feel that if we look at it 
carefully, we will know that it had a devastating impact on this 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats want to give Americans a clear choice. 
Democrats stand for increasing the minimum wage, extending unemployment 
benefits for laid-off workers, and making sure our highways are 
adequately funded. Republicans stand for more tax cuts. That is what 
they have been bandying about here for a couple of weeks about trying 
to bring out something here called an economic stimulus package that 
was nothing but some more tax cuts for some who are wealthy in our 
society and letting tax evaders move to Bermuda while our Nation is at 
war.
  There is a clear choice. The numbers do not lie, Mr. Speaker: 8.1 
million Americans are looking for work but cannot find it; 2.9 million 
have been unemployed for more than 15 weeks. Poverty has risen while 
our economic growth has declined. Democrats think we should do 
something about this. The Republicans evidently do not. There is a 
clear choice.
  If the previous question is defeated, we will offer an amendment to 
the rule that will allow us to vote on three amendments. Number one, to 
increase the minimum wage to $6.65 an hour over 2 years, and I say to 
anybody that has people in their district that are working on the 
minimum wage, you multiply $6.65 times 40 hours and see if you can live 
with your family on such a meager amount of assistance. Two, we are 
going to seek to give an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits 
to our workers; and, three, to retain the fix for highway spending that 
was inserted in the CR last week while striking the language that would 
have limited overall spending for fiscal year 2003 to $27 billion. 
These are priorities to Democrats and evidently afterthoughts to my 
Republican colleagues. There is a clear choice, Mr. Speaker; and I urge 
a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I want to remind Members that this is a rule that provides for 
consideration of a continuing resolution that will get us through 
November 22. We will be back in the House for reorganization the week 
after the election, and I know between now and that time there will be 
work on the appropriation process. But one thing that has been well 
documented here in debate on the floor is that the other body on a 
major piece of legislation is behind this body; and I think it 
appropriate that we

[[Page 20759]]

leave and allow them to catch up, and one of the main pieces of 
legislation that they have to get done, and I believe they have to get 
done and I think the American people expects them to get done, is the 
creation of the Office of Homeland Security.
  So as we leave here with this CR in place until November 22, we will 
have the ability to come back and act on whatever legislation the other 
body were to pass that would require our work on this side. So that 
option is open, and our Members are prepared to come back at any time. 
Of course the most important piece of legislation is the creation of 
the Office of Homeland Security.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the 
     House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     state of the Union for consideration of the joint resolution 
     (H.J. Res. 123) making further continuing appropriations for 
     the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the joint 
     resolution and the amendments made in order by this 
     resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the joint 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read. No amendment to the joint resolution shall be in order 
     except those specified in section 2. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by 
     the Member designated or a designee of such Member, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendments referred to in the first section of 
     this resolution are as follows:
       (1) by Representative Oberstar of Minnesota, adding the 
     following new section:
       Sec.__. Section 137 of Public Law 107-229, as added by 
     Public Law 107-240, is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``; Provided, That'' and all that follows through 
     ``Act''.
       (1) by Representative Bonior of Michigan, adding a new 
     title consisting of the text of H.R. 4799.
       (2) by Representative Rangel of New York, adding a new 
     title of the text of H.R. 5491.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, 
nays 193, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 467]

                               YEAS--209

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     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
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     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
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Baldacci
     Borski
     Carson (OK)
     Clayton
     Clement
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     Dooley
     Filner
     Ganske
     Graham
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Riley
     Roukema
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Stump
     Waters

                              {time}  1802

  Ms. ESHOO and Ms. PELOSI changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:

[[Page 20760]]

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 467, I was conducting 
official business in my San Diego, California district. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 193, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                               AYES--206

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Jeff
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     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)

                               NOES--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Baldacci
     Borski
     Carson (OK)
     Clayton
     Clement
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     Dooley
     Filner
     Ganske
     Graham
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Kennedy (RI)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Linder
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Riley
     Roukema
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Stump
     Tiahrt
     Velazquez
     Waters

                              {time}  1814

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 468, I was conducting 
official business in my San Diego, California district. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________