|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily <Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly
[Congressional Record: October 28, 2000 (House)]
[Page H11449-H11457]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr28oc00-156]
MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of
House Resolution 646, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118)
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 118 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 118
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 106-275 is further amended by striking the date specified
in section 106(c) and inserting ``October 29, 2000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 646, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this is another of those 1-day CRs,
continuing resolutions, that are necessary because the President of the
United States has refused to sign anything other than a 1-day
continuing resolution. It does not make any other changes to the
current CR; it just continues the appropriations process until midnight
tomorrow night. I assume there will be some lengthy debate, as there
was yesterday, on the last one-day CR, but we will get to a vote as
soon as we can.
I would like to just briefly report that at the conclusion of
business yesterday, we did resume negotiations with the other body and
with White House representatives, and we made some progress. We will
make more progress today, and we will make more progress on Sunday. If
we could offer instructions to the conferees in the other body and
instructions to the White House, the same as our colleagues want to
offer instructions to the House conferees today and tomorrow, things
might move along a lot more expeditiously. However, we only have the
authority here to make non-binding instructions to ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, there is more than the House involved in this process. I
would just point out once again, as I have so many times before, the
House did all of its appropriations business very early, and what is
delaying the completion of the appropriations process today is not
really appropriation issues. By far, the most part of the controversial
issues that are out there have nothing to do with appropriations. They
are philosophical in nature, they are political, and they are
authorization issues as opposed to appropriation issues.
But, since appropriations bills are the bills that have to pass, they
become very, very fertile vehicles for those who would like to add
extraneous items to the appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, I guarantee my colleagues, we will get to the end of
this process; we will conclude this business, and we will have Members
home at least in time to vote on Election Day.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take 30 minutes. Let me simply say
that the gentleman from Florida is right. We have to approve this
resolution again to keep the government open.
I am concerned about two developments. Number one, early yesterday it
appeared, in fact we were told, that the conference needed to be
wrapped up by the end of the day yesterday so that we could have a bill
on the floor immediately when we came back to the House on Monday or
Tuesday. It will take about 2 days to go through all of the
technicalities to do what is called a readout so that everybody's staff
is sure of what every item is in that bill, so that at least somebody
understands what each item is. So we were told that we should have all
the work done Friday.
[[Page H11450]]
Then, after the meeting reconvened, we were given another schedule,
which indicated, for instance, that we would not even be able to
resolve the issue with respect to school construction until after the
fate of the tax bill is resolved on Tuesday or so. That means that
there is a high potential that we will be stuck here not just Tuesday,
but Wednesday or Thursday, because if we are not going to be making
those decisions until Tuesday, and if we have to go through the usual
readout requirement, we could have a real problem.
In addition, as the gentleman from Florida says, I do not know
exactly how many extraneous items there are on the bill at this point,
but if we were to add all of them, many of which I would support if
they were on individual pieces of legislation, but if we were to add
all of them to this bill, this bill would wind up being longer than the
Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, and add to it every comic book ever
printed in the history of the United States. I think we would have
results that were just about as silly as those comic books.
So there are going to be a lot of people who are disappointed,
because we are being asked by authorization committee members on bill
after bill after bill after bill to include this or that provision and
some of them are very meritorious, and some of them would fit the needs
of my district, some of them would fit the needs of some of others'
districts, but we are going to have a very tough time producing a bill
that is not the laughing stock of the Western world if we are not very
disciplined in terms of what we wind up adding.
So I think we will see both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
and myself, and probably the two conferees from the Senate, rejecting
dozens of provisions which we ourselves personally favor, simply trying
to keep this bill to a manageable size. I would ask for the forbearance
of each individual Member who has a hot idea about what ought to be
included in the last minute.
No question, there are some that are emergencies, and we will have to
try to act on them. But this is not going to be an easy weekend, and I
would say that my only point of disagreement with the gentleman who
spoke, and it is not a disagreement with the way he has tried to
perform. The very first bills that he brought to the committee this
year were bipartisan in nature.
The first three bills that came up in committee could have had this
year and last year bipartisan support, but somewhere along the line we
all became prisoners of a set of assumptions in the budget resolution
that was passed by the House at the direction of the leadership, a set
of assumptions which were highly unrealistic and did not at all reflect
what, in fact, this Congress intended to spend on these items in the
end. That, to me, is the real problem.
I just want to say as an institutionalist in this House, I know a lot
of us, every time we come to the end of the session, start shooting at
the Committee on Appropriations and saying, if only the appropriators
could get this done, we would not be in this mess. I honestly believe,
if we left it to the appropriators to decide the appropriations issues
without extraneous pressures, we could have a deal on all of this stuff
in about 3 hours. I really believe that. The problem is that lots of
other things are intervening.
I would also note that the real problem we have is that when we start
with a budget resolution which is not real, that means that we cannot
produce real appropriation bills until the budget resolution does get
real, and it has taken about 8 months to do that.
I will give one example. Lest I be accused of partisanship, I will
give one example of how that occurred in the deep dark distant past, in
1981. In 1981, when the budget resolution was before us in the first
Reagan year, the last item holding up the conference on that budget
resolution was whether or not the agriculture number was real. To meet
the targets in the Republican budget resolution, it was decided that we
had to cut, I believe it was, $400 million out of agriculture. In order
to get the votes to pass that, the grain State representatives were
told that that money was going to come out of dairy, and the dairy
State representatives were told that the money was going to come out of
grain. So we had two false assumptions that were used to pass a number
that was unreal.
That has occurred many times over on the budget resolution that this
committee was forced to operate under this year, and that is why the
first 10 months were essentially wasted. So now, our committee is being
asked to perform an impossible act and correct 10 months of
disingenuousness in about 2 weeks, and that is just almost impossible
to do, especially when we are not being given free reign to make the
choices that you know would solve the problem.
So I hope that we will have a cooperative spirit in the conference,
but we are going to have to have some choices made that allow the
conferees to actually make some choices, because yesterday, on three
successive major items, when we tried to resolve them, we were told,
``Well, we do not have any authority to deal with that; that is going
to be made by somebody else.'' If that is the case, it is going to take
a lot longer than anybody wants, because the people who we expect to
put the deal together, we are told, are not being given enough reign to
actually make those choices.
That is the institutional problem that I see; and until it is dealt
with, I am afraid that we may wind up getting stuck in the ditch, even
though on the Committee on Appropriations, both sides would like to
make a deal and get the blazes out of here and go home.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, we said earlier that we realized that
President Clinton is signing concurrent resolutions for only 1 day at a
time. If he were to sign a 3-day resolution yesterday, for example, we
could all be in our districts, the appropriators on both sides of the
aisle could be doing their respective work, and we could have come back
here Monday or Tuesday.
I would like to put a question to the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, if he would yield. I am told that one of
the reasons the President has insisted on 1-day concurrent resolutions
is his disagreement with the Republican majority regarding blanket
amnesty being extended to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Is
this one of his reasons?
{time} 0945
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have my own ideas as to why the
President wants us here day after day, one day at a time, but I do not
know for sure what his reason is.
However, on your question of amnesty, I would remind the gentleman,
that during the development of the Commerce, Justice appropriations
conference report, in the closing hours, the President did request a
broad-based general amnesty for illegal aliens.
The House responded and the conference committee responded with a
compromise that would provide amnesty for family reunification. Some of
the families had already been granted citizenship, and this would allow
them to unify their families. We did that in the Commerce, Justice
bill.
We have been advised that the President is going to veto the
Commerce, Justice appropriations bill, and one of the main reasons is
because we did not give him the general broad-based amnesty that he
requested.
Now, whether or not that becomes a major issue on the development of
the Labor, HHS conference report, I am not really sure at this point. I
think it is going to depend on what action he takes relative to the
Commerce, Justice bill; and if he vetoes that, then we will have to
determine how best to deal with that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
With respect to the last question, Mr. Speaker, on the, Commerce,
Justice, State bill, as I think most people understand, there are five
major issues that are dividing the President and the Congress in my
view. One of the most important is the privacy issue, the illegitimate
use of Social Security numbers to allow anyone who uses the
[[Page H11451]]
Internet to invade the privacy of each and every American if they are
shrewd enough on how to go about it. That is a very serious issue.
With respect to the immigration issue, it is important to understand
that all the President is asking is that we provide the same rules for
people who came from countries like Salvador as we provided at the
request on two occasions of members of the majority party, for refugees
from Nicaragua and several other Latin American countries. All of these
people are here already.
There is not one additional person who would come into the United
States. You have already made the decision to provide an easier way for
people to stay in this country for those people, and we are simply
asking that that same principle be applied to others. You are just as
dead if you have been killed by the Salvadoran death squads, as you are
if you were killed by the Sandanistas. And I think the President is on
perfectly good ground.
We also have major environmental problems associated with that bill
as I think everyone knows.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, we are at gridlock. We are 3
weeks plus the date that we are supposed to adjourn this Congress, and
we still have not really sat down to negotiate the differences between
the White House and the Congress. And the Members on my side of the
aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, have been left out of most of
the negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, the Baltimore Sun papers got it right, and let me quote
if I might, Mr. Speaker, Republicans gridlock again in Congress. GOP
leaders cannot strong-arm Clinton to get their way on tax cuts and
budgets. Whatever happened to the fine art of compromise? It seems to
have vanished within the lexicon of Republicans on Capitol Hill. The
result is more gridlock in Washington as Republicans try to force their
political agenda down President Clinton's throat. This tactic has
repeatedly backfired on the GOP.
The editorial goes on to say Republicans seem determined to send Mr.
Clinton a take-it-or-leave-it tax cut plan that tilts benefits in favor
of the well-to-do at a cost of $240 billion over 10 years. It would,
for instance, give 58 billion in tax breaks to those able to buy long-
term health care insurance, but it would not do what the President
seeks to provide, care for 4 million uninsured parents at a fraction of
the costs. Similarly, the Republican bill heavily favors HMOs, which
have the political muscle over hospitals and nursing homes and
restoring money cut by Congress in 1997. That is not fair, especially
because nursing homes were devastated by the prior budget cuts.
There is room for compromise, but the GOP hard-liners will not budge.
They want a partisan agenda enacted. Other Republicans think they can
influence voters if they force the President to veto their tax cut
bill. That is a poor way to run government. And I agree.
We should be sitting down and working together to try to resolve
these differences. We should have done that 3 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago.
Now we are surprised that it is getting political when we are a
little over a week before a national election? The reason why we are
here day in and day out is because we need to break this gridlock by
honest negotiations between all parties. And I urge my colleagues to do
that.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the statement of the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I do not think he was talking about the
appropriations bills, because for the appropriations bills, I think the
minority would concede that we have worked together very well with
them.
We have not kept them out of any meetings or any consideration of
appropriations bills and appropriations issues. And the gentleman's
original statement that we had not yet begun to negotiate, I would ask
him to talk with his distinguished leader, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), because I cannot tell the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) how many hours and how many days we have spent negotiating with
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) at the same table along with
our subcommittee leadership and including the White House.
We have been honestly negotiating; and as I pointed out, the
appropriations issues have basically all been negotiated. They have all
been settled. It is the extraneous legislative-type, philosophical-type
issues that are holding us up, not appropriations issues.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would say that, Mr. Speaker, I have no complaints with the way the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has dealt with the appropriations
Democrats. I think he has been perfectly fair. That does not mean that
appropriations bills have been produced with Democratic input, as the
gentleman knows, with respect to Justice-State. In the end, the
decision was made by the majority leadership to simply put together a
package on their own without further consultation with us.
It contained a number of provisions which the majority knew were
nonstarters with us; and if we had been in the room when those
decisions were made, I think we could have avoided the veto that is now
going to occur.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, very frankly, the majority party has put a kinder,
gentler face on what it has done over the last 8 months. That kinder,
gentler, principled face is the face of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the chairman of our Committee, the Committee on Appropriations;
and like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I have no quarrel
with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said the Democrats were not
included in the appropriations process, in the Committee on
Appropriations, in the Commerce, Justice, State.
I will say, on my committee, that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) and I dealt together openly. The shame of it was that the
Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations were not always included
in the appropriations negotiation. That is one of the problems, one of
the significant problems.
Mr. Speaker, 9 days ago, the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) came on this House floor and made some interesting and, I
believe, incredible statements. He said this Congress, the 106th
Congress, is one of the most productive Congresses in recent history.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said that flipping through a
document that apparently listed bills that were approved by this
Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. I did not see that
document, none of us did.
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I can tell my colleagues with
certainty, there was no meaningful patients' bill of rights in it.
There was no Medicare prescription drug benefit in it. There was no
targeted tax relief in it. There was no real campaign finance reform in
it; and there was no school modernization, class-size reduction, and
teacher quality initiative in that document. No, not one of those
pressing critical issues which show on my colleagues polls and our
polls as being the Americans focus.
As a matter of fact, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella), has an ad running today on TV that I saw this morning
that she is for patients' bill of rights, for school construction, for
campaign finance reform; the only thing that ad lacked was a tag line
of vote Democratic.
The bills that the majority in this Congress has refused to pass
could go on and on.
Then, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) charged, and again I
quote, ``We remain here today because some people simply will not
support the principles of fiscal discipline.'' Hooey. I am pretty sure
he was not talking about the Members on this side of the aisle, but now
we know the truth.
Those are precisely the people who should have been listening. If
nothing else, this do-nothing 106th Congress has finally debunked the
myth of the free-spending Democrat and unmasked the fiscally
irresponsible Republicans and who they are.
[[Page H11452]]
This majority has wasted the last 2 years trying to enact a tax
scheme that would drain the entire projected budget surplus over the
next decade and threatened to eat into that portion of the surplus set
aside for Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, now, they are loading up spending bills at funding level
over and above what the President requested in his budget.
As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my good friend,
pointed out earlier this week, the nine appropriations conference
reports to date provide outlays that exceed the President's 2001 budget
by $11.4 billion. None of them could pass. None of them could get to
the President without the majority party's support.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) also
noted that the 106th Congress is on track to increase spending on
nondefense appropriations, and we ought to listen to this. We ought to
listen to this figure, and I see the gentleman from Western Maryland,
(Mr. Barrett), my colleague, that the majority is going to pass, yes,
the President can veto and my colleagues can say, gee, whiz, we could
not get our way. I understand that.
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about what my colleagues are going to pass
and send to him.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) noted that the 106th
Congress is on track to increase spending on nondefense appropriations
at the fastest growth rate, 5.2 percent, since the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 was enacted. The House is going to pass, not the President
is going to sign and propose, the House is going to pass the largest
increase in domestic discretionary spending since 1974.
Since enactment of the Budget Act, nondefense appropriations have
grown an average of 2.1 percent when Republicans controlled the House,
and only 1.2 percent, half of that, per year when Democrats controlled
the House. That does not comport with the facts that my colleagues
would like to portray. Those are the facts, and my colleagues can check
with your CBO on whether I am inaccurate.
So tell me, who needs a lecture on fiscal discipline? I do not think
there is a soul in this House who does not understand why our budget
process is broken down this year and why this eighth continuing
resolution is necessary.
The Republican majority insisted, not the appropriators, not the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the 13 cardinals,
insisted on passing a phony budget resolution last spring that turned
our appropriations process into a sham.
As The Washington Post stated, and I quote, ``The Republicans
continue to insist on a make-believe fiscal policy. The familiar fable
is that they can cut taxes, finance the boomers' old age and increase
defense and selected other spending while maintaining fiscal
discipline.''
Mr. Speaker, it cannot be done. It has not been done, and it is a
shame.
{time} 1000
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of
the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, why do we have a loggerhead? Republican
fault? Democrat fault? There is a very strong difference of opinion on
who should control people's lives, either people or Washington, D.C.
The gentleman that just spoke in the well just talked about no
Patients' Bill of Rights. Many of us feel that it is wrong, absolutely
wrong to have unlimited lawsuits which would drive up health care costs
and would force HMOs out of business. Many Americans like HMOs. Some do
not. They have legitimate concerns on that side of the aisle and on our
side of the aisle.
But then the liberal trial lawyers would go down and sue the small
businesses that hire those HMOs or care providers in good faith, and it
would hurt small business. That is why National Federation of
Independent Business, Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Associations
were opposed to it. There is a legitimate concern on our side of the
aisle that it hurts the economy and hurts business. So, no, we did not
support it.
School construction. We feel within the Labor-HHS bill, I serve on
that subcommittee, that if we want to give school construction dollars,
my colleagues want amnesty to 4 million illegals in the Commerce,
State, Justice, we have got 43 million uninsured Americans. We agree
that that is terrible. But, automatically, we are going to have 47
million uninsured Americans on health care. They petition their
families, and now we are going to have over 50 million uninsured
Americans. Think what that is going to do to the cost of health care.
Think of what it is going to do to our overburdened schools.
So, yes, we have a difference of opinion. In the school construction,
we feel that, if we give Federal dollars down to the schools for
construction, then it ought to be bid between the unions and private
enterprise so that we can get the best quality and the best amount of
construction for our schools.
But my colleagues on the other side want only the union wage, the
prevailing wage, which costs about 35 percent in some States down to 15
percent in some States. We are saying, let it be bid, let the schools
keep the extra money for class size reduction, teacher pay, those kinds
of issues. But my colleagues on the other side, the President is
saying, no, I want it for the unions.
I see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Minority Whip on
the floor. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) has gotten over $2
million from the unions. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt),
$1.7 million from the unions. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost),
$1.4 million. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), $1.3 million
from the unions. They want to continue giving the money to the unions
that goes to Democrats campaigns.
We are saying we want the money, not to go to the union bosses, but
to go to the schools. There is a difference of opinion. I choose the
schools over union bosses and campaigns.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham) has, in my view, questioned the motivation
for Members' votes on the House floor. The use of innuendo may be
clever, but it is not constructive. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) is a good man, and he ought to be able to do better than
that.
Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from California tell those gentlemen
the he just named that he was going to use those names before he used
them on the House floor, knowing they were in a Democratic caucus so
they could not respond to him? Does he regard that as the gentlemanly
thing to do?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior)
was on the floor. I looked at him face to face.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how many men did the gentleman from California
name?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Four.
Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman from California see all four of them on
the House floor?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were, Mr. Speaker, two of them were.
Mr. OBEY. No, they were not. Two of them were in the caucus. One of
them happens to be the caucus chairman.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is for the record, Mr. Speaker. That is right
off the Web page.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, with all due respect,
regardless of what the rules allow, I think it is simply not fair to
raise individual Member's names on the floor and, through innuendo,
question what their positions are without informing them ahead of time.
I find it most unfortunate. In the case of the gentleman, I find it
also to be habitual.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Wisconsin was
offended, I apologize. But the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) was
on the floor.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California named the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). He named a number of other people. It
[[Page H11453]]
seems to me that, if a Member is going to be attacked personally, that
at least they are entitled to know that so that the TV audience does
not get the impression that no response was given. The reason no
response was given is because several of the gentlemen who were
attacked were not even on the floor when the attack was made. I do not
think that that suits the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the people that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned. He is right. I am proud of
the fact that working men and women of America who are organized
support me. They do so because they believe I support them. The
gentleman is absolutely correct.
He moved in committee to strike provisions. We could build a lot of
things a lot cheaper. But do my colleagues know, two Republicans, a
gentleman named Davis and a gentleman named Bacon, two Republicans from
New York said that they did not want cheap labor, scab labor, people
who were brought in to work for wages that could not support themselves
and their family? Two Republicans said that is not right. If we are
going to spend public money, we ought to pay the people who build them
fairly.
Now, we just passed a resolution, I will tell the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), some weeks ago about slave labor building
this Capitol. It was much cheaper to do it that way, I will tell the
gentleman from California, much cheaper; but it was wrong.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have just got to say I am very encouraged about coming
back to the 107th Congress, because it appears a new era of civility is
dawning, because it seems to me, in the past 4 years, Members' names
were thrown around all the time on this floor without advanced calling.
In fact, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who was just
offended, I believe, used the name of the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella). I will be talking to the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella) this morning to see if she got a postcard before that
happened.
I understand why the Democrats are frustrated and upset. They got
news last night that their Presidential candidate is down 13 percent. I
would be upset, too. But they come to the floor, and they say that we
have not done anything, and we have not passed anything this year.
In fact, one gentleman from Maryland came to the floor and actually
said that we were in town because the tax bill did not pass. They know
that is not the truth. It is not the tax bill that is keeping us in
town. While he can quote a newspaper whose editor obviously does not
know how Congress works, I am a bit disappointed he does not know any
better. I expect the President to sign that bill after the election is
over, but we will see. But that is not what is keeping us here.
I do want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
ranking member. I think he set a very positive tone this morning. I
thank him. But others coming to the floor saying we have done nothing
this year is disappointing.
We heard the gentleman from Maryland say we passed no prescription
drug benefit. That is not true. We did. In fact, while we were working
on the bill, the Democrats exited that door right there because they
could not have their way. The same thing goes with the Patients' Bill
of Rights.
I disagree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). I
think HMOs should be sued. But do my colleagues know what, we sit down,
we talk about it, we negotiate it, we do not try to make it an election
year issue. But what do they do? They run away and say we have done
nothing on the issue.
The same thing with education. We actually want to fund education
just as much as Democrats. The difference is we want teachers, parents
and educators and hometowns to make the decision how that money is
spent instead of Washington lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats.
There is a difference, and we can talk these differences out. But one
cannot have one's way all the time. I learned that. I have been here
for 6 years, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) will tell
you, I had a rough 2 or 3 years, because I thought it had to be my way
or the highway. Well, I hope I have grown a little bit and understand
the need to compromise.
Unfortunately, too many of our Democratic friends here today say we
must have it our way or else the Republicans have done absolutely
nothing over the past 2 years. That is not the case. One cannot have
100 percent of the pie.
Like George W. Bush says, and the reason why he is 13 points ahead,
we need to change the way Washington works. We need to come together,
make this institution work, and unite, not divide, not have Presidents
flying to fund raisers across the country, not having Senators flying
home whenever they feel like it, but people sitting down at the table.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) yield me 30
additional seconds?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, since I would acknowledge that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) has in fact grown considerably
during his time here, I yield him another minute.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I have grown. I thank the gentleman
from Florida very much.
But now is the time for everybody to follow my example of growing,
come together, let us sit down, talk this out. Again, I commend the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations, today. I thought that his comments were
very positive, that the appropriators are willing to sit down, talk
this out, do the people's business and go home and not use all this for
election year issues.
So I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for the
additional 30 seconds and for recognizing my amazing growth over the
past 4 years.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise us as to the
time remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has 18 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrist).
Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, there is not much else I can add to what the other
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) has just said in a very
eloquent way.
But there has been a lot of discussion here this morning that the
Republicans are responsible for gridlock, phony numbers, and partisan
politics. All I will say to that is this Chamber does allow each Member
to be a responsible advocate for what they believe. What that means is
there is, fundamentally, opportunity for a difference of opinion. So
gridlock is each of us having the freedom, as Members of Congress, as
do all Americans, to express their heartfelt opinions.
It has also been said this morning that the Republicans are spending
$11 billion over what the President requested. That is true, because we
are spending more money for health care and more money for education.
That is where the dollars should go, and that is where the dollars are
directed.
Now, the third point I want to make is that some of us on our aisle
have a difference of opinion from those on the other side of the aisle
dealing with health care, more specifically dealing with Medicare.
The President wants the Federal Government to be entirely in charge
of the Medicare program; that is, Medicare part A, Medicare part B, and
probably a prescription drug program or any other +Choice programs for
our senior citizens; for the Federal Government, through HCFA, to pay
all those expenses.
Those on our side of the aisle want a mix of Federal Government
participation and the private sector. We want
[[Page H11454]]
that mix, because when the baby boomers retire, we know that the
Federal Government cannot sustain that program unless they increase the
payroll taxes by about 500 percent. It is just not going to happen.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about politics
today, so I figured I would weigh in on an issue that is of extreme
importance to women and one that I am very critical of the President
over. I want to express my absolute outrage over President Clinton's
decision to play politics with women's health.
{time} 1015
Early this month, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act
cleared the Congress and was sent to the President for his signature.
This measure is critical because it covers the cost of treating low-
income women who are screened through Federal programs and found to
have breast or cervical cancer. Thousands upon thousands of low-income
women in America are affected by this very, very important measure and
President Clinton knows it. That is why he signed it into law
yesterday.
Unlike so many other bills, however, he signed this one into law with
no White House ceremony, no fanfare, not even a press release,
apparently, even though he of all people knows that such ceremonies are
the best way of getting the media attention to focus on this issue.
This month is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It was a perfect
opportunity for him to hold a ceremony to draw attention to a new
option that will literally save thousands of lives. But he chose not to
highlight it. And why? Because his wife is running for the Senate seat
for New York against one of the main authors of the bill, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Lazio).
Apparently, the President did not want New York women to know that
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has been instrumental in
ensuring passage of something that may mean so much to so many of them.
And, Mr. Speaker, I think the decision to play down the importance of
this bill because of petty politics is one of the most awful things I
have heard of.
Two weeks ago, the President invited Republicans and Democrats onto
the White House lawn to celebrate the signing of the Chinese trade
bill. I guess he invited all of us there for bipartisan cover in case
something goes wrong with the Chinese trade pact. But not for women,
not for women with breast cancer, not for women who need treatment will
we have a ceremony of such lavish proportion.
In a few minutes we will hear about the importance of home heating
oil in New York. And when we had that bill and, unfortunately, one of
our Members missed a vote, he was roundly and routinely criticized by
his opponent in the New York Senate race for not having voted on that
very important issue. So I would ask the next speaker, when we move
into the next bill, to possibly explain to me why the President did not
place an issue important to women at the same level of importance as he
did the Chinese trade bill; why he did not choose to let women around
America, who are of low-income stature, know that they now have a new
option; and why he did not seem to think it was so important to let
every woman in America know about this vital bill?
Several of my friends have been stricken with breast cancer at very
early ages in recent days, and I have been traumatized to watch them
suffer through chemotherapy and lose their hair, while their families
had to take care of their children, and it saddens me to think that
while we are here in the waning hours of the 106th Congress that our
President could not find it in his heart because of petty politics to
have a bill signing that would bring to the attention of millions of
Americans that, in fact, this Congress has acted on cervical and breast
cancer.
So I plead, beg, and urge my colleague from Connecticut, who will
occupy the next 45 minutes after we close debate, to join me in a
chorus of urgency to tell the President of the United States, please,
before the election day, sign the bill in a public ceremony, let
Americans know the importance of this issue. After all, if I am not
mistaken, it was his own mother that was stricken by breast cancer.
Too many women are dying in America, and we are sitting here on a
Saturday hearing the story about how the Republicans have failed to
pass landmark legislation. I voted for a patient's bill of rights. I
voted for hate crimes legislation. I voted for a number of things that
I think are bipartisan in nature and important to this country. But if
we are going to hurl adjectives of blame at the other side of the
aisle, we better stand up and be ready to take it; and we better let
our President know that women deserve to be treated better than this.
The Chinese got a signing ceremony on the White House lawn with every
major corporate fat cat in America. And we talk about campaign finance
reform, look at the guest list that came to that even. Were women
included in that event? Yes. But when it comes to women's health, I
guess we should just let it go quietly; let us not make a commotion
about it; let us protect the candidacy or future possibilities of a
woman running for the Senate in New York.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this Chamber to stop arguing, and I urge the
President to sign these bills and let us move on.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I quickly would like to say to my colleague
who just spoke that I too share the gentleman's pain about what is
happening to women with breast cancer or cervical cancer, being a
cancer survivor. But I have a bill in this body, the Breast Cancer
Patient Protection Act. This is a bipartisan bill, with 220 cosponsors,
providing women with 48 hours of coverage in the hospital for a
mastectomy, 24 hours for a lumpectomy, or a shorter time if doctor and
patient decide that that should be the case.
The House leadership, the Republican leadership of this body, would
not bring this bill to the floor. Let us not talk about caring about
women in this institution.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I hope the public is paying close
attention to this debate. I am sorry for using the name of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), but the gentleman is here, and so
I thought I would confront him with this personally because the issue
of illegal immigration means a lot to me and a lot to those people in
California.
In fact, all over the United States people are upset with the fact
that we have had this massive illegal flow of illegal immigrants into
our country. What the President is suggesting is not as the gentleman
suggested earlier. The point is that the gentleman is incorrect, or at
least he has left an incorrect impression when he stated that the
President's blanket amnesty demand on this body had something to do
just with El Salvadorans and making things right.
No. The fact is that what the President is asking for is a blanket
amnesty, an amnesty for millions of people who have been here illegally
since 1986. That is what the President is holding us hostage for. All
this other rhetoric about health care or about whatever issue we are
here on, the surplus or education funds, just keep in mind that the
President is demanding that we have millions of illegal aliens granted
amnesty so they will be eligible for government benefits.
What does that mean? It means draining money that should be going
perhaps to pay down the deficit or perhaps to bolster Social Security,
perhaps to help the education of our own people, to provide health care
for our own people. Instead, the President wants a blanket amnesty for
millions of people, which will drain scarce resources from using it to
help our own people, to using it to help people who have come here
illegally. In so doing, we put out a welcome mat, a shining light above
the door saying, come on in, anybody who can get here, we are going to
give amnesty and all will be able to get all of the resources and money
that should be going to help our own citizens; whether that would be
women who need health care or anybody else who needs health care; or
our young people who need education. Perhaps we could even give a
little bit of
[[Page H11455]]
that money, and I know this does not sit very well on the other side of
the aisle, a modest tax relief for our American people.
Instead, the President wants to grant a blanket amnesty for millions
of illegal immigrants. This is a sin against our own people, and that
is why he is keeping us here. That is the demand.
Let us remember this: the President of the United States vetoed
welfare reform twice. Even though Al Gore is taking credit for welfare
reform and the President takes credit for welfare reform, he vetoed it
twice. What was the issue on which he vetoed it? I know what it was. It
was whether or not noncitizens were going to be eligible for welfare.
That is why the President vetoed that. Now he takes credit for all the
welfare reform that we have had and the wonderful success that it has
been.
Who is loyal to whom? Why are we here? The American people need to
listen very closely.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. One simple
question. The people the President is concerned about have been in this
country for 15 years. If the gentleman does not want these people who
came from the countries they come from to get the same treatment that
prior immigrants got, then the gentleman ought to stand on the floor
and repeal the changes in the law that the gentleman's party helped
push through in order to allow people from Nicaragua and other
countries to get the same treatment the President is now asking for
these people.
Does the gentleman really want to come here and repeal the law for
those folks? If he does not, then he is not for equal justice.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who would like to respond.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this is a blanket amnesty being
proposed by the President for people who came here after the conflict
in Central America was totally over.
The fact is that we are talking about a blanket amnesty. We are not
talking about something to make it fair for certain people in Latin
America. No, we are talking about people who have come here from all
over the world, thumbing their noses at the United States, and the
President wants to give them all the benefits; education, health, all
the money we should be using for our own people would go to providing
those people the benefits.
It even dilutes our vote by having a blanket amnesty. Those millions
of people who come here illegally will end up voting citizens, diluting
even the substance of each American's vote. That is what the issue is.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentleman's
comments are so far from the point that they do not even merit
response.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise how much
time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has 7 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) has 6 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
for a closing statement.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Well, Mr. Speaker, so much for trying to keep this debate low key
this morning. I think both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I
tried to do that; but I do not think we succeeded very well. No harm in
trying.
All I would say in response to what I have heard is that I plead
fully guilty in resisting the idea that American prosperity can only be
expanded by further suppressing worker wages. In my view, when we try
to disallow Davis-Bacon rules, that is what we do.
Now, my colleagues may call that big labor bosses, but I call that
hard-working construction workers in towns like Wausau and Stevens
Point and Superior and Park Falls and Wisconsin Rapids who work
physically a whole lot harder than anybody in this Chamber that I am
looking at right now, whose bodies wear out a whole lot faster than the
bodies of anybody I am looking at right now in this Chamber. Lots of
folks wearing suits, very comfortable on comfortable salaries,
lecturing unions about how they ought to keep their wages down for
their members because they are too inflationary. What a joke. What a
joke.
I also make no apology whatsoever about wanting to be able to hold
HMOs accountable in a court of law if they take actions or require
doctors to take actions that injure patients. The rules, as they stand
now, say that if a doctor in an HMO follows the rules of that HMO, he
can get sued, he can get hung out to dry. But the guy who sets the
rules, the board that sets the rules in the HMO, they cannot be sued
under many, many of those same circumstances. Why should the guy
following the rules get stuck with the lawsuit while the guy who makes
the rules gets off scot-free if somebody's health is damaged or if
their life is ended?
{time} 1030
There are a lot of good HMOs in this country, but everybody ought to
be held accountable in a court of law when it is required for the sake
of elemental justice. That does not have a whole lot to do with the
continuing resolution because most of the remarks I have heard on those
subjects did not have anything to do with the continuing resolution.
But I did want to make clear those two points.
I am unapologetic when it comes to supporting higher wages for
workers, higher COLAs for seniors and health coverage for workers with
repetitive motion injury. I think that government needs to be a big
enough umpire to get between Mike Piazza and Roger Clemens in the
economy. And the problem is that in the economy, workers usually are
not as big and as powerful as the institutions they are up against. We
are supposed to be here to help make certain that government is an
umpire with enough powers to at least provide an even playing field for
those workers. If you want to oppose the Labor-H bill and hold up the
Labor-H bill because of our concern on issues like that, be my guest.
That again says more about you than it does about us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Michigan is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BONIOR. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, people are all over the country, if they are up on a
Saturday morning and not doing their chores, are watching us here, some
of them, anyway, on C-SPAN and asking themselves, well, why are you
meeting on a Saturday morning? I would like to offer a brief
explanation.
We are here because instead of addressing the issues and the real
needs of American families, reducing school class size, making
prescription drugs available and affordable through Medicare, passing a
strong Patients' Bill of Rights, the Republican majority instead made a
conscious decision not to do these things. They have not done the work
of functioning and making the government work by passing the
appropriate money bills. We are almost a month past the deadline for
having done that. Instead of behaving as legislators, they have opted
to become unlegislators. As the Washington Post put it, instead of
being a Congress, this has been an un-Congress, a body that ``for 2
years has mainly pretended to deal with issues it has systematically
avoided.''
That is why today we are faced with the need to pass the eighth
stopgap measure just to keep the government from shutting down. This is
not to say the Republican majority has not had any priorities. Just ask
their friends at the HMOs. The Republican leadership is trying to give
them a $30 billion subsidy. Never mind that the HMOs have abandoned
literally millions of Americans. Never mind that hospitals and nursing
homes and hospices are getting shortchanged in the process.
Then again what do you expect? The HMOs did give almost $5 million to
the Republicans in just the first half of this year alone in campaign
contributions.
[[Page H11456]]
Let me remind my colleagues something else from an editorial that
appeared today in the morning's Baltimore Sun, and I quote:
``Whatever happened to the fine art of compromise? It seems to have
vanished from the lexicon of Republicans on Capitol Hill. The result is
more gridlock in Washington, as Republicans try to force their
political agenda down President Clinton's throat.'' The Baltimore Sun.
The editorial continues: ``There's room for compromise, but GOP hard-
liners won't budge.''
It has been said that, in a democracy, people get the kind of
government they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, we deserve much better.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I listened carefully to my friend's statement that was just made on
the floor as to why we are here, and he mentioned a number of
continuing resolutions. Well, the reason we are here today, Saturday,
and the reason that we have an excessive number of continuing
resolutions is simply because the President of the United States would
only permit us to do one continuing resolution for one day at a time.
Had he been a little more reasonable, we could have done a continuing
resolution until Monday night or Tuesday night and then the
appropriators who are involved in the negotiations with the White House
could have had the weekend undisturbed to do those negotiations rather
than spending all of our time here on the floor Saturday and probably
tomorrow, Sunday. That is why we are here today.
Are there differences? Of course there are differences. That is why
we have the two different parties involved. There are major
philosophical differences between the two parties. If there were not
differences, we would probably only have one party, or no party. But
compromise, when we have a very evenly divided House, a very evenly
divided Senate both controlled by one party and the White House, the
President of another party, is essential.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have spent a lot of
time together. In fact, I think our families are keeping score and have
decided that he and I are spending more time with each other than we
are at home with our families. But that is okay. That is what we were
hired to do. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the
willingness that he shows to compromise as we approach these difficult
issues.
One of the big problems here is, though, that, as I have said before,
there are three parties involved. There is the House of
Representatives, there is the Senate, and there is the President of the
United States. Now, sometime we run into these negotiations with the
President, and we find that compromise is compromise only if it is his
way. Compromise means everybody gives a little, everybody gets a little
and you try to come to a conclusion. In some cases the President has
done this, but in other cases he has been stonewalling, and compromise
is either his way or no way. In my opinion, that is not true
compromise. That is not true negotiation. But, nevertheless, after we
finish our work here on the floor today, the gentleman from Wisconsin
and I are going to continue working with our counterparts in an attempt
to reach the compromise on this one remaining appropriations bill where
the appropriations issues have basically been decided. It is items that
have nothing to do with appropriations that are holding up the
compromise on that particular bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 646, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 339,
nays 7, not voting 86, as follows:
[Roll No. 571]
YEAS--339
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--7
Baird
Capuano
DeFazio
Dingell
Ford
Miller, George
Stupak
NOT VOTING--86
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Barr
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Calvert
Campbell
Clay
Clyburn
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Danner
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Duncan
Dunn
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
[[Page H11457]]
Franks (NJ)
Ganske
Gillmor
Gordon
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hulshof
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
King (NY)
Klink
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Lipinski
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Morella
Neal
Owens
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Porter
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Spratt
Stark
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weygand
Wise
Wynn
{time} 1057
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
 Share this page | Bookmark this page | Print this page |  Add to del.icio.us
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995-2008 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM |