[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 127 (Friday, August 3, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9672-H9675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180,
nays 237, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 817]
YEAS--180
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)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
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)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--237
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
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
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 (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
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)
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Calvert
Clarke
Crenshaw
Davis, Jo Ann
DeGette
Dicks
Hayes
Johnson, Sam
Lynch
Markey
McCrery
Moran (VA)
Paul
Wexler
{time} 1628
Mr. GERLACH and Mr. DENT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky and Mr. PICKERING changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from the Land of Enchantment, Mrs. Wilson.
{time} 1630
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, when we adjourned we were
discussing a rule to make in order two bills, one relating to Minnesota
and the other relating to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The rule does not specify a particular bill number, but my colleague
from Florida has made us aware of a bill that was introduced. The bill
that the leadership currently intends to bring to the floor is H.R.
3356. I would tell my colleagues that the Director of National
Intelligence had not seen this piece of legislation when it was brought
to the floor today.
In the intervening time that we've been waiting for the vote tally
system to become operational again, they've been able to at least
initially take a look at it, and we expect a formal statement from our
intelligence community shortly, but I have also taken a look at this
bill. If we're trying to fix the intelligence gap, this will not do it.
In fact, this will make the intelligence gap wider than it currently
is, and I want to explain to my colleagues why.
First, and most importantly, this legislation would continue to
require a warrant for the collection of foreign intelligence involving
foreign persons in a foreign country. When the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act was passed in 1978, the intention was to protect the
civil liberties of Americans, and that is what the law should continue
to do. Because of changes in technology, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court is now being completely backlogged with requests for
warrants that they never used to have to see because telecommunications
have changed.
We need to go back to what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
was intended to do, which is to protect the civil liberties of
Americans and allow us to rapidly collect foreign intelligence on
foreign persons in foreign countries without first having to go to
[[Page H9673]]
court and get a warrant. That is not too much to ask, and the Director
of National Intelligence has warned all of us that there are things we
should be getting that we are not listening to.
The leadership does not have to bring, under this rule, this
particular piece of legislation to the floor, and as I understand it,
negotiations are continuing and are being much more fruitful with our
colleagues in the other body. But we must, before we leave here for
August break, fix this problem. It's a problem we've known about for
some time and tried to work on and quietly fix. I would much prefer
that these things be done quietly, but when it was clear that the law
was not working, that it was not protecting Americans, and that we were
not moving quickly to fix and close this intelligence gap, I decided
that I needed to take action and with my colleagues push more publicly
to get this fixed.
I believe it is possible here today in this House to find the
consensus and something that works for our intelligence agencies to be
able to listen to foreigners in foreign countries, who are using the
communications systems America has built, to plot, to plan, to kill us.
I would encourage the leadership on the other side of the aisle to
work constructively with the Director of National Intelligence, call
him and get him up here and work this out so that we can do the right
thing for our country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would remind everyone here
that this rule is to make in order a suspension day. This particular
measure is not about FISA.
Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield to a woman that I've worked
with on the Intelligence Committee when she was the ranking member of
the Intelligence Committee and that I worked on that committee with for
6 years. In this body is the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence
Committee; in addition, another of my colleagues, Ms. Eshoo, Mr.
Turner, Mr. Holt. All of us serve on that same committee that Mrs.
Wilson serves on, and I rather suspect that she knows that we know that
there is no prohibition that she has suggested here.
I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman), the former ranking member of the House Permanent Select
Committee and the now-Chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment of the Homeland
Security Committee.
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
commend him again for his service both on the Rules Committee and
ongoing on the Intelligence Committee.
It is reassuring that the debate has quieted. As many people have
said on both sides, this is a very serious subject. While we were
having our break because of a computer glitch, I had the chance to sit
on the floor and talk to many colleagues on a bipartisan basis about
how this Member who has studied this issue for years sees it.
I point out to colleagues that the bill that has been distributed,
H.R. 3356, says on page 2, section 105(a), ``a court order is not
required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication
between persons that are not located within the United States.''
It is the intention of this bill, which will be made in order on the
suspension calendar under the rule, to exempt foreign-to-foreign
communications, and it is the intention, I believe, of every single
person sitting here, several hundred of us, to exempt foreign-to-
foreign communications from the warrant requirements of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
What is really at issue, and I hope this will clarify the subject for
some who are still wondering what it is, is whether or not we will have
a court approve the parameters, the framework of this entire program,
or whether we will leave the dimensions of the program and the
activities under the program to the Attorney General or perhaps the
Attorney General working with the Director of National Intelligence.
Some of us know the details of this program. It's a valuable program.
It's very complicated, and it has many different parts. I, for one,
thought that it was being regulated under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act until I learned recently that the administration had
chosen not to follow FISA. I think, and I would hope many on the other
side would think, that we must have a legal framework around this
program. No more blank checks for this Attorney General or for any
future Attorneys General.
I urge approval of this rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much
time remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 5\1/2\ minutes.
The gentleman from Florida has 8 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of the gentleman from
Florida if he would like to run down some of his time at this time or
if he's through with his speakers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Excuse me.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he would
like to get the time even and to run down with another speaker. We're a
little bit ahead.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
As our previous colleague was talking, I think she laid it out pretty
well. Are we going to involve the courts in reviewing our foreign
intelligence activities? If you take a look at the bill that is out
here, it appears that the court is going to be involved in reviewing
our intelligence community activities overseas. This becomes the
Terrorist Protection Act, not a surveillance program.
Do we want a court reviewing our tactics and strategies for foreign
intelligence or foreign individuals in foreign locations and lay it out
the way that this bill wants? This is not about theory. This is about
protecting the homeland, and it is about protecting our troops in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Does it make sense that when a commander in the field gets the
information or gets leads that may protect their soldiers that, rather
than following the lead immediately, the first thing that they do is
bring in the lawyers to make sure that they get that information in an
appropriate and legal way on the battlefield? Is that giving our troops
the tools that they need to keep themselves safe and secure and defeat
the enemy?
Does it make sense when our intelligence frontline folks, whether
it's in northern Africa or in the Middle East, get a lead as to
individuals who may be targeting the United States, that the first
thing that they need to do is get the lawyers involved to make sure
that foreign intelligence is collected in an appropriate way, rather
than focusing on what needs to keep us safe?
After 9/11, we spent a lot of time working together to put together
an intelligence community that would, in the future, be able to connect
the dots. With this bill that it looks like we're going to consider
this afternoon, we won't have to worry about connecting the dots
anymore because we will put the barriers in place that means that they
will not even be able to collect the dots. But if you believe that this
is a bumper sticker war and this is a bumper sticker threat that we
face today, this bill is for you.
Take a look at the statement by the Director of National
Intelligence. The Director of National Intelligence today is the same
individual that served many years under President Bill Clinton as the
Director of the National Security Agency. Here's what he has to say
about this bill:
I have reviewed the proposal that the House of
Representatives is expected to vote on this afternoon to
modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House
proposal is unacceptable. I strongly oppose it. The House
proposal would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to
provide warning and to protect the Nation, especially in our
heightened threat environment. I urge Members of Congress to
support the legislation I provided last evening to modify
FISA to equip our intelligence community with the tools we
need to protect our Nation.
This is an individual who has a 30-year career in this business. He
served President Clinton; he's serving President Bush, but most
importantly, it is
[[Page H9674]]
a career that is distinguished because he has served the country and
has kept us safe. Let's respect his opinion. Let's give him the tools
that will keep us safe, keep us safe in the homeland and keep our
troops safe on the battlefield.
{time} 1645
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to be astounded,
particularly at the remarks of the distinguished ranking member of the
committee that I serve on with him, that he would have us believe
something different than what his proposal allows for. His proposal, or
the proposal of the minority, would allow the Attorney General to do
this, not lawyers.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the point person for every
person in the House of Representatives on intelligence, the
distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr.
Silvestre Reyes.
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I want to start off by correcting the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan. Director McConnell didn't have 30 years,
doesn't have 30 years experience in working in intelligence, he has 40
years experience working in intelligence. The reason I know that is for
the last couple of weeks we have been working, trying to work together
in a bipartisan way with the Senate and the House on this bill that we
have here today.
Director McConnell asked us to do three things yesterday, and he
sought the very bill that he is rejecting today, three things, and he
could support our bill. Those three things were: expand it from
relating to terrorism to relating to foreign intelligence; eliminate
the requirement that the FISA Court adjudicate how recurring
communications into the U.S. from foreign targets would be handled;
and, third, allow for foreign targets to be added for the basket
warrant after the warrant was approved. We did each and every one of
these things.
They say, okay, we got a deal. No. After getting on the phone with
the White House and the Republican leadership, he said, oh, I have a
few other things that we need.
Well, you know, when we talk about the security of this country, when
we talk about a serious issue like giving our intelligence
professionals the tools that they need to keep us safe, it is serious
business.
Today, we have to decide for ourselves do we want, on a temporary
basis for 120 days, to give the Director the tools that he said he
needed, the three things that he said he needed included in our bill to
keep us safe while we work on the bigger issue, the bigger fix of FISA,
or if you vote against this bill, do you make it a political issue?
The choice is simple. Are you interested in giving him the tools that
are needed and necessary to keep us safe, or do you want it as a
political issue? That's the question before us this afternoon.
The Director yesterday, in answering to the majority leader's
inquiry, said this bill, this bill that we have before us today,
significantly enhances America's security, the very bill that,
according to the ranking member, he is rejecting.
My colleague, the gentlelady from New Mexico, says we didn't show the
DNI the bill. We sent that to him. His lawyers dissected it. We were in
the same room; and on one occasion, at least one occasion, Mr. Hoekstra
was with us as we were talking about the issues, along with the Senate,
didn't show it to him.
He had a chance to look at it, digest it and make recommendations,
like the three issues that I just read, that he agreed to yesterday.
Those are important things. Facts matter. The truth matters. Not about
obfuscating the truth, it's about doing what's right for our country.
This is the right thing to do, to keep us safe for the next 120 days,
so we continue to do the work of this committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, it is about doing the right thing. In
doing so, I would like to make sure that we get it right this time.
Despite what someone may have been told, I have a statement by the
Director of National Intelligence that was issued this afternoon at
4:30. The gentleman says, ``I have reviewed the proposal that the House
of Representatives is expected to vote on this afternoon to modify the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House proposal is
unacceptable, and I strongly oppose it.
``The House proposal would not allow me to carry out my
responsibility to provide warning and to protect the Nation, especially
in our heightened threat environment.
``I urge Members of Congress to support the legislation I provided
last evening to modify FISA and to equip our intelligence community
with the tools we need to protect our Nation.''
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot have it where they say
it's a complicated issue. Protecting this country should not be
complicated when people who are trying to do the right thing are asking
and showing people what to do.
The Republicans have made our choice known today, and that is we are
going to stand behind the Director of National Intelligence.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chairman, what the gentleman just read
was ordered to the White House by the National Intelligence Director.
The Republican logic allows that what was acceptable yesterday is not
acceptable today.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Mexico will state
her parliamentary inquiry.
Does the gentleman from Florida yield to the gentlewoman from New
Mexico?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I do not.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the
rule at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
Add at the end the following:
(3) A bill to authorize additional funds for emergency
repairs and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35 bridge
located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August
1, 2007, to waive the $100,000,000 limitation on emergency
relief funds for those emergency repairs and reconstruction,
and for other purposes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I want to take this
opportunity to briefly describe this amendment to House Resolution 600.
The amendment would add a third suspension measure to this
resolution, a bill to provide assistance to Minnesota. This will allow
the House to consider the Minnesota bridge disaster emergency relief
legislation. I am sure that everyone here would urge that the
reconstruction of the bridge that tragically collapsed on Wednesday be
undertaken.
While the minority has been engaging in manufactured obstructionism,
the House has been denied the opportunity to act on the priorities of
the American people.
While the minority has been engaged in manufactured obstructionism,
the House has enacted on legislation to require a comprehensive
strategy to withdraw our troops from harm's way.
While the minority has been engaged in manufacturing obstructionism,
the House has not been able to act on FISA reform.
Finally, while the minority has engaged in manufactured
obstructionism, the House has not acted on providing emergency
assistance to our fellow Americans who are grieving and suffering in
Minnesota.
Manufactured obstructionism is what they are doing, and the American
people will not stand for it.
By allowing this bill to come to the floor today, we can get this
bill to the President's desk immediately. Whatever differences we have
here today, this should be something we all can support.
I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and the rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
[[Page H9675]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 196, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 818]
YEAS--228
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
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
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
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
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
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
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
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
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)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
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
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
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
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
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Clarke
Crenshaw
Davis, Jo Ann
Gohmert
Hayes
Johnson, Sam
Markey
Paul
{time} 1714
Mrs. BACHMANN, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. CANNON changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee changed his vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________