Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 42 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 42 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1506-H1513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 513, 527 REFORM ACT OF 2005

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 755 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 755

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 513) to amend the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when
organizations described in section 527 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees,
and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on House Administration now printed in the
bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill,
as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 755 provides 60 minutes of
debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. The
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committee on House Administration, modified by the amendment
printed in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H. Res. 755 and the
underlying bill, H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act of 2005.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working on the lobbying and
ethics reform effort currently underway in the House. Having worked so
closely with so many Members on both sides of the aisle, I am very
confident that there is a shared goal to protect the integrity of
Congress and to uphold the public trust by implementing bold reform.
The Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act is moving, as
Speaker Hastert directed, through regular order, and it is being
considered by five different committees. One way or another, many of
the provisions of the bill focus on outside sources of influence, which
have rightly been the targets of good government reform for decades,
and I am very proud that we have provided leadership in that effort
over the years.
As Members know very well, the current reform process has looked at
everything from travel rules, to gift limits, to lobbying disclosure, a
wide range of things. However, this entire good faith effort and the
bipartisan effort that we are working on would come up woefully short
if we did not address an area where outside influence in the form of
unlimited contributions continues to play an enormous role. So today we
are considering H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act.
Congress has tried to limit big money in campaigns for many, many
years. In fact, I will tell you, I wrote my senior thesis in college on
the issue of campaign finance reform on the 1974 act, which was the
first big Campaign Reform Act implemented in the post-Watergate era.
As colleagues who were here in 2002 will remember very well, we had a
very spirited debate on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Among other
goals that were put forward, this bill aimed to get rid of soft money.
That was the goal that was stated by those who were champions of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. They wanted to do everything possible
to ban soft money contributions from political parties, getting it out
of the political process altogether.
Along with many of my colleagues, I expressed very strong
reservations about banning soft money from parties. I voted against the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I was very concerned about it. I
worried that by limiting contributions and dictating who could give how
much to whom, that we would be violating the first amendment.
I also seriously doubted that banning soft money from parties would
effectively get that money out of the system itself. As many pointed
out at the time, BCRA left an obvious and easy loophole to exploit
because it did not, in fact, ban unlimited money from being raised and
spent by political groups called 527s.
And make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, 527s are political organizations.
The purpose of 527s under the law is to influence elections. The
Supreme Court has written that 527 groups ``by definition engage in
partisan political activity.''
527s were the natural recipients of the soft money that the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act denied to political parties expressly
because they are defined by law as political organizations. In fact,
many of these 527s were set up only after the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act passed just so they could be the recipients of the soft
dollar contributions.
Now, as our colleague, Mr. Linder, pointed out during that 2002
debate on BCRA, he said, ``By eliminating the role of parties,
corporations and labor unions could become increasingly reliant on
loopholes, allowing them to spend funds from their general treasuries
to influence elections.'' Mr. Linder went on to say, ``activities that
would be undertaken without Federal regulation.''
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what has happened. Mr. Linder was
absolutely right when he portended this. Nonetheless, supporters of
BCRA promised that it would indeed get big money out of politics. That,
as one colleague said during those debates, would ``end the influence,
the undue influence of big money in the political process.''
Where does this leave us today? For starters, the issue of free
speech as it relates to limiting campaign donations is no longer a
theoretical argument that many of us engaged in. Campaign limits are
allowed, and BCRA is the law of the land, even though so many of us
opposed it.
So while many of us did oppose those limits in contributions, we
realize that we are governed by laws. We regularly talk about the rule
of law. We are not simply governed by our principles, but, in fact, we
are governed by the laws, and now every Member's duty, regardless of
how we voted on the 2002 act, is to ask ourselves, is the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act working as it was intended?
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the answer is a resounding no, it is not. Soft
money still dominates the political landscape. A handful, a very small
handful of wealthy people, still funnel money to organizations involved
in campaigns. But now it is going to 527s instead of to political
parties.
Mr. Speaker, the money involved is enormous. In the 2003-2004
election cycle, 527 committees raised $425 million, nearly half a
billion dollars. That is $273 million more than before the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act was enacted. As predicted, the soft money that used
to go to political parties found its home in the so-called 527s. In
fact, the top 25 individual donors gave more than $146 million in 2004.
As I said, it is a very small group of people, from my perspective,
exercising their first amendment rights. But with limits that the court
has upheld, I think we have no response other than to respond. Twenty-
five individuals, 25 individual donors, again, $146 million in 2004.
During the current election cycle, Mr. Speaker, that trend has
already continued, and we have already seen more than $58 million
expended by the 527s.
Now, we are not talking about a leaky roof here where just a little
soft money is dripping into the system. We

[[Page H1507]]

are talking about half the roof missing, and money is literally pouring
in to this political system.
Since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act failed to take soft money
out of politics, as even the bill's original authors concede, it is our
duty to correct a flaw in the 2002 law. After all, if we are going to
have Federal regulation of campaign finance, it better be fair, it
better be consistent and it better be effective.
H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act, restores balance and fairness to the
system by making 527s register with Federal Election Commission and by
subjecting them to the same Federal campaign finance laws as political
parties, political committees and other political organizations. They
would be allowed to raise a maximum of $25,000 per year for their non-
Federal accounts and $5,000 for their Federal accounts.
Under this bill, 527s will still be able to engage in their political
activities, such as Get Out the Vote and voter registration drives.
They will just be subject to the hard dollar requirements for their
spending. For instance, they will be required to spend only hard money
for ads that refer to Federal candidates, and at least 50 percent hard
money for ads that refer to a political party.
Mr. Speaker, I have offered an amendment to H.R. 513 that removes the
limit on the amounts parties can spend in coordination with their own
candidates. This was a bipartisan effort that was put together. Parties
and their candidates should be free to work together to promote the
issues they believe in and the arguments that they support. This change
will increase transparency in campaign spending by allowing them to
work together, rather than continuing the charade that the two entities
don't know each other. There is no danger of corruption when a
political party supports its own candidate.
527 reform has the backing of Democracy 21, Campaign Legal Center,
the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not revolutionary; it is common sense. We
are simply closing an enormous loophole by extending existing Federal
campaign laws to 527s.
Opponents of this legislation claim that soft money now going to 527s
would simply be funneled to other groups, such as the 501(c)s, yet
there is a huge difference under the Tax Code and in real life between
527s and the 501(c) groups, namely, 527s are organized for political
purposes. They exist for the purpose of influencing campaigns. 501(c)s
are not established for that purpose. In fact, as a matter of Federal
law, 501(c)s are not allowed to engage in political activity as their
primary mission.
If, as opponents contend, soft money is funneled to 501(c)s and if
politics becomes their major purpose, they will be in violation of the
law.

{time} 1515

I will add, if it becomes clear that further reforms are needed,
Congress will act. Just as we are taking action now to tighten the
existing law, we will be ready to act again. We all know, we have said
it time and time again, reform is an ongoing process, and we are very
proud to lead the effort for reform.
As long as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act remains the law of the
land, we must ensure that its provisions are applied fairly to all
groups engaged in political campaigns. Now, some opponents of H.R. 513
also argue that subjecting 527s to campaign finance regulations limits
free speech. I have to ask, where was this first amendment devotion
during the 2002 debate? When I and others were making the point in 2002
that free speech would be violated, supporters of BCRA were awfully
quiet on that issue.
Regardless of how one feels about that issue, the United States
Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that limiting political
donations is constitutional. Most recently, they did it when they
upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in McConnell v. FEC. So
critics of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the very same people who predicted
the demise of our democracy if soft money was allowed to flow to
parties, now seem to have no trouble opposing a bill that allows soft
money to flow to the 527s.
Just to be clear, some Members on the other side of the aisle want
the very groups that spent more than $320 million on behalf of their
candidates and policies in 2004 to be the only ones that can influence
elections without dollar limits.
To be consistent, opponents of this bill would have to also oppose
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ban on soft money going to parties.
You cannot just pick and choose who is worthy of soft money. If it is
bad, if it corrupts the system, if it silences the average voter, if it
allows the wealthy to buy influence, all things that they argued in
2002, then it is not who receives soft money that is the issue; soft
money itself is the issue.
Are my friends on the other side of the aisle saying they made a
mistake in 2002? Have they reversed their position? Do they now support
the utilization of so-called soft money? Do they wish to repeal the
soft money provisions that were included in the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act? I suspect not.
I would urge my colleagues to be consistent with their past positions
on campaign finance reform and oppose any dual system for free speech
where one group has more protections than another.
Mr. Speaker, as with our entire reform effort, we are simply seeking
to attain the proverbial level playing field, to make rules fair, to
make them effective, and to make sure that they are enforced. We have
an opportunity to patch a hole in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
that would go a long way toward getting big money out of campaigns, as
The Washington Post editorialized just this morning, to close the
biggest remaining loophole in the campaign finance system. This is
something that supporters in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
believed strongly in in 2002. They have a chance to reaffirm their
support today with this up or down vote on this simple issue. And for
Members like myself who opposed BCRA back in 2002, we can support H.R.
513 because the legal challenges to the original reforms have been
settled, and the shortcomings that we predicted have in fact come to
pass.
Mr. Speaker, altogether, this should result in a strong bipartisan
vote for transparency, disclosure, accountability, and reform.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, my very
good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule,
which blocks every single Member in this body from offering an
amendment to the 527 Reform Act of 2006. This bill would amend the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and require, among other things,
certain political organizations involved in Federal election activities
to register with the Federal Election Commission.
Yesterday, during the Rules Committee hearing, the majority on the
committee reported out a closed rule. In doing so, this limited any
opportunity for the House to fully vet this important issue. If
Congress is the place for true deliberation of all points of view, then
I ask, why are the Republicans so hasty to ramrod this bill through
without opportunities to amend? Surely the majority realizes that
abolishing spending limits is a move that intentionally pushes aside
the interests of women, minorities, and other voters who may not be a
part of the Republican base and therefore apparently are not worthy of
regard. Or is it simply a maneuver to deny us serious debate about
viable alternatives, such as one from Massachusetts offered by
Representative Tierney? Representative Tierney's amendment, had it been
made in order, would have completely eliminated the ability of
industries and interest groups to unduly influence elections. His idea?
The full public financing of elections. This proposal, which
Republicans have blocked from consideration, is the only one that I
have heard to date that completely protects the integrity of our
elections and public policymaking process.
I am equally disappointed that my very good friends, Representatives

[[Page H1508]]

Wynn and Pence, were denied an opportunity to offer their bipartisan
proposal before the House. Let us force candidates to get themselves
elected based on the merits of their argument rather than the depth of
their campaign accounts, which have been padded heavily by the richest
of U.S. industries.
One can only imagine what the Medicare bill would have looked like if
the pharmaceutical industry hadn't contributed the hundreds of millions
in campaign contributions to the President and Republican candidates.
What about the energy bill, reeking with billion dollar tax breaks for
energy companies? What would that bill have looked like if it weren't
for campaign contributions to Members of Congress?
If we want to get serious about corruption in Congress, then we have
to get serious about corruption in our elections. For those in America,
myself included, who believe that outside influences have too much
control in the political process, I say take them out of the process.
Make it illegal for them to write campaign checks and support publicly
financed congressional elections.
Seats in this and the other body are for sale to the highest bidder.
But the majority of the American people do not have enough money to buy
them.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have us to believe
that this legislation, among other things, protects the integrity of
campaign finance because it brings 527s out of secrecy. This is a false
claim that could not be further from the truth.
My good friend, Representative Dreier, cited Common Cause. I guess it
is about time for me to cite a former colleague of his and mine, Pat
Toomey, the president of the Club for Growth; or John Berthoud, the
president of the National Taxpayers' Union; or David Keene, the
chairman of the American Conservative Union; or Grover Norquist, the
president of Americans for Tax Reform. All of these peoples are opposed
to this measure.
It is kind of interesting to me in Congress how up gets to be down
and down gets to be up. But 527s are far from the clandestine
operations that some may want us to believe. 527s do not operate behind
closed doors. If you think they do, ask John Kerry. Their work combines
social awareness, advocacy, and political activities that provide
everyone with tools for political knowledge.
Receipts and expenditures from 527s must be publicly disclosed and
made available. In fact, 527s are already required by law to register
with and report to the Internal Revenue Service. Their name is actually
derived from the section of the United States Tax Code that regulates
their financial activities. I think that we would all agree that it is
difficult to have much more oversight than the Internal Revenue
Service.
The administration and their friends in the Republican majority also
intend for this new legislation to simultaneously stamp out free
speech, voter outreach and the free flowing exchange of ideas.
Unfettered political speech, be it at issues in the mail, by phone, on
TV, on the radio, and especially over the Internet, is the basis for
why our Founding Fathers fought so hard to make it a part of the very
first amendment in our Constitution.
These are the tools Americans use to make informed decisions on the
political issues before them. These are the activities that register
people to vote, bring them to the polls, and engage them in necessary
debate.
We should take heed from those who are only now establishing free and
fair elections in some parts of the world. They found out the hard way
that once freedom of speech eroded, it began a slippery slope that soon
crushed their liberties as well as their governments.
Any time the majority wants to get serious regarding campaign finance
and the influence of campaign dollars in the House, Democrats stand
ready to have that discussion. And I am having a hard time
understanding if way out there in America that people really do know
the difference between soft money and hard money. In the meantime, I
urge my colleagues for the sake of free speech and for the sake of a
campaign process in which we all believe to oppose this closed rule and
the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very able member of the Rules Committee and a
great champion and understander of the issue of campaign finance and
campaigns in general.
(Mr. COLE of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the
527 Reform Act. This legislation will strengthen our political parties
while subjecting 527s to the same regulations as other actors under our
campaign finance system.
One of the most important provisions in this bill is the elimination
of the limit on expenditures coordinated between party committees and
candidates. That limit as it currently exists is unquestionably one of
the worst features of our campaign finance system. It creates a
needless barrier between parties and their candidates. The first step
towards a better, cleaner campaign reform system that places candidates
in control of their own campaigns is repealing of that provision as
this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, political parties, other than perhaps the candidates
themselves, are the most accountable actors in our campaign finance
system. They have to answer to their members, to their donors, to the
media, and most importantly of all, to the voters. Their activities are
disclosed and well documented. National parties in particular seldom
violate either the letter or the spirit of the law. They are
responsible participants in the political process, unlike many 527s.
Additionally, parties serve a very useful role in our political
process. One essential thing they have historically done is to
rechannel factions of narrow special interests into broader, more
public-spirited coalitions. Although not foreseen by our Founders, it
is impossible to imagine the success of our democracy without the vital
role parties have played.
As Clinton Rossiter, the scholar of American politics, once put it,
No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, and no
politics without parties.
Past efforts at reforming the campaign finance system often have had
the unintended consequence of weakening political parties. The
understandable desire of citizens to influence the outcome of elections
does not go away with campaign restrictions.

{time} 1530

Instead, the money they contribute sometimes flows from candidates
and parties to unaccountable actors like 527s. This bill will help
impede that process.
In 2004, after the passage of the McCain-Feingold bill, there was
more money in politics than ever before, with just 25 wealthy
individuals accounting for $146 million raised by 527 groups to
influence that year's elections. That is not removing big money from
politics. That is the manipulation of the political process by a
wealthy elite.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word to those who spoke so eloquently in
favor of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. If that
law was not intended to limit the influence of money from unaccountable
actors like 527s, then what was its purpose? And yet, many who voted
for the McCain-Feingold bill will today vote against reforming 527s.
That is, to put it politely, inconsistent.
Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a fine American, many of the opponents of
527 reform are effectively saying: ``I voted for campaign finance
reform before I voted against it.'' Today, the supporters of the
McCain-Feingold bill have an opportunity to pass real reform in a
bipartisan way. McCain-Feingold supporters can choose between the
principles they profess to hold or they can vote for what many believe
is to their own short-term, partisan political advantage. And if they
vote for the latter, after previously claiming to vote for the former,
they will set off a political finance ``arms race'' that will flood the
American political system with tens of millions of dollars from a few
fabulously wealthy individuals.
That is an outcome we should all seek to oppose.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.

[[Page H1509]]

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished
Democratic whip, my very good friend.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida.
At a time when this Congress is embroiled in the most serious scandal
in a generation, when a culture of corruption has swept over this body
with no sign the Ethics Committee is addressing it, this body should be
devoting the precious few days it has here to reforming its own culture
and practices.
Today, the Republicans are doing what they so often do. They are
trying to gag their opponents and further empower their supporters.
They again abuse their legislative power to assault their adversaries.
This is not reform. It is retaliation.
It is ironic that so many of the Republican leadership in opposing
campaign finance reform argued so strenuously against campaign
expenditure limits but now advocate limitations, not because of
principle but because of political power and the abuse of that power.
The Republican leadership has chosen to take on political
organizations in a cynical attempt to appear serious about reform and
divert attention from its own ethical failures.
Mr. Speaker, the problem confronting our polity is not independent
groups whose political activities are legal and are disclosed regularly
to either the IRS or the FEC. We know who spends this money. The public
can make a judgment.
Rather, it is the degree to which the Republican leadership has
sacrificed the public interest, good public policy, and its own ethical
conduct in order to amass, consolidate and perpetuate power through
unseemly and unethical alliances with special interests like Jack
Abramoff.
If this body were serious about reform, we would be debating the best
way to eliminate the culture of corruption, not restrict the first
amendment rights of political organizations.
Now, the previous speaker mentioned campaign finance reform. Let me
quote some debate during the course of that consideration of that bill.
The gentleman who brings this bill to the floor today, Mr. Dreier, I
always like to quote Mr. Dreier because they are such different points
of view that are reflected; you can almost get the whole spectrum of
thought.
``Mr. Dreier: So we have these attempts being made by some to impose
extraordinary, onerous regulations on the American people, jeopardizing
their opportunity to come together and pursue their political interests
that they have, that a shared group has; and I believe that is wrong,''
says Mr. Dreier. ``I believe it is wrong,'' Mr. Dreier said on February
13, 2002, ``to impose those kinds of regulations.''
We then had a vote on campaign finance reform by the same folks who
are offering this bill to reform, and Mr. Hastert voted ``no,'' Mr.
Boehner voted ``no,'' Mr. Blunt voted ``no,'' Mr. DeLay voted ``no,''
and, yes, my friend and my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) voted
``no.''
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, very, very briefly, not to get into the
issue of the dueling quotes, but let me quote from 1998 in the debate
on this issue from my friend Mr. Hoyer, who loves to carry in his
pocket Dreier quotes. I do not regularly carry this one, but this was
just provided to me.
In the Congressional Record on June 19, 1998, my friend said, ``In my
view, genuine reform must purge from Federal elections unregulated soft
money which has become so pervasive. The issue ads, which are so
clearly intended to influence elections, must be covered.'' That was
the statement made.
Let me say also, I completely stand by exactly what I said in that
2002 debate and I stand by that vote as my colleagues stand by that
vote.
If the gentleman had heard my opening statement, I refer to the fact
that we were not supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. We
were concerned about first amendment rights. We still are concerned
about first amendment rights, but across the street, the United States
Supreme Court upheld BCRA when they chose in McConnell v. FEC--
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if you will yield
yourself some time, I will be glad to have some debate with you.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to have a debate with you but you need to
yield some of the time.
Mr. DREIER. I think the gentleman still has time.
Mr. HOYER. I still have time, thank you very much.
Mr. DeLay said in another quote, ``Those who want to regulate through
government the participation in the political process, I respect them
trying to do that; I disagree with it.'' That is the way he voted, as
you have pointed out. ``We ought to let the voters decide through
instant disclosure to be able to tell and see while people are
collecting their money and spending it to decide.'' In other words,
disclosure. These are disclosed.
My view is, in light of the fact they are disclosed, you will vote
``no'' on this bill. My obvious supposition is you are not going to do
that.
Today, this bill is about politics. You have changed your principle,
in my opinion. You have changed your point of view. That is why you are
voting differently than you did on campaign finance reform.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I respond by
saying, we stand by our commitment to first amendment rights. We stand
by our position of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, but that
is the law of the land. We live with it today. We are simply trying to
implement exactly what you said on June 19, 1998, when you said there
should be even-handed regulation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what the gentleman has
just said, he stands by what he said but he is going to adopt what I
said to support this legislation. As usual, we have somewhat of an
Alice in Wonderland approach.
This bill is about politics. This bill is about getting opponents
that they presumed who have outraised them in the last election, but
until the last election they did not want regulation. Why? Because
their premise was they would raise more money, but when they found out
that their opponents who disagreed with their failed policies for this
country were communicating with the American public, then they said,
oh, my goodness, we have to do something about that. They had this
included in lobbying legislation, which we need to reform, as I have
said, but guess what, they have taken it out, for political reasons,
not for principle, I tell my friend from Massachusetts, not for
principle, but for political reasons to try to undermine their
opponents.
Today, we are missing an opportunity to look inward and expose ugly
truths about the devolution of the legislative process from the one
that the Framers had in mind when they created Article I of the
Constitution.
I challenge the other side to explain to me why, 15 months into the
109th Congress, nothing, nothing has been done by this House to come to
terms with the culture of corruption.
I challenge the other side to explain how H.R. 513 will increase the
public's faith that elected representatives are addressing and adhering
to the strictest ethical code and will pay an appropriate price if they
veer from it.
I would suggest that today's debate underscores the extent to which a
party that came to power 12 years ago, promising a bold new direction,
has become insensitive to the issues that really matter in our Nation
in 2006.
This bill is about politics. This bill is about a fear of losing
power. This bill is about trying to undermine the voice of opposition
in this country. This bill results from a fear that those who are
opposing policies bad for the United States, bad for our people, bad
for our families, undermining the security here at home and around the
world will somehow be communicated correctly to the American people.
It was not until the last election, not until then, did those 176
people who on principle said we should not constrain this speech, this
constitutional right that we have, and testified before the House
Administration Committee, including Speaker Gingrich at one point

[[Page H1510]]

in time, and said that it was disclosure that was the issue, not
constraint. It was not until the last election that that opinion was
changed, that this bill came to the floor to undermine and gag those
who oppose the policies being pursued.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I might
consume to respond to some of the arguments of my friend Mr. Hoyer.
First of all, let me make it very clear, our position has not changed
one iota from what it was. We still believe in transparency and
disclosure. We stand by the testimony that was provided before the
House Administration, our concern, our opposition to the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act. So the gentleman is wrong in concluding that we
somehow have changed.
What we are saying with this legislation is that we should not in any
way allow loopholes to exist. All we are trying to do is close a
loophole which addresses the concern that my colleague raised when he
talked about the need to get unregulated soft money out of the process.
We know that every single one of us in our individual campaigns and
political parties is forced to comply with the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act, and yet we have seen $425 million, almost a half a billion
dollars, expended in unregulated ways, providing an opportunity for
them to influence Federal elections.
That is a complete contravention of the goal of campaign reform, and
that has been argued by the people who were the greatest proponents of
campaign reform, Democracy 21, Common Cause, a wide range of groups,
which worked closely and tried to implement the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act.
On this issue of our having taken no action, on this very day, the
House Rules Committee has actually been scheduled in the last hour to
be marking up our bill H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability
Transparency Act. The Judiciary Committee today marked it up. As the
gentleman knows, we at the very early part of this year passed
legislation designed to get at the access that registered lobbyists had
to the House floor.

{time} 1545

So we have taken action, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are
continuing to focus attention on reform and our quest for the
proverbial level playing field.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from
Michigan, a former Secretary of State, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I rise to support the rule and to support the underlying
bill.
Mr. Speaker, it was just 4 years ago that the Congress passed a
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, and the purpose of that
legislation was to ``eliminate'' hundreds of millions of dollars of
unregulated soft money and the influence that wealthy donors had on the
electoral process. However, the 2004 election cycle clearly
demonstrated that BCRA was unable to deliver on what it promised.
In fact, the great irony of all of this is that while soft money to
political parties was eliminated, wealthy donors found a new avenue to
fund their candidates and to have more influence than they had ever had
under the old rules. In 2004, we saw George Soros and Peter Lewis
inject more than $20 million each, each of them injecting more than $20
million into the election process. So, so much for eliminating soft
money.
Overall, federally focused 527s raised and spent over $550 million.
Now, by contrast, George W. Bush and John Kerry combined to spend $655
million on their entire Presidential campaigns. The numbers are
strikingly similar. The only difference is the Presidential candidates
had to file with and abide by the rules of the FEC. The 527s did not.
The Presidential campaigns were accountable to the voters. The 527s
were not. And instead of the political parties providing key support
for their candidates, 527s began to act as surrogate political parties.
Essentially what happened here is the political parties were
outsourced. Political parties were outsourced. The 527s ran TV ads,
they operated Web sites, they ran phone banks, they mobilized the get-
out-the-vote efforts, all with money not regulated by the FEC.
In fact, the 527s proved so significant that MoveOn.org actually sent
an e-mail to all of their supporters after the 2004 election and said
this about the Democratic Party. This is what MoveOn.org said: ``Now
it's our party. We bought it. We own it, and we're going to take it
back.'' So, so much for eliminating the big dollars and big money.
Often I hear my Democratic colleagues complaining about the Swift
Boat Veterans For Truth, another 527. Well, today, my Democratic
colleagues have an opportunity to strike back. All of this activity was
conducted with less oversight than when the political parties were able
to accept soft money. And it is abundantly clear that something must be
done. We need to do something to level the playing field that has
shifted in favor of the unaccountable 527s. Right now, we have numerous
groups operating under the cover of shadows, moving money back and
forth in hopes of convincing voters to support a particular candidate.
Mr. Speaker, prior to my service in this House, I had the great honor
and privilege of serving for 8 years as Michigan Secretary of State,
and I was responsible for enforcing the campaign finance act in my
State and increasing voter participation. My administration was very
honored with the highest grade in the entire Nation by the NAACP for
being on the forefront of campaign reform. We were honored with the
Digital Sunshine Award for our program to provide voters with more
information on who was trying to influence the outcome of the election
process.
So I have had some experience with this issue, and I believe
transparency is always the key. It is always the critical element.
I do believe that if we do not act now, the nauseating ugliness,
negativity and hyperpartisanship that we saw in 2004 will only
intensify in 2006 and 2008. We must protect our democratic electoral
process and keep those who seek to influence our votes accountable. I
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to
tell both sides of the remaining amount of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). The gentleman from
Florida has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining and Mr. Dreier has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, (Mr.
Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, although I
have been listening to the debate. This will be an amusing, if not
interesting, debate as those who supported campaign finance reform are
opposed to 527 reform, and those who opposed campaign finance are for
campaign finance reform. I guess everyone is changing around their
positions, so we should have a very good time. Actually, I want to
compliment the chairman of the Rules Committee. At least the debate is
only going to last an hour, so it won't be too tough on all of us.
Just for the record, this is basically a legal issue. 527s are
political committees that are designed to influence an election, either
the election or defeat of a candidate. The legal basis for regulation
by the FEC comes from the reform act that was passed not in 2000 but
after Watergate. That is where the legal basis is to regulate 527s.
The Federal Election Commission decided not to regulate 527s, hence
there was a lawsuit that was filed in Federal District Court in
Washington. There was a decision by Judge Sullivan recently in that
case basically saying that the FEC did not have justification to not
promulgate rules and regulations with regard to 527s. So regardless of
what happens here today, ultimately, I think the court is clearly going
to instruct the FEC to promulgate rules and regulations relevant to
527s.
In any event, I think we should have an open debate on this and
discuss the merits of 527s and campaign finance reform. I am
particularly troubled that this rule also allows the repeal of
coordinated contribution limits, or a vote

[[Page H1511]]

on coordinated contribution limits. I believe a repeal of coordinated
spending limits may make it easier for wealthier individuals to use
donations to the political parties in order to evade campaign finance
laws. I also think we should have had an open debate on this and been
allowed to offer other amendments that would strike this controversial
provision.
Furthermore, there are a number of Democrat amendments that had been
offered in the Rules Committee. Rahm Emanuel, who has been active on
this, had two amendments related to this debate but, unfortunately,
those amendments were ruled out of order.
In any event, for this reason I believe that the rule should be
defeated. But, Mr. Speaker, I really look forward to this interesting,
if not amusing, debate we are about to have on 527s.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again exactly how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mr. Dreier, you have 4\1/2\ minutes, and I
believe the gentleman from Florida has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers
at this time and I am prepared to go forward.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to Mr. Shays, who
wanted to respond and then you can close your debate and we will do the
same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Connecticut, the
great champion of campaign finance reform (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is
nothing funny about this debate. Nothing funny at all.
The vast majority of my colleagues to my right voted for campaign
finance reform. The vast majority of my colleagues to my left voted
against it. The difference is my colleagues to the right, once it
passed, looked for loopholes behind the law; and my colleagues here, my
Republican colleagues who voted against the law said we will abide by
it.
The problem is there is one loophole and the loophole is 527s. When
we passed the law, we banned corporate money, union dues money and
unlimited sums from individuals. We enforced the 1907 law, the 1947
law, and the 1974 law. That is what we did, we enforced it. But the FEC
refuses to abide by the law as it relates to this one issue, 527s. We
want to close the loophole.
Now, the reason is, if we are going to have the law, it better work.
So my own Republican colleagues have been very consistent. They opposed
the law. But if you are going to have the law, it should be consistent
and work. And my colleagues, with all due respect, are being
extraordinarily inconsistent. You voted for the law and now you want
loopholes to it and you do not want to fix the loopholes. That is an
outrage, and I plead with you to remember your rhetoric when you spoke.
When you spoke, you supported the law. Now abide by it and make sure
the loopholes are taken care of.
My colleague, Mr. Meehan, is right. We will win in court. The court
has said that the 527s are primarily a campaign expense, and therefore
need to abide by the law. So eventually, someday, I think they will be
forced to write a rule to do what this bill does, but we are taking
care of it now.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Apparently my good friend, and he is my good friend, from Connecticut
was not mindful that there were 100 Members of the House of
Representatives who wrote to the FEC asking that the McConnell v. FEC
decision be upheld.
But I don't want to get bogged down in all of these legal mores. The
simple fact of the matter is that if we intend to do something that
would make a difference, we could all support public financing. I
challenge any of you to tell me that that would not cure the problems
that we continue to talk about.
I also would urge my friend from Connecticut, who argues about
loopholes, to ask the chairman what I say about laws that we pass here.
You show me a law and I will show you a loophole. I have been involved
in politics as long as anybody in this room, and for the 41 years that
I have been involved, we have continued to reform campaign finance by
calling it campaign finance reform. Every time we reform it, the
Republicans or the Democrats, the majority or the minority, somebody
comes up with a way to get around the law.
So make this one, if you will, Mr. Chairman, and be mindful of all of
the people that have spoken with reference to the myth that I think
that you perpetuate. One of the biggest myths, the National Review
says, is that this bill would level the playing field. That is language
you used earlier, Mr. Chairman, ending the ability of the wealthy to
fund propaganda. This is completely false, according to the National
Review. Wealthy individuals would still be free to say whatever they
want, whenever they want. The proposal would end only the ability of
individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak
out on issues.
The simple fact is when you cite to the law, my recollection is you
didn't say anything at all about Buckley v. Valeo, which simply said in
its holding that money is speech, and that is ultimately what winds up
happening here.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, so I can amend the rule to provide that immediately after the
House adopts this rule, if it does, it will bring H.R. 4682, the Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006 to the House floor for
consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before we go reforming campaign
finance laws and telling those on the outside what they can and cannot
do, I think we need to fix up our own house. H.R. 4682 is a
comprehensive reform package introduced by Leader Pelosi that is
designed to clean up this Congress and show the American people we are
serious about our roles as legislators and that we put the people we
represent first.
This bill does many things. It curbs the abuses of power by stopping
the practice of keeping votes open to twist arms and lobbying Members
on the floor of the House. It shuts down the K Street Project by making
it a criminal offense and violation of the House rules to take or
withhold official action or threaten to do so with the intent to
influence private employment decisions. It ends the practice of adding
special interest provisions to conference reports in the dead of night
and behind closed doors. It imposes strict and enforceable new
disclosure requirements on lobbyists. It curbs abuses of power and it
blocks cronyism and corrupt contracting practices that endanger our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world.
It is important for Members to know that defeating the previous
question will not, I repeat, will not, block the underlying bill. H.R.
513 will still be considered by the House. But by voting ``no'' on the
previous question, we will be able to consider the Honest Leadership
and Open Government Act under a completely open rule that gives all
Members of this body the opportunity to be heard on this matter.
I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1600

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me just say that my friend is correct in saying we should look at
loopholes and do everything we can to close them. The Republican Party
is the party of reform. We are very proud of the fact that we have been
and continue to be the party of reform.
This is a loophole that needs to be closed so we can get to the kind
of fairness that Mr. Shays, the great champion of campaign finance
reform, talked about. He and I still disagree to this moment about the
issue itself. I believe these kind of limits undermine first amendment
rights, but the Supreme Court has upheld the Campaign Reform Act, and I
believe if you look at the great champions of campaign reform, Common
Cause, Democracy 21, and a wide range of other groups, they

[[Page H1512]]

are strongly supportive of this measure. I believe we should support
this.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier:
On page 2, line 6, strike ``printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution'' and insert
``numbered 1 for printing in the Congressional Record
pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII''.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 755, the Rule Providing for Consideration
of H.R. 513, 527 Reform Act of 2005

At the end of the resolution add the following new
sections:
``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution,
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4682) to provide more rigorous requirements with
respect to disclosure and enforcement of ethics and lobbying
laws and regulations, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution of the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of Rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.''
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution will be
followed by 5-minute votes, if ordered, on amending the resolution and
adopting the resolution, as amended (or not).
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 198, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 85]

YEAS--226

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
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
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
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)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
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)

NAYS--198

[[Page H1513]]

Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
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
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--8

Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Evans
Hoekstra
Ros-Lehtinen
Schakowsky
Tanner
Watson

{time} 1626

Ms. BERKLEY and Messrs. ROTHMAN, KUCINICH and CROWLEY changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HUNTER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 199, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 86]

AYES--223

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
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
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
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
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
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)

NOES--199

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
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
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
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
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--10

DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Evans
Hoekstra
Pitts
Ros-Lehtinen
Schakowsky
Tanner
Watson

{time} 1635

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

____________________