[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23120-23133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2657, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2004

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the 
House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2657) making 
appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 18, 2003 at page H 8385.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the legislative branch 
appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2004 to the House for 
consideration. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), 
ranking member, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) on the committee for their work in 
putting together what I think is a fairly good and balanced bipartisan 
package. I also have to thank all the staff, Democrat and Republican 
staffers, for the many hours of hard work and overtime and the 
countless questions that they had to answer during this process.
  Again, I think the bill came to a fairly good conclusion and, 
excluding the Senate items and the Capitol visitor center, the bill 
provides no increase above fiscal year 2003; and I think that is very 
important when we consider the deficit situation that we are in, that 
the legislative branch, and that would be the campus here with the 
offices of Congress, the Capitol Hill Police, the Government Printing 
Office, the Library of Congress, all of this is somewhat in line with 
last year; and I wish that more of our appropriation measures were that 
way.
  Unfortunately, our friends in the other body, the Senate, they do not 
quite stick to the fiscal restraint that we do in the House, and they 
did overspend. We negotiated a lot of this back, which I was glad 
about; but unfortunately they still bumped up the spending a little bit 
more than we wanted to, and with the Senate items and the Capitol 
visitor center, they increased what originally left the House a little 
bit below last year, 1 percent below. They put it at $87 million above, 
but it is 2.5 percent above fiscal year 2003; and again unfortunately 
for Washington that is still an achievement. I wish it could be a lot 
less than that. But we are fighting to make sure that we are spending 
the taxpayers' money the way we would spend our own money.
  In terms of the levels, I want to say that the staff on the 
legislative branch, which does work very hard, long hours, and many 
people do not realize it, in Congress and in Washington we tend to 
broad-brush every employee up here as a bureaucrat, but in fact there 
are a lot of entrepreneurial hard-working government employees; and I 
am glad to say that they will be getting their full 3.7 percent COLA 
and other related cost increase; so we are trying to look after our 
employees, which I think is very important.
  I also want to note that although no increase was provided for sworn 
personnel at the United States Capitol Police, we have provided for 75 
new civilian positions to address administration, financial, and legal 
personnel needs. Because of the 75 new civilian positions, this will 
allow 30 officers who are sworn officers to return to regular police 
functions and relieve them from civilian administrative functions.
  It is important for our colleagues to understand that if the Capitol 
Police strategic plan and associated staffing plan are completed and 
approved by the House and the Senate, there is ample funding for 
emergency response to fund and hire additional sworn positions, but we 
want to be sure that that is merited. One of the things that is 
important is that the County of Fairfax, Virginia, has about 1,800 
officers. Capitol Hill Police, the request actually was above 1,700, 
and we just have to balance it. We do not want the Capitol campus to 
become a police state. I already have Members asking me about the 
police officers standing on the top of the steps of the Capitol with 
machine guns in their hands, what kind of signal does that send to 
school kids who come here to see their Capitol building? And it is 
something that I hope as we move away from the shadow of 9/11 and as we 
continue to win the war against terrorism that we can readdress some of 
these things and make this again a more porous and a more open campus 
because this is the people's House and that should not just be a 
slogan. It should be something that means that the doors are open.
  We on a bipartisan basis, though, are very gungho about the Capitol 
Hill Police and all the good work that they do to protect us in all the 
oddball situations that we may get into.

[[Page 23121]]





[[Page 23122]]



[[Page 23123]]



[[Page 23124]]



[[Page 23125]]



[[Page 23126]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8\1/2\ minutes.
  I rise, regretfully, to say that I have a problem with this 
legislation. But my issue is not with title I or title II of the 
conference agreement, the legislative branch appropriations bill. I do 
not have any problem with that appropriations billing. It is actually a 
good bipartisan bill and a final conference agreement. In fact, the 
conference agreement went very quickly, as did the markup on the bill 
itself, done in a bipartisan manner. My problem is with the third title 
of the bill which provides additional supplemental funds for wildland 
fires, NASA's Columbia Space Shuttle disaster, and emergency natural 
disaster assistance. But I agree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) that the legislative branch titles are worthy of bipartisan 
support. The third title, though, should be sent back to conference.
  While the discretionary caps made the legislative branch 
appropriation bill tight, the chairman and the subcommittee acted 
appropriately with the funds that we had available. We are just $87 
million above last year's funding level. The legislative branch 
agencies and offices will be able to support and improve the operations 
of the legislative body. The agreement does not shortchange our 
security needs. It provides tight but sufficient amounts for Members' 
offices and legislative branch agencies. Sufficient funds have been 
provided to cover all mandatory expenditures, and the budget assumes a 
full 3.7 percent COLA increase.
  The architect will have the funds to complete the visitors center, 
but with greater oversight and accountability. The bill also supports 
and respects the men and women in law enforcement who serve on the 
Capitol Police force. I know that they have toiled under very stressful 
and difficult circumstances. At the same time, we all need to live 
within the constraints of our allocation. Since the terrible events of 
September 11, the Capitol Police have seen their manpower grow by 37 
percent. In this bill, the police have funds to hire an additional 75 
new civilian positions. Upon completion of a strategic plan and 
committee approval, additional sworn officers may also be hired. In 
this agreement the current complement of officers will receive full 
funding for overtime pay for the Capitol Police. The COLA increase, the 
longevity differential, the special training, the specialty pay, and 
the other recruitment and retention incentives are all preserved and 
fully funded in this bill. The employees and the agencies that work for 
us are essential if we want this great experiment in democracy to 
perform well.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement before us today is a sound and 
responsible measure. When we concluded the conference last Wednesday, 
September 17, we had a good agreement.

                              {time}  1330

  Hurricane Isabel changed that. The funds the agreement provides in 
Title III, the emergency supplemental funds for disaster assistance, 
are insufficient.
  On this issue, I have to elaborate further. Just a few days ago, we 
had a very damaging hurricane, Hurricane Isabel it was called. Tragedy 
struck. Lives were lost, thousands of homes were damaged, businesses 
ruined, and daily conveniences and routines were greatly disrupted. 
Seven days later thousands of families and hundreds of businesses are 
still without power.
  My hat goes off to the local fire, police, and emergency response 
crews that have responded in every way possible. It goes to the Red 
Cross, the thousands of volunteers, and to all the great neighbors who 
lent a hand clearing debris, cooking meals, and providing shelter.
  I also want to express my appreciation to the people at FEMA, the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. They and the Small Business 
Administration have put in long hours responding to urgent needs. I met 
those Federal officials firsthand. We have toured the businesses and 
homes. We have talked about the local residents. I know that many of my 
colleagues have done the same who were also very adversely affected by 
Hurricane Isabel.
  There are some real tragedies out there, but everyone is doing their 
part and then some; that is, with the exception of the Congress if we 
do not provide sufficient funds.
  The conference agreement that is now before us fails to provide an 
appropriate or adequate amount of money to replenish the disaster 
assistance fund. So far this year there have been 62 disaster and 
emergency declarations.
  In its supplemental request the White House stated that this has been 
the most costly and deadly tornado season in years. And the National 
Weather Service hurricane outlook suggests that disaster costs for the 
hurricane season we just entered could be much higher than anticipated.
  We now know that the disaster costs for the hurricane season are 
higher than the Bush administration anticipated. For fiscal year 2003, 
which is going to conclude in a few days, the Congress originally 
appropriated $776 million for disaster relief. The President released 
another $500 million in emergency funding that was appropriated in 
fiscal year 2002, and the Congress appropriated another $983 million in 
the August supplemental. So a total of $2\1/4\ billion has been 
provided for disaster relief this year.
  Historical obligations, though, for the disaster relief program, not 
including major disasters, have averaged a total of $2.9 billion per 
year on average for the last 5 years. If we provide the $441.7 million 
in funds contained in this conference report for disaster relief, we 
will have only provided $2.7 billion in 2003, or $200 million less than 
the historic averages, never mind the additional funding that is now 
needed for Hurricane Isabel.
  It is too early for FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security to 
tell us how much Hurricane Isabel will cost, but they can point out to 
us the cost of disasters in the past similar to Isabel. We have the 
record for Hurricanes Floyd and Fran. FEMA spent about $700 million on 
each hurricane.
  If we were to provide the $1.5 billion included in the Senate bill 
instead of the amount that is in the conference report, we would be 
providing at least some funding for Hurricane Isabel that we know is 
going to be needed.
  So, what we have here is a low-balling of estimates in this very 
conference report. This conference report, within days of Hurricane 
Isabel, low-balls the estimates we know that FEMA is going to have to 
spend. That has happened in too many cases.
  We should not, cannot tell disaster victims to wait until we take up 
the next supplemental. There is no reason why we should not do it 
today, provide adequate money. Today's backlog, we are now told, is 
$300 million. FEMA admits that it has restrictions on the disaster 
relief activity that is being funded. Any funding, for example, needed 
beyond the current month is not being provided. So we should not make 
those that have been disrupted by Hurricane Isabel and other disasters 
wait for that funding.
  The disruptions are not just limited to residents and businesses 
either. In a strange twist of irony, it has even affected an agency 
within the Department of Homeland Security. Staff tells us they just 
got notification that the United States Coast Guard headquarters 
building has experienced severe electrical and infrastructure problems 
due to Hurricane Isabel. Coupled with flooding, fire, main system and 
sanitation problems, Coast Guard headquarters remains closed to all but 
essential personnel for the foreseeable future.
  We should see to it that the Coast Guard's disaster problems are 
quickly fixed, as well as those of our constituents.
  So I urge Members to support this motion to recommit. It is timely, 
it is necessary, it is appropriate, and it is the least we can do for 
families who have lost so much in the last few days.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.

[[Page 23127]]

  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Kingston) 
on doing a fine job, a very good job, on this legislative branch 
appropriations bill. This is the first conference report of the 
gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Kingston) as a subcommittee chairman, 
and I would like for our colleagues to know that he provided valuable 
and effective oversight of all of the legislative branch accounts, 
which is what he should have done. He did a really good job at it, 
along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member. 
He was very much of a partner through the process. While we do have a 
little difference on the part of the bill that I am going to talk 
about, it is not that big a difference, I do not think.
  But I thank the chairman for being willing to include in his 
conference report the supplemental, the mini-supplemental, that we 
dealt with early on. In fact, the Committee on Appropriations 
considered it back in July, and it is included as a part of this 
conference report. Disaster relief funds, which have been discussed, 
total $442 million in this bill. That is in addition to the $983.6 
million that we passed back in July. So there is a substantial amount 
for FEMA already being appropriated here.
  There is $319 million for wildland fire management. As we know, we 
had severe fires this year, especially in the West. There is $50 
million for NASA to deal with the Columbia disaster; $32 million for 
costs of the courts, for the judicial branch of government; and $60 
million for the flood control activities of the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  So we worked hard on this supplemental to make it something that we 
thought that the House would be willing to support, and that would 
primarily meet the needs of the United States as a supplemental, in 
addition to all of the regular appropriations bills that we have passed 
or are in the process of passing.
  So, again, I want to thank the chairman for allowing us to use his 
bill as a vehicle for this supplemental, this mini-supplemental. We can 
get the decks cleared, because we have a $87 billion request that we 
will be starting to deal with this afternoon at 2 o'clock. We have a 
hearing with Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid.
  The Subcommittee on Defense this weekend is on its way to Iraq to do 
the investigations they feel compelled to do, and they will follow up 
with hearings back home when they return. There will then be additional 
hearings next week with the State Department. So we are going to vet 
this $87 billion request as effectively as we can.
  We believe it is in the best interests of the President, the best 
interests of the effort against terrorism, and in the best interests of 
our colleagues in the Congress to get as many answers as we possibly 
can on the major questions surrounding this $87 billion request. So 
that is under way, and I would like to get the deck cleared on this 
bill so that we can be free to give our full attention to the $87 
billion request.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to bear 
in mind that while we are looking at $87 billion on top of another $80 
billion already provided for Iraq, what we are asking for here is well 
less than $1 billion for our own people. I know we are mixing apples 
and oranges a little bit, but not necessarily in the perspective of the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, once again we are 
considering a supplemental appropriations bill that ignores the crisis 
affecting many of our community service organizations around the 
country.
  Before the August recess, this House, at the insistence of the 
Republican leadership, sent the other body a take-it-or-leave-it 
supplemental package that omitted the $100 million the other body 
proposed for AmeriCorps. That omission, unfortunately, remains in this 
conference report.
  Failing to provide this funding will deny hundreds of faith-based and 
community-based organizations around the country many of the AmeriCorps 
positions they depend on. We are talking about groups like Habitat for 
Humanity, Teach for America, and hundreds of homegrown programs in the 
districts of everyone here that make a difference every day.
  For some organizations that depend on AmeriCorps, unfortunately, the 
damage is already done. But for others, an infusion of funding to 
support additional volunteers could still make a difference between the 
elimination or weakening of a program and sustaining and building their 
efforts to support our communities.
  Without this funding, AmeriCorps will see its numbers reduced by 
something like 40 percent overall to around 30,000 participants.
  Every Member, Mr. Speaker, of the legislative branch appropriations 
subcommittee in the other body favored this funding for AmeriCorps. It 
had the support of Chairman Stevens and the support of Senator Bond, 
the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over AmeriCorps. The 
other body voted to sustain this AmeriCorps funding by a strong 
bipartisan vote of 71 to 21.
  These faith-based and community-based groups are doing good works in 
our communities on a daily basis, and it should shame this House to let 
them down. This conference report is another missed opportunity; in 
fact, it is a missed obligation, because we owe it to the community and 
faith-based groups who depend on AmeriCorps volunteers to help them 
sustain the programs on which our communities depend.
  Mr. Speaker, the supplemental appropriation attached to the 
legislative branch bill has a second glaring weakness, and this is one 
which Members will have an opportunity to remedy in just a few minutes. 
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) will be offering a motion to 
recommit the bill with instructions to include the level of funding 
provided in the Senate bill for disaster relief.
  Mr. Speaker, North Carolina is again facing the daunting challenge of 
recovering from a major hurricane that has devastated our coast, caused 
major damage to homes and public facilities, and displaced thousands of 
families. Other States, including Virginia and Maryland, have been 
severely affected and are counting on Federal disaster programs to help 
them recover.
  FEMA personnel are on the ground as we speak doing what they do so 
expertly, providing relief to the victims and initiating an assessment 
of the damage. It is our job to make sure the disaster relief account 
has sufficient resources to ensure that once the assessments are 
complete, relief funding can quickly flow to those in need.
  The supplemental we are considering today provides only $442 million 
for disaster relief, the level recommended by the House, while the 
Senate proposed $1.55 billion. Some may argue that $442 million is 
enough, but that is not correct. When combined with the money we 
appropriated in late July, it will still fall short of what the 
administration initially requested, $1.55 billion. And the 
administration request was meant to cover disasters we already knew 
about, not Hurricane Isabel.
  The Homeland Security bill for next year contains $1.8 billion for 
disaster relief, but I can guarantee you that this amount will not be 
enough to carry us through the coming fiscal year, and we still have 
several weeks of hurricane season to get through this year.
  Now, when the disaster relief account begins to get low, FEMA is 
obliged to slow the relief funding flow to victims of existing 
disasters because they just do not know what new disaster might be 
around the corner. We should not, Mr. Speaker, put FEMA in that 
position. Let us not put the victims of Hurricane Isabel in that 
position, the position of unnecessarily having to wait for the disaster 
relief they urgently need.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit to be offered 
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) later today, so that timely 
relief for the victims of Hurricane Isabel can be assured.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

[[Page 23128]]



                              {time}  1345

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say a special thanks 
to the chairman of the subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Legislative, 
for the first time in really trying to exert a tremendous amount of 
leadership in getting his arms around the Capitol visitors center. I 
think for the first time, the Subcommittee on Legislative has taken 
some jurisdiction over this very, very significant expenditure and 
maybe the biggest construction project to go on since the constructing 
of the Capitol itself. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) 
deserves a lot of credit for really trying to make sure that the money 
that is needed is there, but also to make sure that we are not really 
overspending, and really trying to get his arms around a very important 
project that I think people on this subcommittee have paid little 
attention to. And I think a pretty loud message has been sent that the 
Subcommittee on Legislative is going to take a great deal of interest 
in this issue, watch it very carefully, and work closely with the 
Architect and others in leadership to make sure it is done correctly. 
So I applaud the gentleman from Georgia for his efforts.
  This bill is probably not the most dramatic appropriations bill that 
we will pass of the 13, but I would urge every Member to vote for it, 
because it is the bill that keeps this beautiful Capitol running. It is 
the bill that pays for all of the staff people, all of the people who 
get little or no thanks for keeping this beautiful Capitol open, for 
making sure that visitors are warmly welcomed, to making sure that 
visitors are safe when they come to the Capitol complex, to making sure 
that Members' words are taken down correctly and printed the next day; 
to all of the things that go on under this dome, both in the House and 
in the other body.
  And we give little credit and should give a lot more credit to the 
people who make this institution run. Frankly, it is not the Members; 
we do not deserve that much credit. It is the people that are here 24/7 
in many instances that keep this great institution running. That is 
what this bill is about. It is about making sure that these people who 
do the hard work to make us look good and keep this facility running, 
they are the ones who really deserve the credit; and we pay them a 
certain amount of credit by passing this bill today and making sure 
that they have the money that is needed to keep this great institution 
running. Not only this House, but the other body.
  So I congratulate all of the people who work in the House and the 
other body, all of the law enforcement people who secure this facility 
whom we take so much for granted.
  The other thing I want to say is this bill includes a pet project of 
mine that I hope some day will be a reality, and that is some kind of a 
health fitness center for our employees. Those of us who are Members of 
this body benefit from an ability to have a health fitness center. 
Those who work in this body and in the other body do not have that same 
kind of health fitness opportunity, and we should create it for them. 
We should give our staff who work long hours the opportunity to remain 
healthy, to stay healthy, and to have the opportunity to do it right 
here on this campus. This bill continues to include our opportunity to 
do that for all of the employees who work in the House and in the other 
body.
  We talk a lot around here about obesity and fitness. Well, what we 
are trying to do in the legislative branch bill is to make sure that 
there is a plan somewhere on this campus to take care of all of the 
people who work on this campus; and I am pleased that there is language 
to continue that process, as I see the Parliamentarian and others 
buttoning up their coats. They are the ones that need this opportunity, 
and we want to make sure we provide it.
  So in any event, I thank the chairman for his leadership. This is a 
good bill. Every Member should vote for it. Even if the motion to 
recommit does not pass, the ranking member should have the leadership 
to persuade his Members to vote for this so we can keep the lights on.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell my 
friend from Illinois that the ranking member fully intends to vote for 
the bill; it is just such an attractive bill, but they loaded it down 
with the baggage of a flawed supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), he has convinced me; and to the gentleman from Northern 
Virginia, he convinced me also that he has a very good motion to 
recommit to add some money for FEMA, $1.1 billion, I understand.
  I, for one, had concerns when we created the Department of Homeland 
Security and put FEMA in it that it would mean that what was a very 
efficient, small, responsive governmental agency would get lost in the 
maze of the new Department. And in some ways, and especially as it 
relates to funding, I think that has happened. FEMA's funding had been 
allowed to dip to a very low level, down to $44 million, before the 
administration insisted to Congress that they should have some 
supplemental funding. This is not good for the program or for the 
country, to have such low balance.
  The gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Moran) motion to recommit would 
put the disaster relief program back on sound financial footing. So I 
would urge Members to vote for the Moran motion and do good things for 
the country and do good things for FEMA.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring up what the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. LaHood) had mentioned too on the Capitol visitors center. This 
committee, on a bipartisan basis, has taken a real close look at the 
Capitol visitors center. It is perhaps one of the largest construction 
projects we have had on this campus since the actual construction of 
the Capitol, and I do not know if it approximately will double our 
size, but it is big.
  This project started out at $265 million, and right now it is at $456 
million and perhaps on its way up from there. Congress did add some 
additional office space, and there were some considerations for 
security that caused the $265 million to go to about $365 million or 
$370 million range, but the rest is just kind of work-in-progress add-
ons. We need to be very careful that this does not become the poster 
child for congressional disaster spending.
  One of the things that we have taken a real close look at, and I am 
glad that the House and Members of the majority and the members of the 
committee recommended changing the way the Architect of the Capitol 
makes decisions. There were too many bosses telling the Architect what 
to do day to day. So the Architect, being, I guess, a good public 
servant, responded to these requests; but, as a result, the project 
somewhat got away from him. And we on this committee have tried to rein 
this in so that he can run the project. We think that is going to save 
millions of dollars in outlays.
  We also recommended, but were unable to get the Senate to agree with 
us, to cut out a $10 million tunnel to the Library of Congress. I just 
want Members to know there was some discussion and misunderstanding on 
the Senate's part that has to do with security, but when I met with the 
Sergeant at Arms, he said that tunnel had nothing to do with security 
in terms of escapes out of the Capitol. Number one, the last thing we 
would want is 100 Members of Congress confined to a tunnel area, 
particularly if there is some kind of a chemical attack. But as my 
colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, we have a tunnel that goes to the Rayburn 
Building; we have a tunnel that goes to the Cannon Building; we have a 
tunnel, a utility tunnel that goes out of the front of the Capitol 
visitors center towards the Library of Congress already; we have a 
tunnel that goes to the Dirkson Building; a tunnel that goes to the 
Russell Building, and a tunnel that goes to the Hart Building.
  In addition, there will be a new truck service tunnel entrance. So to 
say on top of all of those tunnels we need another tunnel to the 
Library of Congress

[[Page 23129]]

so Members will not have to degrade themselves by carrying umbrellas 
when they go to the Library, which we all know is a daily routine 
anyhow, but let me just say for the record it is, unfortunately, not a 
daily routine. But I think that this eliminating this tunnel to the 
Library would have been a sign that we are willing to give a tangible 
example that we are ready to cut out some of the spending on the 
Capitol visitors center.
  But more importantly, in the conference we did accept the Obey 
amendment that limits the spending on the tunnel to $10 million. I hope 
we can do it for less than that. The Architect recently said that we 
can do it for perhaps as little as $ 9.4 on the top end and perhaps as 
little as 7-and-some-change on the bottom end.
  The reality, though, is that this tunnel is going to go over an 
Amtrak tunnel; the train line that goes to Union Station, it is going 
to go under the road. So what we are actually talking about is boring a 
tunnel, not a trench, but boring a tunnel in between the Amtrak line 
and the road. This tunnel is not straight; it is a dog leg. I think we 
are going to have some problems with it. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) had said if we spend over $10 million when we are in 
conference, that the Architect should be fired. I do not know about 
that. We are already in an overspending situation, and there does not 
seem to be anybody who is suffering because of it. The contractor is 
not out of money; nobody who planned or estimated the job is out of 
work; nobody has really been called on the carpet.
  But I am glad to say that this committee had a 2- or 3-, maybe a 4-
hour hearing on the spending of the Capitol visitors center trying to 
get this thing under control. Most Members are, unfortunately, 
oblivious to what is going on out there, because we are focused on 
Medicare, education, terrorism, and things like that; and we have not 
really focused on this enough. This committee found out that the 
cafeteria there will be the largest cafeteria in the city of 
Washington, D.C. This committee found out that there will be three 
theaters inside the Capitol visitors center, even though across the 
street at the Library of Congress there is already an alternative 
theater that is designed for Members of Congress to meet in the event 
that we are unable to meet in this legislative Chamber.
  So these are some of the concerns that we had about the tunnel and 
the Capitol visitors center in general. Yet, despite the fact that my 
own desire, my own amendment to eliminate the tunnel did not make it, I 
still think on balance we have done a lot of good work on the Capitol 
visitors center, trying to get control of the spending. I think on 
balance we have done a good job addressing some of the issues with the 
Capitol Hill Police and the other legislative branch agencies, and I am 
proud to say that we worked very closely with the Democrats and 
everyone involved on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first, I yield myself 10 seconds 
just to tell my friend from Georgia that the minority appreciates the 
majority's decision to fund the Congress's Big Dig project on their 
watch. So that was fortuitous.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the public has a right to ask the Congress why 
it sometimes ignores the obvious. This bill today, despite all of the 
good words said about it, in one respect ignores the obvious. When we 
passed the conference report on the supplemental, I said I did not 
believe that it provided sufficient funds for disaster relief, since we 
knew that Hurricane Isabel was then about to arrive. Well, as we now 
know, it arrived; and now we know the extent of the damage of Isabel, 
even though we do not know the precise costs.
  Mr. Speaker, 34 people lost their lives; flooding and wind damage was 
widespread. Many people in the hundreds of thousands still do not have 
electricity. FEMA tells us that a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the 
cost of Isabel is about 700 million bucks, the cost of Hurricane Fran 
and Floyd. Yesterday, the Richmond Times Dispatch reported that one 
official said, ``Too many times Federal, State, and local officials 
have acted or reacted on the basis of poor information, while FEMA is 
worried about keeping the headlines down rather than fixing the 
situation.''

                              {time}  1400

  Today it seems to me that we have both the unique opportunity and a 
unique obligation. Given the funding level for disaster relief of $1.5 
billion that was included in the Senate bill to provide funding for 
Isabel and to help fix the situation, if we wait for the President to 
submit a supplemental request, it is likely that we will be in the 
situation next spring where FEMA is out of money, there is a crisis at 
hand, and people will once again say, well, what in God's Earth? Did 
those guys think they knew what they were doing? Why did not they 
anticipate this? Why did they not take care of it when they knew the 
problem was at hand?
  In my view, we need action, not reaction. That is why we ought to 
support the Moran motion. We know this damage has occurred. We know the 
Federal Government is going to be getting the bill. We should not be 
hiding the cost today, as we are hiding the costs of so many other 
items. We should fess up and face up to the problem and deal with it 
now, not after the fact next spring when it can get in the way of 
orderly relief when we have more problems.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Briefly, I just wanted to readdress some of the points that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) had made briefly on this disaster 
money that the motion to recommit requests $1.55 billion to be funded, 
which is what the administration's original request was for FY 2003. 
However, this bill already has money in it. So if we went ahead with 
this, this is in addition to the $983 million that we put into disaster 
relief in July, that would mean we would be a billion dollars above the 
President's request.
  Now, that might be good, but we do not know how much Isabel actually 
costs. The preliminary damage assessments started on Tuesday. It will 
be several days, weeks, in fact, months before we really know how much 
money is, in fact, needed for this disaster. This committee member and 
all of us, the chairman is from Florida. I am from coastal Georgia. I 
represent the entire coast. I am very sympathetic to hurricanes.
  On a personal basis, I went down one week to prepare my house in 
Savannah for Isabel, and then came back to Washington and ended up 
evacuating Washington and going back to Savannah. Hurricanes are 
something that we in coastal Georgia do take very, very seriously. I 
know that the money will be there for FEMA when we know what that 
amount is, but at this point, we just do not know. The fiscal year's 
closing is less than a week away, and I think the prudent thing to do 
right now is to hold off on this motion to recommit, vote no on it and 
then to pass the bill as is.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  What we are doing on this supplemental is to respond to the 
President's request. What we have in this bill that we were asked to 
vote on is less than the President himself asked the Congress to 
provide, and that was before Hurricane Isabel. So we know the money is 
going to be needed. The question before the Congress is: Do we provide 
it now, or do we leave future victims of national disasters waiting, 
wondering whether the Congress is going to provide sufficient funds?
  We know the funds are going to be necessary. What we are asking for 
is much more consistent with what the President himself has requested.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms.

[[Page 23130]]

DeLauro), one of the Democratic Caucus's leadership.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment.
  For months after the September 11 tragedies 2 years ago, America was 
a changed Nation, bound by a common purpose, steeled by our sense of 
community and shared responsibility. Americans from all over 
volunteered their time and energy to help those who were most in need, 
and President Bush created USA Freedom Corps to capitalize on that 
spirit, to energize our community. He called on America's volunteers, 
and all across this great Nation, we answered his call.
  But now, at a time when our volunteers are calling on him, no one is 
home at the White House. Today, 20,000 committed AmeriCorps volunteers 
are ready and willing to serve, but they are on the brink of being 
turned away, all because of management problems that they had nothing 
to do with. But management problems exist and management problems are 
being addressed as they should be addressed.
  The success of AmeriCorps is not in doubt. In only a decade, it has 
given a quarter of a million Americans to serve their community through 
fighting poverty, tutoring and mentoring neglected youngsters, cleaning 
up the environment, and providing long term care to the elderly.
  Just ask the over 350 college and high school students who depend on 
this funding in Connecticut's LEAP program. They give their valuable 
time to provide mentoring and service opportunities to 1300 kids. Every 
last one of LEAP's junior counselors graduate from public high schools, 
80 percent go on to college. They know what the rest of America knows, 
that AmeriCorps is without question the premier national service 
program in the United States.
  All President Bush needed to do to keep these young people on was to 
use his moral leadership, call upon his leadership in the Congress to 
include the $100 million in emergency funding that AmeriCorps needs. 
Instead, he has only expressed vague support for the program, knowing 
full well that in doing so, he is effectively punishing the millions of 
people in communities who depend on the services that AmeriCorps 
provides.
  If we could bottle the spirit that guided this country 2 years ago 
through some of its hardest times, I honestly believe there is no 
challenge we could not meet. But by turning our backs on AmeriCorps, we 
squander one of the greatest resources, our young people, who are 
eager, willing and who want to be involved. That is not merely 
unfortunate, it is a tragedy.
  We should follow the lead of the other body. There was a bipartisan 
vote to include $100 million in emergency funding so that we can help 
to sustain AmeriCorps, help to engage young people in the good work of 
this country, and give them an opportunity to give back what America 
gives to all of us.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston) has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we can finish up now and vote a little earlier 
than people thought. Mr. Speaker, I know that many of us recognize very 
few votes are influenced by floor debate; but I would like to offer a 
couple points to our colleagues who may be watching this on television.
  The first point is that this bill includes less money than President 
Bush requested for emergency assistance, less money, and he requested 
that money before we suffered the ravages of Hurricane Isabel. We know, 
from FEMA's own estimate, that they are going to need more money. What 
we are providing today is insufficient. That is point one.
  Point two is an argument that may be lost on the general public, but 
I think many of our colleagues are going to understand it. What we are 
asking for is money under the fiscal year 2003 supplemental. That means 
that it does not get counted against the fiscal year 2004 budget 
resolution. Now, it is emergency funding. So it does not come up 
against the caps that we would otherwise have imposed on us.
  Now, if the majority wants, we will be in a position to have to get 
more money in fiscal year 2004, money that is going to have to compete 
against the money for Iraq and against any number of other domestic and 
foreign needs. The simplest, the most efficient, and, I think, the most 
responsible thing to do would be to provide sufficient money now in 
fiscal year 2003. There is only a few days left in this fiscal year. 
This is our last opportunity. There is not going to be any other train 
that leaves the station.
  The money, of course, will be held over and available in 2004. So I 
think that those Members of Congress, and it includes the entire 
Congress, who are increasingly budget-conscious as we all should be, 
this is the time to do it. The money is needed, desperately needed, and 
anyone that had constituents that were adversely affected by Hurricane 
Isabel, and there is a whole lot of them up the East Coast, 
particularly the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, I think it would be a 
tough argument to explain to your constituents why, when you had the 
opportunity, you did not provide the money, hoping that the money might 
become available at a later opportunity. The opportunity is now, and it 
should be seized by voting for this recommittal.
  Now, I want to thank some people who greatly deserve it. First, the 
chairman of the subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). We have not agreed totally on 
everything, but we got a good bill, and we reached consensus, and I 
want to thank him for this good bipartisan bill.
  The staff is terrific. Liz Dawson knows everything going on up here 
on Capitol Hill, and is responsible for a whole lot of things that we 
take credit for. Chuck Turner. Chuck has been terrific. Kelly Wade, 
Jack O'Neill with the leadership staff, they all did a great job. I 
want to thank Tom Forhan, who is responsible for this bill on the 
Appropriations staff. And Tim Aiken, who has been terrific; he is on my 
own staff assigned to this bill. They have both been great. Beverly, 
David; we have wonderful staff, and that is one of the reasons why the 
legislative branch appropriations bill does so well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) who does such an extraordinarily good job, not only on this 
bill, but on so many other issues, and I thank him for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my support for H.R. 2657, 
which responsibly meets the needs of the legislative body, the body 
designed by our Founders to make sure that our Federal Government works 
as our citizens want it to; and this bill provides for the resources to 
accomplish that objective.
  Let me also join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in 
congratulating not only his staff, but Liz Dawson, who has done such an 
extraordinary job for the Committee on Appropriations, not only this 
subcommittee but other subcommittees as well, for the work that she 
does.
  Mr. Speaker, one matter that should concern every Member of this body 
is the fair treatment of the folks who work for us and with us, 
including temporary workers employed by the legislative branch. Section 
133, Mr. Speaker, of the Legislative Appropriations Act of 2002, which 
became law on November 12, 2001, prohibits the Architect of the Capitol 
from employing temporary workers for long periods without providing 
eligibility for employee benefits.
  Notwithstanding that, this is not happening much to my dismay and the 
dismay of the subcommittee and the chairman and the ranking member. The 
Architect has refused to implement section 133, despite the clearest of 
Congressional intention and the fact that the General Accounting Office 
has

[[Page 23131]]

determined that section 133 provides the Architect with the authority 
to treat temporary workers fairly.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today's conference report includes 
language that strengthens section 133. I thank the chairman and the 
ranking member and particularly Liz Dawson for that objective. I 
strongly support this language.
  My expectation with this language is simple: That Mr. Hantman will 
finally appreciate that Congress meant what it said 2 years ago, when 
it instructed his office to fairly treat temporary workers.
  I thank the committee for its work and thank the ranking member for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in my senior moment there, I neglected to mention 
Beverly Pheto and Dave Pomerantz.

                              {time}  1415

  We have got great staff. We have a wonderful institution here. We 
need to adequately fund it.
  I support the legislative branch appropriations bill, but right now 
the right thing to do is to vote yes on the recommittal to provide 
adequate emergency assistance, and we will get that legislative branch 
appropriations bill funded as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). It has been a great 
pleasure to work with him on this bill, and we have had some 
agreements, and we have had some disagreements, but we have made a lot 
of progress together. It has been a great process for all of us, and I 
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for 
his help and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for her 
issues, although I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, they have been fiscally as 
prudent as somebody from Georgia might want them to be, but we have had 
those discussions in the past as well.
  Let me just close, Mr. Speaker, and urge folks to vote no on the 
motion to recommit and vote yes on the bill.
  I also wanted to join the distinguished ranking member in thanking 
all the staff who have been such a part of this bill. I want to say to 
Tom Forhan, he has done a great job and appreciate his great working 
relationship. Liz Dawson and Chuck Turner and Kelly Wade and Jack 
O'Neill on our side have worked long and hard. Ms. Dawson has called me 
at home and Blackberried me and told me when I am wrong, and every now 
and then tells me when I am right, which has been very few times this 
year, but I hope to improve on that record, Mr. Speaker. But with that 
let me urge support of this bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
recommit the Conference Report on H.R. 2657 with instructions to the 
House managers to increase funding for Disaster Relief.
  I do so as I continue to receive reports from my home State of 
Maryland about the damage caused by Hurricane Isabel. Hurricane Isabel 
cut a path from Maryland's Eastern Shore to Maryland's western mountain 
range. In Baltimore's world famous Inner Harbor, one of the city's 
major arteries was transformed into a river by a seven-foot water 
surge. On Maryland's Eastern Shore, record breaking tides left 60 
percent of Dorchester County under water. In my own district, 5 days 
after Isabel struck, thousands of people still have no electricity.
  How is it possible that, almost a week after the hurricane, in the 
richest country on the planet at a time when we are considering funding 
the reconstruction of Iraq, we refuse to provide adequate funding to 
our own Federal Emergency Management Agency. I urge my colleagues to 
support this motion.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman 
Kingston and Ranking Member Moran for giving me the opportunity to 
speak this morning.
  Today's legislation includes funding for dozens of important 
projects, and I want to thank the Conference Committee for their work.
  I rise today to express my disappointment that this Congress was 
unable to fund one of our nation's most successful programs--the 
AmeriCorps program.
  AmeriCorps provides educational opportunities for young people who 
serve their communities in myriad ways.
  In my district of Kansas City, AmeriCorps members have partnered with 
professional and non-profit agencies to provide children from low 
income families with badly needed educational assistance, revitalize 
and clean up inner city neighborhoods, and install smoke alarms in the 
homes of the elderly.
  One of my constituents has served for two years as a Kansas City 
Jumpstart volunteer.
  The children involved in the Jumpstart program enter with skills 
rated lower than their peers, but through the dedication and leadership 
of volunteer mentors, these deficiencies are often eliminated by the 
time they complete the program.
  This AmeriCorps Jumpstart volunteer recently wrote a letter to our 
hometown newspaper urging support for full funding of the AmeriCorps 
program so that other children can achieve as much as a child he 
mentored, who entered almost ``completely non-verbal and is now talking 
in complete sentences.''
  Failing to adequately fund AmeriCorps will deprive thousands of 
children and young volunteers in my district and across the Nation this 
experience, and leave many children behind.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this Congress could not find the 
additional funds to continue these successful programs.
  President Bush has supported AmeriCorps in the past. In the coming 
months, I would hope that we can work with the Bush Administration to 
resolve AmeriCorp's funding shortfalls and leave no child behind.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


          Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Moran of Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Moran of Virginia moves to recommit the conference 
     report on the bill H.R. 2657 to the committee of conference 
     with instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     insist on inclusion of the level of funding provided in the 
     Senate bill for Disaster Relief.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. 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 the electronic vote on the question of adoption of 
the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202, 
nays 225, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 516]

                               YEAS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez

[[Page 23132]]


     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bishop (UT)
     Dingell
     Gephardt
     Lewis (GA)
     Osborne
     Pastor
     Watson


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte) (during the vote). There are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1439

  Mr. JONES of North Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BURR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 371, 
nays 56, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 517]

                               YEAS--371

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)

[[Page 23133]]


     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--56

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Berry
     Burgess
     Chabot
     Coble
     Costello
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lofgren
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nussle
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiberi
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bishop (UT)
     Dingell
     Feeney
     Gephardt
     Lewis (GA)
     Osborne
     Pastor


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1447

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________