[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5067-H5071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1585, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The time remaining in the
debate on the rule, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) controls
4 minutes, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) controls 9\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'd ask my friend from
Florida how many speakers she has on her side.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I have one remaining speaker before the
close, so I'll reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against this rule.
There are two provisions in this bill regarding specialty metals that
will make a bad situation worse. I offered two amendments to help
correct this problem but, unfortunately, the majority did not allow
either of the amendments. As a result, the Democrat majority will force
high quality union jobs overseas.
My amendment would have also addressed the problems with the
specialty metals and the country of origin specialty metals problem.
Can you believe that today we simply exempt foreign suppliers from
the specialty metals provisions. If a product containing specialty
metals comes from 18 other countries like France, Germany or Canada,
they simply do not have to comply.
This provision is a competitive disadvantage for American industry
and American workers. And here's how it works today. Caterpillar makes
diesel engines for the Army. These are very common, commercially
available engines that operate in civilian construction and trucking
industry all over the world. This engine is manufactured by American
workers in their Greenville, South Carolina plant.
But Caterpillar also manufactures the very same engine in Belgium.
Because of the world demand, Belgium is also a qualifying country. That
means that if Caterpillar makes an engine for the MRAP in South
Carolina, they must go through the expensive process of documenting the
nation of origin of the specialty metals content of every component in
the engine. Or they could simply shift the production to Belgium and
avoid the process and save money. This puts American jobs at risk
because of this outdated legislation, and this rule denies us the
ability to protect American workers in this bill.
It's simply unconscionable that we would legislate a competitive
disadvantage upon American companies and American workers. And it's
even more disheartening that Congress refuses to address the unintended
consequences of this decade old problem.
DOD should be leveraging the industrial might of the United States to
provide the best technology for our soldiers. But we're denied that
ability in this rule.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and
the underlying bill. I know Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter
have worked exceptionally hard on this bipartisan measure, and I thank
them for their leadership.
Our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have put great strain on our
military, and this bill will reverse the decline in readiness. It adds
funds for force protection programs such as mine resistant combat
vehicles, IED countermeasures and body armor and a much deserved pay
raise for the troops.
I'm also pleased that the measure recognizes the importance of
submarines to our national security by adding $588 million to construct
a second Virginia-class submarine as early as 2009, 3 years earlier
than planned. This is welcome news to the men and woman at Electric
Boat in Rhode Island, as well as Groton, Connecticut, as well as our
entire submarine industrial base, which is threatened by an
insufficient workload. The Navy's current shipbuilding plan would have
our submarine fleet drop to dangerously low levels in future years,
just as other nations are increasing their naval capabilities.
I've been working exceptionally hard for 6 years to address this
important national security issue, and I thank Chairman Skelton and
Seapower Chairman Taylor for their commitment to a robust submarine
force.
This is a good bill and a good rule and, Madam Speaker, I urge its
passage. And I thank my colleague for the time.
The rule before us makes in order an amendment I am offering with the
gentleman from Maine, Mr. Michaud, that would require military
pharmacies to include emergency contraception in the basic core
formulary. Access
[[Page H5068]]
to this contraception is important to our servicewomen--particularly
those who have been the victims of sexual assault--and I urge my
colleagues to support our amendment.
We can show our appreciation for all the men and women who keep our
Nation safe by voting for this rule and the defense authorization act.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Cole.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
the rule. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and having
formerly served on the Rules Committee, I'm both disappointed and
disturbed by the manner in which the rule has been reported to the
floor.
Let's be forthright about this, Madam Speaker. The committee
authorized an enormous number of amendments. But numbers alone do not
translate into meaningful policy options and good debate on the floor
of this body.
Let's look at a couple of things that the committee chose not to make
in order. The committee did not make in order an amendment by Mr. Akin
that addresses important concerns, including the evisceration of the
Army's only modernization effort and reducing by $867 million the
Future Combat System.
The committee did not make in order many of the amendments that were
necessary to address the evisceration of our Missile Defense System and
that, Madam Speaker, at a time when our intelligence tells us the North
Koreans and the Iranians are continuing to develop dangerous missile
capability.
With respect to the underlying legislation itself, Madam Speaker,
Chairman Skelton was given an incredibly difficult job. He was not
given enough money, in my opinion, enough authorizing authority to
address all the needs that he faced.
Nevertheless, he and Ranking Member Hunter and their subcommittee
chairmen accomplished some important things that we should not lose
sight of. One good thing that was accomplished was the increase in the
end strength of both the Army and the Marine Corps, something many of
us have long advocated, something the President now agrees to and
something I'm glad to see underway.
Additionally, the legislation included the Wounded Warriors Act, and
also included my language to create a program for pre- and post-
deployment neurocognitive assessments of our servicemen. I think that
was a very good thing, and I appreciate the chairman for working with
us on that.
The underlying legislation also addresses depot concerns and
maintenance in a way that encourages me, that increased the amount of
money in depot accounts.
And finally, I was happy to see that the majority continues to
recognize, as we do, the importance of developing the non-line-of-sight
cannon and remains committed to the new field increase.
With that, I still remain disappointed the rule did not allow the
options.
{time} 1200
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
This is a very important bill. Amongst other things it is because for
the first time the Department of Defense is required to consider the
effects of global warming on Defense Department facilities,
capabilities, and missions. It requires that the Department of Defense
in three central defense planning documents, the National Security
Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense
Review, look at the impacts of global warming on the facilities and
capabilities of the United States military.
This is a central issue. I am the chairman of the Select Committee on
Global Warming. We had testifying before us General Gordon Sullivan,
representing 11 three-and four-star admirals and generals who are all
very concerned that this issue of global warming has major national
security implications for the United States.
By including this requirement in this bill, we are beginning to focus
upon the long-term needs that we have to focus on in order to protect
our country and give the resources to the Department of Defense.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, and in strong
support of a provision within the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 which requires, for the first time, the Department
of Defense to consider the effect of global warming on Department
facilities, capabilities, and missions.
I commend Chairman Skelton for including this important language,
which will allow our armed forces to begin preparing, in a strategic,
Department-wide manner, for the impact that global warming could have
on our national security.
This provision requires the threat of global warming to be assessed,
and guidance for military planners to be issued, in the next versions
of three central defense planning documents: The National Security
Strategy, The National Defense Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense
Review.
The very first hearing of the new Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming focused on the geopolitical and
security consequences of our dependence on foreign energy and the
looming threat of global warming. We heard from former Chief of Staff
of the Army General Gordon Sullivan, who presented a report by eleven
retired three- and four-star generals and admirals arguing that global
warming is a grave national security threat, and must be treated as
such by our defense establishment and by this Congress.
Last month, Congressman Bartlett and I introduced the Global Climate
Change Security Oversight Act, with the intention of jump-starting our
government's analysis of and preparation for the national security
consequences of global warming. Our bill would require a National
Intelligence Estimate on the impact of global warming, and last week
exactly such an NIE was mandated by the Intelligence Authorization
bill. Our bill also encourages the Department of Defense to integrate
into our defense planning the threats posed by global warming, and I am
very pleased that this priority is being mandated in this year's
Defense Authorization Act.
Thinking about global warming as a national security issue is new for
many Members, but with the speed that the major provisions of the
Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act have been adopted by this
House, I feel confident that the Congress is making progress in
broadening how we think about global warming. It is crucial for the
national security of this country that the Congress continue along this
path. We must push our defense and intelligence communities to address
this threat, and we must offer, debate, and implement solutions to the
underlying problem.
I am also pleased to support and cosponsor an amendment that will be
offered during debate on this bill by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Lipinski, which would require the use of high efficiency light bulb in
Department of Defense buildings when new bulbs are installed or old
bulbs are replaced. This amendment will help lower energy consumption
in Defense Department facilities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help
promote energy independence, and result in millions of dollars of
savings for the American taxpayer--all without impeding the operations
of the U.S. military.
I urge adoption of the Rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, a member of the Appropriations
Committee (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding.
I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, and there is one very
good reason. Partisanship has reached an unconscionable level in this
House.
Just for the simple fact that I am in the minority party, the Rules
Committee did not allow an amendment which would have given a 9-year-
old child from my district access to the death gratuity that her mother
wanted her to have when she was killed in Iraq, just for partisan
reasons.
Susan Jaenke, the mother of Jaimie Jaenke, who was killed in Iraq,
along with her granddaughter, Kayla, came to Washington at great
expense and trouble and testified before the Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee. There was broad bipartisan support for an amendment that
would simply allow access to the death gratuity of Jaimie Jaenke by her
daughter.
This is outrageous, the fact that you would deny a 9-year-old child
access. Her grandparents don't have the money to raise this child. She
has no spouse. It would not cost a dime. It is the right thing to do.
In the committee, on a bipartisan basis, people said they would do
anything possible to help in this situation. I brought this before the
Rules
[[Page H5069]]
Committee and explained what is going on, how this child is denied
access to funding so that she can have a decent life; and it was denied
simply for partisan reasons. I would think you would be ashamed.
And this is not just a single case. There are at least 143 cases
exactly like this. And to deny a child access to this benefit is simply
outrageous.
Vote against this outrageous rule.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule.
The authorizing committee saw fit to include some 680 earmarks that
we got news of just yesterday in the bill. Yet I offered four
amendments to debate these earmarks and wasn't allowed any of them.
If they can allow 680 earmarks at the last minute in a bill, you
would think that the Rules Committee could have seen fit to at least
allow debate on a few of them.
The earmarks include $5 million for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources
for Automation Alley in Troy, Michigan; $2 million for the Physician
Order Entry Initiative for Mission Hospitals, which is a private
hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, and keep in mind this is a
Defense authorization bill here; $10 million for Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard, a former naval shipyard being economically revitalized with
taxpayer dollars, defense dollars, for the city of San Francisco; and
$500,000 for Rapid Identification of Technology Sources for the San
Diego East County Economic Development Council.
Our role here should be to ensure that our Defense dollars are spent
on defense, not economic revitalization, not nondefense private
ventures. That is why these amendments were offered. Unfortunately, the
only shot we might have at checking these amendments is in the
appropriations process. By the time we get there, the Members will say
these projects were authorized, implying that there was some sort of
scrutiny given when there surely has not been.
So, unfortunately, we cannot support this rule. It doesn't allow
debate on any of the 680 earmarks in the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question so that I can amend section 2(c) of this rule after ``shall
not be subject to amendment'' and insert ``(except the amendment
numbered 43 in the report, to be offered by Representative Michaud of
Maine, or his designee).''
By defeating the previous question, Members will be able to offer
amendments to the Michaud amendment, and a full and wide range of views
can be discussed. Those rules were denied because we were not allowed
to offer secondary amendments, at least, to the Rules Committee.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
To my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, I thank you for
your diligence and hard work. Great thanks also to the professional
staff of the Armed Services Committee. And I think we all must salute
the great leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, who produced a bipartisan
product that passed that committee 58-0.
Madam Speaker, I urge this Congress to chart a new direction today
for a stronger and safer America. We will improve the readiness of our
Armed Forces, including the National Guard and Reserves. We will put a
stop on the blank check given to the White House by previous Congresses
for the war in Iraq and, instead, require greater accountability for
operations and contracting in the region. We will drive more strategic
decisions and investments to better protect our national security.
With that, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous
question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 403 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
In section 2(c) after ``shall not be subject to amendment''
insert ``(except the amendment numbered 43 in the report, to
be offered by Representative Michaud of Maine, or his
designee)''.
(Pretty much the same as what Mr. Sessions offered last
night)
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
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 Democratic 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 Democratic
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 definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
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 Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 198, not voting 9, as follows:
[[Page H5070]]
[Roll No. 351]
YEAS--225
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
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
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
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
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
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
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
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
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
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)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--198
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
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
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
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)
LaHood
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
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
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
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Engel
Fattah
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Nadler
Sires
{time} 1232
Mr. McHENRY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BAIRD 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. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 194, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 352]
YEAS--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
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
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
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 (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
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
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
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
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
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)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--194
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)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
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
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
[[Page H5071]]
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
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
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
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
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Engel
Fattah
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Nadler
Sires
{time} 1241
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.
____________________