[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9557-H9564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1020
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2272, AMERICA
COMPETES ACT
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 602 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 602
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2272) to invest in innovation through research and
development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United
States. All points of order against the conference report and
against its consideration are waived. The conference report
shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for
1 hour.
Ms. SUTTON. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 602 provides for the consideration
of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2272, the 21st Century
Competitiveness Act. The rule waives all points of order against the
conference report and its consideration and considers the conference
report as read.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 602 and the
underlying conference report on the 21st Century Competitiveness Act.
Too often, we hear that our Nation is struggling to properly educate
our students in math and science, and as a result we are falling behind
in this world. This is unacceptable to me, and it should be
unacceptable to this Congress.
But today we have the chance to change this. Today we make a true
commitment to our future. Today we can make it clear that we support
American innovation and understand the vital need for our Nation to
remain competitive in the global economy.
The 21st Century Competitiveness Act will help ensure that our
students, teachers, businesses and workers are prepared to continue to
keep this country at the forefront of research and development. Our
bill increases funding and makes improvements for the National Science
Foundation, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and at
the Department of Energy Office of Science. The bill increases funding
for science, technology, engineering and math, also known as STEM
research and education programs.
This bill also allocates funding for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership. These MEP programs leverage Federal, State, local and
private investments to stimulate new manufacturing processes and
technologies. It's through these new processes and technologies that we
can ensure American manufacturers have the tools to compete effectively
and efficiently against overseas manufacturers.
The MEP program has proven to be remarkably effective in my home
State of Ohio where small and midsize manufacturers face limited
budgets, lack of in-house expertise and lack of access to the newest
technologies. MEP assistance provided training, expertise and services
tailored to the critical needs of Ohio's small and midsize
manufacturers.
Through this assistance, many manufacturers in Ohio have increased
productivity, achieved higher profits, and remain competitive by
providing the latest and most efficient technologies, processes and
business practices. In 2006, in fact, as a direct result of MEP
assistance, my State enjoyed over $150 million of new investment and
over $500 million in increased or retained sales. Companies in Ohio
participating in the MEP reported cost savings of over $100 million.
Through the continued funding of this vital program, we can bring
these vast benefits to even more small manufacturers across the
country. Our efforts here today are vital to stopping the offshoring
and outsourcing as well that may have hurt many communities in my home
State of Ohio and all across this Nation.
This Congress can send a strong message today that we want to ensure
that our Nation is prepared for the future. Let's pass this rule and
the 21st Century Competitiveness Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a conference
report that incorporates several similar measures that have passed the
House and Senate authorizing funding for scientific research and
increasing the number of students majoring in math, science,
engineering and foreign languages.
The several bills that passed both Houses were approved by
overwhelming bipartisan votes. The authorization level for all of these
bipartisan bills combined a total $24 billion in the House. I am
concerned, however, that the conference report today contains over $43
billion in overall authorizations, nearly double.
It is vital that the United States continue to grow more globally
competitive in the areas of scientific research and technology. Federal
and private investment in supporting research and development is
essential to the health of our economy and our competitiveness as a
Nation.
We must plan for the future by areas of basic research and science
today.
However, there is also something we must do today, and that is update
our Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act laws. This body has missed
several important opportunities to consider changing our laws to
account for technological advances, and now we are faced with a limited
time remaining before Congress recesses for the August district work
period.
You can all agree or disagree that our FISA laws need to be updated.
All I will be asking my colleagues to do is to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so that Members will have the opportunity to debate
and consider fixing our outdated FISA law that currently requires our
intelligence community to ask a judge permission before listening to
telephone conversations of foreign terrorists in foreign countries who
threaten our Nation's security.
Let me be clear also. If the previous question is defeated, the
America COMPETES conference report will still be on the floor today.
This is not an attempt whatsoever to delay this conference report. It
is only an attempt to bring this issue to the floor as soon as
possible, but, more importantly, before the Congress recesses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I just want to make it
clear, as has been stated on this House floor
[[Page H9558]]
many times in recent days, that the FISA legislation will be on the
floor of this House before the August recess. We're happy that we are
here today to pass this rule and this legislation, and we are also able
to deal with FISA.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee
from Ohio.
First of all, I want to congratulate the outstanding work of the
Science Committee under the leadership of Mr. Gordon and Mr. Hall. That
committee has produced more bipartisan useful legislation, maybe, than
any other committee so far in this body. They are to be commended.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another nail in the ladder of creating
opportunity and making this country competitive in the 21st century
global economy.
I want to talk a little bit about what can happen if you have
companies, large and small, that make a difference and commit
themselves to training the workforce, commit themselves to
participating in a local community to advance science and math.
We have small companies in Vermont that have done this. We also have
a big company, IBM. It is celebrating its 50th anniversary in Vermont,
and that will be later this summer. IBM is a major employer. It is a
company that transformed itself from computers to services in a whole
array of activities that has been beneficial and relied on having the
best training for new employees, the best science and math.
That company has not only helped provide good jobs to Vermonters as
well as people around the world, it has participated very actively in
our State efforts to improve science and math training. This
legislation is going to focus resources on that effort in Vermont and
across the country.
My congratulations to the Science Committee for the good work that
it's done and to the companies large and small across this State that
have helped be a partner on these policies that are essential for the
future.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a real
doctor from Georgia, a member of the Science and Technology Committee,
and a former member of the Rules Committee, Dr. Gingrey, for 5 minutes.
Mr. GINGREY. I want to thank Doc for yielding, the gentleman from
Washington, I thank him very much.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern over the process,
really, with which we are proceeding today on such an important matter.
I recognize, as a member of the Science Committee, all the hard work
that has gone into the America COMPETES Act to maintain and enhance our
Nation's investment in the core STEM field, science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. I believe that every member of our
committee understands well that the future of our competitive economic
edge rests in energizing our students at every level so they can pursue
these fields of study.
I want to commend my chairman, Mr. Gordon, and Ranking Member Hall.
The bills that came before us in committee, all four bills, which we
combined to be part of this conference report, I wholeheartedly support
every step of the way. But I am very concerned with this conference
report and the process, this lightning speed quickness that it has been
brought to the floor of this House is absurd.
I want to ask what is the rush. As ranking member of the Technology
and Innovation Subcommittee, I was very pleased to be picked as a
conferee. I don't get that opportunity often in the 5 years that I have
been a Member of this Congress. However, I was only made aware of the
appointment Tuesday at 3:30 and, immediately, that the full conference
committee would be holding the one and only formal meeting at 5
o'clock, an hour and a half later.
This is a 470-page document that was not even available to conferees
until 4:30 yesterday. I can't speak for my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, but I don't want to go back home to Georgia next week and
explain to my constituents that I spent, as Representative Hastings
just said, $43 billion of their tax money on this measure that neither
I nor most of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle even
had an opportunity to read, much less think about, before casting that
vote. Further, I am extremely concerned with the cavalier attitude with
which the majority appears bent on bringing this report to the floor
today.
The rules require, and I noticed that earlier the chairman of the
Rules Committee was on the floor. She knows the rules require that it
shall not be in order to consider a conference report that has not been
available to Members, Delegates and Resident Commissioner in the
Congressional Record for at least 3 calendar days. This report was
filed yesterday, yet here we are today preparing to vote on a
negotiated deal that is incorrectly being labeled as bipartisan. It was
bipartisan in the House. It's not bipartisan in this conference report.
It was only bipartisan to the extent we were invited to the party,
but we were told to please just observe the dancing, and, by the way,
don't eat any of the refreshments.
The House did not use proxy votes, and yet that rule was also waived
yesterday for the purpose of the formal conference.
In addition, by a vote of 258-167, this House passed a motion to
instruct conferees Tuesday to insist on the House authorization levels
and to restore language on coal-to-liquids technology that had
previously been accepted in this House by a vote of 264-154. Both
instructions were ignored in conference. The coal-to-liquids technology
provision was offered as an amendment in the conference yesterday and
was voted down, despite the wishes of this whole House.
What's the point of having rules if we're not going to follow them,
and what's the use of holding votes if we are not going to adhere to
their outcome and insist on a conference committee report? It's
extremely unfortunate that again this week we are faced with the
regrettable fruits of the Democratic leadership's rush to adjourn.
My point is, this rush to get things done so you can go home and say
that you accomplished this, and that's fine, but we've got to get it
right and we have got to follow the rules. I mean, whether this side,
we were in the majority, if we are guilty of doing the same thing on
occasion, and maybe that was done on appropriations bills, but when you
are dealing with something like this, and this is the policy in science
education and trying to stimulate our young people and make this
country more competitive in the global economy, we have got to get it
right.
When we have a bill coming out of the House that very generously
authorizes almost $23 billion, $24 billion, $25 billion, and all of a
sudden it's $43 billion, I have some real concerns about that. So it's
extremely unfortunate that we are rushing this through, and it is the
American public who is being left with an ever-increasing bill for this
attitude.
I asked my colleagues on the policy, or on the process. I am not
talking about the issues that others have raised, but I am saying vote
``no'' to this rule and the underlying report.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my great pleasure to
yield 20 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, the
chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Gordon, whose
leadership brought us here to this great day.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Thank you, Lady Sutton. I will grace you by
not taking that full 20 minutes.
I want to thank Mr. Welch for his kind words. I want to thank Mr.
Hastings for not being too ugly about this bill, and I want to make my
friend on the Science Committee, Mr. Gingrey, feel better about this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, in the last few hours of every session, it doesn't
matter who is in the majority or who is in the minority, things get a
little bit tense. Folks want to get going for their district work
period, and so this is an opportunity for us all to come together.
This is a bill that was based on a suspension that passed out of this
House unanimously, based on a bill out of the Senate that passed 88-8.
This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill.
The National Chamber of Commerce supports this bill. The National
Association of Manufacturers supports this bill. The Business
Roundtable supports this bill. Every university that is represented in
this body supports this bill
[[Page H9559]]
because it is a good bill. It's going to help American workers,
businesses. It's going to help students and teachers be able to compete
in the world. It's going to help us regain and maintain a leadership in
research, innovation and technology.
Let me just take a moment and tell you a little bit about the bill.
Well, it's also based on, of course, Sherry Boehlert, the former,
very good Republican chairman of our Science Committee, myself when I
was ranking member, Lamar Alexander, who has done Herculean work in the
Senate, as well as Jeff Bingaman asked the National Academy of Science
to do a report on the competitiveness of America in the 21st century.
Norm Augustine, the former head of Lockheed Martin, Craig Barrett at
Intel, many other scholars, as well as academic and business
individuals, came together and they told us in a very sobering way that
America was heading in the wrong direction in terms of competitiveness
in the 21st century.
Now, this is not just an idle thought for the ones of us that have
kids and grandkids, because I am very concerned that the next
generation of Americans could be the first generation of Americans that
inherit a national standard of living less than our parents if we don't
do something. This bill will help change the corner, turn that corner.
Let me tell you about it; it deals really with three main areas.
First of all, following the recommendations of the rising above the
gathering storm, we are going to increase our expenditures and research
in this country, in the National Science Foundation that does such a
good job, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. And,
again, for my friend from Georgia, these are just authorizations.
If they can't justify what they are doing, then the appropriations
will not appropriate those funds. This is just authorization. It
doesn't spend any money, but it does give us a great blueprint.
The next thing we are going to do, we have to recognize that there
are about 7 billion people in the world, half of which make less than
$2 a day. We can't compete with that. We don't want to compete with
that. We don't want our kids and grandkids to have to be in that
situation.
What do we do? We have to compete at a higher level. If they are
going to make one widget in China or India or elsewhere, we have got to
make 50 in this country at the same time. We need to be inventing the
widget maker and we need to be manufacturing the widget maker. That's
what this bill is going to help us do. But to do that, our workers have
to perform at a higher skill level. We have to help them do that.
When you look, and it's a sad situation right now, but only Cyprus
and South Africa have lower overall math and science scores than we
have in this country right now. What is the reason for that? Is it that
we are not as smart as other countries? No, that's not the case.
The problem is we have very good and talented teachers in this
country, but unfortunately, when it comes to math and science, about 63
percent of the math teachers at the middle school have neither a major
or a certification to teach math.
The science teachers in this country are trying to do a good job, but
87 percent of them have neither a major or certification to teach the
physical sciences. It's hard to inspire. It's hard to really convey
information when you don't have a good background. I want to give you
an example of that.
My father was a farmer. He went to World War II, and he came back,
and because of the GI Bill, he was able to go to college. He got a
degree in agriculture. I come along, and my mother had to give up her
job at the cafeteria, so my father needed a second job.
So he applied to teach, and he got the last teaching job at Smyrna
High School in my home county. So since he was the last person to get a
job, they assigned him to teach high school science and to coach girls
basketball.
I am not sure which one my father knew the least about. He was a
bright, able fellow, but they put him in a difficult situation. And it
was tough for his students, I am sure.
{time} 1040
Well, we have got to do better than that. And so what this bill is
going to do is really two things in that area. We are going to take
those good teachers like my father, bring them back into school. We
will do it in the summer, so they can get their certification,
hopefully go ahead and get a master's, get an AP certification so they
can do a better job.
We are also going to provide scholarships for approximately 10,000
students each year on a competitive basis that want to go into math,
science, and education and agree to teach for 5 years in high-need
areas. This is going to go a long way to helping our skills.
And so, finally, we are going to look at one other area, one other
area that Rising Above the Gathering Storm mentioned, was we have to
become energy independent in this country. We have been talking about a
lot of energy bills and are going to hopefully pass an energy bill at
least in the House. The Senate has done. It is a long way to getting
something completed.
But, today, this is a conference report. This is not just a bill that
then goes to the other body and goes to conference. This is a
conference report that was passed out of that conference on a
bipartisan, bicameral basis, and it does something about energy
independence today. And let me tell you about that, and this is a
recommendation that came from the National Academies of Science.
We are going to set up an agency within the Department of Energy
modeled after DARPA, which is in the Defense Department, a high-risk,
high-reward group. It is going to look at the the seven or eight most
cutting-edge types of new technologies. And we are going to bring our
private sector, the public sector, the national labs, the universities
all together with a very narrow bit of management that is only going to
be like project directors to bring all these folks together. And, just
like in the Department of Defense, the Internet was developed, stealth
and technology was developed, but there were a lot of things that
didn't work out, because they weren't afraid to try. High risk, high
reward. That is what we are going to do.
We are going to get in there, and we are going to find those areas
that are new technologies that are going to bump our ability to create
renewable energy in this country, which is going to help us become
energy independent, it is going to create jobs, and it is going to
create exports.
This is a very good bipartisan, bicameral bill that is endorsed by
the Chamber of Commerce, by the National Association of Manufacturers,
by the Business Roundtable, universities. And this afternoon we will
talk about this some more. I am going to bring you a list of businesses
and organizations that support this that is going to go on and on and
on.
So, my friends, let's put aside I guess just the natural bit of
tenseness that goes with ending a session. Let's work together and get
something good today and pass this bipartisan, bicameral bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Dr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You heard one speaker say this was a bad bill and should not be
passed. You heard another one say it is a good bill and should be
passed. There are good points on both sides of that argument. But I
would point out that I have never seen a perfect bill reach the floor
of this House; and, on balance, I believe this bill is good and should
be passed, and I will be supporting the bill and presumably the rule
that is presenting it to us.
I do this in spite of the fact that Dr. Gingrey and Ranking Member
Hall, whom I have great respect for, have serious doubts about the
bill.
Let me explain why I am supporting this. America is in trouble. It is
in trouble in several areas. It is in trouble in science, and it is in
trouble in education, manufacturing, outsourcing. Let me examine some
of those.
Just an example, science education. Had I the time I could give you
chart after chart after chart showing you where American students stand
on the international scale compared to other high school graduate
students:
In physics, dead last of all developed nations.
High school mathematics graduates, second from the bottom of all
developed countries.
[[Page H9560]]
General science, about fifth from the the bottom.
In the PITA studies, United States last of 21 nations in mathematics.
We think we are the leading nation. We think we are doing a good job
of educating our students. We are not, and we must face that. This bill
addresses much of that problem by improving the education and training
for teachers, both incoming teachers and existing teachers. It will
improve the curricula, it will help students achieve better, and we
must achieve higher levels again.
China and India recognized this issue 20 years ago, that the future
belonged to the nations that educated their children in mathematics and
science. China did it the dictator's way: You will learn math and
science. India did it through inducements. But, as a result, they are
now ahead of us, and we are now losing jobs to those nations because we
have neglected our math and science education.
In our research efforts, we have always been the leader in scientific
research for half a century, ever since World War II. We are losing
ground. Believe it or not, South Korea is starting to put more than we
are, as a percent of GDP, into basic research efforts, and that is
being joined by other countries as well.
Manufacturing is a tremendous problem. We are losing jobs to other
countries. And it is not just the wage base. I come from a
manufacturing district. I have many conversations with manufacturers.
It is not just the wage base. They are getting better quality, more
highly educated workers abroad for lower pay. That is a hard
combination to beat. And we really have to work hard in this Nation to
improve education and improve manufacturing.
Now, how does that affect this bill? This bill is designed to affect
and improve all of those areas. It does not do it ideally. I disagree
with a number of things in the bill. I join my Republican colleagues in
doing that. But, on balance, it is a start. If this were an
appropriations bill, I might have some reservations, but it is an
authorization bill. We get another bite of the apple each time we
decide which programs we are actually going to fund.
I could mention ARPA-E in here. I am less than enthusiastic about it.
If it works, I am delighted. I am skeptical. But why not authorize it,
let the appropriators work with us, and decide whether or not we should
fund it.
America as a Nation is based on competition. We are not afraid of
competition, and this bill will engender competition. It will give us
the opportunity to compete face-to-face at level-to-level with other
countries and give us an opportunity to restore our manufacturing base,
improve our science education, improve our manufacturing facilities and
really do a better job.
You have heard before, this is endorsed by many major organizations
in this country, all of whom have a deep interest in improving
manufacturing and improving our competitiveness. This bill was
suggested by President Bush in his American Competitiveness Initiative
in his State of the Union speech last year. This is not a fly-by-night
idea. This is something that I have been working on for almost every
year since I came here 14 years ago and particularly the last 10 years.
It is coming to fruition.
I have worked with the White House on it. I have worked with many
scientific societies, and much of the genesis of this comes from the
the National Academy of Sciences and The Gathering Storm Report, which
is headed very ably by Norman Augustine, one of our leading
industrialists and scientists.
It is not a perfect bill. I wish it were, but it is not. But in this
process this is the best we can get, and it gives us a base to build
on. And through appropriate use of this authorization and the
appropriations bills, we will strengthen our Nation, we will strengthen
our manufacturing base, we will strengthen our schools, we will
strengthen our math and science education, and we will have a better
Nation and a stronger Nation as a result.
One last comment. We spend a tremendous amount of money on defense, a
tremendous amount of money on defense. We have always managed to
succeed in situations like Iraq because of our superior knowledge, our
superior research, and our superior resources. We are in danger of
losing that edge. And I have met with people from the the Pentagon
suggesting scientific ideas to them that they can use to improve the
situation in Iraq. We need that kind of interaction between the
scientific community and the military community, and I hope that will
also result from this and give us a stronger Nation.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 5
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from
Ohio, and I thank her for her leadership not only on the Rules
Committee but on the Judiciary Committee. It is a pleasure to have the
opportunity to work with her.
Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the chairman of the Science
Committee, Mr. Gordon, and the ranking member of the Science Committee.
As an alumnus of this committee, let me applaud this effort and
indicate that this is not the end but it is the beginning. It has been
a long journey, but it is premised on very important challenges.
We begin to look around the world, and we notice that nations who in
years past were looking to the United States for the cutting edge of
technology now are graduating more mathematicians and engineers in 1
month, such as China, than we might be graduating in 1 year. We
understand the premise of this competitive legislation. H.R. 2272 is
long overdue, and it is reaching to answer a crisis.
Earlier this morning, we heard reference to President John F. Kennedy
about his pronouncement that America was going into space. It was said
at that time that the President didn't know how we were going into
space, did not have a grasp of the possible technology, but yet by his
pronouncement it opened the doors of America's inventiveness to be able
to create this pathway to space.
Well, now that we have statistics behind us of Leave No Child Behind,
a bill that we hope we will truly reform, we do have numbers suggesting
that America's children are shortchanged in math and science. We do
know that America's schools are failing with respect to equipment in
science laboratories; and we do know America's schools need the kind of
trained teachers, master teachers who can emphasize math and science.
So I am very grateful that this particular legislation allows for
25,000 new teachers over the next 3 years through Professional
Development Summer Training Institute's graduate education focusing on
math and science.
Today, in my own district, I am working with private-to-public sector
to help fund one of the failing school districts to give them what you
call master teachers in math and science to build up their
laboratories. But we are using private dollars because we can't get the
public dollars. This maintains the importance of qualified teachers in
mathematics and science. It does something that is key, that many of us
have been working on who have been advocating for NASA for many years,
and that is a partnership between the public and private.
I hope that NASA will be one of those who can be utilized to engage
more heavily in the community on the issues of math, science, and
engineering.
And something that we have worked on and I have worked on all my
years on the Science Committee, working with historically black
colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges, we now have a focus on
minorities and women in the science area.
When I first came to this Congress, I passed legislation that would
allow excess equipment from the Nation's laboratories to be used in our
secondary and primary schools, anything to put a nexus between research
and science and development to the Nation's education system. This puts
it squarely on the front burner. And I think what also happens is that
we have revitalized the National Science Foundation, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's
Office of Science.
The key element of this legislation is that, without ideas, we are
not competitive. That is why it is so named. And I hope that as this
bill moves forward the President and Presidents to come will make this
a cornerstone of their administration; that is, that
[[Page H9561]]
America fails when her inventiveness, when her scientists and engineers
are stifled and America fails when its people, are, in essence, divided
and some go forward and some do not. So the idea that we must see again
the emphasis on math and science for girls as we do boys is crucial.
Let me just simply say, as a partner to this effort, we recently
passed my NASA Coin Bill. Interestingly enough, in that legislation
there are opportunities to embrace children-focused programs that would
encourage the research or the science at a primary school level so that
children grow up saying, ``I want to be.'' And I know they want to be
basketball players and they want to be maybe astronauts because they
look great, but I want them to grow up and say, ``I want to be a math
teacher or mathematician. I want to be a biologist or a chemist or a
nuclear physicist or an engineer of many different types.'' As we
reflect on the tragedy of the Minnesota bridge collapse, we need
engineers and technicians to help build America and to create jobs.
I close, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying science is the work of the
21st century. This is what this bill is about.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my opening
remarks that I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so we can address the very, very important issue of reform of
FISA.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico, a member of the
Intelligence Committee, Mrs. Wilson.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we now have 2 days left
before the August break, and I would ask my colleagues to oppose the
previous question on this conference report so that we may immediately
address the problems in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
We have now reached a point where the majority is committed to bring
legislation to the floor, and that is a very big step forward, and I
regret that it has taken so much public pressure to get us to this
point. I am actually a believer that intelligence matters are best
dealt with quietly, but when quiet encouragement does not work and
national security is at stake, we have an obligation to increase the
public pressure in order to get a political decision to move and get
things done when it is important to this country.
Now that that political decision has been made and the majority has
said they will bring legislation to the floor, we need to make sure
that that legislation fixes the problem. In other words, we have to get
this right. It is critical to get this right. Several Democrat leaders
have put forward some ideas, but there are two of them that don't make
any sense to me.
{time} 1100
They want, first, only temporary authority to listen to foreigners in
foreign countries. And, second, they want to still be in a situation
where you have to get a court order to approve eavesdropping on
foreigners in foreign countries.
Let's look at that for a second. My colleagues want two things. They
want only temporary authority to listen to foreigners in foreign
countries. The war on terrorism is not a temporary thing, and spying is
not new. As early as the invention of the telegraph and reading
people's mail during World War I that was going back and forth to
Europe, in World War II much of the war was won because we broke codes
that the Germans and Japanese were using and listened to their
communications. During the Cold War we listened to our enemies. We have
a foreign intelligence apparatus, and we spy on our enemies. Foreign
intelligence collection is not new, and it is not temporary. We need to
fix this law and get it right now.
Secondly, several of my Democrat colleagues have put forward the idea
that you should still need court approval to eavesdrop on foreigners in
foreign countries. It takes about 200 man-hours to develop a probable
cause statement, a packet to go to the court, it's about that thick, to
get approval from a court to do a wiretap.
Now, these people who have to put these together are not clerks or
even lawyers. They are experts in counterterrorism, and their time is
much better spent tracking these people than putting together
paperwork.
More importantly, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was never
intended to put a U.S. judge in charge of deciding whether we can
listen to foreigners in foreign countries. That is why we spy and what
we do. We don't need judges to be considering those kinds of things.
And the only reason they are is because technology has changed faster
than the law.
FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was never intended
to require warrants to listen to foreigners in foreign countries. In
1978, when the law was written, almost all long-haul communications
were over the air. That's where international calls were. Almost all
local calls were on a wire. When they wrote the act, they froze the law
in time. They required a warrant for anything on a wire. And over-the-
air communications didn't require a warrant at all because that's where
we collect foreign intelligence.
In a bill that comes to this floor, we need to do two things. First,
no warrant or court intervention should be required to listen to
foreign terrorists in foreign countries. Speed matters. And, second, we
must continue to require warrants to listen to people in the United
States. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance law was intended to
protect the civil liberties of Americans. It was intended, and has done
actually a very good job at rolling back the abuses that the
intelligence community was involved in in the 1950s and 1960s.
Let's get this court back to focusing what it was intended to do,
which is to protect the civil liberties of Americans, and allow our
intelligence community to do what they are intended to do, which is to
keep this country safe and prevent the next terrorist attack.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my honor to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, a member of both
the Rules Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence (Mr.
Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from Ohio for
yielding.
If it is that we must say that my friend from New Mexico, Mr.
Speaker, is to receive credit for a discussion of FISA, it should also
attend the facts that for over a year the Intelligence Committees of
this Congress have been in negotiations with the administration
regarding matters having to do with FISA.
Just so we assure everybody that the matter of FISA is on the agenda,
it will be taken up before we leave. And I can only say that there are
many of us in this body who do not feel that it is inappropriate to
establish an appropriate entity for oversight, no matter where
information may be coming from.
The thing that I wish to dispel is that there is no reason for us to
be fearful of us not having information that is needed. It is true that
the Director of National Intelligence has said that there are matters
that we may be missing. But there may be matters that we may be missing
even if we fix FISA if we hurry to judgment and not do it correctly.
So civil liberties are important to Americans. Civil liberties are
paramount when it comes to our consideration of gathering information.
We don't want to troll and catch some American citizens and have their
information poorly used.
Now, I don't know about anybody else, but there is one provision that
considers giving the Attorney General this power and not courts. If it
was this Attorney General, then I'm awfully glad that we're in the
present posture that we're in, because I would not want this Attorney
General making those decisions.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the Director of National
Intelligence has said that there are things we should be listening to
which we are not getting.
All of us remember where we were on the morning of 9/11, remember who
we were with, what we were wearing, what we had for breakfast.
I would guess that nobody listening to me here today, or very few,
remember where they were the day that the British Government arrested
16 people who were within 48 hours of walking on to airliners at
Heathrow and blowing them up over the Atlantic. It was successful
intelligence cooperation between the British, Pakistani and American
Governments that prevented that
[[Page H9562]]
attack. And you don't remember it because it didn't happen.
Intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terror, and
we must fix this law and get it right.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman if he has
any remaining speakers. I'm the last speaker on this side, and I'll
reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentlelady is prepared to close, I
am prepared to close on my side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question. By defeating the previous question we will give Members the
ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law to ensure
our intelligence community has the tools they need to protect our
Nation from potentially imminent terrorist attack.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we make a commitment to our
students who want to succeed in the fields of math and science. It's
time that we help our manufacturers and promote innovation and
industrial competitiveness. With this legislation, we are setting our
course.
While there are many things that must be done on many different
issues to see real improvements, passing the 21st Century
Competitiveness Act today is one very positive and enormous step in the
right direction. We are saying we want to invest in our teachers. We
want to invest in our students, invest in science and research and
development and innovation. We are developing our workforce for the
jobs of today and tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, we are preparing our Nation for a bright future. I urge
a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 602 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the bill (H.R. 3138) to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the
definition of electronic surveillance. All points of order
against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 602, if
ordered; ordering the previous question on House Resolution 601; and
adoption of House Resolution 601, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 198, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 791]
YEAS--225
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
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
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
[[Page H9563]]
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--198
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
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)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Clarke
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Ellison
Johnson, Sam
Lee
Olver
Paul
{time} 1132
Messrs. COLE of Oklahoma, TERRY, and HUNTER changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. COOPER and Mr. SERRANO 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 resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 194, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 792]
YEAS--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
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
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
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)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Cannon
Clarke
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Ellison
Johnson, Sam
Mahoney (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1140
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H9564]]
____________________