[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

  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 213, 
noes 206, not voting 13, as follows:

[[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.

                          ____________________