[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 45 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2575-H2578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1015
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1362, ACCOUNTABILITY IN CONTRACTING
ACT
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 242
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 1362) to reform acquisition practices of the
Federal Government. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived except those arising under clauses 9 or
10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour and 20 minutes, with one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed Services now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to
that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such amendments are waived except those arising under clauses
9 or 10 of rule XXI. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. 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. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1362
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to a time designated by the
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Solis). The gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. CASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
General Leave
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on House Resolution 242.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 242 provides for
consideration of H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act,
under a structured rule. The rule provides 80 minutes of general
debate, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
The rule provides that in lieu of the substitutes recommended by the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed
Services, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A
of the Rules Committee report shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment. All points of order except clauses 9 and
10 of rule XXI are waived against the substitute, and the substitute
shall be considered as read.
The rule makes in order the two amendments printed in part B of the
Rules Committee report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report. The
amendments are considered as read, are debatable for 10 minutes each,
are not subject to amendment and are not divisible. All points of order
against the amendments except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI are
waived.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Madam Speaker, this rule and the legislation before us today is the
Accountability in Contracting Act. This new act will restore
accountability in Federal contracting. It targets conflicts of interest
that have become too prevalent over past years.
During the first 100 hours of this new Congress, we charted a new
direction in response to the American people's call for change and
reform. We passed pay-as-you-go budgeting to require greater fiscal
responsibility, we passed Medicare part D reform to require the
executive branch to negotiate lower drug prices for our seniors and
help the Federal bottom line, and we eliminated unnecessary tax
subsidies for big oil companies that were making record profits while
we paid record prices at the pump.
But if you recall, Madam Speaker, the first item of business during
the first 100 hours of this new Congress was ethics reform. After the
scandals of the past years, our commitment to the American people is to
fight for higher ethical standards in the United States Congress and
for all of the Federal Government by severing the connection between
lobbyists and legislation, by banning gifts and travel from lobbyists,
and ending the abuses of privately funded travel.
Today, the new Democratic Congress will continue our fight for ethics
reform while we are still in the first 100 days through this rule and
the Accountability in Contracting Act. This bill targets waste in
Federal contracting, limits the use of no-bid contracts, minimizes
sole-source contracts, and closes the revolving door between purchasing
officers and private contractors. This bill addresses the past problems
with wasteful and fraudulent contracts in Iraq, the Defense Department
and in relation to Hurricane Katrina.
Congressional hearings have already shown that an estimated $10
billion in
[[Page H2576]]
Iraq reconstruction funds was wasted as a result of overcharging, poor
tracking and mismanagement by U.S. contractors, three times more than
was estimated just last fall. Unfortunately, these accounts have
abounded under the Bush administration. Defense auditors estimate that
at least one out of six dollars spent in Iraq is suspect, including
$2.7 billion in Halliburton contracts.
Almost 19 post-Hurricane Katrina contracts worth a total of $8.75
billion have been plagued by waste, fraud and mismanagement; and only
30 percent of the more than $10 billion in Katrina contracts were
awarded with full and open competition. And when it comes down to the
small contractors who are actually hauling away the rubble and debris,
they were not getting paid properly. This bill will help stop these
kinds of wasteful contracts that keep the real work from getting done,
that keep our neighbors from recovering from a natural disaster, and
that keep the real workers from getting paid.
In my Tampa Bay area district, the Federal defense procurement
revolving door has been the subject of Federal investigations in
Federal district court proceedings in Tampa over the past several
years. So it is vital we stand up for the folks we represent and demand
their Federal tax dollars are spent correctly, especially when it comes
to national security. That means having tough and fair oversight and a
transparent system so there are no conflicts of interest.
So I commend the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and
the Chair, Mr. Waxman, for his diligent efforts. I also commend the
House Armed Services Chair, Ike Skelton, and my fellow members of the
Armed Services Committee for their work on this legislation. When we
marked this bill up in the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday,
this effort won bipartisan and unanimous support. It deserves no less
by the full House today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule
and to the financially irresponsible underlying legislation. I also
rise with great regret to report to the American people that for the
third week in a row the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to
the House floor that stacks the deck in favor of big labor bosses at
someone else's expense.
Madam Speaker, in just a few minutes I am going to ask that we submit
this into the Congressional Record, but the Congressional Budget Office
estimates that this bill will cost a new $20 billion for 4 years after
it is implemented. $20 billion. Yet we have just heard from the other
side that this is responsible and the right way to do things. What do
we expect? An additional $20 billion worth of spending. It is a real
sad day, Madam Speaker.
Two weeks ago, American workers were the main losers in the Democrat-
controlled House when the majority leadership forced through
legislation that would provide for an unprecedented intimidation of
employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process
known as ``card check.''
Last week, in another unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon to
important water projects across this country, the Democrat leadership
set its sights on one of their all-time favorite targets, the American
taxpayer. Other losers that were targeted in that bargain included some
other perhaps more surprising targets, including local communities,
small and minority-owned businesses and, perhaps most of all, the
environment.
But I suppose that that is everything that the Democrat-controlled
leadership says is good. Everything is a fair game when tilting the
playing field in favor of labor bosses. That is what this new Democrat
majority is about.
Given this well-established track record, it should come as no
surprise that today, once again, the Democrat majority has placed a
bull's eye squarely on the American taxpayers' back on the floor of
this people's House. The legislation that we are being asked to
consider today represents the triumph of politics over policy by
attempting to taint every government contractor with the high-profile
transgressions that only a few have done.
I do commend Chairman Waxman for his desire to provide proper and
appropriate oversight for the use of government funds, and I do share
his desire to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in government
contracting. However, the approach that he has brought to the floor is
far-reaching and intrusive, expensive; and it misses the mark. The
problem is primarily one of enforcement, and this is where Congress
should be focusing its efforts on behalf of the taxpayer.
While these proposals may seem beneficial and look good on paper, in
practice they add up restrictions upon restrictions simply for the sake
of regulation. They would increase the cost and reduce government
access to the solutions it needs, while increasing the burden on an
already-overworked Federal contracting workforce.
While I am concerned about fiscal responsibility as a Member of this
body, I do not believe that adding layer upon layer of additional
regulations is a way to save taxpayer money or to be responsible.
Every day, private contractors provide the entire Federal Government
with effective cost-saving solutions, and this legislation represents a
large step backwards in giving these contractors the flexibility they
need to provide these vital services. Rather than taking Chairman
Waxman's approach and discouraging the vast majority of contractors
that do not play by the rules from wanting to do business with the
government, Congress should focus on dealing with those bad actors that
have violated the public trust.
{time} 1030
Right here on our Capitol campus, private contractors provide us with
the services that we need to function on a daily basis. They include
inspecting and delivering the mail, mowing the Capitol grounds,
installing signs, repairing sinks, providing IT consulting and
technology systems maintenance, and they do so at the lowest cost to
taxpayers through competition.
The Federal Government should not be competing with a vibrant private
sector that can provide these services better, faster, and cheaper than
we can do them ourselves. I find that a good rule of thumb that I have
used for years is if you can open up the Yellow Pages and find
professionals willing to do the same services listed, then the
government should not try to perform these tasks on its own, because it
will end up costing the taxpayers a great deal more money.
Madam Speaker, I do understand that the Democrat Party wants to
change this slowly and to stack the deck in favor of big labor bosses
whose ranks have dwindled to 12 percent from a high of 35 percent in
the 1950s. I understand that a very few contractors have behaved
dishonorably and illegally, and for that they should reimburse the
taxpayer and be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
But I simply don't believe that limiting the Federal Government's
flexibility to contract, especially in the case of an emergency, is the
answer to this problem. Nor do I believe that this legislation that is
a new private sector mandate and that the CBO estimates will cost
taxpayers over $20 billion, 20 billion new dollars, should be
considered reasonable or should be considered financially responsible.
This is not the correct solution to this problem.
Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the CBO cost estimate for
H.R. 1362.
H.R. 1362--Accountability in Contracting Act
Summary: H.R. 1362 would amend federal contracting rules.
Specifically the legislation would require federal agencies
to limit the length of noncompetitive contracts and limit the
use of solesource and cost-reimbursement contracts when
possible. H.R. 1362 also would authorize an increase in funds
used to pay for contract oversight, planning, and
administration equal to 1 percent of the value of an agency's
contracts. The legislation would require various reports to
the Congress on noncompetitive contracts and contractor
overcharges and amend employment restrictions on federal
procurement officials.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1362 would cost $20
billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts to provide additional resources for
contract oversight, planning, and administration. That
estimate does not include any costs or savings that could
result
[[Page H2577]]
from implementing the legislation's provisions regarding the
use of noncompetitive and cost-reimbursement contracts. CBO
has no basis for estimating any costs or savings for those
provisions. Enacting the bill could affect revenues by
increasing collections of civil penalties, but CBO estimates
that any increase in revenue collection would not be
significant. Enacting the bill would not affect direct
spending.
H.R. 1362 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act (UMRA) and would not
affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
H.R. 1362 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined
in UMRA, on certain former federal officials that were
substantially involved in the awarding of contracts. CBO
expects that the direct cost of complying with the mandate
would fall well below the annual threshold for private-sector
mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for
inflation).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1362 is shown in the following
table. The cost of this legislation falls within all budget
functions that provide contract funding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level................................. 4,000 4,070 4,145 4,220 4,295
Estimated Outlays............................................. 3,440 3,900 4,090 4,165 4,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: H.R. 1362 would amend federal
contracting rules and authorize the appropriation of
additional funds for contract oversight, planning, and
administration. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1362
would cost about $20 billion over the 2008-2012 period,
assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. For this
estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted before
the start of fiscal year 2008 and that spending will follow
historical patterns for contract oversight activity.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
Contract Oversight. Section 203 would authorize the
appropriation of additional funds for contract oversight,
planning, and administration equivalent to 1 percent of the
value of contract awards. Those funds would be used for
hiring and training of acquisition workforce personnel, as
well as contract planning, administration, and oversight.
Based on information from the General Services
Administration, CBO estimates that federal government awards
contracts with a value of about $400 billion annually. Thus,
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1362 would require
additional appropriations of about $4 billion annually (with
adjustments for inflation). As a result, we estimate a cost
of about $20 billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts, and that the value of
federal contracts increases at the rate of anticipated
inflation.
Federal Contracting Rules. H.R. 1362 would amend various
contracting rules regarding the use of noncompetitive, sole-
source, and cost-reimbursement contracts by the federal
government. This would include restrictions on the contract
period for noncompetitive contracts and limiting the use of
sole-source and cost-reimbursement contracts.
The provisions of the legislation that would impose
restrictions on the length of noncompetitive contracts and
limit the use of sole-source and cost-reimbursement contracts
could increase costs for contract administration, but could
also result in the use of other types of contract
procurements that may lower costs to the government. CBO has
no basis for estimating the net impact on the budget of those
provisions. The circumstances involving the use of cost-
reimbursement and noncompetitive contracts by federal
agencies and the potential to use other types of contracts in
those situations is often unique. At this time, CBO does not
have sufficient information relating to the use of
noncompetitive and cost reimbursement contracts to determine
the magnitude of any cost or savings that could result from
implementing H.R. 1362.
Other Provisions. The legislation also would require
federal agencies to report to the Congress on noncompetitive
and contractor overcharges. In addition, H.R. 1362 would
require reviews and reports by the Government Accountability
Office on the use of federal contracts. H.R. 1362 would amend
employment restrictions on federal procurement officials.
Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that
those provisions would increase federal administrative costs
by a few million dollars a year.
Revenues
Enacting H.R. 1362 could affect federal revenues as a
result of new civil penalties for violations of procurement
employment restrictions. Collections of civil penalties are
recorded in the budget as revenues. CBO estimates, however,
that any change in revenues that would result from enacting
the bill would not be significant.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 1362 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 1362 would
impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, on
certain former federal officials that were substantially
involved in government contracts awarded in excess of $10
million. The bill would expand an existing one-year
restriction that would prohibit those officials from
accepting compensation as an employee, officer, director, or
consultant from contractors receiving such awards. The
mandate would apply to those officials that leave government
service after March 31, 2007, but before the date of
enactment. The cost of the mandate would be the potential
loss of net income resulting from the restriction on those
former federal officials. Because the bill would limit the
restriction on compensation to apply to lines of business
directly related to the awarded contract, CBO expects the
direct cost of complying with the mandate would be minimal
and would fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA
($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this closed rule
and the well-intended underlying legislation which quite simply misses
the mark and will be a huge net cost to taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, to correct the record, the cost that the
gentleman from Texas referred to was in section 203 of the bill. That
section was deleted in the Armed Services Committee markup and is not
in the base text.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida, and
I thank her for her leadership on this rule and to get this bill to the
floor so we can begin the big task of restoring accountability and
oversight in our Federal contracting system.
I rise in support of the rule today and in support of H.R. 1362. I
strongly believe we must restore the American people's faith in our
government, and that is what this bill is about.
This bill will help stop the abuses of the Federal contracting
system, a system that has deservedly come under fire recently, and
sadly, whether it is in Iraq, Walter Reed, or many other places.
H.R. 1362 will increase transparency and accountability to help bring
back the integrity to a system that has lost so much of the public's
trust, and it is no wonder that we have lost so much of the public's
trust when we have government auditors testifying that an estimated $10
billion in reconstruction spending has been wasted as a result of
overcharging, poor tracking, and mismanagement by U.S. contractors. But
this is not only an issue about waste, abuse and fraud, it is about
getting the job done right and ensuring we have the proper people in
place to help those who need Federal Government services.
Recent hearings brought to light an Army memorandum showing that the
decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed was causing an
exodus of ``highly skilled and experienced personnel.'' And as a
result, the ``patient care mission are at a risk of mission failure,''
the memorandum continued.
So not only do we need to end the waste and ensure taxpayer dollars
are being used wisely, we need greater oversight and accountability on
the contracting decisions that are being made in the first place. And
we need to tell these contractors that if they are going to get a
contract with the Federal Government, they must play by the rules and
they must fulfill their responsibilities in an effective and efficient
manner.
Passing H.R. 1362 and the other bills that have been on the House
floor this week are important steps in our effort to restore the faith
in government that has been lost by the American people. I understand
that additional legislation regarding contractor oversight and
accountability is in the pipeline,
[[Page H2578]]
and I look forward to working with this new Congress and chairmen of
the committees of jurisdiction on this most important issue.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, this is a costly bill. This is a bill that is an
intrusion not only upon a system that works well, but it is also aiming
at an unintended consequence, and that is it is not only going to be
more expensive for the government to pay for those services that it
wants to buy, but it is going to make it also more costly to the
taxpayer in the amount of spending that takes place.
We think there could be better ways that this could be accomplished.
I ask all of my Members to oppose this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
From day one, this new Congress has been working to restore
accountability in Washington, including adopting fiscally responsible
pay-as-you-go budgeting and fighting for higher ethical standards in
government.
It is heartening to the American people, I know, that much of this
has been done in a bipartisan way. And indeed, on this bill this
morning, I anticipate that the House will follow the unanimous and
bipartisan votes of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and
the Armed Services Committee.
As part of our ongoing effort to fight for fiscally responsible
budgeting and higher ethical standards, this week I know, today, we
will pass this legislation and this rule that changes the way that
Congress and the Federal Government does business. It shines a bright
light on how government operates. We will continue to answer the call
of the American people for change and reform.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
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.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 190, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 154]
YEAS--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--190
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Baird
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Clay
Crowley
Davis, Jo Ann
Dingell
Fossella
Gerlach
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Kanjorski
Kind
Miller, George
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Saxton
Tanner
Westmoreland
Wexler
{time} 1105
Messrs. BOOZMAN, NEUGEBAUER, PICKERING, BISHOP of Utah and
ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.
____________________