[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7951-H7959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1053 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
[[Page H7952]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1053
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of September 29, 2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is
recognized for 1 hour.
General Leave
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert
tabular and extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday night the Rules Committee met and reported a
rule for consideration of resolutions reported by the Rules Committee
on the same day. The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII and applies a
special waiver to any resolutions reported this legislative day.
Mr. Speaker, it is of the utmost importance for the House to pass
this rule and move the debate along so that important legislation may
be considered before the House adjourns. Legislation that may be
considered under this same-day rule may include the fiscal year 2007
National Defense Authorization Act and the Port Security Act and other
measures brought to the floor through a special rule reported by the
committee. This rule will provide the House the flexibility and ability
to move the remaining legislation in a timely and efficient manner so
that we can adjourn this legislative day.
To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law rule.
It is not unusual for a rush of bills, especially conference reports,
to come to the House floor in the final hours before a recess or a
final adjournment no matter who holds the majority. We are used to
seeing that. But the manner in which this House has conducted business
over the past week should be a matter of grave concern to all Members
no matter what side of the aisle they sit on.
Closed rules have become a norm in this Chamber. Bills that have not
gone through committee hearings, markup, or open debate or with a
chance for Members to offer and debate thoughtful amendments, bills
that magically appear out of thin air with the Republican leadership
asking Members to vote ``yes'' on far-reaching legislation that nobody
has actually read.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to operate the United States House of
Representatives in such a fashion.
{time} 1315
It demeans our democracy. It is bad enough that this House is passing
bills that will be signed into law that undermine our system of justice
and due process both here at home and internationally. But the very way
in which this House has carried out legislative business this week is
an affront to the Democratic process.
I know that we all want to return home to our districts to meet with
our constituents and prepare for the upcoming elections, but I
genuinely worry about how we are living up to our oaths of office when
I look at how the Republican leadership has shut down debate on some of
the most significant issues facing our country.
Mr. Speaker, there are only a few hours left before Congress adjourns
to go home. After the most do-nothing Congress in the history of the
country, Republican leadership continues to ignore critical issues that
are absolutely important to the American people in a rush to get out of
Washington.
Some of us, Mr. Speaker, have spoken in the past about the culture of
corruption that exists in this institution; and it is more than just
about the antics of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Abramoff. This
culture of corruption that we talk about is also about a corruption of
the process that allows for this Congress to become a place where
trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all.
It is a process where rank and file Members of both parties, not just
Democrats but Republicans, routinely get locked out of the ability to
offer amendments and to be heard on the floor of the people's House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when gas prices went sky high, President Bush and
the Republican-controlled Congress gave tax breaks to the oil
companies. They did not give us an opportunity to debate and to vote on
a real energy bill that would provide funding for alternative sources
of renewable energy. But that is how they responded to that crisis.
When our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan needed body armor, we got
``mission accomplished''. Mr. Speaker, the headlines of the last week
alone should show not only how messed up things are in Iraq but how
this administration has deceived the American people and deceived this
Congress.
And what has been the response of Congress over these many months?
Has it been to hold the administration accountable? Has it been to
conduct proper oversight?
No. It has been a rubber stamp. Just let things go on as they are.
Stay the course, which has become code for stay forever. With American
workers crying out for an increase in the minimum wage, President Bush
and the Republican-controlled Congress forced through an estate tax cut
benefiting only the wealthiest people in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal minimum wage is at $5.15 an hour. $5.15 an
hour. It has been frozen that way for 9 years. Now, during those same 9
years, this Congress has given itself pay increases of $31,600. I mean,
we have the time. We have the time to give ourselves a pay raise in
this body, but we do not have the time to give the American workers a
pay raise? $5.15 an hour is what the current Federal minimum wage is.
And would you not think that there would be a sense of urgency in
this House of Representatives to not adjourn until we have a clean up
or down vote on the minimum wage? No, that is not part of why we are
having a martial law rule here today. They are not doing this so they
can bring up the Federal minimum wage, an increase in the Federal
minimum wage. That is not what this is about.
Mr. Speaker, with the cost of college tuition skyrocketing and
student aid not meeting the need, President Bush and the Republican-
controlled Congress instead give us a bill congratulating Little League
teams. We have done nothing in this Congress to address the real
concern and the real need out there by so many American families to
help pay for the cost of a college education.
And as thousands of our senior citizens fall into the doughnut hole
of the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, President Bush and the
Republican-controlled Congress answered their pleas for help by naming
more post offices. We were not given the opportunity to fix the
doughnut hole in that prescription drug bill.
We have not been given the opportunity to do what Democrats have been
demanding for a long time, and that is to give the Federal Government
the ability to negotiate lower drug prices for our senior citizens.
That is how the Veterans Administration does it. The VA negotiates on
behalf of all of our veterans, thereby getting a better price so that
our veterans do not have to pay as much for prescription drugs.
Why cannot we do the same thing for Medicare beneficiaries? We are
not doing it because the prescription drug industry and the
pharmaceuticals do not want it, and they have contributed mightily to
the majority party's campaign for reelection.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for a new direction; and I hope that my
colleagues will indicate their frustration with the
[[Page H7953]]
way this House has been run and demonstrate their dismay at the lack of
accomplishment of this Congress by voting ``no'' on this martial law
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just disagree with my good friend from
Massachusetts on his characterization of the accomplishments of this
Congress. As a matter of fact, if you start ticking off the record, it
is pretty impressive: bankruptcy reform, class action lawsuit reform, a
transportation bill that put more money into our infrastructure than
any transportation bill in American history, significant energy
legislation passed last year, dealing with the entitlement spending
problem, an across-the-board budget cut.
All of those are genuine accomplishments. Pension reform, bill after
bill after bill. Some of them bipartisan, some of them, frankly, passed
without the cooperation of our friends.
And, frankly, to criticize us for minimum wage, when in this House we
have voted on and passed the minimum wage increase and passed, along
with it, a reform of the death tax and tax extender bills that are
important, I think is somewhat disingenuous.
That legislation passed with a majority vote on this floor; and,
frankly, a majority of the other body favored that legislation. Our
friends on the other side of the aisle used their friends on the other
side of the rotunda to routinely block progress. Even when the majority
of the United States Senate agrees with the will of this House, as was
the case with the minimum wage, with ANWR, and another piece of
legislation with the tax extenders, with reform of the death tax, an
obstructionist minority of Democrats on the other side keep a
bipartisan majority from actually reaching the magic 60 vote level that
is required in moving legislation forward.
We are not responsible for that. Frankly, I am proud of what we have
moved through the floor here.
I also want to disagree with my good friend on the Medicare measure
that he discussed in his remarks. Quite frankly, it is something that I
think our good friends on the other side of the aisle are embarrassed
that they did not support. It was the largest expansion of spending for
senior citizens and entitlement spending since 1965. Since 1965.
Now the argument that the Democrats advanced that night, and I was
here, was it is not enough. They were not willing to vote for something
that was the largest increase in almost 40 years. It simply was not
enough. And I think now that tens of thousands of seniors are getting
health care that in the past they were not able to get, and that our
friends on the other side had nothing to do with that accomplishment
puts them in the position where they feel like they have to take away
from the achievement that they could have been part of but rejected the
opportunity to participate in.
Finally, let me just conclude my observation that there are only two
times when we get criticized from the other side of the aisle. That is
when we do something and when we do not.
Day after day, and particularly morning after morning this week, we
have heard demands from the floor or from the well of this body on the
floor that we have up or down votes on issue after issue after issue.
Now when we are bringing important issues for up or down votes, issues
that in many cases have been dealt with for months through the
committee process, we are dealing with conference reports or providing
an up or down opportunity, we are criticized for that. So I suspect we
are going to be criticized regardless of what we do.
What I am pleased with is the record of accomplishment that this
Congress has to offer to the American people in issue after issue. My
only regret is that, frankly, our friends on the other side of the
aisle have so often chosen to obstruct rather than participate, in my
opinion, constructively in this process.
I hope that that changes ahead. Frankly, there have been times when
it has been different on this floor. I would hold the pension reform
bill out as an example of that. I would also point out on things like
the PATRIOT Act, where we had 40 odd of our friends from the other side
participating; tort reform, where 70 odd of our friends participated on
the other side; there have been many instances of bipartisan reform
cooperation. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has diminished as we have
moved forward in the Congress and moved closer to November.
I hope on the other side of November that will change. But I, for
one, am very proud of this Congress and what it has accomplished; and I
look forward to working with our friends on the other side of the aisle
so we can accomplish more in the months that remain in this Congress
and, frankly, in the next one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend saying he looks forward to
working with us. I look forward to the day that the majority decides to
work with those of us in the minority in this Congress.
You know, one of the frustrations that we have, and, again, we have
not been given an answer to this question, is why on some of the most
important pieces of legislation that have come before this Congress,
issues involving wire tapping, issues involving torture, would these
bills be brought to the floor under a closed process when there were
Democrats and Republicans both coming before the Rules Committee who
wanted to have input, who wanted to make their amendments in order, who
had some good ideas.
You may not agree with everything. You do not have a monopoly on good
ideas. But the fact of the matter is, to shut people down, to just shut
everybody out, that not only diminishes this institution, it diminishes
this democracy. It is why we believe that there is a culture of
corruption that exists in this Congress. You have corrupted this
process.
You know, my friend likes to say he is very proud of the record of
the Republican Congress. Well, the fact of the matter is, he and a
handful of others may be the only people who think that this Congress
has done a good job. There is a reason why only 25 percent of the
American people approve of the job that this Congress is doing. They
are disgusted with the lack of accomplishment on issues that make a
difference in their lives.
I do not know about my colleague from Oklahoma, but when I go home,
you know, I have a lot of seniors telling me that they have hit that
doughnut hole in the prescription drug bill. They do not know what to
do about it. I have a lot of my senior citizens say to me, why in the
world will you not give the Federal Government the ability to negotiate
lower drug prices for our senior citizens? What is so radical about
that?
I mean, that is one of those best-business type practices. Why cannot
you allow our Government to negotiate lower drug prices for our senior
citizens? The reason why is because the people who have funded the
Republican National Committee and the campaigns, the pharmaceutical
industries, do not want that.
There are people asking me all of the time, you know, why has this
Congress not implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations to make
our country safer? You know, a nonpartisan commission that has set
forth an agenda that I think almost everybody agrees with, and yet we
cannot implement those recommendations.
On the minimum wage, you play politics with the minimum wage. If you
cared about the workers of this country who are earning a minimum wage,
then you would bring up a minimum wage that would pass. But, no, in
order to help low-income workers, you have got to help the richest
people in this country. You want to play politics with that issue.
The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for 9 years. You do
not have the time to give these workers an increase, but yet we can all
give ourselves a pay increase. No wonder why the American people are so
fed up with this Congress.
On student aid, students returning to college continue to confront
skyrocketing tuition costs; and yet the Republican Congress made it
harder to pay for college by cutting $12 billion in student aid.
Congress needs to pass and approve the Labor-HHS appropriations bill
that restores the massive cuts in college tuition and expands the size
and availability of Pell Grants.
[[Page H7954]]
You know, why cannot we focus on that? Pass an energy plan that
decreases our dependence on foreign oil. Your energy law, you know,
written in secret by the Cheney task force and Big Oil and energy
lobbyists, gives billions of special interest giveaways to oil and gas
companies that are enjoying record profits.
I mean, yeah, you passed some things but things that really do not
make a difference to the average working person out there. So you can
be proud of your record in this Congress. But I want to tell you, there
is a reason why only 25 percent of the American people approve of the
way that this Congress has handled its job.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) to file a conference report.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask to submit a conference
report. I just wanted to say that this conference report is largely the
product of Mr. Bob Cover, who after many, many years is leaving the
Office of Legislative Counsel. We appreciate his great service to our
country.
{time} 1330
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to take a moment to respond to my good friend from
Massachusetts. We simply, I guess, see the world differently. The
reality is most of the legislation that comes to this floor that passes
is bipartisan, passes with at least a bipartisan vote. It is my friends
on the other side who so often find themselves in lonely partisan
isolation, less frequent on this side of the aisle.
Again, I could go issue after issue, whether it is tort reform, the
PATRIOT Act, bankruptcy reform, the transportation bill, defense bills,
there are overwhelming bipartisan votes.
Frankly, I think our friends at this point are more interested in
problems than solutions. They simply do not want to run on them. They
want to create the impression that the Congress has been neither
productive and is overly partisan. That is something we are going to
have to agree to disagree on.
I also want to again remind my friend, on the Medicare bill, it is
this side of the aisle that provided tens of millions of seniors with
prescription drug coverage for the first time ever, and I think if my
friend checked the polling reports or checked the rates of satisfaction
he would find that it is very, very high. I personally think our
friends are disappointed in themselves for not having participated, not
having worked with us.
Many times our friends want to negotiate, but they also tell us what
is nonnegotiable before we sit down to negotiate. They certainly did
that during the Medicare situation. They certainly did that when the
administration wanted to discuss Social Security earlier last year:
these are the things we will not talk about; now, let us sit down and
talk. That is not a negotiation in my opinion.
Finally, I want to remind my friends, when they move on education
spending, I would be delighted to debate the record of this Congress
and frankly this administration in the area of funding education. The
largest increase in spending for education at all levels has occurred
during the Bush administration, over 50 percent since 2001. It is this
party that has delivered time and time and time again when it came to
funding.
Finally, last point, my friend made the point that the minimum wage
would pass quote ``if.'' It did pass. This is the point. It came to
this floor and passed. It went to the United States Senate. Over half,
57 of our Senators out of a body of 100 of the other body, were in
favor of that legislation. It was a minority that blocked the passage
of the minimum wage and a minority in the United States Senate. I
regret that. We still have time before the Congress is finished to deal
with that, and I hope that we do after the election.
I think there are some that would rather have election issues than
have a solution. I think when you offer a compromise solution, we had
many Members in this body who did not want to raise the minimum wage.
We had many Members in this body that did want to raise it. We had also
Members that wanted to reform the death tax, those that did not. Most
of us on both sides of the aisle were in favor of the extenders. That
was actually a very finely crafted compromise that had something for
everybody. Our good friends wanted everything for themselves, but
nothing for anybody else in terms of the compromise.
I think we have put on this floor a fair bill, a bill we can be proud
of. I am very proud to be able to go home and say I voted for a minimum
wage increase; when it came to the floor of the House, I voted to
reform the death tax; and I voted to extend some important economic tax
incentives and a reduction. I wish more of the Congress could, but the
majority of us actually can go home and say that.
The majority in the United States Senate can say it. It is the
obstructionist minority in the other body that chose not to participate
in the compromise with us, but again, there is still time left in the
Congress. We will be back here in all likelihood in November and
December. I hope that opportunity on the other side of the election
will lead us to be able to pass significant compromise legislation.
Frankly, I trust that it will.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just again remind those who may be listening that the
Republicans control the White House, they control the House of
Representatives, and they control the United States Senate. So if they
really wanted to increase the minimum wage, they would be able to do
it, but they do not; and if anybody believes that it is in their heart
to try to increase the minimum wage somehow after the elections are all
over with, I think you are in for a rude awakening.
For 9 years, Republicans in Congress proudly refused to raise the
minimum wage for hardworking Americans, even as their own pay increased
by $31,600. This year the Republicans are playing politics with a pay
raise for millions of Americans, killing a minimum wage by attaching it
to tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. This is how they
chose to kill it this year, and they have been killing it every year
for 9 years. I mean, that is their legacy and we need to change that,
and hopefully come November that will change.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown), a champion for increasing the minimum wage.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for
your leadership on this matter.
The people on the other side of the aisle, Republicans, always want
to talk about the Bible, and you know, the Bible said the poor will
always be with us. But our jobs as Members of Congress is to help raise
the standard.
A few months ago, I voted against raising the minimum wage. Well, why
would I vote against raising the minimum wage? Because I do not think
there is anybody in this body supports raising the minimum wage more
than I do.
Well, it was a poison pill. It was a kiss of death because what the
Republicans did, they tied raising the minimum wage to passing an
estate tax. I mean, that would have taken trillions of dollars out of
the budget just to help what I call their rich friends.
The Republicans have practiced over and over again what I call
reverse Robin Hood, robbing from the poor and working people to give
tax breaks to their friends.
So now they put the minimum wage on the floor, but tied it to an
estate tax that would have taken thousands and thousands of dollars out
of the budget. Yes, we have not dealt with the agenda of the American
people.
In closing, the Bible says the poor will always be with us, but our
job is to help raise the standard. Give us a clean bill on this floor
on minimum wage, and let us vote to help the American people.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to associate myself with the comments of the gentlewoman from
Florida who just spoke. Again, the leadership in this Congress, the
majority in this Congress, gave themselves a
[[Page H7955]]
pay raise, but they cannot bring themselves to giving hardworking
American families a pay raise, those who earn the minimum wage. There
is something wrong with that equation.
The bottom line is we work for the people of this country, and the
Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 for 9 years. It is
disgraceful; and for 9 years this leadership, this majority has proudly
stood to fight against increasing the minimum wage. They should be
ashamed of themselves. We give ourselves a pay raise, but we cannot
give hardworking American families a pay raise.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and
I certainly appreciate his leadership in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, as I hear this discussion today, it is a heartbreaking
thing to see this body completely engaged in partisan politics because
it does not matter to the American people when they cannot afford their
medicine, when they cannot afford health insurance anymore.
Health insurance, the cost has doubled under the Bush administration.
They come and pretend and posture and try to give the impression that
they care about what happens to the American people.
When America fails, we all share in that failure. We all suffer. We
all get part of the pain. When we cannot afford to fill our automobiles
up with gasoline, we all suffer. When Social Security is threatened, we
all suffer. When the minimum wage is not raised to a reasonable level,
we all pay the price.
It is very distressing to know that under the Bush administration and
the majority Republican Party leadership in this Congress that we have
failed on every count. Not only can we not afford our gasoline or our
health care or to educate our children because they have raised the
cost of student loans, we know what a mess we have in Iraq. We know
what a failure our borders have been under the direction of the Bush
administration and the Republican majority in this Congress.
It makes me very distressed to know that we are going to leave here
this week very likely without doing anything substantive on any of
these issues.
The good news is this: we can go in a new direction. We know how to
provide health care to the American people. We know how to provide
gasoline they can afford. Is it not a sad state of affairs when we
think $2.15 gas is a good deal? We know how to provide prescription
medicine to our people at a fair and reasonable price that they can
afford and they will not need any government help to purchase it.
One of the great Arkansas companies just came out with a new plan
this week that demonstrates the power of massive buying. That is Wal-
Mart, and they have a new prescription drug plan that they are going to
present to America.
All of these are good things.
We know how to get the job done, and the Democrats cannot wait to get
started to see that our people do not have to go to bed wondering if
they are going to be able to afford their medicine or their gasoline or
their light bill, thinking that they are going to work tomorrow and
still be working for $5.15 an hour, wondering if Social Security is
going to be there for them. That should be something that there is no
question about.
As I said, the Democrats cannot wait to get started in the right
direction. We know how to do these things. We are excited about being
part of it, and to continue to play these political games on the floor
of this great institution is a sad commentary on the corruption of
absolute power.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to just note for the record I am delighted to finally hear
something good about Wal-Mart coming from the other side because
generally that is not what we hear, but I agree with my good friend. It
is a great company and not just a great Arkansas company, but a great
American company.
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud when I had the
opportunity to vote to give tens of millions of seniors drug coverage
for the first time in the history, I did.
I am very happy and very proud that when I had the opportunity on
this floor to vote for an increase in the minimum wage, I did.
I am very happy when I had the opportunity to vote for, first, the
elimination and then the reform of the death tax so small business
people and farmers can keep their properties, I did.
I am very glad when the PATRIOT Act came up for reauthorization I had
the opportunity to vote to make our country safer and stronger, and I
did.
I am very glad I had the opportunity to vote for liability reform for
medical cases, and when the opportunity came to vote on the floor, I
was pleased to do so.
Finally, when I have had on a number of occasions the opportunity to
vote for measures that would increase the energy independence of this
country and hold down the escalation of gasoline prices, I have done
that. I am very pleased that I had an opportunity to do so.
I think what we are hearing today is unfortunately regret that so
many of our friends on the other side of the aisle did not vote for
those things when they had the opportunity; and rather than simply
express their disagreement, they are simply trying to denigrate the
work of the Congress, which has been productive and good for the
American people.
So I am pleased with the record of Congress and look forward to going
home to talk about it and look forward, again, to the balance of the
Congress after the election.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire from the gentleman from
Oklahoma how many more speakers he has on his side.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I am prepared to close when the gentleman is.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my friend. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we
have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 18 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I once again want to express my deep disappointment in
the lack of accomplishment of this Congress. I mean, this really is a
do-nothing Congress, and there are issues that one would have thought
we could have come together in a bipartisan way on, for example,
allowing the Federal Government to negotiate cheaper drug prices for
our senior citizens that the majority in this House chose not to want
to reach out and work with us.
{time} 1345
There are issues of energy independence that we could have worked
together on that they did not want to work with us on. In fact, as I
said in the very beginning, every time we have an idea, every time we
want to express a different opinion or want to present a different
alternative, we go to the Rules Committee and we are told, no, you are
not welcome; no, you are not allowed; no, we are going to shut you out.
That has been the hallmark of this Congress. This is probably the
most closed Congress in the history of the country. I don't remember a
time when we have had more closed rules, more restrictive rules than we
have in this Congress. I am going to tell you, that is something maybe
my friend from Oklahoma wants to take some pride in, but I find that
shameful. My expectation is that if the Democrats have the privilege of
taking over this Congress, Leader Pelosi has already indicated we will
have a whole different tone here, and all ideas, not just Democrat
ideas but Republican ideas, will be welcome as well.
That is what the American people expect. Every one of us represents
the same amount of people in our congressional districts, yet you would
never know that when you go to the Rules Committee and people routinely
get shut out.
We debated a bill on torture, we debated a bill on wiretaps dealing
with people's civil liberties, dealing with the values of this country,
and people had some strong opinions, not just Democrats but
Republicans, and they were told no, no, no, no, no, you have no
[[Page H7956]]
right to come to the floor and offer your opinion.
That is not a democracy. That is not the way this place is supposed
to run. This is supposed to be a deliberative body, and we are
routinely shut out. I think people are sick of that. People don't want
politics as usual. People want a change. They want a new direction. And
a new direction is not just in terms of policies but also in terms of
tone.
My friends on the other side of the aisle run everything. They run
the White House, they run the House of Representatives, and they run
the Senate. Yet they cannot get things done. They can't even work with
their own Members in the other body. So I think it is time for a change
to get people put in places of power who are going to actually be not
only advocates for working families in this country but who will
deliver and who are going to reach out a hand and try to work in a
bipartisan way. That doesn't exist here. There is no bipartisanship
here at all. There is none.
So this talk about we want to work together in the future on this
issue or that issue, it has not happened in the past, so why should it
happen in the future?
Mr. Speaker, before I talk about the previous question, I want to
urge Members of this House to vote against this martial law rule. This
rule allows the Republican leadership to bring up virtually any piece
of legislation with only a few minutes notice to this House. That is
just plain wrong. We have no idea what may be coming our way. I mean,
they could bring anything up with a few minutes notice. I do not think
that is the right way to do business here. I do not think that is the
way we should conduct ourselves in the House.
Mr. Speaker, before I get into my previous question speech, my good
friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) just came to the floor, and I want to
yield him 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my very good friend from
Massachusetts, who has done such a fine job in succeeding Mr. Moakley
on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, we are about to adjourn, and yet we are going to leave
the American people without the resources and the legislation they need
to provide the kind of security that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission
said was necessary. Five F's and 14 D's on the Commission's scorecard,
yet we can't act on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, we have the greatest gap in compensation between the
rich and the poor that we have ever had since the days of the Great
Depression in this country, and yet we can't even see our way through
to raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. Shame on this
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of thousands of senior citizens who
are being dumped into the doughnut hole as we speak, who are going to
have to pay 100 percent of the cost of their prescription drugs. And do
you know that there are hundreds of thousands of additional senior
citizens, Mr. Speaker, who are going to be stuck with a penalty of
paying an extra 7 percent premium for the rest of their lives because
we couldn't fix the Medicare prescription drug program to eliminate the
monthly penalty and the prohibition on the government's ability to
negotiate lower prices? It was written for and passed for the benefit
of the drug companies, not the senior citizens of America.
Mr. Speaker, the average college student is graduating from college
with a $20,000 debt. They can't afford to go into public service
because they have to go into a job that is going to give them the
maximum compensation so that they can spend the first few years after
graduation in order to pay back their debt.
We have thousands of students who have worked so hard to become
eligible for a college education, to become all that their parents want
them to be, all that we need them to be, but they can't afford college.
Yet we have seen massive cuts in college tuition assistance imposed by
this Congress, a Congress that has refused to provide the kind of size
and availability of Pell Grants that would have enabled these young
people to get to college and to afford college.
Mr. Speaker, not to provide the resources for our students when we
will spend over $400 billion on a misguided mission in Iraq is
unbelievable, and yet we are ready to recess.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this. I mentioned four reasons why
this Congress shouldn't even think of recessing, but there is another
one. There is billions of dollars that the large oil companies are
getting in tax breaks. They have had more revenue than at any time,
more than they could have ever imagined. In fact, in the last quarter,
they showed $47 billion of profit, all coming out of the pockets of
hard-working Americans, and yet we continue to give them tax breaks.
Unbelievable.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has no business recessing, and this
martial law rule certainly should be defeated.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again, I will be asking Members to
vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend this rule and
allow for the immediate consideration of the five bills that we on this
side of the aisle believe will really make a difference to our Nation's
working families.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, these bills are the same ones I talked
about yesterday; the same ones I have talked about today. Every Member
of this House of Representatives should support the goal of these
important legislative initiatives. My amendment would allow each of
them to be considered immediately.
The first bill will implement the long-overdue recommendations of the
highly respected bipartisan 9/11 Commission. My friends on the other
side like to talk about their great record on national security, yet
the 9/11 Commission has given them D's and F's for the implementation
of their recommendations to better protect our homeland. This would
allow that bill to come up immediately.
The second bill would allow us to bring the minimum wage up to $7.25
per hour. It has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for 9 years. You have
given yourselves pay raise after pay raise after pay raise. How about
giving the American worker a pay raise?
The third bill would let the Secretary of Health and Human Services
negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and
people with disabilities. Why not? What is wrong with free enterprise?
What is wrong with doing what the Veterans Administration has done so
effectively? Let us get those prices down lower and keep them low.
The fourth bill would repeal the massive cuts in college tuition
assistance opposed by the Congress, and it will expand the size and
availability of Pell Grants. People can't afford to go to college any
more, and you have made it more difficult. We say we want a 21st
century workforce, that we need to make sure our young people get the
education they need, and that means they have to be able to afford to
go to college.
And, lastly, the fifth bill will roll back the tax breaks for big oil
and invest those savings in alternative fuels to achieve energy
independence. We are tired of tax break after tax break after tax break
and subsidy after subsidy after subsidy for big oil. It is time to be
on the side of working families.
Mr. Speaker, each of these bills has enormous potential to help the
quality of life for tens of millions of deserving hard-working
Americans and their families. We have one more day before we adjourn
for more than a month. Let's use this opportunity not for suspension
bills but for something that will really make a difference in people's
lives, to provide people these opportunities by passing this important
legislation that will truly help so many.
So vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up these
measures.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I know we are not at Halloween
yet, but we must be getting close, because we have to scare the
American people on issue after issue after issue.
[[Page H7957]]
Frankly, most of the measures that my good friend talked about, if
they were brought up, would have to be brought up under the very same
closed rules he so often voices his concern about.
We are told this Congress somehow operates differently than the
others. I simply want to provide for the information of our body some
information provided to me by the Congressional Research Service. Same
day rules during the last week of session during the final three
Democratic Congresses, the Hundred First, the Hundred Second and the
Hundred Third, totaled six. Same day rules under the last three
Republican Congresses, the Hundred Seventh, the Hundred Eighth and the
Hundred Ninth, totaled five. Basically, the body operates about the
same way procedurally that it has operated throughout most of its
history and certainly throughout its recent history.
I also want to remind my friends who talk about the minimum wage that
they had the opportunity to vote for a minimum wage increase. I voted
for it. I certainly am happy that I did. I wish more of my friends had.
A majority of this body did. Indeed, a bipartisan majority. A
bipartisan majority of the United States Senate favored it.
It was my friends' friends on the other side of the rotunda that
decided not to enter in and allow that increase to take place because
they wanted a perfect bill from their perspective. They didn't want to
compromise. They didn't want to give and take. They didn't want to have
some discussion. Frankly, what they wanted is what they got, or what
they believe they got, which is a political issue for the November
elections.
I am hopeful that after the elections are over we can come back here
and actually have a discussion and come to a compromise solution, such
as was crafted on the floor in this body.
Our friends talk to us a lot about education. I think they should.
They probably ought to thank President Bush for being the best friend
education ever had. It is President Bush who came up with No Child Left
Behind, and it was President Bush who has recommended throughout his
tenure over a 50 percent increase in Federal funding of education.
My friends are concerned about the cost of tuition. So am I. I just
had a son who graduated. I am very grateful. But, quite frankly, most
of that problem is at the State level, where we have State government
after State government running enormous surpluses, yet not passing some
of that surplus on to higher education institutions and to their own
students.
The reality is that after coming in with a recession beginning in
2001, followed by September 11, something that all of us on both sides
of the aisle recognize as a dastardly and disastrous event, this
administration and this Republican Congress has gotten the economy
moving again and has accomplishment after accomplishment to run on. I
am not surprised that our friends on the other side see it differently
or want to obscure it, but I have profound faith in the good judgment
of the American people to understand fiction and understand fact and
know the difference between the two.
Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I want to reiterate the importance of
passing this rule. This rule allows us to move forward, pass the
necessary legislation, and to do the business of the American people.
It is interesting how we have heard complaints by the other side of the
aisle that this is a do-nothing Congress, yet at the same time the
other side wants to slow down the process today to prevent important
bipartisan legislation from being passed. It wants, in effect, to do
less, not more.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no surprise that I intend to vote for
the rule and the underlying legislation, and I would urge my colleagues
to do the same.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 1053, Blanket Martial Law Rule Waiving
Clause 6(a), Rule XIII
At the end of the resolution add the following new
Sections:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this
resolution and without intervention of any point of order it
shall be in order immediately upon adoption of this
resolution for the House to consider the bills listed in Sec.
4:
Sec. 4. The bills referred to in Sec. 3. are as follows:
(1) a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission.
(2) a bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour.
(3) a bill to provide authority to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug
prices for senior citizens and people with disabilities.
(4) a bill to repeal the massive cuts in college tuition
assistance imposed by the Congress and to expand the size and
availability of Pell Grants.
(5) a bill to roll back tax breaks for large petroleum
companies and to invest those savings in alternative fuels to
achieve energy independence.
____
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. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 1053, if
ordered; and passage of S. 3930.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 197, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 506]
YEAS--215
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
[[Page H7958]]
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
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
Hoekstra
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
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
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)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--197
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
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
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
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)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
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
Reichert
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Blunt
Boehner
Burgess
Cantor
Case
Castle
Chocola
Evans
Fattah
Foley
Gallegly
Hastings (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Meehan
Ney
Otter
Pence
Strickland
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (SC)
{time} 1424
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 193, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 507]
AYES--227
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
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
Hoekstra
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
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
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
Ros-Lehtinen
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)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
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
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
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
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
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
[[Page H7959]]
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
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Burgess
Case
Castle
Evans
Fattah
Foley
Lewis (GA)
Meehan
Ney
Strickland
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1432
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________