[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 102 (Friday, June 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6960-H6969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 502, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 502
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. 2771) making appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding
clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. 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 clause 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. 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. 2771
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask
unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which
to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 502.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 502 provides for
consideration of H.R. 2771, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act
of 2008, under a structured rule.
The rule provides H.R. 2771 with 1 hour of general debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its
consideration except for those arising under clause 9
[[Page H6961]]
or 10 of rule XXI. The rule also waives points of order against
provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for three
amendments, two offered by Republican Members and one bipartisan
amendment.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Madam Speaker, the legislation we will consider today, H.R. 2771,
funds the legislative branch of our government. This includes funding
for the House of Representatives so Members of Congress have the
resources we need to serve our constituents.
It includes funding for the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget
Office, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Compliance
and other government agencies.
{time} 0915
The bill also takes a bold step forward and begins implementing the
Speaker's Green the Capitol Initiative. For the first time ever, the
House of Representatives will take steps to address the threats of
global warming by ensuring the House operates in a carbon-neutral
manner.
The bill provides initial funding to Green the Capitol by switching
to 100 percent renewable wind energy for the House's electricity needs,
increasing the use of cleaner-burning fuels, and making congressional
offices more energy efficient.
This is necessary as Members of Congress must set an example for our
constituents by being as environmentally friendly as possible,
especially as we ask them to do the same in their own homes.
Most importantly, however, this bill shows the Democratic majority's
commitment to change the way our government is run. This bill
demonstrates a commitment to fiscal responsibility, increased oversight
and increased accountability.
Madam Speaker, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
attested to, this bill is fiscally responsible. It provides an increase
of only $122 million, or 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level. This
is significantly lower than the 13 percent increase requested by the
President. And much of the increase is attributable to unavoidable
expenses that come in a Presidential election year.
Reducing the President's budget request by nearly one-quarter of a
billion dollars shows that the Democrats are committed to holding the
line on unnecessary spending, while ensuring that government is still
able to deliver services to the American taxpayer.
While funding is increased by 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted
level, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee chose to
invest heavily in critical life and safety and security measures for
the Capitol complex.
The world changed on September 11, and we now know that the United
States Capitol will forever be a target of a terrorist attack.
We owe it to our staff members, our visitors, our constituents, our
distinguished guests, and to ourselves to ensure that the Capitol
complex is as safe and secure as possible.
In a post-9/11 world, we cannot be too lax when it comes to securing
the Capitol complex. Security enhancements are no longer an option.
They are a necessity.
The Legislative Branch appropriations bill provides almost $50
million for security and lifesaving projects, including $5 million for
new, interoperable police radios, $275,000 for utility, tunnel, health
and safety process, $1.2 million for visitors escape hoods, $16 million
for building security enhancements, $1 million for emergency exit signs
and lighting in the Capitol, and $4.4 million in emergency lighting
upgrades for the Rayburn Building.
The bill also provides a 7.7 percent increase for the Capitol Police
Department and a 23 percent increase for the Office of Compliance so
they can ensure health and safety of the Capitol complex.
Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the defining traits of the Democratic
Congress has been increased government oversight. As such, this bill
provides the tools Congress needs to hold the government accountable to
the American taxpayer.
The Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee is determined to
crack down on unnecessary spending by government agencies. The
subcommittee held 11 agency budget hearings and is requiring government
agencies to reexamine their needs based on priority, cost
effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility.
The bill provides for additional staff at the Government
Accountability Office to enable the GAO to better support congressional
oversight efforts and address important issues such as health care,
changing security threats, education, and continued audit work on the
war in Iraq.
The Congressional Budget Office receives an increase in funding to
better advise Congress on controlling runaway health care spending.
Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz and I discussed CBO staffing in a
colloquy during a Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday. We both agree
that the current funding staff levels are insufficient to meet our
needs. We'll work together with CBO Director Orzag to address the
staffing and enhance this important agency's efforts in the future.
The bill increases support for the Inspector General overseeing the
Capitol Police Department. It also establishes a statutory Inspector
General at the Architect of the Capitol. It is absolutely essential
that there is stringent oversight of the Architect's office to improve
its financial and management practices.
The subcommittee is 100 percent committed to improving the oversight
and completion of the Capitol Visitors Center. I have personally toured
the Visitors Center, and it is a beautiful addition that, when
finished, we will all be proud of. However, no Member of Congress is
proud of how this edifice has been produced. The project has spiraled
out of control due to an inexplicable lack of oversight and
accountability in prior Congresses, resulting in unnecessary delays and
massive cost overruns. This bill assures that there will no longer be a
blank check and no questions asked.
The subcommittee has held, and will continue to hold, monthly
hearings, and the Architect will be required to submit a detailed plan
to the House and Senate before one cent can be spent.
Madam Speaker, this bill delivers on the promises that Democrats
made. It's fiscally responsible. It focuses on life, safety, and
security measures, and provides much needed accountability to the
process.
I would like to thank Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee
and the full Appropriations Committee for all their hard work and
thoughtful work that went into this legislation.
In particular, I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida,
Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz. She has been a true champion for the
Democratic majority's efforts to bring efficiency, fiscal
responsibility, accountability to the Federal Government, and to this
Chamber.
Madam Speaker, this bill is well thought out, well crafted, and sets
the right priorities. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
unnecessarily and uncharacteristically restrictive rule. On Wednesday
night, despite the protests and objections of Republicans on the
committee, the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee did its level
best to solidify the committee's status as the Graveyard of Good Ideas
in this House by passing out the most restrictive rule for a
Legislative Branch appropriations bill in recent history.
Last year, when the Republicans ran the Rules Committee, we reported
out a rule for consideration of the 2007 Legislative Branch in which we
made in order all seven, that's seven out of seven, amendments
submitted by Members of this body so that they could be considered and
debated on this House floor. These amendments included four sponsored
by Democrats and three sponsored by Republicans, making the rule and
that process a completely inclusive and bipartisan product.
The year before that, the Republican-run Rules Committee, nearly half
of the 11 amendments submitted in it were made in order under the rule,
with both bipartisan and Democrat-
[[Page H6962]]
sponsored amendments allowed to be debated there on the House floor.
Madam Speaker, I wish I could claim to be stunned by the majority's
enormous departure from the Republican-led precedent to increase
inclusiveness and dialogue in the House on this particular
appropriations bill which is, by convention, the only bill to come to
this floor under a closed process.
However, rather than honoring this tradition, on Wednesday the
Democrat Rules Committee produced the most restrictive and closed rule
in recent history. Earlier this week, 24 Members of this body submitted
thoughtful and earnest proposals to improve this legislation to the
Rules Committee. Additionally, Members tried to have their constituent
voices be heard also by the committee, but they were turned away at the
door because their amendments were submitted shortly after the
arbitrary deadline.
And out of these 24 amendments, only three were given the opportunity
to be debated on the floor. In passing this rule, Democrats made a
calculated decision not to make every single amendment in order like
Republicans did the year before. They even voted to abandon the more
relaxed standard of 2 years ago, when half of the amendments were made
in order.
So instead of making 100 percent of their colleagues' amendments in
order, or even 50 percent of the amendments in order, this rule makes
only 12 percent of the amendments submitted in order. This seems pretty
meager in comparison to the grand promises made during last year by
Speaker Pelosi to run the ``most honest and open Congress'' in history.
Among the amendments rejected by the committee on Wednesday were two
amendments offered by someone with more knowledge of the legislative
appropriations than perhaps any other Member of this body, my friend
and the former chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Georgia, Jack Kingston; an amendment by a Member of the Democrat
majority, Mr. Cleaver of Missouri, that was made in order last year by
the Republican majority, not this year; and a number of friendly
taxpayer amendments by my good friend and colleague from Texas, the
gentleman, Mr. Hensarling, that would have reduced the overall cost of
this bill to the taxpayer.
Madam Speaker, I do understand that the majority Democrats outnumber
Republicans and have enough Members on the committee to win every
single vote in the Rules Committee. And I understand that, as the
majority, it is their responsibility to run the committee and the floor
as they see fit. So all things being equal, I will not take exception
to their new, heavy-handed approach to shutting down debate.
However, the second-ranking member of this body, the majority leader,
Mr. Hoyer, crowed to the media on December 5 that Democrats would
``have a Rules Committee that would give opposition voices and
alternative proposals the ability to be heard and be considered on the
floor of the House.''
Obviously, that is not happening. I believe every single Member of
this body and, more importantly, the American people who send us here
every 2 years have the right to know that when these grand promises are
not being lived up to that those things will be noted on the floor. And
they are, again, today.
So while my service in the Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House may
prevent me from being surprised when these campaign pledges are broken
on a daily basis by the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee at the
direction of Democrat leadership, I hope that the American people are
still shocked and appalled that promises delivered in November and
December were promptly forgotten in January, and that they continue to
be ignored today.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to send a message to this
new Democrat leadership that this restrictive debate in the people's
House is completely unacceptable. Join me in voting ``no'' on this rule
so that the Rules Committee can live up to the standards set by the
Democrat leadership and pass out a rule that allows for debate on the
issues and ideas of every single Member of this body, not just the ones
that the Democrat leadership find politically convenient.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I enjoy the comments and the colloquy
that my colleague from Texas and I and the rest of the committee engage
in. We seem to have this conversation quite a bit these days.
I'd like to remind the gentleman that, while it's true that we have
made three amendments in order this year, two Republican and one
bipartisan, last year there were four Democratic amendments made in
order on this particular appropriations bill. The prior year, however,
there were 11 amendments offered in committee, and only one Democratic
amendment was offered in this bill.
Why I raise this number, I want to point out that this is not unusual
for this Legislative Branch appropriations bill to be a structured rule
in prior years. And, in fact, there's good reason for that. My
distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, mentioned in
committee yesterday, in fact, that there is potential for demagoguery
on both sides of the aisle on this Legislative Branch appropriations
bill, and that he has agreed in the past, and this year, on a
structured rule.
Now, honorable men and women can disagree on the merit and the
substance of particular amendments, the number of which are not as
important as the fact that we are arguing about substantive language,
about health and safety, about meeting our constituents' needs. And I
think it's important that we talk about that substance, rather than
just the number on the bill.
And so, Madam Speaker, I think that we've done a good job producing a
fiscally accountable bill for the Congress. In fact, the President
asked for $275 million more than our subcommittee is providing under
this legislation. The President asked for a 15 percent increase in this
appropriation, and Congress saw fit to only offer 4.1 percent. I think
the subcommittee has done a good job crafting this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0930
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the
Honorable David Dreier.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from the Big D
recognizing me, and I thank both of my friends for their management of
this rule.
I have got to clear my throat, Madam Speaker, because it was last
night and early this morning that we had a freewheeling, very
passionate, vigorous debate that took place on the Foreign Operations
appropriations bill, as we all know. And we are here this morning
addressing an issue which traditionally has, in a bipartisan way, been
recognized that, as a measure to avoid demagoguery, should be brought
up under a structured rule. It is the only appropriations bill that
both Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized all along that we
should do, and I am happy to say that we are proceeding with the other
appropriations bills under an open amendment process.
I will say that I am very, very troubled, very troubled, with the way
that this has been handled. My friend from California has just said
that this is a discussion that has been going on and on. We seem to
have this same discussion back and forth. And I will tell my friend we
could end it right here, we could end it right here if, in fact, as the
gentleman from Dallas has just said, the promises that were made in
last year's election were, in fact, kept. We don't have to continue to
have this kind of debate over the rule if we would see the kind of
compliance with the commitments that were made to the American people.
Now, let me just say what did happen in the past on the issue of the
Legislative Branch appropriations bill. As Mr. Sessions has just said,
100 percent of the amendments that were proposed last year were, in
fact, made in order. And the year before, the gentleman is absolutely
right, there were 11 amendments submitted, but the gentleman said only
1 amendment was made in order. No. One Democratic amendment was made in
order of the 11 amendments, but there were Republican
[[Page H6963]]
amendments proposed, too, and there were 4 amendments made in order. So
what I am saying is that this notion that somehow 11 Democratic
amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules and only 1
Democratic amendment made in order? That is wrong.
The fact of the matter is we have worked very hard to ensure that
every Member who has come forward with a responsible, thoughtful
amendment that should be debated on the legislative branch
appropriations bill could, in fact, have that opportunity. And that is
what has happened in the past. I am very proud to say that last year
every single amendment submitted to the committee was made in order.
This year 23 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, 23
amendments. And how many were made in order? It is very sad. Only three
amendments were made in order.
Now, let's look at some of the amendments that were denied, Madam
Speaker. The distinguished chairman, former chairman, of the
Legislative Branch appropriations subcommittee, Mr. Kingston, is here,
and he came before the Rules Committee with some very thoughtful
amendments.
Now, my friend from California has just talked about the issue of the
Visitors Center. Mr. Kingston, who has consistently raised very
important questions about that in the past, said that we don't need to
put $16 million, which, as was said in the dissenting views on this
issue, is the tip of the iceberg, creating a chance to spend well in
excess of $50 million, at the minimum of $55 million, for another
building with an additional 200,000 square feet behind the Ford
Building over here.
Now, Madam Speaker, we are going to have an additional half a million
square feet when we see completion of this Congressional Visitors
Center. We all hope that it happens in our lifetime, but I will say
that we are going to have an additional 500,000 square feet. And I know
my friend from California said he has just been there.
And, by the way, I should extend congratulations to the gentlewoman
from Florida for the great job that she has done in working closely
with Mr. Wamp on this issue. She testified, Madam Speaker, before the
Rules Committee, and I appreciate her diligence on this, and I suspect
that she would be somewhat concerned as well that the opportunity for
an amendment process like the one that we have had in the past is being
denied to a number of our Members, both Democrats and Republicans
alike.
Mr. Kingston, the former chairman of the appropriations subcommittee
on the Legislative Branch, also offered an amendment calling for the
Basic Pilot Program to be included, dealing with this notion that we
impose on everybody else, Madam Speaker, the requirement that they
comply with the Basic Pilot Program when it comes to this very serious
issue of illegal immigration, and yet we are free of having to comply
with that within the first branch of government. I think that is an
absolute mistake, and that is what Mr. Kingston has been trying to
address with his amendment.
One of the amendments that troubled me most that was not made in
order came from a very distinguished Democratic Member of this
institution. I am proud of the fact that he represents my parents in
Kansas City, Missouri. It is Reverend Emanuel Cleaver, who came before
the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, and he said that he had been told
by staff not to offer the amendment. He was very concerned about being
there, and he said that he was somewhat confused, and, understandably,
that does happen on occasion. I just told one of my staff members that
the moment they tell me to do something, I automatically and
instinctively do the opposite. But what happened in his case was that
he felt somewhat concerned about coming before the Committee on Rules
when so many people had told him not to do it.
I have never seen a situation like this, Madam Speaker. The Chair of
the Rules Committee Ms. Slaughter had to say to Mr. Cleaver that he was
welcome at any time to come before the Rules Committee and offer an
amendment. I thought that that was just a right that every Member in
this institution had. And, unfortunately, while we made Mr. Cleaver's
amendment in order in the last Congress, this new majority refused to
allow Mr. Cleaver the opportunity to even have his amendment heard,
even have it debated here, Madam Speaker.
And that is why Mr. Sessions is going to offer an opportunity, if we
can, to defeat the previous question, to take the Cleaver amendment,
which deals with the very important priority that has been set forth by
our Speaker that looks at the environmental standards for this
institution. Mr. Cleaver simply says that prospectively we should have
flex-fuel or hybrid vehicles purchased through the Members'
representational accounts. It is an issue that should be debated here
on the House floor. Again, we made that amendment in order last year,
and it has been denied the opportunity this year.
One other thing that I will say again that is very troubling about
this so-called new era of openness. Our colleague from West Virginia, a
very distinguished former member of the Committee on Rules, tried to
submit an amendment to the Rules Committee, and Shelley Moore Capito
was denied that opportunity at the door to even submit her amendment,
recognizing that she was a few minutes, I think right around 30
minutes, beyond the imposed deadline. I think the flexibility for
Members is something that we always recognized, but has been denied
here. But to have a former member of the Rules Committee denied an
opportunity to even submit the amendment is, to me, Madam Speaker,
undermining this entire spirit of openness.
So, Madam Speaker, let me say I am going to encourage my colleagues
to support Mr. Sessions in his quest to defeat the previous question so
that we can give Emanuel Cleaver an opportunity to offer the amendment
that was denied him by the Rules Committee.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California and I agree
on one thing absolutely, and that is that Mr. Cleaver is a great Member
of Congress and offers thoughtful amendments.
The problem with his amendment was that it was simply unworkable. It
required that vehicles be E85 ethanol-compliant. And, for example, in
California, in Mr. Dreier's and my own State, there are only two gas
stations that provide E85 fuel.
I drive a hybrid. I think it is an important thing for Members of
Congress to lead on this issue, but the fact is that the amendment was
unworkable. We discussed that in Rules Committee yesterday. I discussed
that with Mr. Cleaver, and, in fact, the committee did see fit not to
make that amendment in order.
The gentleman raises a number of other points, but I would like to
talk about the $16 million and the FDA building that the gentleman
raised and the fact that the appropriations subcommittee is, in fact,
bringing fiscal accountability and better standards to the construction
process of the Capitol, and that this proposal that the gentleman from
California refers to was actually initially brought to the House by
former Speaker Hastert. And, in fact, we are continuing the prior
administration's priority in this area.
The subcommittee has changed the way this building will be managed
and procured in that the GSA will manage the construction and retrofit
of this new building that is being acquired in order to provide swing
space and allow the operations of Congress to continue as we revamp
other buildings here in the Capitol complex. The $16 million in
security enhancements this bill provides for the FDA building are
critical if we are to use the building for additional House office
space. The project was originally approved, as I said, by former
Speaker Hastert and is now being carried forward in this bill. It is
critical so that we can get the swing space ready for the House to use
when we begin the badly needed renovations to the Cannon Building,
which is nearly 100 years old, and to the Longworth Building, which is
nearly 75 years old. We need flex space to move offices while those
buildings are being renovated. The FDA building fits the bill.
GSA is ready to invest $150 million in the renovations of this
building. This additional funding is to bring security from the generic
government building level up to meet the requirements of congressional
office space. This is a long-term investment. If we don't put
[[Page H6964]]
this money into getting the FDA building ready now, we will have to
delay much-needed renovations to our existing buildings.
I would also say that I believe it is important for our staff to get
the same kind of security that we would get as Members. We know that in
the post-9/11 world, as we have talked about many times on the floor
before, Members of Congress and this Capitol complex are targets, and
it is imperative that we provide our staff with the same security that
we ourselves demand.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
And let me, if I could, just respond to a couple of his points. First
of all, the gentleman has offered some very thoughtful arguments on
this issue, and I think that the fact that he has made these arguments
underscores why the Rules Committee should have, in fact, allowed a
debate on these issues to proceed.
He began by talking about how unworkable the amendment that Mr.
Cleaver has put forward by virtue of the fact that California has only
two of these E85 stations. I know that the Cleaver amendment provides
options, a hybrid vehicle, which the gentleman drives and obviously is
able to get fuel very easily, and the option of looking at the flex-
fuel vehicles. And, obviously, if it is a flex-fuel vehicle, it has the
ability to use others. They don't have to go to those two stations that
exist in California.
And I think that, again, that underscores the fact that we should be
having this debate. We made it in order in the last Congress, and,
unfortunately, they chose not to make it in order.
And on the issue of the additional building, he has raised a lot of
interesting arguments about that. Mr. Kingston would simply like to
have a chance, as a former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Legislative Branch, to debate it.
I thank my friend for yielding, and I will just say that I wish we
would have a chance to have a free-flowing debate on this.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I want to point out that this discussion
is interesting, and, as Mr. Dreier has said to Mr. Cardoza, it is
worthy of debate.
I want to ask my friend, were you here during the anthrax threat?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CARDOZA. I was not.
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, it is important because there is a little history
here, Madam Speaker, but during the period of time in which much of the
Longworth office was shut down and evacuated right in the wake of 9/11,
I don't know how many Members, and perhaps Mr. Dreier knows, but we all
had temporary offices in a building downtown, and I do not remember
which building that was. But it was interesting. That was a direct
threat to the United States Congress, and some of the offices were
closed down for maybe a couple of months.
{time} 0945
I moved my entire staff off premises. And so to say now that we have
to construct expensive, unnecessary swing space just to fill in a gap
is ridiculous.
I want to point out that I think it's important for newer Members to
realize there is a history, there is a precedent. And because of the
Rules Committee shutting down this amendment and free speech, most
Members won't know that we are trying to prevent something that we've
already gone through before, and that is temporarily locating elsewhere
in a secure premises.
I wanted to commend Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the Chair, and the ranking
member, Mr. Wamp, for what they have done on the CVC, the Capitol
Visitors Center. It is a monstrosity; something we're all very
disappointed in. When I was Chair of this committee, we tried our best
to get our arms around it. One of the things that we all discussed is
unfortunately it's kind of a bicameral problem. You don't have one head
of the snake, one committee, one Chair who was fully responsible from
alpha to omega.
I commend the committee on what they've done on this. I do think that
with this FDA building we are creating another CVC boondoggle, as
already outlined and debated in the committee. Since 2002, we've been
debating this unnecessary additional office space, this swing space.
And at the same time, the committee of the same government agencies are
involved in it that have given us the CVC. So not to allow that
amendment on the floor is something, in my opinion, is worth voting
``no'' on the whole rule debate.
The other amendment that I offered, among the many amendments that
were turned down by the Democrats, it's very important to say the
people who talked about sunshine so much are now denying it on the bill
that tells this institution and the public so much about ourselves. No
one gets elected or unelected on leg branch politics, except it does
show what your culture of leadership is. If you don't allow sunshine,
if you don't allow an open rule, if you don't allow open debate on your
own piece of legislation that governs the House, then how can you go
around and pontificate from coast to coast what an open government
you're going to bring the United States people?
I know that the members of the Rules Committee and the members of the
Appropriations Committee have somewhat been under a mandate, maybe even
a gag order, by the leadership, but I would say there is huge hypocrisy
and irony in this.
Another important amendment that I offered has to do with the Basic
Pilot Program. And I'll ask you this: Do you think that people who do
construction for the Federal Government should have legal employees, or
should they be allowed to have illegal aliens? Well, we know and the
Chair would be interested to know about the situation in California,
because it's been such a hot debate out there, and the folks who have
been building the fence, that the folks who are constructing the fence
were busted for having illegal aliens to build a fence to keep illegal
aliens out of the country. That is absurd. Similarly, we see this all
over the place on Air Forces bases and Federal institutions, where
contractors come in, and after close scrutiny we find they are hiring
illegal aliens.
What the amendment would have done, which I believe would have wide
bipartisan support, simply says that you need Social Security
verification if you're going to do business with the Federal
Government. No big deal, except for in this town and in this Chamber
somehow that might offend some of our K Street friends, or should I say
some other people's K Street friends. Because folks I know back home,
they want Social Security verification. Unless you attack the job
magnet, you're always going to have the attraction for illegals to come
into the country.
This would give us an opportunity to lead by example to say we're not
going to let you do business with the Federal Government unless you
have verified Social Security. And the program is run by ICE, the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. It's called the Basic Pilot
Program. Nothing controversial whatsoever. However, the Rules Committee
is not even going to allow us to have a vote on it.
I cannot believe that the people one year ago, indeed, 7 months ago,
were campaigning out there, telling Americans the Democrats are going
to deliver open and honest government, because this rule is anything
but that.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I will say that it seems ironic to me
that they blame the Democrats for everything, yet this proposal that is
being put forward by the gentleman from Georgia was originated under
the speakership of Mr. Hastert and was planned during that period of
time. And, frankly, it was a good idea. It's something that needs to be
done.
The other point I would just like to make at the outset of my
discussion here.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDOZA. No, I will not yield.
Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to know, is it in the Democrat budget?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
[[Page H6965]]
I also want to point out that Mr. Kingston is talking about
immigration and the lack of accountability with regard to illegal
workers on government projects. I would like to remind the gentleman
that it is his President that is in charge of enforcement, it is the
administrative branch of government that is in charge of adjudicating
and prosecuting illegal aliens, and that it is their Department that is
awarding the contracts. And so if the gentleman is concerned about
this, he should talk to his President down the street. And with a
single conversation, he should be able to get the administration to do
what he wants, since he is of the same party.
With regard to this building that we're talking about, when we had
the anthrax scare here in Congress, I am aware that they actually had
to displace Federal workers to house congressional employees in that
building. That was only for a couple of weeks. To do this for months on
end while a building is being renovated is simply unacceptable.
Further, Mr. Kingston's amendment was argued in the subcommittee and
it was put forward in the subcommittee and it was rejected by the
subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. We need this swing space to be able
to do the renovation. And I think this goes back to a very simple thing
that Mr. Dreier said, that this can be demagogued.
Clearly, we can have disagreements, but we need to do the right thing
by the American people to provide for the safety of Congress. This $16
million appropriation is for Capitol security. Either you support
security for Members, for the staff and for the general public, or you
don't. You either support security or you don't. And I say that the
bipartisan workings of the committee were the correct action and that
the amendment that the gentleman offered was previously rejected in
committee.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman now seems to want to duck
what Republicans have done for 12 years, and that is, take
responsibility for that, which they should do. The fact of the matter
is we're here asking for and we're in the Rules Committee asking for
the ability to be able to debate these. We're not blaming anybody,
except to say that we believe there should be a debate, an open and
honest debate that would be good for the American people, which would
avoid the gentleman having to be concerned about who is blaming who.
Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to thank my friend from Texas for his
leadership on the Rules Committee and on this issue of wanting and
demanding what the American people want, and that is an open process.
I oppose this rule because I believe, Madam Speaker, that it stifles
the ability for Members of this House to represent their constituents.
The reason that it stifles them is because it doesn't allow for the
kind of debate and the kind of voting on issues that we've just heard
about.
This is a good bill. I want to commend my classmate, Representative
Wasserman Schultz, and Representative Wamp for their work; but it's not
a perfect bill. And so we ought to move in the direction of making it a
more perfect bill by allowing amendments, other ideas from this House
to come forward.
Madam Speaker, I'm sorry to say that this is just another example of
what I have come to know and phrase as ``Orwellian democracy'' by this
new majority. It's Orwellian democracy because they say one thing and
they do exactly the opposite.
What did they say? Well, what they said is that they would assure a
fair and open process. Before the last election, Speaker Pelosi said,
``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voice is silenced
by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the
rule.''
So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency,
or is it a broken promise?
The chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, said before, ``If
we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and
the thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open
rule.''
So what's changed, Madam Speaker? What's different now? Is it
political expediency, or is it a broken promise?
Mr. McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, said, ``I would say to
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want to show some
bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has some
integrity, this should be an open rule. All Members should have an
opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve
the quality of deliberations on this House floor.''
So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency,
or a broken promise?
Democratic Caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel, said before, ``Let's have an up
or down vote. Don't be scared. Don't hide behind some little rule. Come
on out here. Put it on the table. Let's have a vote. So don't hide
behind the rule. If this is what you want to do, let's have an up or
down vote. You can put your votes right up there, and then the American
people can see what it's all about.''
So what's different, Madam Speaker? Political expediency, or a broken
promise?
I offered an amendment that would be debated on this floor that would
have reduced the amount of spending by 1 percent. It would have saved
the American taxpayer $31 million. Now, $31 million may not seem like a
lot in Washington, but back where I come from and across this Nation,
$31 million is a lot of money. It would say to the American people this
is a step in the right direction for fiscal responsibility. That was
said before, what was said before by the now majority leader, Steny
Hoyer, who said, ``We want to get the budget deficit under control. We
have said fiscal responsibility was necessary, but we're not going to
be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.''
Madam Speaker, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you
want to, and choosing when to do so is breaking a promise. An open
promise shouldn't just be something that you talk about on the campaign
trail.
Madam Speaker, Americans understand that promises made on the
campaign trail and promises that aren't kept in the heat of debate on
the House floor are broken promises. And the American people are paying
attention.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond to the
gentleman from Georgia by saying that, in fact, the Rules Committee did
offer Mr. Jordan's amendment from Ohio that one-ups the gentleman from
Georgia. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia said he wanted to cut
overall the entire operations in Congress and legislative branch by 1
percent. Mr. Jordan offers a 4 percent cut. And so we made that in
order so that the Congress can have the debate that Mr. Price from
Georgia has indicated that he wants to have on the House floor.
It is a very open process. And, in fact, I will tell you that this is
a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Wamp and Ms. Wasserman Schultz came to the
Rules Committee and indicated absolutely that they had worked on a
bipartisan basis on this bill and that they thought that they had done
a good job working on a bipartisan basis.
We have, in fact, offered the debate. We will, in fact, have a debate
on cutting overall administration. In fact, this is a responsible bill
in that we have cut $275 million from the President's request, 11
percent less than the administration asked for the operations of the
legislative branch. This is a fiscally responsible bill. The committee
has worked together to craft it in a bipartisan way, and I think that
we in fact have a very good piece of legislation before the Congress
today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1000
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Madam Speaker, I do rise as the ranking member of the
subcommittee in reluctant opposition to the rule. I say that because I
am very
[[Page H6966]]
grateful for the work that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) have done on
protecting the Appropriations Committee's prerogatives in this bill,
particularly with, I think, the important recommendation to name the
largest space in the new Capitol Visitors Center Emancipation Hall. We
will talk more about that during general debate.
But I am in opposition because only three amendments were ruled in
order; that is, three out of 23, which is 13 percent. Last year it was
100 percent; the year before last it was 45 percent. And that is not
enough. Therefore, I am actually going to support the amendments that
are offered.
But I am going to support the bill. We did work in a bipartisan
manner. This is a good bill. I am going to support the bill, but the
rule is just not quite enough, to be honest with you. We should have
had these amendments ruled in order. I say that respectfully because I
think it is important that we try to open this up as much as possible.
The structured rule is not a problem, but only three amendments being
ruled in order is a problem. So I reluctantly rise in opposition to the
rule. I look forward to the general debate. I look forward to the
passage of the bill with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz).
Mr. CARDOZA. I would just like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Wamp) for his hard work on the bill. Clearly he and our
chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, have done a good job
working together on a bipartisan basis to craft a bill that will work
for Congress and work for the American people.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we are quite open about what we wanted
today. We wanted the rule to match the promise that the new Democratic
majority had made. They asked for the ability to lead this country and
to make this the most open, honest Congress in history. Yet we find at
this time that the Rules Committee does not do that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I just want to say I am somewhat concerned with the
whole tenor of this debate. My California colleague has stood here
through the entire debate not yielding time to a single Member, talking
about the fact that we are going to have this freewheeling debate. I
asked him to yield to me, when he obviously has a great load of time.
Madam Speaker, he chose not to yield. That is clearly his right. But if
we are interested in at least a modicum of civility in the debate, I
always try my darnedest to yield to any colleague who asks me to yield
during debate, because I think that is what we should do around here.
I was simply going to respond when my friend said that Mr. Price was
here decrying the fact that his amendment was not made in order, which
had a more modest cut than the one that has been made in order under
the Jordan amendment, that maybe some Members would determine that the
$275 million figure to which my friend referred earlier, being below
the President's request, is not quite enough, but that maybe the Jordan
amendment is too much.
Mr. Price simply wanted to have a chance, Madam Speaker, to say,
gosh, maybe a little more modest cut than the one that is in the Jordan
amendment should be considered.
So, I just want to say that I, again, as Mr. Price said so well
during this debate, promises were made about a new sense of openness.
It is very, very unfortunate that those promises have not been kept,
Madam Speaker.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my friend,
the gentleman from California, that I, in fact, did yield to him
earlier in the debate for quite some period of time and let him speak
on my time prior. So, with that, I think we have, in fact, worked on a
bipartisan basis. I am also willing to work and discuss with my
colleagues.
But, in fact, as the gentleman said, this legislative branch
appropriations bill is one where you can, in fact, have shenanigans, or
I think his word was ``demagoguery,'' and, in fact, we have a
structured rule so that we limit that. We are, in fact, trying to have
the most open process. I think we have succeeded in doing a better job
than happened in the prior Congresses.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. If I could inquire of the time remaining on both sides,
please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes.
The gentleman from California has 10 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here today to say we
believe the process should equal what the Democrats had said they would
do. It did not.
Secondly, we have problems with the bill because of the more than 7-
percent increase in spending over last year's level. We believe that
that is excessive, at a time when we thought both sides agreed that
fiscal sanity would be in order, especially in dealing with this body.
So, the Republican Party is here today to say we think that is too much
money.
Madam Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so that I may amend the rule to make in order the very
thoughtful amendments of my Democratic colleague from Missouri (Mr.
Cleaver), which was made in order by the Republican-controlled Congress
in the Republican Rules Committee last year.
The amendment would encourage House Members to lease hybrid and other
more economical vehicles. In this time of high gas prices and our need,
the national desire, the need to reduce the reliance on foreign sources
of energy, this House should have at least have the opportunity to
debate such a thoughtful amendment.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and the extraneous material printed just prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this point I would like just to yield
briefly to our distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to
respond.
Mr. SESSIONS. If the gentleman will yield, we were advised that the
gentleman did not have any additional speakers.
Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman is correct. I will yield him additional
time to respond.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate that.
Mr. CARDOZA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I just want to address my
comments to the remark by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) where
he indicated that there is a 7-percent increase in the legislative
branch appropriations bill. That is factually inaccurate.
If you take into consideration the $50 million rescission that we had
in the CR for 2007, we are actually at a 2.4-percent increase. Not
taking that $50 million rescission, which came out of the Library of
Congress, we are actually at a 4.4-percent increase in this bill. So
that is factually inaccurate. I want to make sure that we are dealing
with facts. My colleague is incorrect.
We have really made an effort, both Mr. Wamp and myself, at being
fiscally responsible, recognizing that we are in a difficult fiscal
situation and constraining our spending, but at the same time making
sure we can focus on life, safety and security needs, and the
protection and oversight responsibilities that we need to make sure we
can do in this institution.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my
colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, without getting into an argument with
the gentlewoman, we would just state the facts of the case. It is over
$4 billion additional spending, this year over the last, and $4 billion
is a lot of money to run this ship.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I would simply like to ask my friend, if a $4 billion
increase
[[Page H6967]]
is, in fact, a 6.76-percent increase over last year's funding level,
which does round out to be a 7-percent increase in the spending over
last year's funding level, I just ask my friend from Dallas if that, in
fact, is correct?
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I believe it to be correct, but the fact
of the matter is, whether it's a 6-percent increase or a 4-percent
increase as the gentlewoman subscribes to, we believe that is not the
proper way to grow this government.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I
would just like to, again, say that I hope very much that my friends on
both sides of the aisle will join in supporting Mr. Sessions in trying
to defeat the previous question so that we can make in order the very
thoughtful, environmentally sound amendment that has been offered by
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, there were several misstatements of fact
in the last statements that were made here on the floor by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
This bill actually does not provide $4 billion for legislative branch
appropriations, as the gentleman indicated, but $3.1 billion for the
legislative branch. The actual spending for fiscal year 2007, including
the supplemental but not rescissions, this bill is a $122 million
increase, which is 4 percent of that amount. If the $50 million
rescission in the fiscal year 2007 CR is included, the bill is only $73
million, or 2.4 percent, above the prior year.
We have provided in this measure fiscal responsibility,
accountability, and security and life safety for the Members of
Congress, for the general public and for our staff.
I would also like to make a point that this bill represents a $276
million reduction from the Republican administration's request on this
matter.
Madam Speaker, three principles guided the development of the
underlying legislation: fiscal responsibility, security and life
safety, and accountability.
This bill makes smart decisions with taxpayer dollars. It provides
the necessary resources for Congress to carry out its constitutional
oversight responsibilities, something we saw sorely lacking in the last
Congress. It ensures the Capitol complex is safe and secure. Most
importantly, it allows Members of Congress to represent and serve our
constituents in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous
question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 502 Offered by Rep. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
Cleaver of Missouri or a designee. That amendment shall be
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act
under the heading ``House of Representatives--Salaries and
Expenses--Members' Representational A1lowances'' may be used
directly to provide any individual with a vehicle which is
not powered in whole or in part by alternative fuel (as
defined in section 301(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(42 U.S.C. 13211(2)), except under a lease in effect prior to
the date of the enactment of this Act.
____
(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 chanc 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.
Mr. CARDOZA. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. 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 electronic voting, if
ordered, on the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 179, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 543]
YEAS--217
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
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)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
[[Page H6968]]
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
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.
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
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--179
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
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)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
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
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
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
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--36
Baker
Barton (TX)
Bonner
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Carter
Clyburn
Cramer
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Doolittle
Everett
Gillibrand
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hunter
Israel
Johnson (GA)
LaHood
McGovern
McHenry
Miller, George
Moran (KS)
Napolitano
Nunes
Oberstar
Ortiz
Paul
Platts
Sanchez, Loretta
Sullivan
Tancredo
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Young (AK)
{time} 1033
Messrs. TIBERI, GARY G. MILLER of California, and MANZULLO changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. WEINER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Upton was allowed to speak out of order.)
Moment of Silence in Memory of the Late Honorable Guy Vander Jagt
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the House today of the
passing of Guy Vander Jagt, who died this morning. He served 18 years
in this body representing most of west Michigan, a longtime member of
the Ways and Means Committee, a very good friend of all of us, both in
the Congress and after he left.
I talked to his wife Carol last week. This was his cancer's second
occurrence. He also leaves a beautiful daughter, Jinny, and I yield to
Mr. Dingell.
Mr. DINGELL. I thank my dear friend for yielding.
This is a great loss to the country. Our friend, Guy Vander Jagt, was
a distinguished Member of this body, a great public servant, and a
friend of most of us here.
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. RANGEL. The tear that you hear in the voice of the gentleman from
Michigan is felt by everybody that knew Guy Vander Jagt. I was with him
on Tuesday morning with his beautiful wife Carol, and I would want
everybody who knew this man to know that there was a big smile on his
face, that wonderful voice of his was resonant, and even though he did
not stay lucid for long periods of time, the only thing, the only thing
that he talked about was his House of Representatives.
I really sincerely hope that those Members, Republican and Democrats,
that had an opportunity to see a true Republican with the compassion
and sensitivity and understanding that it takes all of us to make this
Congress and this country work, that maybe those of us who knew Guy
would make some kind of special effort to be tolerant with each other,
which is what he was talking about, in hopes that new Members that
never had the opportunity to enjoy that type of camaraderie will move
in that direction.
We will miss him, but those who knew him, we have a constant reminder
that when things get rough for us on this floor, there was a guy like
Guy Vander Jagt, and as strong as a Republican as he was, that he cared
enough about this House to care for all us.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I would ask that we stand for a moment of
silence in honor of Guy Vander Jagt.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
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. SESSIONS. Madam 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 222,
noes 179, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 544]
AYES--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
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
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
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
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
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
Tanner
Tauscher
[[Page H6969]]
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--179
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
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)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
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
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
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
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Baker
Barton (TX)
Bonner
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Carter
Cramer
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Doolittle
Everett
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hunter
Johnson (GA)
LaHood
McGovern
McMorris Rodgers
Miller, George
Moran (KS)
Napolitano
Nunes
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Sanchez, Loretta
Sullivan
Tancredo
Waxman
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.
{time} 1045
Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.
____________________