|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
The leading Copyright |
< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily <Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly
[Congressional Record: October 30, 2000 (House)]
[Page H11538-H11545]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr30oc00-63]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS 121, 122, 123,
AND 124, EACH MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2001
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 662 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 662
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 121)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) making
further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001, and
for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered
as read for amendment. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 123) making
[[Page H11539]]
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. Linder. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley)
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 662 is a closed rule providing for
consideration of House Joint Resolutions 121, 122, 123 and 124. Each of
these joint resolutions make further continuing appropriations for
fiscal year 2001 for a period of 1 day. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 662
provides for 1 hour of debate on each joint resolution, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order
against the consideration of these joint resolutions. Finally, the rule
provides one motion to recommit on each joint resolution, as is the
right of the minority. This rule was favorably reported by the
Committee on Rules yesterday, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time....
[[Page H11541]]
....
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in case the American people are having
difficulty understanding the argument of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), as most of us over here are having difficulty, because it
does come down to us, we believe, the President asking for more money;
and we are trying to keep control of the budget.
But if we cannot understand that, they should be able to understand
one of the other issues, the major issue of contention between the
Republicans and the other side of the aisle and the Clinton-Gore
administration; and that is the Clinton-Gore administration is
demanding that we stay here, and they are holding us hostage with the
demand that we give a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal
immigrants.
Now, the American people should be able to understand that. All of
this budget talk, if one cannot understand what is going on there, one
should be able to understand that this administration, the Clinton-Gore
administration, the other side of the aisle, want us, and we are
refusing, to grant a
[[Page H11542]]
blanket amnesty so that millions of more illegal immigrants will,
number one, be granted amnesty and eventually be eligible for
government programs, which means millions of illegal immigrants who are
now not eligible will be eligible for health care benefits, for
education benefits.
Here we are trying to give a modest, just a modest bit of tax relief
to the American people, and that is outrageous; but it is not
outrageous to bring millions of more illegal immigrants into this
country and make them eligible for government benefits. Give me a
break. Give the American people a break.
No, I am proud to stand here with the Republicans saying, no, we are
going to watch out for the American people. We care about others. We
care about our immigrant population. In fact, legal immigrants are some
of our proudest citizens. We are happy to have them here as legal
immigrants. But to have millions of illegal immigrants be granted
amnesty is thumbing their noses at legal immigration and at the
American people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I understand what he is saying. He made a very
important point. He is asking for reason and balance; and that is, to
respond to the needs of rural and urban hospitals and not give to HMOs
the $34 billion that our Republican colleagues want to give to
insurance companies, and not allow some of those dollars to be utilized
to pay health care providers and hospitals.
Secondarily, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my good
friend who just spoke, has also a misunderstanding what those of us are
trying to do with respect to legal immigration or access to
legalization.
Mr. Speaker, I serve as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims on the Committee on Judiciary; and I am sorry to
say it is not a million people coming into this country, it is
thousands of homeowners and taxpayers who have lived in this country
for almost 20 years. In fact, the National Restaurant Association is
begging us to be responsible to hard-working members of their community
who have worked in their restaurants.
This is a question with the INS. We all know the status of the INS,
it made a great error and did not allow these individuals to proceed to
apply for citizenship. It is not giving them blanket amnesty; it is
allowing them to apply for citizenship.
Interestingly enough, when many of us voted in 1996 for what we
thought was a fair immigration policy in the dark of night, Republicans
took away the court proceedings that were proceeding in a very orderly
manner, sponsored by the Catholic Dioses, that would allow individuals
to go into the courtrooms and proceed in the process of securing their
citizenship. That was stopped in the dark of night in 1996.
So what we are standing here for is to ensure that those who are
trying to seek legalization, access to legalization fairly and
honestly, citizens in Nevada, citizens in Rhode Island, in New York, in
Michigan, in California, in Texas, who are already here, whose children
are going to school, they want to be able to access legalization.
In fact, in my good city of Houston, a poor man by the name of Mr.
Gonzalez, working 13 years, is about to be deported and his family left
abandoned because he cannot have access to legalization.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for raising this, because this is one of the great
shames and scandals of our country.
These people which the gentlewoman speaks of are the people who do
the work of this country. We could not be building the roads; we could
not be feeding the people of this country. They have been here for 15
and 20 years, and they live in fear every day because of their status.
They make this country work.
It just is an absolute outrage that we have to deal with this issue
in a way that is not responsible to them and to the future of this
country. The gentlewoman from Texas is absolutely right. We ought to do
something about this. These are the people that take care of our
children, our grandparents, our roads, our buildings. They collect our
garbage. They do a lot of things.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip, for his eloquence on his
issue, because I hate the undercurrent that I am hearing in this body.
That is that the reason why we are here and the reason why we are stuck
in the mud besides the issues on health care and this tax cut is
because we do not want this millions of illegals to come into this
country.
Mr. Speaker, they are here, and they are not millions, they are
thousands of hard-working individuals who love this country, who love
their families, and who came here out of persecution, and we opened the
doors.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that we need to work on this issue.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my good friend, who I would be delighted
to yield to when I finish my point, and maybe he can get some time from
his side, because I know his heart is good.
Mr. Speaker, I simply say we need to get down to dealing with hard-
working individuals and stop this undercurrent of bias that I am
hearing. It hurts my heart.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, every time we talk about illegal
immigration, we talk about racial bias. I have about had it. There are
immigration laws. If they are in the country illegally, we should throw
them out.
We are putting up a neon sign blinking all over the world, come on
and run in, run in illegally, and we will make one a citizen, and then
we will let one bring one's family. Beam me up here.
I disagree with this illegal immigration. If they want to come into
America, damn it, get in line. There are laws. Follow the law. When
Congress starts letting people jump the fence and get away with it and
then use it for political gain, Congress has failed the American
people, and Congress has shredded the Constitution.
I want to say one last thing. Several days ago, 10 Mexican narco-
terrorists crossed the border and started shooting at our border
patrol. They needed a helicopter to come in and provide air coverage.
We are guarding the borders all over the world. We are flooded with
heroin and cocaine. And my colleagues are here wanting to make more
illegal immigrants citizens.
I am not for making one more illegal immigrant a citizen. There is no
bias in my heart. I am tired of the charge that is being placed against
us.
If they want to come into America, get in line like many Americans
did legally. If they are not in this country legally, Jim Traficant
says they should be thrown out, and the Congress of the United States
should not have a flashing sign saying jump the fence.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, more than my colleagues
think. There is a lot of political ramifications that are not very good
for the country. With that, I would hope the Democrat party would take
a look at the issue a little more carefully...
.... {time} 1145
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I will not take the 2 minutes, but I wanted to correct
something.
The impression has been left here that these people are illegal; that
they have come here and not followed the rules. The fact of the matter
is that many of them have come here as a result of persecution in their
countries. They have been in line. They are waiting for documentation.
It is not the case of them sneaking across the border and cutting in
front of other people. These are people who have been here, have been
accepted here, are waiting in line and not getting their documentation
processed.
I might also add for my colleagues that it is very ironic that we
could come here and do on a voice vote 193,000 people, allow them into
this country, high-tech people, when no one was around here, and then
these folks who have been here for as much as 14 years cannot get the
satisfaction of knowing that the taxes they have been paying for 14
years and the work they have been providing to this country is being
ignored.
It is an outright scandal and it is a shame. But they happen to be
nonhigh-tech people. They are people who do the work of the country.
They do our garbage, they do our roads, our schools, they take care of
our kids, they do our wash, they do the stuff in the restaurants, cook
our food. They deserve to be here.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. The only thing I wanted to offer to this debate is the fact
that all of us in this Nation, all of us, no matter how we look and
what language we might have started out with, have come from somewhere
and have sought opportunity.
I do not know how I came legally. I was not able to come here
legally, as I understand it. My colleagues may question my history, but
I know my history. I came in another manner.
So I would simply say that anyone who wants to challenge these
individuals needs to look at their own personal history. This is a
terrible shame what we are doing in this Congress.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate what the gentleman
from Texas has already said, and certainly part of this disagreement is
about the immigrants; but the major disagreement we have is that the
Republicans have chosen to raise their own budget caps and spend that
money by giving it as a wonderful trick or treat present to the HMOs.
They have chosen to deny the relief that our hospitals and nursing
homes need. They have chosen to deny prescription drug benefits for our
seniors. They have chosen to deny estate tax and marriage tax relief to
our citizens.
These people cannot wait. This money should not go to the insurance
companies, it should not be wasted by giving it to the HMOs. It should
be used to provide a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, to keep
our hospitals and nursing homes in business, to provide the services we
need, to provide estate tax and marriage tax relief to our citizens.
We should not have to wait another 1 year or 2 years or 4 years to
see this benefit granted to the American people. It is time for this
Congress to do its work that we should have done a long time ago.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) to instruct the gentleman from Arkansas what
was actually in that bill he voted on.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, some of us are sitting here somewhat
confused. We have been listening carefully to the debate and hearing,
for example, that these folks are legal but they are in fear of their
status; that in fact we have chosen to give $34 billion to the HMOs.
If anyone bothered to check the entire cost of this bill, which is
money for the hospitals, Medicare+Choice, home health, preventive care,
on and on and on, the entire package, according to CBO, scores at $31.5
billion over 5 years. Now, I know there has been a discussion on the
Presidential trail about fuzzy math; but to be able to stand up last
night and today and to continue to repeat that there is $34 billion for
managed care in this bill is to simply ignore the fact that the entire
package is $31.5 billion...
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I too am dismayed at the tone this debate
has taken with respect to immigration, and I am saddened and ashamed
about it.
All of us think we should enforce the immigration laws; but the
immigration laws have worked to damage a segment of our society, hard-
working Americans with families who work hard and pay taxes every day,
people who have been here since before 1986, paying taxes and raising
families, and the law needs to be made equitable for those people.
Last year, in Denver, we had a lady who, because she was afraid she
would be ejected from this country permanently under the immigration
laws,
[[Page H11544]]
left this country. She left this country and she left her newborn
child, who is an American citizen, in the arms of her husband, who is
also an American citizen, because she was afraid that she would never
be able to come back if she did not leave and reapply.
That is not only an inequity, it is a terrible human tragedy, and
that is what we are trying to do. We are not trying to open the borders
to everybody. We are not trying to let criminals in here. We are trying
to protect the rights of hard-working Americans who are decent citizens
and who pay taxes. That is what we are trying to do.
I think we should stop all of this terrible slurring on the race and
everything else, and we ought to get down to what this is all about.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, none of us is happy being here today on this resolution.
I believe it is fair to say that both sides would rather be home
talking to our constituents about the future. And as long as I can
remember, there have been continuing resolutions passed for several
days at a time so that only the negotiators were kept here finishing
the job. As I recall, one year during the Reagan administration,
agreement was never reached, and the entire next fiscal year was
conducted under a continuing resolution that President Reagan signed.
Yet we are here today forced to pass a series of continuing
resolutions because we have a President who has been reluctant to leave
the stage with grace and dignity. In order to have his way, he is
willing to threaten to shut down the government unless we agree to this
nonsense. He is willing to shut down the government unless we agree
with him on his priorities in the budget. And he is willing to put
everyone else at risk, both parties included, unless he gets his way.
Does the world not see what is going on here? My guess is that they
do not because they view the world through the eyes of an uncritical
press. In 1995, the President vetoed a continuing resolution because it
contained a ``legislative rider,'' his words, in an appropriations
bill. Today, he is holding an entire Congress, Democrats and
Republicans alike, hostage because we are unwilling to approve his
``legislative rider'' in an appropriation bill. Is he likely to
succeed? Perhaps. Because we have an uncritical press that will not
tell that story.
The American people might be interested in one rider he insists upon.
We have heard it talked about today. The President is insisting on a
rider that will grant total amnesty to as many as a million immigrants
who came to the Nation illegally. Now, to be sure, we are a Nation of
immigrants. We welcome those who come to our shores and use the legal
process to become Americans. But the President wants to put those who
ignore our laws ahead of those who are law abiding. But we will never
hear this from the press.
We have been here daily since the President issued his edict that he
would not sign any continuing resolution that was longer than 24 hours.
I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I have never seen two more
dedicated workers for the cause of getting the people's work
accomplished. They have been here day and night to complete the task.
I confess they differ in their views as to the right solution for the
final sticking points; but unlike the President, they are here working.
They were prepared to meet even on that evening last week when the
President and his Chief of Staff were attending the World Series, and
the next day, when the President found it more important to get in a
round of golf. And over the past weekend, when the President was
campaigning for his side, oh, yes, we have been ready to meet and solve
this. But the President has not been here, and an uncritical press will
not point that out.
In fact, the President plans a trip to California this week to
campaign. We will pass one of these 1-day continuing resolutions, and a
military jet will be dispatched to take it to the President for his
signature. But that cost of thousands of dollars will not be billed to
his party or the people he was campaigning for. The taxpayer will foot
the bill. But an uncritical press will not burden the public with that
fact.
We are here and will be here until the President returns to town to
sit down and negotiate. We do not expect every decision to go our way,
but neither should the President.
{time} 1200
But absent the critical press, we will never know.
So we are left to stand here on this 30th day of October. We will
pass this series of 24-hour continuing resolutions. We will wonder when
the President plans to return from the campaign. We will get the job
done for the American people. And we will look back to the old days
when Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan and
Bush understood that their day had passed and they left the stage with
grace and dignity and we will long for that time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). 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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 286,
nays 73, not voting 73, as follows:
[Roll No. 580]
YEAS--286
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Pallone
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
[[Page H11545]]
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--73
Andrews
Baird
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bonior
Boswell
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
DeGette
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Holt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kildee
Lampson
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sandlin
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--73
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Barr
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Cardin
Conyers
Cooksey
Crane
Crowley
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dickey
Everett
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Goodlatte
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
King (NY)
Klink
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Lipinski
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
Metcalf
Neal
Oxley
Pascrell
Pickett
Radanovich
Riley
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Talent
Thompson (MS)
Turner
Visclosky
Walden
Watkins
Weygand
Wise
{time} 1221
Mr. WAXMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. GORDON and Mr. KUCINICH changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 580, I was unable to vote.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 296,
noes 64, not voting 72, as follows:
[Roll No. 581]
AYES--296
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
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
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Packard
Paul
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--64
Baird
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bonior
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Davis (FL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Filner
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Holt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kildee
Kucinich
Lampson
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pelosi
Phelps
Rangel
Rodriguez
Sisisky
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--72
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Barr
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Cardin
Conyers
Cooksey
Crane
Crowley
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dickey
Everett
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Goodlatte
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
King (NY)
Klink
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Lipinski
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
Metcalf
Neal
Oxley
Pascrell
Pickett
Radanovich
Riley
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Turner
Watkins
Weygand
Wise
{time} 1231
Mr. OLVER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 581, I was unable to vote.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
 Follow @ilwcom Share this page | Bookmark this page The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM |