[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H206-H216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SESSIONS). Pursuant to House Resolution 
42 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 54.

                              {time}  1043


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 54) to amend title 31, United States Code, to provide reasonable 
standards for congressional gold medals, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold Medal 
Enhancement Act of 2005, authored by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle), and urge its immediate passage. The legislation is a 
commonsense effort to maintain the prestige of this award.

                              {time}  1045

  As the Members know, the gold medal is the highest civilian honor 
bestowed by Congress. It has been awarded to a long and distinguished 
line of individuals who have made significant contributions to this 
country, beginning with General George Washington even before the 
Declaration of Independence. Recipients have included civil rights 
leaders, cultural icons and leaders in science.
  But a disturbing trend has emerged since the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) sensibly reformed the commemorative coin program a decade 
ago. Until that point, Congress approved the awarding of only a few, 
usually one or two, gold medals each Congress, but approved as many as 
a dozen commemorative coin programs, often at great cost to taxpayers. 
Chairman Castle's reforms eliminated the cost to the taxpayers, 
restoring the dignity to the commemorative coin program. He also 
instituted a requirement that two-thirds of the House should sponsor 
legislation for either commemorative coins or gold medals before 
consideration could take place so that support would be broad and 
bipartisan.
  Those reforms have been successful, but denied the opportunity to 
enact numerous commemorative coin programs, Congress increasingly has 
turned to the gold medal program, and we now find ourselves in a 
situation of having fewer honorees for commemorative coins than we do 
from gold medals. During the last Congress, only three commemorative 
coins were struck, and we approved five medal programs honoring seven 
individuals. By comparison, in the first 123 years of the gold medal, 
only 45 people were so honored.
  Mr. Chairman, all medal honorees to date have been good choices and 
well deserving of the honor. However, we could be faced with a 
quandary: Either approve a medal for an individual who has had some 
accomplishment, but probably is not at the same level as a General 
Washington or a Jonas Salk, or else decline to approve the legislation.
  We should not let ourselves get into that situation, Mr. Chairman. 
Chairman Castle's common-sense limit of two gold medals a year, and 
limiting the recipients to individuals rather than groups, maintains 
the prestige and honor of receiving a Congressional Gold Medal. 
Combined with the requirement of a minimum cosponsorship level of two-
thirds of the House is the best way to preserve the integrity of the 
gold medal.
  At the appropriate time, I will offer a manager's amendment that 
seeks to change the effective date of this legislation from December 31 
of this year to immediately upon enactment so that the rules for 
awarding medals would remain the same throughout this Congress and not 
change midsession.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge immediate passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my disappointment that this 
legislation is not being offered under an open rule. In fact, the 
chairman of the full Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who holds jurisdiction over this legislation, 
even requested during his Committee on Rules testimony last night a 
more open process for debate on this bill, and I thank the chairman for 
those comments.
  I would also like to take a moment to specifically thank and welcome 
our new Committee on Rules ranking member, my friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who will serve as a true and 
tireless fighter for Democrats and our rights in the minority on the 
Committee on Rules over the next 2 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 54, the 
Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005, while introduced in 
the previous Congress, was never debated in committee because no 
hearings were convened, and no markup was held. And given that the 
Committee on Financial Services has yet to even hold its organizational 
meeting for the 109th Congress, the committee has obviously not yet had 
an opportunity to consider this issue carefully. In my view, we are 
rushing to act on an issue that does not represent a problem.
  Having said that, Democrats are open to debating and voting on this 
legislation. In the last several Congresses, Congressional Gold Medals 
have been considered in the House under a well-established and a 
bipartisan process that works well. Regular order for consideration of 
gold medals involves the need, under the rules of the Committee on 
Financial Services, to gain the cosponsorship of two-thirds of the 
House before the legislation is considered in committee, a full two-
thirds sponsorship of the House before it is considered in committee.
  The bar for consideration for gold medals is set relatively high for 
a reason: Gaining a two-thirds cosponsorship ensures that a solid 
bipartisan majority of the House is in full support of honoring a 
particularly noteworthy individual or individuals.
  Under the rule today, I plan to offer two amendments. The first 
amendment would raise the number of gold medals from two per calendar 
year to six per Congress, or an overall increase of two medals per 
Congress. This is especially key, as in the 108th Congress we awarded 
five Congressional Gold Medals. They went to Tony Blair, the Prime 
Minister of Great Britain; Dr. Dorothy Height, president of the 
National Council of Negro Women; Jackie Robinson, the first black 
player in Major League Baseball; the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, 
posthumously, and his widow Coretta Scott King, the civil rights icons; 
and the posthumous awarding to Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and 
Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson, the leaders in our Nation's efforts to 
desegregate public

[[Page H207]]

schools that led directly to the case Brown et al. v. The Board of 
Education of Topeka.
  My second amendment would provide for equitable distribution of gold 
medals between the majority and the minority.
  My amendments seek to maintain the spirit and process of 
bipartisanship that has characterized the House's consideration of gold 
medals, the highest honor that this Congress can bestow on an 
individual or group of individuals. It is my hope that the House will 
adopt these amendments to make this bill a better bill.
  Stating that, though, I am dismayed that the Committee on Rules 
refused to allow consideration of a key amendment that would strike a 
section of the bill that only permits the granting of Congressional 
Gold Medals to individuals. While I tend to agree with the notion that 
distributing what is an exceptional honor to too many individuals could 
devalue the symbolic worth of a gold medal, there are occasions when 
more than one person is justified to receive the medal for their 
honorable actions in tandem with others.
  In the last Congress, we enacted into law legislation awarding the 
Congressional Gold Medal posthumously, as I mentioned before, to 
Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson in 
recognition of their contributions to the Nation as pioneers in the 
effort to desegregate public schools that led directly to the landmark 
desegregation case of Brown v. The Board of Ed.
  In previous Congresses, the House has awarded gold medals to other 
groups, such as Native American Code Talkers, who were critical to the 
safety of allied communications during World War II; to the Little Rock 
Nine, the civil rights pioneers who led to the integration of our 
public schools; and to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, in honor of their 
contribution to our country.
  I fear that limiting gold medals to only individuals would also limit 
certain people from consideration who are most deserving of receiving 
one of our Nation's highest honors.
  For example, my good friend and Republican colleague, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. King) offered an amendment in the previous Congress, 
which the House passed, to honor the officers, emergency workers, and 
other employees of the Federal Government and any State or local 
government, including any interstate governmental entity, who responded 
to the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and who 
perished in that attack on September 11 with a Congressional Gold 
Medal. This would not be possible if this bill passed. And I would hope 
that my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), will oppose 
this bill, because if it were to pass, it would put an end to any 
opportunity to present the Congressional Gold Medal to any of those 
heroes.
  Again, while I urge my colleagues to support my two amendments that 
were made in order, I am dismayed that this third amendment was not 
made in order. If this bill were already law, Congress would not have 
been able to issue the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Little Rock 
Nine or to the Reagans. I feel this is a serious oversight in the base 
of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) 
for his support of the legislation as well as his managing of it here 
today, and his general goodwill for all people in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold 
Medal Enhancement Act of 2005, and I do urge its immediate adoption 
after consideration of the amendments today.
  Congress created the Congress Gold Medal honor in 1776 to recognize 
military leaders, and awarded the first medal to George Washington for 
his heroic service in the Revolutionary War, as the chairman indicated 
earlier. Since then, the gold medal has evolved to become the highest 
civilian honor Congress confers to express gratitude for distinguished 
service, to dramatize the virtues of patriotism, and to perpetuate the 
remembrance of a great event. The legislation we consider today seeks 
to maintain the prestige of the medal by limiting the number that may 
be awarded in any given year.
  To understand the need for such legislation, a little history of the 
medal is in order. As I mentioned, the first Congressional Gold Medal 
was struck in 1776, in Paris, for America had no appropriate facilities 
at that point, at the behest of the Continental Congress, which had not 
yet declared independence from Great Britain. The recipient was General 
George Washington, and the act that inspired the medal was his 
leadership of the Continental Army in driving the British from Boston.
  In the next dozen years, Congress awarded six more gold medals to 
individuals for heroic action in the Revolutionary War. That is an 
average of one medal every Congress. By comparison, in the 108th 
Congress we authorized five medal programs honoring seven individuals 
and one couple. In the 106th Congress we authorized seven medal 
programs, but because of multiple recipients, the number of medals 
totaled more than 300.
  Mr. Chairman, all of those medals were deserved, and I supported 
their authorization. My concern, and a concern shared by many Members, 
is that the luster and the importance and the meaning of a 
Congressional Gold Medal will be tarnished if we do not limit the 
number we award. Reversing this trend will protect the medal's 
prestige.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple piece of legislation with great 
meaning. It will ensure the future integrity and true honor of the 
award. It is my goal that each recipient, President, civil rights 
leader, military hero, inventor, or noted healer, who receives the 
Congressional Gold Medal will remain part of a unique honor bestowed by 
the United States Congress.
  As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, we had a similar problem a decade 
ago with commemorative coins. While commemorative coins are not as 
prestigious as Congressional Gold Medals, both are used to recognize 
moments in history. These coins have also helped raise money through 
surcharges for a worthy cause. A decade ago, the commemorative coin 
program had gotten out of control, with many coin programs approved 
each year, and many of the programs costing taxpayers money. One 
blatant example is the 1996 Olympics coin program that the GAO 
estimates cost taxpayers $26 million.
  In response, Mr. Chairman, I authored and Congress approved the 
Commemorative Reform Coin Act. Now coin programs are limited to two a 
year and demand full cost recovery for taxpayers before any surcharges 
are paid. Additionally, before Congress can consider a coin or medal 
program, two-thirds of the House, 290 Members, must cosponsor the 
legislation to demonstrate broad bipartisan support. And having done 
that, I can tell you it takes broad bipartisan support to get the 290 
Members.
  I believe that the reforms to the commemorative coin program have 
been extraordinarily successful. Since these reforms were enacted in 
the 104th Congress, commemorative coins have not cost the taxpayers a 
dime. Instead, the programs have raised millions for worthy causes, 
provided valuable collections, and, importantly, restored prestige to 
commemorative coins.
  But something disturbing happened when we reformed the commemorative 
coin program. The number of Congressional Gold Medals saw a dramatic 
increase. From 1776, when Congress created the medal, to 1904, Congress 
approved 47 medals. In the last 100 years, Congress awarded 86 medals, 
including 20 in the past decade, since the commemorative coin reforms. 
And this number jumped even higher, over 300, when including multiple 
recipients for each medal.
  Mr. Chairman, over the years, Congressional Gold Medals have gone to 
the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, 
Mother Teresa, Elie Wiesel, Pope John Paul II, British Prime Ministers 
Winston Churchill and Tony Blair, Jonas Salk, John Wayne, and Robert F. 
Kennedy, among others. Reading the list of all the medal recipients and 
the deeds that earned the medal is quite inspiring. To maintain these 
medals as the highest of honors, the legislation before us would limit 
the number of medals that may be awarded to two a year, and clarify 
that recipients are individuals and not groups.

[[Page H208]]

  I understand there is concern by the minority that one bill per year 
should be designated for each party.

                              {time}  1100

  I feel it is important to note that proposals in the past have been 
sponsored in about equal numbers by Republicans and Democrats, and I do 
not really recall any discussion of the recipients' or the sponsors' 
party affiliations. In my view, any such discussion would be 
inappropriate, as these awards should be awarded in true bipartisan 
fashion.
  In practice, however, not through statute, the Committee on Financial 
Services requires a two-thirds cosponsorship before considering 
proposals to award medals, a practice that the Senate has now adopted. 
I believe by the adoption of these simple changes, we can preserve the 
prestige and the integrity of the Congressional Gold Medal Program, 
something I believe all Members support.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in maintaining the integrity of 
the Congressional Gold Medal by supporting this measure. I urge 
immediate and unanimous passage of H.R. 54 with no amendments but the 
manager's amendment.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 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. Chairman, the angst that I have with 
H.R. 54 does not speak to the eloquence that we have heard on the floor 
about our commitment to honoring our heroes and sheroes. Let me make it 
perfectly clear, despite all of the accolades that we have spoken 
today, if this legislation were in place, President Reagan and Mrs. 
Reagan would not receive the Congressional Gold Medal; neither would 
Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott King; neither would the Indian Code 
Talkers who helped save thousands of lives in World War II. I think 
that is the crux of this debate, not whether or not we have 
restrictions or nonrestrictions because I believe it is a given that 
the Committee on Financial Services has done a commendable job in its 
oversight.
  As I look back on the numbers in the last four Congresses, how 
interesting it is and the good sense of the Crowley amendment because 
those that have been passed by this body only equal to five or six 
credible, rational and reasonable reasoning for awarding, for example, 
those who were intimately involved in Brown v. Board of Education that 
changed the lives of millions of Americans and today even is a standard 
for equal education in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I am confused by the necessity of this legislation and 
why we would not be able to enthusiastically support the very precise, 
as I said previously, and thoughtful amendments by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley), particularly those dealing with the idea of the 
number of gold medals, increasing them to six per Congress. That is 2 
years, that means three and three possibly, or however it is broken 
down, and then the fairness of equal distribution between Republicans 
and Democrats, all of us, of course, being Americans.
  What is to argue the case or why would we argue the case that there 
were those who contributed together who are not worthy. I do not take 
this as any kind of personal act by my Republican friends, but I do 
think it is a misstep in judgment and that we would have benefited from 
a more bipartisan overview, review of this legislation. For example, we 
would not have been able to honor, as some Americans perceive as very 
important, Ruth and Billy Graham.
  So this narrow or narrowing or this interpretation of one hero when 
there may be an adequate partnering that may be important that would 
symbolize the greatness and goodness of America puzzles me and, in 
fact, disturbs me. Frankly, the civil rights movement was a group 
effort and it might be likely that one would want to honor the group of 
civil rights activists, the unknown, the unsung heroes that we are able 
to bring to the attention of the United States Congress. How many 
really knew Harry and Eliza Briggs? How many knew Levi Pearson? But 
once we debated and found out the facts, we knew that they were in fact 
heroes and sheroes. I think we do ourselves an enormous disservice by 
coming down hard-handed on who has given so much for America.
  And then I would say why start with divisive legislation. Yes, there 
are only a few of us on the floor of the House, but we obviously are 
not able to speak for all of those unsung heroes yet to be brought to 
the attention of this House. All of us come in our course of life to 
meet people in our districts and around the country where we claim that 
we want to bring them to the attention of the American people not 
frivolously; but after we have looked at the history, we know they are 
truly worthy of a Congressional Gold Medal.
  So why we need this restrictive law that has not already been 
satisfied by the oversight of a bipartisan Committee on Financial 
Services and the requirement, Mr. Chairman, the requirement of over 290 
signatures, and most of these received close to 400. And that is the 
test, whether your colleagues will support you.
  Mr. Chairman, in support of the gentleman's two amendments, I am 
querying as to the amendment offered which would really balance this 
legislation which would speak to protect President Reagan and Dr. and 
Mrs. Billy Graham and others who came together.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, an amendment was offered yesterday evening 
before the Committee on Rules that would have asked groups as well as 
individuals. We struck a portion of the language dealing with limiting 
this only to individuals. I would have asked, if that amendment had 
passed, would have enlarged the pool to groups as well. That was not 
passed in the Committee on Rules, and therefore we are here today 
working a bill that does not have that provision in it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership and simply say that is the spirit of bipartisanship. That 
would have been reflective of Members having an opportunity in their 
wisdom to present their case before the United States Congress and the 
Committee on Financial Services. That would have been fairness to the 
unsung heroes. That would have been in respect to President and Mrs. 
Reagan, Dr. King and Mrs. King, Dr. Graham and Mrs. Graham, as well as 
many others.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this legislation, allow us to 
work in a bipartisan manner and do not take away from those as yet 
unrecognized the honor of a Congressional Gold Medal.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before the Committee 
of the Whole because it is unreasonably restrictive. Its passage will 
result in the preclusion of our ability to pay tribute to Americans in 
the most respectful manner.
  The central amendment that would have made this legislation palatable 
at the very least and not so disrespectful to the heroes that we strive 
to honor with the congressional gold medal has been effectively blocked 
by partisan stubbornness. If the import of this legislation is good, 
why not allow the representatives of this august body to openly debate 
it before the American people? Are we so ashamed of its true 
legislative intent that we feel the need to hide behind obstructionist 
rules? I say that legislation with bona fide purpose should have 
nothing to fear--at the very least should it fear honest and open 
debate.
  The underlying legislation that is before this House seeks to 
``provide reasonable standards for congressional gold medals'' but will 
essentially limit the bestowal of honor to American icons. One of the 
main reasons that the medal is bestowed is to make the highest 
expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and 
contributions. H.R. 54 will summarily restrict this goal and prevent 
many honored heroes from receiving proper recognition.
  Section 2, paragraph (e)(2)(A) of H.R. 54 would limit the striking of 
a congressional gold medal to ``only an individual.'' Such 
``unreasonably'' restrictive legislation would preclude the bestowal of 
this award collectively to the 9 students who ``voluntarily subjected 
themselves to racial bigotry during the integration of Central High 
School in Little Rock, Arkansas, otherwise known as the ``Little Rock 
Nine.''
  Similarly, under this restrictive provision, the Secretary of the 
Treasury cannot lawfully strike a congressional gold medal to honor 
former President Ronald Reagan and his wife

[[Page H209]]

Nancy Reagan in recognition of their services to America or to honor 
former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn Carter. 
Furthermore, H.R. 54 would make it illegal for Congress to cause the 
Secretary to strike a congressional gold medal to honor the monumental 
contributions made to the civil rights movement by Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr. and his widow, Coretta Scott King, or the brave employees and 
others who responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon and perished and to the people aboard United Airlines Flight 
93 who resisted hijackers and caused the plane to crash.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and ask that my colleagues 
join me to defeat it unless the overly restrictive provisions are fixed 
or removed.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In listening to the sponsor in terms of the need for this 
legislation, one could intimate by the introduction that possibly 
medals were given out in a haphazard manner. I mentioned before it 
takes two-thirds of the Members of the House, the entire body, to 
introduce a gold medal for its consideration in the Committee on 
Financial Services, a bar that I believe is a very, very high bar and 
one that is not easily attained.
  I would also point out that limiting this to individuals, and again 
to reiterate, Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King were both 
issued the gold medal. They would not have gotten that medal under this 
legislation. Harry and Eliza Briggs, Levi Pearson, and Reverend Joseph 
Armstrong DeLaine were all issued the medal in one provision. As 
mentioned before, Nancy Reagan, along with President Reagan, would not 
have been eligible. Under the provisions today, they would have to get 
it individually. Betty and Gerald Ford, the Little Rock Nine, and Dr. 
Graham and Ruth Graham would not have received it either. I think 
therein lies a tremendous flaw.
  It also intimates that there may be too many of these gold medals 
given out. Who that received this medal in the past was not worthy of 
it? Was it Dr. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King; was it 
Reverend DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson; was it 
Jackie Robinson; was it Dorothy Height; Tony Blair in the last 
Congress?
  In the 106th Congress was it Nancy Reagan; was it Pope John Paul, II; 
was it Charles Schulz, the great cartoonist? Was it Rosa Parks? Who 
amongst those was not qualified, who do we believe was not deserving of 
this medal. Therein lies the flaw in this bill. It actually limits us 
from giving to those who I believe are most deserving of recognition of 
this gold medal.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by first indicating to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley) that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) as 
well as myself acknowledge that the folks who received the medal in the 
past were most deserving.
  I would point out, in fact, that the medal that was awarded, for 
example, to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, was one medal, and the same thing 
with Dr. King and Coretta Scott King, and Betty and Gerald Ford. 
Couples are treated much differently from a group. I guess perhaps what 
I found in studying this, perhaps the most egregious example of going 
beyond what the initial scope of the medal was was in the 106th 
Congress where we awarded five medal bills, one of them was for the 
Navajo Code Talkers which did not go in regular order. It was attached 
at the last minute to an appropriations bill. It not only covered the 
29 original code talkers but also an additional 275 of those who 
qualified as code talkers.
  I guess, and I do not want to speak for the sponsor of the 
legislation, but I think it points out the need to tighten these 
requirements. That is what the purpose of this legislation is all 
about.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, would it be safe to say under regular 
order if this legislation were passed that the code talkers, under 
regular order, and that was an extraordinary provision made in the 
appropriations process, under regular order would they be eligible to 
receive this medal in the future if this bill were to pass?
  Mr. OXLEY. If the bill were passed, the answer is no, they would not.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is the point I am trying to make. To say that the code talkers, 
and I am not saying the gentleman is suggesting this, but to suggest 
that they did not deserve the ultimate award, even as a group, for what 
they provided to the service of this country during World War II is 
just ridiculous. They certainly deserved as a group. Any one 
individual, no. There were multiple individuals who provided an 
incredible service to us.
  I would also point out that two is not individual. Two individuals 
makes up a group, to my understanding, and that would include Nancy and 
Ronald Reagan. That would include any husband and wife, including Dr. 
King and Coretta Scott King. That would preclude them from getting this 
medal in the future. That is my understanding of the legislation before 
us.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me point out in the case of the Navajo 
Code Talkers, there were other tribes also that had code talkers, not 
just the Navajo. Again, the issue is where do we start and where do we 
finish in this area.
  Again, going back to the history of the medal, and the first 
recipient was George Washington, it was to an individual and was to an 
individual for a very, very long period of time.
  The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out correctly, 
historically the gold medal was given out quite rarely, 45 in 123 
years, to individuals. The change ironically was brought about with the 
change in the Commemorative Coin Program that did in fact move the 
Congress to adopting more gold medals.
  This is an effort to try to get back to where history started us, 
awarding that medal to an individual and awarding it not to a group, no 
matter how small or how large, and that really was the intent of the 
legislation.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the significance of 
this medal, that it is not given out willy-nilly; that, as I mentioned 
before, it takes extraordinary measures to get enough support to get 
this medal passed. I recognize that the first person who received this 
medal was General George Washington, prior to him becoming President of 
the United States, when the country was brand new, when we did not have 
the richness of diversity and of events that have taken place 
throughout the history of our country ever since this first medal was 
given to George Washington; that we have grown as a Nation, in size and 
in stature; and that there have been many events that have occurred 
throughout our history since the striking of the first medal that have 
inured greatly to the advancement of our country that from time to time 
need to be recognized. That is what this medal gives an opportunity to 
do, both to individuals and to groups.
  Certainly General Washington was an incredible individual, someone 
who was deserving of the first medal that was ever produced, and I 
think he accepted that on behalf of all those men and women who fought 
for independence from Great Britain back during the War of 
Independence. But certainly we have grown in size, both in States, from 
Thirteen Colonies and States to 50 States, and the number of people in 
this country have grown incredibly since the founding of this Nation, 
and the events that have occurred throughout our history has certainly 
changed the shape of the distribution of this medal as well. I think 
that needs to be recognized and taken into consideration.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to my friend from Delaware, the sponsor of the 
legislation.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, not to prolong the discussion, because I think the 
gentleman from New York is making some very valid points that should be 
debated, one of them which is an amendment which is not included here 
today, and

[[Page H210]]

that is the issue of the groups. We have checked the history of this. 
To the best of my knowledge, and the gentleman may have some different 
evidence, I do not think it is different because it is fairly clear who 
has received these medals, it has always been individuals historically. 
It was never couples. That is only something that has happened in the 
more recent couple of decades, perhaps a couple of times. As far as the 
groups are concerned, there have only been three altogether.
  Certainly I am not suggesting any of them are not deserving, for 
goodness sake. They all are. The Navajo Code Talkers clearly are 
deserving. That obviously created some problems because of the volume 
of the medals, and it was done in sort of an unusual procedure. The Red 
Cross is another very deserving, and so are the veterans of the Civil 
War, which is the other group we found, although that was done much 
after the Civil War. There are all kinds of groups out there.
  The Congressional Gold Medal of Honor has always been bestowed upon 
an individual in a very special ceremony to honor that individual. It 
is not easy to get done. I do not know if the gentleman has done it. As 
I said before, I did it. It is difficult to get 290 signatures on 
anything around here. So it is difficult to get done. So obviously it 
is going to be somebody who is deserving. It is going to be as 
bipartisan as could be. You cannot do it with one party or the other. 
You have got to get everybody. That is what the history of it is.
  We tried to develop this legislation to have a great recognition of 
what we consider to be the greatest honor this Congress can give to a 
limited number of individuals, which was always what the intent of it 
was. There are a whole lot of ways of recognizing groups. You and I 
could sit here and name groups for hours at a time that could be 
honored. But the Congressional Gold Medal was never really created for 
that purpose. That is the intent of what we are trying to do in the 
legislation. I just wanted to make that point in the history of it.
  Mr. CROWLEY. If the gentleman will yield further, let me just make a 
point. I appreciate what the gentleman from Delaware has said. The 
reality is, though, a country of 300 million people, only 20 medals 
have been awarded in the past decade. That is not an awful lot of 
medals. The point that the gentleman is making is that it has been 
extraordinary when we have actually issued this medal to groups. Why 
are we now limiting ourselves; when it is extraordinary, recognized as 
extraordinary, why are we now officially and legally limiting the 
ability of Congress to issue this medal to groups? I do not understand 
that.
  We understand the process is hard. The gentleman has just said 
himself to get two-thirds of the Members of this House truly requires 
bipartisanship to get this done. This is not done, as I mentioned 
before, in a willy-nilly manner. There is great effort involved. I 
understand it.
  I remember when my friend from New York (Mr. Fossella) was doing this 
for John Cardinal O'Connor and the effort that it took to get both 
sides to get enough Members to sign onto that. I do understand the 
difficulties in that, but I hope the gentleman understands the 
appreciation that has been set forth by my testimony here today as well 
as my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that sometimes, not 
ofttimes, it is not just individuals, but it is groups who are 
responsible for incredible, incredible events in this country and I 
believe are deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal. I hope that the 
gentleman would agree with that and we will have a motion to recommit 
that will, if passed, put this back to committee and will strike that 
language limiting it only to individuals.
  Mr. OXLEY. Reclaiming my time, and the gentleman may want to respond. 
Let me just comment. There is an avenue, I would suggest to my friend 
from New York, to honor large groups. That would be the commemorative 
coin. It is somewhat ironic that after the reforms that were made by 
the gentleman from Delaware where we tightened the restrictions on 
commemorative coins, and for good reason, that we then had this 
increase in the gold medal. I think we can safely say that the gold 
medal traditionally supports the concept of honoring an individual for 
service to the country, and that the commemorative coin, which has been 
essentially put on the back burner, presents a very appropriate avenue 
for recognizing groups that heretofore have not been honored.
  I think that the reforms in the past and the ones that the gentleman 
from Delaware is now propounding in this bill makes excellent sense. I 
think once the Members understand the changes, that they are going to 
gravitate toward the concept of a commemorative coin as opposed to the 
gold medal. That is precisely what the gentleman from Delaware proposes 
in this legislation.

  Mr. CROWLEY. Not to prolong the debate, either, because I know we 
want to move on, but since 1999 when we passed the Coin Act, there have 
been some concerns on our side of the aisle. I know that one of the 
amendments your side has accepted, or that was accepted in the Rules 
Committee, it remains to be seen whether it passes or not, that would 
evenly divide the number of gold medals, that did not exist in the coin 
bill that passed. Overwhelmingly it has been one side. In terms of 
bipartisanship, it has not been very bipartisan in terms of coins that 
have been established. According to our records, 15 out of the 16 coin 
bills that were passed were sponsored by Republicans. I do not think 
that is just going to happen under this legislation. That is also, I 
think, some of the fear in terms of changing the rules, for lack of a 
better word, on the gold medal has stirred up consternation on our side 
of the aisle. I offer that as well.
  I recognize that the minting of a coin is a way that we can bring 
recognition to individuals and to groups. I just do not think that we 
should be limiting ourselves as the House of Representatives and as a 
Congress in reducing our leverage or our ability to honor groups of 
individuals who have done incredible, incredible works on behalf of 
this Nation. I think that is what that provision of the bill will 
actually end up doing is limiting, tying our hands from honoring groups 
in the form of the Congressional Gold Medal. That is why I stand in 
opposition to that.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I do 
not mean to reiterate or repeat too much. Looking at the history of 
these Congressional Gold Medals, though, I think is very telling in 
terms of what we are doing because the history has always been to 
individuals for outstanding achievement. So in terms of the groups, I 
really think we should honor that. That is not disrespectful of any 
group that has gotten it or all the other groups who are potentially 
eligible out there if you use them in that criteria of measurement.
  But the other issue is interesting, and that is how many of these 
should we be able to have? First of all, the history of the gold medal 
has been very bipartisan. I think, as we all know, when we are dealing 
with that many signatures, it is going to be bipartisan. There is no 
question about that. But my sense is that the two a year is not as 
limiting as one might think when you really again look at the history 
of this. In fact, if anything, it would be an expansion over what the 
total history of it has been. By the time you go through a legislative 
session and you gather 290 signatures and you go through committee and 
you go to the floor, and I have handled these bills, they often happen 
the last day, by the way, so it is always very confusing in terms of 
what we are doing, I think you are going to find this is not as 
limiting as one might think.
  Again, I recognize the fact that it is a bigger country, that there 
is much more going on in the country and that kind of thing, but we are 
really trying to make sure that this is truly an honor for somebody who 
does something extraordinary in science or the arts, or an elected 
official or somebody of that nature, usually a President, I think the 
only elected official who has ever been honored; people in religion, 
people who have just absolutely stood out in their circumstances.
  My sense is while we can argue here on the floor that it is limiting, 
I think the bottom line is it is not going to end up being as limiting 
as one might think. Hopefully it would not be. Obviously if that 
happened to be the case, it is something that could always be 
revisited, but I just do not think it is going to be the case.
  I believe that straightening this out is actually going to make these 
gold

[[Page H211]]

medals much more of a distinction than perhaps they would be if we 
allowed this to continue, particularly with the commemorative coin 
changes, increasing the pressure to try to do so many of these.
  Mr. OXLEY. Let me, in closing, Mr. Chairman, indicate, first of all, 
my respect for the Members who have undertaken the responsibility of 
going out and getting 290 signatures. Virtually everyone I have talked 
to said, never again, because of the difficulty. I said, well, think of 
it this way. You get a chance to meet a lot of new friends. Every time 
you walk over or ride over for a vote, every time you see a Member in 
the dining room, wherever it may be, you are getting their support. But 
it is a difficult process.
  I think the gentleman from Delaware was right in raising that bar to 
where it is now, because it really does focus one's attention on how 
difficult that process is. It does make it, by definition, a bipartisan 
process. That is a fact of life that we deal with time and time again. 
The legislation before us, I think, does restore the medal to what it 
was envisioned to be way back in 1776.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 54 is as follows:

                                H.R. 54

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Gold Medal 
     Enhancement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. REASONABLE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR CONGRESSIONAL 
                   GOLD MEDALS.

       Section 5111 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Congressional Gold Medal Standards.--
       ``(1) Maximum number.--During any calendar year beginning 
     after December 31, 2005, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     strike not more than 2 congressional gold medals for 
     presentation pursuant to an Act of the Congress.
       ``(2) Program requirements.--The Secretary may strike 
     congressional gold medals only in accordance with the 
     following requirements:
       ``(A) Recipients.--Only an individual may be a recipient of 
     a congressional gold medal.
       ``(B) Timing.--No gold medal may be presented posthumously 
     on behalf of any individual except during the 20-year period 
     beginning 5 years after the death of the individual (unless 
     the Act of Congress authorizing the striking of such medal 
     was enacted before the death of such individual)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 109-1.
  Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in House 109-
1.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oxley

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oxley:
       Page 2, beginning on line 2, strike ``During any calendar 
     year beginning after December 31, 2005,'' and insert 
     ``Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Congressional 
     Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005,''.
       Page 2, line 6, insert ``in any calendar year'' before the 
     period at the end.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 42, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment changes the effective date of the 
introduced version of the bill from after December 31, 2005 to instead 
make the new limitation on the number of congressional gold medals 
effective on enactment of the bill. The change will be made so that 
uniform guidelines governing the medal program will be in effect for 
the whole 109th Congress and beyond and not change in the middle of the 
Congress. If we were to pass the bill but leave the effective date 
until the end of the session there would be a land rush to enact bills 
on gold medals that would place Members in an awkward position.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Something that is not often highlighted outside the hall is that 
there are actually friendships between Democrats and Republicans, and 
Mr. Oxley and I share that. I would like to point out for the record 
though that he is extremely partisan when it comes to congressional 
baseball, and I hope that next year he gives the Democrats an 
opportunity to have a win.
  Having said that, I have no objections to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 109-1.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Crowley:
       Page 2, strike line 2 and all that follows through line 6 
     and insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) Maximum number.--During the 2-year period comprising 
     each Congress (beginning with the 109th Congress), the 
     Secretary of the Treasury may strike not more than 6 
     congressional gold medals for presentation pursuant to an Act 
     of the Congress.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 42, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume. This amendment is a simple and fair amendment that would 
increase the maximum number of Congressional gold medals that Congress 
could award from two per calendar year to six per Congress, an increase 
of two medals per Congress. The reason for this amendment was best 
summed up by the Republican Rules Committee Member, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) last night during his questioning of Chairman 
Oxley. He had concerns that the bill in its current form would make 
members hesitate before introducing their own Congressional gold medal 
bills until late in the first year, waiting to see if others had more 
noteworthy recipients, then late in the first year rushing to introduce 
their bills and possibly missing the two medals in 1 year deadline due 
to the high threshold of needing two-thirds of the House as cosponsors, 
then forcing a larger number of congressional gold medal bills to 
compete for the two open slots in the following year.
  I too share some of those concerns and believe we can address this by 
passing this amendment. This would allow for the passage of six medals 
over the life of a Congress instead of two per year over the life of a 
calendar year.
  I believe that Members on both sides would prefer the flexibility of 
having more rather than fewer possibilities to award gold medals to 
citizens who deserve to be bestowed with one of our Nation's highest 
honors. But this higher number does not cheapen the medal because of 
the high threshold needed for consideration, two-thirds of the chamber. 
Foolish medal bills will not attract the support that they would need 
for consideration.
  Finally, this amendment is needed in the most practical purpose yet. 
In the last Congress we awarded five congressional gold medals. They 
went to Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Dr. Dorothy 
Height, President of the National Council of Negro Women, Jackie 
Robinson, the first Black player in Major League Baseball, Reverend Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr., posthumously and his wife Coretta Scott

[[Page H212]]

King, the civil rights icons, and posthumously awarded to the Reverend 
Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson, the 
leaders in our nation's efforts to desegregate public schools that led 
directly to the case of Brown versus the Board of Ed.
  Additionally, we granted six medals in the 106th Congress and six in 
the 105th Congress. In the 106th Congress we passed into law three 
Democratic sponsored bills and three Republican sponsored bills. They 
went to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Charles Schulz, 
John Cardinal O'Connor, Theodore Hesburgh, Rosa Parks.
  And in the 105th Congress two Democratic sponsored bills and four 
Republican sponsored bills for medals became law. Gerald and Betty 
Ford, the Little Rock 9, Nelson Mandela, to the patriarch Bartholomew, 
to Mother Teresa of Calcutta and to Frank Sinatra, introduced by my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

                              {time}  1130

  This amendment is about flexibility for Members, the ability to 
debate and consider legislation over the entire Congress just as we do 
with every other piece of legislation. It will not cheapen but rather 
enhance this most prestigious of American honors. In fact, the existing 
Committee on Financial Services rule requiring two-thirds cosponsorship 
of the House for a gold medal, which by definition represents broad-
based bipartisan support, prevents the awarding of frivolous and 
undeserved medals to groups of individuals. I trust that two-thirds of 
the House represents a solid bipartisan consensus of the will of the 
House and therefore believe that this acts as a check on any effort to 
award medals to any groups of individuals who in the opinion of the 
House do not deserve such award. I urge the acceptance of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is really in 
many ways contrary to the reforms that are already enacted, led by the 
gentleman from Delaware and the one that is now before us. The 
institution of two-thirds of the Members was very important, and the 
reforms in the Commemorative Coin Reform Act, which was adopted almost 
10 years ago, instituted a two-coin-per-year maximum. The reforms in 
that program have worked perfectly. Congress has not passed more than 
two programs for issue in any year since the law passed in 1996. One 
year, in 2003, only one coin was issued. The reforms have restored the 
dignity of the commemorative coin program, which had spun out of 
control; and similar reforms will do the same for a Congressional Gold 
Medal. So it seems to me a natural progression in the reform process. 
And, indeed, the Founding Fathers found the need to award only 45 
medals in the first 123 years of our country, but over the last decade 
Congresses have awarded nearly 10 times that many in just 10 years. I 
think those numbers are critical in understanding why the necessity for 
this reform effort, and for that I am opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am disappointed that the chairman will not support this amendment. 
I think it is a reasonable amendment, one that I do not think in any 
way disrupts what the intention of the bill by the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor, is, that is, to limit the number. 
We certainly are limiting the number in this amendment to six as 
opposed to what the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) would do per 
calendar year, which would be four. We are still limiting it to six. I 
think in the most recent history, we have not done more than six within 
a Congress. This again will help to free the hands of Members to 
introduce gold medal legislation for people who they believe are worthy 
of that great honor.
  I would just like to point out again that the Founding Fathers in 
their wisdom did not have as many people that they had to honor during 
that time. We have grown more than tenfold since the founding of this 
Nation. There have been many more events that have taken place since 
the Founding Fathers initially granted those initial gold medals, and I 
think that once again if we do not pass this, we will further be 
limiting our ability to ensure that those who are most deserving will 
receive this great honor.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. First of all, this is not 
a killer amendment. This is not an unreasonable amendment, and the 
sponsor has certainly always been a very reasonable Member of Congress, 
and we are arguing at the margins here in terms of what we are doing, 
and I recognize that. And I recognize these arguments because they are 
compelling to a degree.
  Having said all those things, I still oppose it. And let me explain 
why. It is not a lot different from what I have already said, Mr. 
Chairman, and that is essentially we are trying to make this a medal of 
true distinction for true heroes of the United States of America. I 
also believe, by the way, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
said something I thought was interesting, and that is it is difficult 
to get the names on the legislation. So the first year becomes a little 
more difficult, and that is true. We sort of learn techniques in this 
when we have done it.
  One is we take it to conferences or big gatherings of people and pass 
it out that way. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) will always 
be a hero in my mind because he took it amongst the Democrats and got a 
lot of signatures when I was struggling with it on a bill that I did 
last year, and I appreciate that a great deal. But I have learned when 
one really applies oneself, they can do it reasonably rapidly; and 
hopefully the committees will be able to be responsive to it and will 
be able to do two a year if that is what we decide to do. But my 
judgment is four in total in the course of 2 years is sufficient.
  And I am worried about the influx that is going on. The chairman 
cited the numbers. I do not remember the exact numbers. It was 
something like 45 medals in the first 120 years and now 10 times that 
many in the last 10 years. That means that this has increased, I think, 
at a rate that is too rapid, and again I do not in any way belittle 
anyone who has received this because they are all very distinguished 
people. But having said that, we want this to be the highest honor 
possible. So my judgment is we should defeat the amendment. If at some 
point it proves we need to expand this, we would certainly consider 
that. But I think we should try to restore this program to where it was 
before.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the sponsor made compelling arguments that the 
amendment is reasonable. Therefore, one would conclude that if it is 
reasonable and compelling arguments are made that there would be 
bipartisan support for the amendment. Unfortunately, that is not going 
to be the case. I hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, though, do recognize that not only are there compelling 
arguments, that they are reasonable and that it is a reasonable 
amendment and therefore deserves to be voted in favor of. And I hope 
that my colleagues on the other side as well as my side of the aisle 
view it the same way.
  Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 in House Report 109-1.

[[Page H213]]

                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Crowley:
       Page 2, line 6, insert ``and the Secretary may not strike 
     any congressional gold medal, notwithstanding an Act of the 
     Congress providing for the striking and presentation of such 
     congressional gold medal during a period referred to in this 
     paragraph, if at least half the total number of congressional 
     gold medals permitted to be struck under this paragraph 
     during such period were already authorized to be struck 
     during such period pursuant to Acts of the Congress that were 
     originally introduced as bills or joint resolutions by 
     Members associated with the same political party as the 
     political party with which the Member is associated who 
     introduced the bill or resolution that resulted in the Act of 
     the Congress that authorized the striking of such 
     congressional gold medal'' before the period at the end.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 42, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I hope that this amendment would also be received as reasonable and 
with cogent arguments. My second amendment made in order under the rule 
would allow for the equitable distribution of these medals between the 
majority and the minority. Since the 104th Congress, 24 gold medal 
resolutions became law. Using the process currently in place that has 
worked so well for us, the two parties in the House have evenly split 
sponsorship of these medals. Republican Members have sponsored 10 
medals and Democratic Members have also sponsored 10 medals. In fact, 
this amendment probably makes more sense with Republican support in it 
than Democrats, as in the 108th Congress, five congressional medals 
were awarded and four of those were sponsored by Democrats, only one by 
a Republican.
  But I offer this amendment out of basic fairness for both sides. I, 
therefore, believe if we are to limit the number of gold medals and if 
we are to obtain the bipartisanship that has characterized the process, 
my amendment should be passed by the Chamber, my fear being that if we 
limit it to only four, then leadership will decide who will sponsor 
those four, and we in the minority may find ourselves on the short end 
of that stick. And that is why I offer this amendment. I hope that the 
Members will agree to accept this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do oppose the amendment. I have some empathy for the first 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, but certainly not 
this one. Clearly, if there is a bipartisan element to this whole idea 
of getting two-thirds of the people supporting it, it is the 
Congressional Gold Medal, and I think the gentleman somewhat undercuts 
his own argument by giving us the figures that he did because, in fact, 
I do not think most Members, when they are approached by a Member 
carrying that bill, really are concerned about whether it is a 
Republican sponsor or a Democrat sponsor. They are concerned about who 
that individual being honored is. And just by the definition of having 
two-thirds sponsor would indicate a strong bipartisan support and 
historically that has always been the case.
  And I think that the amendment would tend to compartmentalize the 
authors of these gold medal resolutions that would be difficult to 
enforce and perhaps would cause some kind of a rush to try to get the 
necessary signatures prematurely. So I think it is really difficult for 
the committee, for example. As the gentleman knows, who has served on 
my committee with great distinction, we pride ourselves on the 
bipartisanship of the committee and the leadership of the committee, 
and we have continued to do so. So I think this is superfluous at best 
and, as a result, would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the chairman of the 
committee. Just to add that, yes, we do work in a very bipartisan way. 
If the chairman and I were making decisions as to who would receive the 
gold medal, I think we would work it out amongst ourselves to make sure 
that it was done in a very bipartisan way. That, unfortunately, has not 
been the history of the House, and I just point out, for instance, as I 
mentioned earlier, back when we created the commemorative coin 
legislation in 1999, out of the 16 coins that have been created, 15 
have been introduced by Republican Members, only one by the minority. 
The majority has had 15 of the 16. The minority has had one. I do not 
think that is a very fair and balanced way in which we can collectively 
and bipartisanly recognize those who have made tremendous sacrifices or 
achievements or contributed to this country.
  And I believe that we are limiting it to, in this case, this 
legislation, if passed the way it does, four congressional gold medals 
that we in the minority may very well find ourselves in a very 
difficult position in that we may not have any of our honorees awarded 
the medal even though we go through the process of collecting the two-
thirds. It then becomes a political decision as to which honorees will 
get the gold medal in that particular year and which will not. For 
instance, if there are 16 individuals who are sponsored by Members of 
the House and those individuals get two-thirds of the signatures 
required, which of the 16 will get the four medals? Which of those 16? 
That decision will be made based on a political decision that is made 
within the House, and I dare say that outside influence would also come 
to bear on that decision that was made as well.

                              {time}  1145

  That is why I am asking for this fair and balanced approach; that if 
we are going to limit it to just four, that it will be two per year. I 
do not think it is unreasonable to ask that it is done in this way.
  Quite frankly, if there is someone that the Democratic side of the 
aisle, if we have used up our one per year and we have another 
extraordinary person, I think we can work with each other to ask a 
Republican Member of the House to sponsor that bill. And vice versa. If 
we somehow find we have run out of opportunities on our side to 
introduce legislation, I do not think it is unusual to ask a Member of 
the other side of the aisle to sponsor the bill.
  That is the spirit in which I think we can work in a bipartisan way 
to ensure that every person who receives this gold medal, besides 
getting a two-thirds vote, it is done in a bipartisan way. I do not 
think this is frivolous, and I do not think this trivial.
  That is why I offered the amendment, and I hope we pass it.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I made a couple of these points before, and 
again I will not repeat too much here, but first and foremost is the 
290 signatures. I do not know if one party is ever going to have 290 
Members or not, I sort of doubt it, at least in the time most of us are 
around here, and you need both parties in order do this.
  I learned with the coin that I did, which was Benjamin Franklin. I 
cannot tell you, and hardly anyone can tell you, whether Benjamin 
Franklin was or would have been a Republican or a Democrat in his 
history. We do not know the politics of people like George Washington, 
and certainly the people who have been from other countries, a number 
of individuals who received medals here in the Congress of the United 
States.
  In the history of the gold medals, as I believe the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley) pointed out, it has been as much Democrats, even 
more so than Republicans. Even on the business of the commemorative 
coins, a number of the sponsors in the Senate have been Democrats as 
well.
  I just have never noticed a lot of politics in this, I guess is my 
point. It seems to me I have been asked to sign these, and I generally 
sign them, unless it is something I think is spurious, by Democrats and 
Republicans. I do not

[[Page H214]]

think about it. Certainly, if a party feels it is being slighted, they 
can say we are just not going to sign on to something.
  I do not think this needs a political balance. What it really needs, 
I think, is to find out, if we are going to do two, who the two most 
distinguished individuals are who should be recognized and go ahead and 
recognize them, apart from whatever the politics may be. I do not think 
it is going to fall down along political lines.
  So I do rise in opposition to this. I just think it is sort of a 
necessary strain on having a political balance on something which is 
not essential.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I 
know that the gentleman does not approach this in any other fashion but 
a bipartisan fashion.
  But the question I have is if we are going to limit this to two per 
year, it could be that five Members on our side of the aisle have five 
individuals they want to recognize. There could be five individuals on 
the Republican side of the aisle who have five individuals they want to 
recognize. That is 10 people, 10 bills, 10 instances where Members have 
garnered two-thirds.
  Who then will decide who gets the medals? It then becomes a very 
political decision as to who gets each of the medals. Will it be the 
five on the majority side? Will it be two from the majority side? Will 
it be two from the minority side? Will it be one each? Who of the 10 
deserving will get it, and who will not get it?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I will be glad to 
yield further in a moment, it typically has not worked that way. 
Typically, the way you do it is, somebody comes to you with the idea, 
maybe it is a Thomas Edison or somebody of that ilk, of that nature, 
and you generally will then go to your leadership or to the leadership 
on the other side or to the chairman of the committee and say, Look, I 
am interested in getting this done. If I am going to go out and get the 
290 signatures, I want some idea that it is going to be considered.
  I would be dumbfounded if you had five on one side and five on the 
other. In fact, I would be dumbfounded if you had two on one side and 
two on the other. You generally sort of pre-clear it; and, generally 
speaking, politics has just not entered into it. Before you go through 
all that effort and work, you want to get a pretty good idea that the 
bill is going to be able to get at least through the House. Then, by 
the way, getting it through the Senate is another whole other issue 
that you have to deal with as well.
  So, typically, we have not had a surplus of these. Generally 
speaking, when we have gotten to the 290, it has already been pretty 
well agreed upon by leadership.
  As the gentleman knows, on commemorative coins, they can be done in 
out years. We are doing coins already for 2007 and years beyond that, I 
believe, at this point. But almost always you work it out in advance.
  As the gentleman knows from our committee work, I do not know of any 
time where we have actually had to pick and choose at the committee on 
these coins. It is almost always worked out in advance and agreed upon.
  Mr. Chairman, I truly do not worry about this from a political point 
of view. I really do not think this is a necessary amendment to deal 
with that, based on what I have seen. I do not think limiting it to two 
is going to change that at all.
  I certainly would support the best people, which is what we are 
trying to do. Frankly, most of these bills, while there may be a 
Democrat sponsor or a Republican sponsor, almost always has a cosponsor 
from the other side. You cannot really do it without sponsors from both 
sides. So there is much more bipartisanship in this process than almost 
anything I know about in this Congress.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
rules will have changed once we pass this bill, whereas right now it is 
unlimited. Granted, where it is unlimited, there has not been this rush 
to introduce bills. As the gentleman mentioned before, this is not done 
in a very quick fashion. This is done in a bipartisan way.
  But when we limit it to two per year, we are putting a cap on it, I 
think we can in the future find ourselves in a situation where, all 
right maybe five on each side is a little much, maybe two on each side. 
Then which of the four? Who makes that decision as to which of the four 
gets the medal? And therein lies the politics.
  Unfortunately, I think you are creating more politics in this bill. I 
do not think that is your intent. I think you are doing this because 
you want to enrich the value of the gold medal. I understand that. But 
I think inherently by the changes being proposed, you are bringing more 
politics into the decisionmaking as to who obtains this medal. That is 
what I am trying to in a sense, avoid by evenly dividing between 
Democrat and Republican, majority, minority, the ability for both sides 
to equally participate in this process.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, technically, as the 
gentleman and I both know, we have seen a lot, the majority is always 
going to control ultimately what is going to happen on the floor. It 
will go through the committee and go to the floor.
  I still go back to a whole history. I have been here for 12 years. I 
have watched these medals. I have never seen a bit of politics in these 
medals. I just have not seen it.
  I do not think the limiting of the numbers is really going to alter 
that. I think a large part now is because you need all those 
signatures, you just cannot do it in a partisan sense.
  So I do not think this amendment is necessary. I think it brings in 
an element of politics that frankly we just do not have in the 
legislation. So I will oppose it. I understand the gentleman's 
arguments, but I would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Unfortunately, I think that in the past there may have been some 
politics involved. I understand that one of my colleagues on this side 
had achieved the requisite number of signatures for a commemorative 
gold medal for the Columbia 107 in the last Congress, in the middle of 
the last Congress, and that was never awarded.
  So I do not know why. I do not know if there was any reason for that, 
when the requisite number of signatures were given, that that bill was 
not taken up in the committee and that Member was not successful in 
getting that award to the Columbia 107. Why that was not done, I do not 
know. I do not know if politics was part of that. Maybe someone can 
answer that question.
  But therein lies the problem, that from time to time, quite possibly 
there is politics involved as to why some individuals receive the gold 
medals and others do not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, to close, and again in opposition, I think it is 
unfortunate and really not necessary to put Republican-Democrat in the 
statute. That is really what we are trying to do; that is what the 
gentleman from New York is trying to do. This is an issue that needs to 
be worked out at the leadership level, which traditionally has been the 
case.
  The last example that the gentleman mentioned, I do not know what all 
that had to do with, but I think it was above our pay grade. But at the 
same time, that is how it works, and to encase Republican and Democrat 
in the statute I think at this time would certainly not be in the best 
interests of the process, and that is why I continue to oppose my 
friend's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague on the other side. It is the 
pay grade issue I am concerned about, as the gentleman mentioned, as to 
who makes these decisions and as to why some individuals are successful 
in garnering a gold medal for an individual or group, and maybe another 
is not. There is some political judgment that is made as well, I 
believe.
  As the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) said, there is a process 
that

[[Page H215]]

will begin after this legislation is passed, nuances that Members will 
work through. I would just offer, if this amendment were to pass, they 
would work through these nuances.
  As I mentioned before, if two gold medals were enacted into law by 
Democrats and I had a third that I wanted to get passed, I would go to 
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and say, Mike, we do not have 
any more room on our side. Here is an opportunity; someone is 
deserving. Would you consider sponsoring this and passing it? I think, 
quite frankly, if there was a compelling argument, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) would say, Certainly, Joe Crowley. We will do it.
  That is a nuance to work through as well in terms of working in a 
bipartisan way. This simply ensures that both Republicans and Democrats 
are working in a bipartisan way, beyond the two-thirds vote; that 
medals are not being used for political purposes, but are being given 
because the individuals deserve them. That is what we are trying to do 
with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. 
Crowley of New York and Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Crowley of New 
York. The first vote will be on Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Crowley 
of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Crowley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 212, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               AYES--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--212

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Baird
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Bono
     Boustany
     Burton (IN)
     Costa
     Cox
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Granger
     Graves
     Israel
     Jenkins
     Lantos
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     Moran (VA)
     Portman
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Shays
     Simpson
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1222

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. SOUDER, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut 
and Mr. DOOLITTLE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 10 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Crowley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page H216]]

  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 211, not voting 40, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 11]

                               AYES--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--211

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--40

     Baird
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Bono
     Boustany
     Burton (IN)
     Costa
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Ehlers
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Graves
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hayes
     Israel
     Jenkins
     Lantos
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Schiff
     Shays
     Simpson
     Sullivan
     Waters

                              {time}  1229

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 11, Crowley No. 
3, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________