Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 105 (Wednesday, June 27, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7277-H7284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1900
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2829, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND
GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 517 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 517

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. 2829) making appropriations for financial
services and general government 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. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, 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. 2829
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 gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Ms. MATSUI. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 517 provides for
consideration of H.R. 2829, the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act for 2008 under an open rule.
Under this rule, all Members of the House are afforded the
opportunity to offer any amendment that is germane and otherwise
complies with House rules. In fact, I want to point out to Members that
this is the sixth appropriations bill this year to be considered under
an open rule.
In November, the American people demanded a change in direction in
Washington and a change in priorities. The past 6 months have been an
important down payment on our commitment to change. This new Congress
must continue to restore our focus on a domestic agenda that helps all
Americans.
To that end, today the House takes up the seventh of its annual
Appropriation bills where we will continue this progress in taking
America in a new direction.
I applaud Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member Regula, and the committee
for developing a bill that reflects this needed change in priorities
and for doing so through a strong, bipartisan process.
This bill aims to spur job creation and make the economy work for
everyone by restoring cuts to small business loans, strengthening
consumer protections and rejecting a proposal to reduce capital and
financial services to underserved communities through CDFI.
In addition, the funding in the underlying bill will help our
citizens to vote through upgrades to voting machines and voter
registration databases. It ensures a fair tax system by enforcing the
Tax Code for everyone, not just those who play by the rules. By
focusing on basic priorities like these, we can help restore the
American people's faith in our government again.
The programs funded by this bill demonstrate our commitment to
serving all Americans, regardless of economic or social background. The
$21.4 billion bill includes: $66.8 million for the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to protect the public from injury or death from more
than 15,000 types of consumer products;
$247.7 million for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate sub-
prime lending, ID theft, and other deceptive practices;
$908 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission to enhance
securities law enforcement;
$313 million for the Federal Communications Commissions to oversee
the changing telecom environment, ensure the continued livelihood of
Universal Service Fund and prepare for the transition to digital
television;
$139.8 million to combat terrorist financing;
$5.9 billion for the Federal Courts, including $830.5 million for
defender services, because every American should

[[Page H7278]]

have access to quality legal representation.
The bill also includes $582 million for the Small Business
Administration to help small businesses prosper. Of this, $100 million
is for Small Business Development Centers, or SBDCs, which is the
highest ever funding level for this program. These centers provide
management assistance to current and prospective small business owners.
In addition, they support existing businesses and assist start-ups with
high-quality, no-cost counseling and affordable training programs.
This support for our small businesses helps invigorate local
economies by helping the very small businesses that are firmly rooted
in our communities both succeed and grow. There are now 63 main SBDCs,
at least one in every State, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto
Rico, Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with a network of more than
1,100 service locations.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill made in order under this
open rule is a well-crafted piece of legislation. I appreciate that the
chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee worked together to
produce such a product. The bill ensures taxpayer fairness, protects
the right to vote, and funds programs critical to supporting our
Nation's small businesses.
I urge all Members to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I express my appreciation to my very good friend from Sacramento,
Ms. Matsui.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the rule.
I know that this is a rule that follows the 200-year tradition that we
have had of appropriations bills as privileged resolutions. They have
the ability to come to the floor without a rule at all, but if items
are protected in the bill, they have to provide waivers from the Rules
Committee, and that is what has been followed here. We did this when
the Republicans were in the majority and the Democrats are following
suit here.
But there are a number of concerns that have come to the forefront.
To me, the most important concern, Mr. Speaker, is one that I raised
upstairs in the Rules Committee last night.
The Committee on Ways and Means had put into place a very important
program in September of 2006 which deals with an issue that is near and
dear to every single American who pays taxes. That issue is ensuring
that every single American pays their taxes. I don't like paying taxes.
But I do it.
Mr. Speaker, I don't like the fact that there are people out there
who don't pay their taxes when they are supposed to do it. The
challenge of collecting taxes is a very, very important concern of, as
I said, every American who does pay their taxes. Collecting taxes is a
very important thing, too. Making sure that people do comply with the
law is, I believe, an imperative that we need to do all we can to
enforce.
Unfortunately, this appropriations bill that we are bringing forward
is one that actually eliminates a program that has been extraordinarily
effective. It is a program, Mr. Speaker, that has been utilized now by
the Federal Government and by 40 of the 50 States. What does it consist
of? Simply contracting with private collection agencies, PCAs, to
ensure that people who are deadbeats, who are not paying their taxes,
actually pay their taxes.
Mr. Speaker, this issue does not fall under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Committee. I see Mr. Rangel here and other members of
the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. McCrery sent a letter to us in the
Rules Committee saying that he believed that this rule should not allow
protection for a point of order to be made against the provision about
which I am speaking.

{time} 1915

So, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about the need for us to make
sure that the Ways and Means Committee can have the jurisdiction, and,
frankly, keep in place this collection process. So far, $19.4 million
has been collected from people who have not paid their taxes by these
private collection agencies, and the projection is that over the next
10 years in excess of $1.5 billion will be collected by the Federal
Government from these people who have been deadbeats and have not paid
their taxes. So I think it is very unfortunate that this bill proceeds
with this, and the fact that this rule does not provide us with an
opportunity to address that has led me to oppose it.
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is going to be an effort
to defeat the previous question, and if that is done, our colleague
from Nebraska Mr. Terry is going to offer an amendment to the rule that
would make in order a provision that would allow for the rejection of
the cost-of-living adjustment.
I know there is a lot of talk around here about that issue, so we are
going to be having a vote on that. Our colleague from Nebraska, as I
said, Mr. Terry will in fact be the author of that amendment if we did
defeat the previous question on this issue.
Having said that, I do want to say there are a number of items in
this bill that I think are very good and important. I am particularly
proud of having worked for a number of years on the issue of financial
literacy training for students and for adults as well.
We see this proliferation of advertising, Mr. Speaker, that continues
to come down from a wide range of entities, and it can be confusing.
Unfortunately, there are many young people today who really don't have
the grasp of the financial instruments that are options to them out
there. For that reason, I believe that something in this bill that is
very good is the effort to focus on the increase of financial literacy
training.
Mr. Speaker, I want to praise my colleagues, especially Mr. Regula,
who has taken on this responsibility here as the ranking member of the
subcommittee, and Mr. Serrano, who is chairing the subcommittee. I
praise them for working together in a bipartisan way on some other
items that are very important.
As I said, I believe that interdicting illicit drugs is a very
important issue. This drug trafficking issue was a topic of discussion
in the last debate that we had on the Andean Trade Preference Act that
we are going to be voting on later this evening, and I believe that
there are, again, many, many other items that are included in this bill
that are good and decent and appropriate measures.
But I just am very, very concerned about this issue, as I said, Mr.
Speaker, of this notion of people abusing the tax provisions and not,
in fact, paying their fair share of taxes. So I feel strongly that
taking advantage of these private collection agencies is, in fact, the
right thing to do. I know there is concern voiced about that, because
people don't like being harassed. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? If
they are not paying their fair share of taxes, I believe steps should
be taken to try and get them to do that. So this is going to lead me to
oppose the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from
Greensboro, North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California for yielding. We are in disagreement about the proposed
COLA.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the proposed cost-of-living allowance increase
because it is ill-timed. I represent constituents, as do many of you,
who earn $25,000 to $35,000 annually, and they read that the Congress
approves a COLA increase for themselves. Not good.
According to recent polls, Americans don't like the Congress. Our
numbers, lower than President Bush's numbers, are in the tank. To enact
this COLA proposal will do nothing, in my opinion, to improve our
already diminished reputation.
Mr. Speaker, my fiscal philosophy is very simple: Taxpayers pay our
salaries, and beyond that, in my opinion, they owe us little more. I
have refused a congressional pension, so when I leave the Congress I
will receive not one brown penny of congressional pension money,
because I don't believe taxpayers owe me a congressional pension just
because I served in the Congress. By the same reasoning, Mr. Speaker, I
don't believe they owe us a

[[Page H7279]]

cost-of-living allowance increase at this time. Do we deserve a cost-
of-living allowance increase? Probably. Is now the time to enact a
cost-of-living increase? Probably not.
Mr. Dreier, my good friend, you and I are in disagreement on this,
but we can do so agreeably, hopefully.
Anytime you are talking about money, Mr. Speaker, sometimes emotions
become frayed, and volatile activity may result. But I don't want to
offend anybody, especially the gentleman who yielded to me. But I feel
very strongly about this, and I thank you, Mr. Dreier, for having
yielded to me.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentlewoman from
California for yielding and thank her also for her steady and solid
work on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying
Financial Services appropriations bill. I would like to thank my friend
Chairman Serrano for his leadership and commitment to consumer issues
in this spending bill and for his work on Cuba. To that end, I want to
raise an issue I know that the chairman and I agree on, and that is
ending the travel ban to Cuba.
I intended to offer an amendment to prohibit the Office of Foreign
Asset Control from enforcing the travel ban for students, but was
unable to for procedural reasons. Allowing student travel to Cuba for
students to study will go a long way to foster peace and security in
our region and, quite frankly, sets a good example for the type of
connections and collaboration that we need to foster understanding
between different cultures and countries.
Students are some of the best ambassadors, highlighting the best in
our country. For the life of me, it makes no sense and I do not
understand why, first of all, why this embargo exists when Americans
have the right to travel wherever they so desire. That is fundamental
in our democracy. But why we would keep our young people from going to
Cuba to study? It makes no sense. Young people can study in China. They
can study in Vietnam. Why in the world can't they study in Cuba?
We are going to continue to work on that until our young people have
that right to travel and study wherever they so desire. This is an
important issue, and, again, I am going to continue to work to lift
this inconsistent and costly travel ban, but also to end this very ill-
advised and ineffective 40-year embargo against Cuba.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very
good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise not only in
opposition to the rule, but respectfully request that my colleagues
join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question.
I have drafted an amendment that would freeze our salaries for this
year, much like we voted to do in the last year. We are not going to
have the opportunity then to have a straight-up vote on that amendment
during this appropriations bill. So our one opportunity to voice our
opinion on the COLA, the cost-of-living increase, which is somewhere
probably around 2.5 percent, I don't know the number itself, but that
happens automatically unless we have a straight-up vote to suspend it,
and we are going to be denied that opportunity. So I respectfully
request that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in
voting against the previous question.
Now, let me state some of the reasons why I think it is important
that we freeze our salaries again for next year.
First of all, I don't think we deserve it. Our approval rating with
the American public is 14 percent, according to Gallup, the lowest in
the history of polling. Obviously we are doing something wrong if the
people have such little confidence in us.
I think there are a variety of reasons why the people have less
confidence in us now than they even did last year, and I think one is
because of maybe the viciousness and the partisanship is probably at an
all-time record high. We have our political opponents that think we are
down and want to put their heels on our throats and keep us that way,
and I am not sure that is what the American people want.
But then let's look at effectiveness. In the major bills that have
come through the House of Representatives, the congressional
leadership, and I say that in toto, House and Senate, have gotten very
few bills to the White House for signature. In fact, we have done a
variety of resolutions and bills, many of them condemning what
Republicans had done in the past. But out of 60 bills that have gone
through the House in our first 6 months, since January 4, 2 have been
signed into law, and that is it.
Now, if we were on a baseball team, and we hit 2 out of 60, or less
than 1 percent, a .033 percentage, we would be sent down to Single A
ball for such a pathetic percentage. So we are not performing well
enough to deserve it.
Now, I do want to bring up one other aspect. Usually what happens
with the cost-of-living increase is we have a token vote on the
previous question, and there is an arrangement basically for the votes
to be there to allow the previous question to go forward for the rule,
with a gentleman's agreement that those who vote ``yes'' won't have to
pay for it in the elections. But the reality of that is that is off the
table.
This is just one of the many ads run against Republican incumbents
who voted for the previous question last year. This is paid for by the
Democrat Congressional Committee against Incumbents Who Vote for the
Previous Question.
So I think it is important to warn everyone that comes here that is
going to vote on the previous question, which is the vote for a
congressional pay freeze for our next year's salaries, that if you are
a Republican, DCCC is going to run ads against you, and since that
agreement is off the table, if you are on my friend's side of the aisle
over here, the Democrat side, the agreement is off also if you vote for
it. Maybe the Republican National Congressional Committee will be
running ads against you for voting for a pay raise, and maybe it is
because we haven't made the Bush cuts permanent that will raise taxes
on American families, or maybe it is just because of the lack of
productivity in the House that protects our families. There are a
variety of reasons.
But the reality is there is no such agreement left, folks. Vote
against the previous question and protect yourself.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my fellow Members to
oppose the previous question, and I welcome my colleague from Nebraska.
It has been a lonely exercise for me the last few years, and I am glad
to have someone else join me on the floor and make this request,
because I do think having some transparency and having accountability
and having an up-or-down vote on the COLA makes a lot of sense.
These are difficult times in our Nation. We are fighting terrorism on
so many fronts, our economy faces some challenges, and our future
budget deficits continues to be projected in the future at great
levels.
So I don't think this is the right time for Members of Congress to be
allowing a pay raise to go through without even an up-or-down vote. We
need to show the American people we are willing to make some
sacrifices. We need to budget and live within our means and make
careful spending decisions based on our most pressing priorities.
So, Mr. Speaker, let us send a signal to the American people that we
recognize there is a struggle today for some in today's economy. Vote
``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to block
the automatic cost-of-living adjustment to Members of Congress.
Regardless of how Members feel about this issue, they should all be
willing to make their position public and on the record. A ``no'' vote
will allow Members to vote up or down on the COLA.
If the previous question is defeated, I also would intend to offer an
amendment to the rule, and my amendment would block the fiscal year
2008 automatic cost-of-living pay raise for Members of Congress.
Because this amendment requires a waiver, the only way to get to this
issue is to defeat the previous question. So therefore I urge Members
to vote no on the previous question.

[[Page H7280]]

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very
good friend from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And I was
listening to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee
talking about people not following the rules, people that are avoiding
their income taxes. Quite honestly, I want to bring a point up tonight
that is about not obeying the rules. So I rise in opposition to this
rule.
We spent a lot of time a few weeks ago talking about earmarks.
Fortunately, we were successful in eliminating the secret slush funds
of earmarks being reined in. So this is one of the ways we worked on
controlling spending in an environment right now where the Democrats
have already passed legislation that would increase spending by $50
billion this year, $20 billion in this current appropriations cycle.
But when we were talking about earmark reform, we really were only
talking about 1 percent of our spending. If we are going to win the
battle on spending, we have to focus on more than just earmarks.
One of the things that is very important is that we have a process in
Congress. We say we are going to authorize programs, and then we say we
are going to take time out and then fund them in the appropriations
process. Tonight we are going to take up this bill, and it is called an
appropriations bill. That is how we spend the money.
But one of the things we said in the House rules is a project or
program has to be authorized before it can be appropriated. But you
know what the very first thing that we do is? We say, oh, Congress is
not going to play by the rules during this appropriations process. We
are going to fund projects that aren't even authorized.
The American people understand the term ``authorization.'' Many of
you have a credit card or a checking account. On your checking account,
you have authorized signatures. On your credit card, you have
authorized users. Unfortunately for the American people tonight, we are
talking about using a credit card, because we are spending more money
than we have.
One of the things that is an alarming number to me is it was recently
reported that Congress is going to appropriate over $100 billion of
unauthorized expenses. I don't think the people back in America, the
people certainly back in the 19th District of Texas, think Congress
ought to be spending $100 billion on programs that aren't even
authorized.
Here are just a few examples of those. Tonight in this bill, for
example, there is $23 billion worth of spending that is, what? Not
authorized. Some of those projects are $100 million for a Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund. That program was last
authorized in 1998.

{time} 1930

There is $315 million for the Election Assistance Commission. That
authorization expired in 2005.
A lot of people say Congress may be just too busy to authorize these
new programs. Well, you know what, if we are too busy to look at
whether these current programs are relevant, whether they are
efficient, or whether we should be doing them, then we are probably too
busy. But by the way, we haven't been too busy to authorize just in 6
months over $600 billion in new programs.
So what we are spending money tonight on is projects that we didn't
take the time to evaluate whether these projects are worthwhile and
worthy of spending the American taxpayers' money on. And in the
meantime, we have been very busy passing brand new programs to the tune
of $228 billion, which is why this Democratic leadership is going to
hand the American people a gift of the largest tax increase in American
history.
If we are serious about leaving more money in the American taxpayers'
pockets so that those families can pay for health care and gasoline and
other things that are essential to those families, we are going to have
to leave more money in their pockets, and we certainly can't do that by
runaway spending. Spending money on projects that we haven't reviewed
to determine whether those programs are worthwhile, relevant today, and
whether some efficiencies could accrue in some of those programs and
could be combined, and that we could do it better and spend less money.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of letting the American people
have more of their money and against a rule that is going to
appropriate money that we haven't even authorized.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment regarding the
Members' COLA which, as Members know, is provided for not in this bill
but directly through the Treasury Department based on a predetermined
formula.
When we had a debate last year, Members on our side of the aisle
objected to the rule on the grounds that Members should not receive a
cost of living increase until average Americans did through an increase
in the minimum wage.
I am happy to report that the Democrats kept their promise. No COLA
was permitted in the long-term funding that Democrats passed earlier
this year to resolve last year's appropriations gridlock. As a result
of the new majority's leadership, we passed the first increase in the
minimum wage in almost 10 years. It goes into effect on July 24, just
less than a month from now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to
insert in the Record extraneous material, including the amendment to be
offered by Mr. Terry if, in fact, we do defeat the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. If I may inquire of my friend from Sacramento, how many
more speakers do you have remaining?
Ms. MATSUI. I have no further speakers. Do you have additional
speakers?
Mr. DREIER. I have no further speakers, but I understand there is
some amendment here to the rule that you want to talk about, so I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I will be offering an amendment that adds a
new section to the rule that allows the House to consider a current
resolution providing for the adjournment of the House and Senate during
the month of July.
I wanted to apprise the gentleman from California regarding that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am just a little confused about this amendment. I know that the
Budget Act calls for us to have completed our appropriations work in
the House by the 4th of July, and the promise that was made by the
Democratic majority was that all of the appropriations bills would be
done by the 4th of July break. I will say that I am a little confused.
I would be happy to yield to my friend as to what this proposed
amendment would, in fact, entail.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this is necessary because of a technical
provision in section 309 of the Congressional Budget Act that prevents
the House from considering any adjournment resolution for a period
longer than 3 days unless all of the annual appropriations bills have
been passed by the House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, again, I remember there was a promise made
that the work on House appropriations bills would be completed by the
July 4 break. It sounds to me as if there is an attempt being made to
really go beyond and not comply with that promise that was made. There
seems to be some kind of requirement here that we amend the rule to
make this happen.
I would be happy to yield to my colleague or to the gentleman from
Florida, my Rules Committee colleague.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Does the gentleman remember that you did the
exact same thing last year?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would say last year there was not a
commitment that was made that we would complete all of our
appropriations work by the July 4th break.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to further yield.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Does the gentleman remember the last couple
of weeks here who participated in causing the delay?

[[Page H7281]]

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I would be happy to
further yield to my friend, I would say that we have been going through
the appropriations process. We are in the minority. There is a new
majority. A promise was made to the American people that work on the
appropriations process would be completed by the July 4th break. I am
just a little confused here as to how it is that we got to this point.
This is now an amendment to the rule that is being propounded, and I
would just like to say that I think by virtue of doing this we are
simply, Mr. Speaker, underscoring the fact that the work has not been
completed. If a finger of blame is being pointed, I guess at our side,
we have delayed the process of completing the appropriations work, all
I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this was a commitment that was made
at the beginning of the 110th Congress. And obviously, with the
explanation just provided by my friend from Sacramento, this has not
happened.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Obey.
Mr. OBEY. Thank you for yielding.
I was in my office and I heard you make the assertion that a
``promise'' had been made to finish all of the appropriations bills by
July 4.
I am the chairman of the committee. I certainly made no promise. We
indicated that it was our plan and our intent. But I would point out we
have had several hundred amendments offered by Members of the minority
party. We have spent approximately twice as much time debating each of
the bills the last 3 weeks than was the case a year ago, despite the
agreement between the two leaderships that there would be every effort
made to try to handle these bills in a timetable that was consistent
with last year's activities.
And so I simply want to make quite clear that there was no
``promise.'' And even if there had been, which there was not, the
majority cannot be held accountable for the fact that your Members
introduced 188 amendments to a single bill. One Member introduces 188
amendments to a single bill which is simply filibustering by amendment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee for his
explanation.
I will say, however, what we have done is we have followed the
standard appropriations process. In fact, as we look at the rules that
have been passed out so far through the appropriations process, in the
last Congress, we made in order every single amendment that was
proposed to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, and as the
gentleman knows, only three of 23 amendments that were submitted to the
Rules Committee when it came to the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Subcommittee bill were made in order which did in fact limit the
debate.
All I would say, Mr. Speaker, is my friend from Sacramento has come
forward and said she is going to offer an amendment to the rule. I am
concerned about it, the fact that it was not included in the rule and
it has just come to our attention.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out, Mr. Speaker, that in
addition to the fact that we have effectively endured filibuster by
amendment by the minority for the past 3 weeks, in addition to that
fact, we have two other practical facts to face.
When we took over this Congress, we had to deal with last year's
budget because the folks who controlled the Congress last time just
didn't happen to get around to passing the appropriations bills last
time. So we had to spend the first month of this session doing the work
that they left over from the last session. They had passed not a single
portion of the domestic part of the budget. They had not passed a
single domestic appropriation bill. So first we had to run that cleanup
brigade.
Then we had to deal with the fact that in order to hide the full cost
of the war, the President declined to request funding for the Iraqi war
in the regular defense bill which was supposed to be finished last
year. So we had to take the next 3\1/2\ months to clean up that mess
left over from last year. So I would say it is really the pot calling
the kettle black to somehow suggest that the majority party has failed
in its responsibility because it has not met a so-called mythical
promise.
We laid out what the plan was, and given the fact that the first 4
months of this session was essentially spent cleaning up their mess, I
think we have done pretty well.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to my very good friend from Wisconsin, welcome to the
challenge of governing, as he knows very, very well.
The fact of the matter is there was, in fact, at the beginning of
this Congress, a statement made. And what has been proposed by my
colleague from Sacramento is an amendment to the rule to deal with the
Budget Act. All of a sudden, we are going to just waive the
responsibility here to deal with this question, and I just think that
the procedure around which we are now taking this action on this
amendment underscores that our colleagues are having a little bit of
difficulty governing.
Let me just say that I am opposed to this rule for a number of
reasons. I would like to restate the concern that I raised earlier.
I had a chance to speak with our colleague from New York, the
distinguished Chair, of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. I
told him of a letter that was sent to the Rules Committee from Mr.
McCrery which raised concern over the fact that there are people out
there who are completely abrogating their responsibility to pay their
fair share of taxes. They are not complying with the law. And in
September of 2006, private collection agencies were enlisted by the
Federal Government to begin the collection of taxes from deadbeats who
are not paying their taxes.
Mr. Speaker, 40 other States, 40 other States have enlisted private
collection agencies, and they have been successful, and at the Federal
level, we have, as of March of this year, seen $19.47 million collected
so far, and the projection is that under these private collection
agencies in the next decade, we will see between $1.5 billion and $2.2
billion in taxes that are owed to the Federal Government paid.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this rule, we are undermining
the ability of the Ways and Means Committee to take on its
responsibility for this issue. So I will urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this rule so, in fact, we will have an opportunity to do the
right thing when it comes to this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1945

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment on the Members' COLA once
again, that the Members' COLA was calculated by a predetermined
automatic formula. This legislation does not address Members' COLA.
Changes to Members' COLA formula should be addressed in authorizing
legislation from the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and deserve the best services
their government can offer and their tax dollars pay for. This $21.4
billion bipartisan bill provides significant support to our small
businesses, helps guarantee our citizens' right to vote, and works to
close the tax gap. It is a good bill. I believe through simple measures
such as these, we can restore our citizens' faith that the government
can, and is, working for them again.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Matsui

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Matsui:
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. ___. It shall be in order, any rule of the House to
the contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent
resolutions providing for the adjournment of the House and
Senate during the month of July.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this amendment adds a new section to the
rule that allows the House to consider concurrent resolutions providing
for the adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of July.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

[[Page H7282]]

The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 517 Offered by Mr. Terry of Nebraska

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
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. 2829) making appropriations for financial
services and general government 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 amendment printed in section
3 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the
House and in the Committee of the Whole. Points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a
recommendation that the bill do pass, 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. 2829
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.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as
follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and
notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31), the percentage
adjustment scheduled to take effect under such section for
2008 shall not take effect.''
____

(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 from 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. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on the
amendment and the resolution will be followed by 5-minute votes on the
amendment to H. Res. 517, if ordered; adoption of H. Res. 517, if
ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1830.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 181, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 580]

YEAS--244

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Carter
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Towns
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--181

Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Berkley
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)

[[Page H7283]]

Courtney
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Doggett
Donnelly
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Fallin
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
Kildee
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Linder
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Napolitano
Paul
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Shuler
Shuster
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sutton
Taylor
Terry
Tiberi
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Cardoza
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Harman
Hunter
Lofgren, Zoe
Ortiz
Sessions

{time} 2020

Messrs. EDWARDS, MARSHALL, ROGERS of Michigan, MOORE of Kansas,
SPRATT, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Messrs. WALZ of Minnesota, MICHAUD, CARNAHAN,
HALL of Texas, ELLISON, BISHOP of New York, WELCH of Vermont, TAYLOR,
WILSON of South Carolina, ALLEN, KILDEE, INSLEE, LANGEVIN, Mrs.
McMORRIS RODGERS, Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN, Mr. GORDON of Tennessee and Ms.
HOOLEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. EMANUEL, KNOLLENBERG, CROWLEY, FERGUSON, ISSA, MARKEY,
JACKSON of Illinois, SULLIVAN, CALVERT, SHADEGG, GARRETT of New Jersey,
CAMPBELL of California, KINGSTON, PENCE, GARY G. MILLER of California,
HERGER, FEENEY, AKIN, CANNON, UPTON, CAMP of Michigan, GALLEGLY,
SAXTON, BURGESS, SMITH of New Jersey, BURTON of Indiana, GILLMOR,
MARCHANT, BUYER and EHLERS changed their 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 amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 198, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 581]

AYES--225

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
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
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
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
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.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
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
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
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
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
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--198

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
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
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
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
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
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 (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Blunt
Cardoza
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Harman
Hunter
Lofgren, Zoe
Ortiz
Sessions

{time} 2026

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

[[Page H7284]]

[Roll No. 582]

AYES--213

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
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
Carnahan
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
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
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
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
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
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
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.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOES--206

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
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
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
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)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
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
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--13

Cardoza
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Gillmor
Harman
Hunter
Lofgren, Zoe
Ortiz
Pickering
Sessions
Sutton
Watt
Waxman

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 2032

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

____________________