[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]]



                          ____________________