[Pages H6618-H6622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4871, TREASURY AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 560

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4871) making appropriations for the Treasury
Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive
Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page
62, line 17, through page 63, line 2. During the
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone
until a time during further consideration in the Committee of
the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and
(2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed question that follows another
electronic vote without intervening business, provided that
the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any
series of questions shall be 15 minutes. 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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 560 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 4871, the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2001.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally
between the chairman and ranking minority Member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits
unauthorized appropriations and legislation on an appropriations bills,
with regard to the bill.
Additionally, this rule accords priority in recognition to Members
who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. This
encourages Members to take advantage of the option to facilitate
consideration of amendments and to inform Members of the details of
pending amendments.
The rule also provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the
Chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes,
provided that the votes immediately follow another recorded vote, and
that the voting time on the first in a series of votes is not less than
15 minutes.
House Resolution 560 also provides for one motion to recommit, with
or without instructions, as is the right of minority Members of the
House.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 560 is an open rule, similar to those considered
for other appropriations bills. It will afford a fair and complete
debate on the issues surrounding the underlying legislation.
H.R. 4871 continues the trend of this Congress by funding our
national priorities while ensuring fiscal responsibility and a balanced
budget. The bill increases funding for $678 million over last year's
appropriation, placing a priority on enhancing law enforcement
priorities such as school violence prevention, international child
pornography trafficking, and strict enforcement of our existing gun
laws.
The bill also continues our commitment to the war on drugs by
maintaining spending for drug technology transfers to our allies in the
fight against narcotraffickers; ensuring ongoing efforts to partner
with local law enforcement and providing an additional $12.5 million to
attack drug smuggling across our borders.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4871 funds 40 percent of the law enforcement
activities of the Federal Government, and it successfully maximizes the
impact of America's investment in those worthy initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
for his hard work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support
this fair, open rule and the underlying bill.

[[Page H6619]]

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question on the rule is
defeated, would it be in order for a Member to offer an amendment to
the rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would recognize the Member who led
the opposition to ordering the previous question for the purposes of
offering an amendment to the resolution, if the previous question were
not ordered.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, as I continue, I plan on leading the fight
against the previous question. I want to inform my colleagues that I
intend to oppose the previous question and encourage them to do so. If
it is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment to rescind the Member
COLA.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder)
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule which will allow for the
consideration of H.R. 4871. As my colleague from Georgia has explained,
this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority Member on the
Committee on Appropriations.
This allows germane amendments under the 5-minute rule, which is the
normal amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the
aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments that do not violate
the rules for appropriations bills.

{time} 1345

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. It is one that funds
executive branch agencies important to the ongoing activities of the
Government and through the Treasury Department funds are provided to
bureaus and offices that make our money, that pay our debts and collect
our taxes.
I am disappointed that overall the bill provides for $2.1 billion
below the administration's request. There are significant funding
shortfalls in a number of important areas, including our government's
counterterrorism programs and the Internal Revenue Service's
restructuring efforts.
However, there are a number of significant provisions in this bill.
The measure provides for $76 million to expand the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative and to assist State and local governments in
tracing firearms. It provides $185 million to the National Youth
Antidrug Media Campaign, which has been a proven campaign to prevent
drug abuse among our Nation's young people, and it provides an increase
in funds for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains an immensely important
provision that I have worked on for some time with my colleague, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). The Wolf amendment addresses the
widespread problem of conflict diamonds in Africa.
The language prohibits the U.S. Customs Service from using any funds
in the bill to allow diamonds from certain conflict regions in Africa
from entering the stream of U.S. commerce.
Mr. Speaker, this provision was not protected against a point of
order by the Committee on Rules due to jurisdictional concerns raised
by my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means. I have received
assurances, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has, too,
however, that the Committee on Ways and Means will hold a hearing on
this subject prior to final enactment of the treasury postal
appropriations bill.
Based on these good-faith assurances and a commitment by my
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), I did not offer a
motion to the rule last night to waive points of order against the Wolf
provision. I appreciate my colleagues' cooperation in holding a
hearing, and I urge them to schedule it without delay.
This is important because rebel groups, particularly those in Sierra
Leone, are killing and maiming their own people in a battle to control
the diamond mines, and these groups are becoming rich overnight by
trading illegally seized diamonds for arms and then brutalizing their
people. In Sierra Leone, these rebels transformed themselves from a
ragtag group of people of 400 to a force of 25,000 soldiers that has
made hundreds of millions of dollars from these diamonds, and they have
killed more than 70,000 people.
Mr. Speaker, I visited Sierra Leone last year where I personally
witnessed the atrocities committed by rebels. I met with victims who
had their arms and hands cut off because they supported democracy;
children who were drugged and forced to kill their parents and others;
girls who were routinely raped. Atrocities like these are funded
through illegal diamond smuggling, and by allowing the importation of
these conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone and other countries who are
involved in diamond smuggling, we are turning a blind eye to a
situation most law-abiding citizens would abhor.
American consumers buy diamonds as tokens of love and commitment and
not as parties to atrocities. Last year my colleague, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I introduced legislation to require the
disclosure of a diamond's country of origin. The measure was intended
to provide American consumers, who buy 70 percent of all the diamonds
in the world, the information they need and want in order to buy
legitimate diamonds.
Two weeks ago the United States voted for a U.N. resolution calling
for an embargo on conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone and the language
in the bill before us today implements that policy by barring these
black market diamonds from entering our country. It is a bold step, of
course, and one that I support.
Again, I would emphasize the importance of congressional hearings on
conflict diamonds by the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, we
cannot allow jurisdictional issues in the House to supersede the fact
that innocent people are losing their lives in Sierra Leone and other
African countries.
Mr. Speaker, the rule was approved by voice vote in the Committee on
Rules last night.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
(Mr. FLETCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the rule on the
Treasury Postal appropriations bill because it does not make in order
an amendment to disallow the cost of living adjustment for Members of
Congress. It is my intention to ask my colleagues to defeat the
previous question on this rule so that we will have an opportunity to
amend the rule and make this amendment in order.
The pay raise, I believe, is inappropriate at this time and
unnecessary. A 2.7 percent pay increase would increase the salaries of
Members by almost $4,000. The total price tag to American taxpayers is
$2.1 million.
Now where I come from, the average salary for a family in my district
is about $25,000, and this $2.1 million in the pay increase that would
occur here is a lot of money to the folks back in Kentucky.
Now we have come a long way in Washington over the last few years,
balancing the budget, preserving Social Security and Medicare and
reducing the debt; and yet I believe there is still a lot more that can
be done.
With a balanced budget and surpluses as far as the eye can see, I
believe we must focus on strengthening America, paying down the debt,
and giving more money back to the American worker.
I've worked closely with the folks in the 6th District to accomplish
a great deal these past two short years. That's because I came to
Washington to fight for their needs, concerns, and issues, not for
another pay raise.
I find it very disturbing when we just had a vote on eliminating the
marriage penalty tax, when I see 155 Democrat

[[Page H6620]]

Members who voted against giving families, married couples, a $1,400
average tax reduction a year and yet those same individuals will
probably vote to increase the COLA and give themselves a $4,000-a-year
increase in pay. I find that very disturbing.
That is the reason I am rising, Mr. Speaker, to oppose the previous
question; would ask my colleagues to vote against the previous
question, and I want them to understand that a vote against the
previous question is a vote to rescind the COLA and to allow an
amendment to be in order.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
(Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the Members'
annual cost of living allowance, not to oppose it but to talk about the
procedure we are using to consider it.
During my time in Congress, we have addressed this issue several
times. In 1997, I opposed the increase because the Federal budget was
in deficit, and we were proposing massive cuts to programs that
everyday people rely upon. I was also concerned about the process the
House employed in considering the COLA. I was unhappy that there was
little public debate on the issue and only a procedural rather than a
straight yes or no vote.
In 1999, the procedure was the same. Again, I was uncomfortable; and
as I did with the 1996 COLA, I did not accept the increase and returned
the net amount to the Treasury.
Now, many Members argue that COLA is not a raise per se and that the
statute automatically authorizes implementation without requirement of
debate or vote. Several point out that COLAs for other workers operate
in just this fashion. This is true. It is absolutely correct. However,
we are not like other workers. One hundred percent of our costs, both
for employment and office expenses, are borne by the taxpayers. We also
set our own salaries, and we have no direct employer or supervisor,
except the public in the collective.
Few workers in this country enjoy such circumstances. We have the
luxury through our own action, or in this case inaction, to alter the
amount of money we earn. Given that, I believe a substantive vote on
the COLA is the appropriate way to handle the annual increases.
Nevertheless, it does not appear that my views are likely to prevail on
this issue, although I will continue to promote a direct vote.
Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the COLA itself. I believe that
Members can justify a 2.7 percent increase in their wages, but I also
believe that the taxpayers who pay our salaries have a right to ask for
that justification. In order to do so, however, they must be able to
understand the House's action relative to its compensation.
I am not here to criticize or demean the hard work of the good people
with whom I serve in this body. Nor do I wish to disparage the views of
those who disagree with me. I have a personal sense of propriety that
we should be doing this publicly. I am making it clear to my
constituents that we are indeed voting to raise our salary.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with others to protest the process
that we are using here with regard to the issue of the pay raise, so I
intend to vote no on the previous question. I also intend to vote no on
the rule.
I oppose the rule because it is in the process of making the rule
that we were denied the opportunity of whether or not we would be able
to vote on this pay raise or not. Those who are opposed to the pay
raise would probably then want to vote no on the previous question,
which I intend to do as well. This really is not a debate about whether
we should get a pay raise or not. In fact, I think one could make a
case for why we ought to have a pay raise.
This has been a very, very productive Congress, particularly this
year. We have balanced the budget I think the third year in a row. We
have reformed welfare. We have extended the life of Social Security and
Medicare. We passed a prescription drug benefit, several tax reduction
bills. We passed the appropriation bills in record time and the budget
as well, but the real issue here is whether or not we ought to vote
every year on whether we get this pay raise or we do not.
I think the point here is that there are very few Americans who get
an automatic pay raise, and there are even fewer Americans who get to
decide whether or not their pay is going to go up or it is going to go
down. The rule did not make in order an opportunity for us to vote on
this.
Now, when I was an employee, I never went to my employer and said, I
did not do a good job but I want a pay raise. No, I went to them and
said, I think I have been doing a good job. I think I have earned it,
and I think I deserve a pay raise.
I never, as an employer, had an employee come to me and say, I want a
pay raise but I do not think I earned it. If they did, I do not think I
would have granted them a pay raise.
No, we have an obligation to convince the person who controls our pay
that we deserve it, and we ought to do that with our constituents. We
ought to go back to our constituents and say, look, I think I have
earned a pay raise, and justify it to the people who hired us, the
people who elect us to be here. So I think it is wrong for us to avoid
the opportunity to vote on whether or not we ought to have a pay raise
or not, and so I intend to vote against the previous question.
I also intend to vote against the rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
urge Members to support both the previous question and the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). 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. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250,
nays 173, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 419]

YEAS--250

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Foley
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy
King (NY)
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal

[[Page H6621]]

Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--173

Aderholt
Allen
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Buyer
Capps
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeMint
Deutsch
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Evans
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inslee
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Lazio
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Northup
Ose
Pascrell
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Wu

NOT VOTING--12

Baca
Barton
Campbell
Clay
Clyburn
Cooksey
Ehrlich
Kilpatrick
Mollohan
Roemer
Smith (WA)
Vento

{time} 1420

Mrs. NORTHUP, Ms. DANNER, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, and Messrs. DEUTSCH,
PETERSON of Pennsylvania, BAKER, KINGSTON, SHERMAN, THUNE, DEAL of
Georgia, and HORN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. CUBIN, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. FARR of California, CAMP,
CONYERS, and ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 419, I was away from the
floor and neither the bell system nor my beeper notified me of the
vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). 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. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 282,
noes 141, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 420]

AYES--282

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Foley
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy
King (NY)
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--141

Aderholt
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bono
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Capps
Carson
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cook
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Danner
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutsch
Duncan
Edwards
English
Evans
Everett
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Largent
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
McGovern
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Metcalf
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Slaughter
Snyder
Stabenow
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Weygand
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Wu

NOT VOTING--11

Baca
Barton
Campbell
Clay
Cooksey
Ehrlich
Kilpatrick
Roemer
Smith (WA)
Vento
Woolsey

[[Page H6622]]

{time} 1439

Mr. MORAN of Kansas and Mr. BROWN of Ohio changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. DeLAURO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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 for:
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 420, I was away from the
floor and neither the bell system nor my beeper notified me of the
vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________