[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 166 (Tuesday, October 30, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12164-H12168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3867, SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING 
                        PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 773 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 773

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3867) to update and expand the procurement 
     programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Small Business. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions of the bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 
     of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 3867 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 773.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 773 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 3867, the Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act, 
under a structured rule.
  As the Clerk reported, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of 
the Committee on Small Business. The rule waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule 
XXI.
  Ten amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee for 
consideration were made in order. All four Republican amendments that 
were submitted and six Democratic amendments that were submitted were 
all

[[Page H12165]]

made in order. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Through a series of laws and procurement requirements, Congress 
established a benchmark for the SBA to give small businesses every 
opportunity to compete fairly for the award of Federal contracts. 
Despite a clear mandate that has been in existence for more than 50 
years, small businesses have not received their fair share of Federal 
Government contracts. This is especially true regarding the service-
disabled veterans, men and women, and minority-owned businesses.
  In 2006 alone, the Federal Government spent over $417 billion on 
goods and services, but small businesses have been continuously losing 
out on contracting opportunities. This is a tragedy. Small businesses 
are the engines of our economy; and securing a Federal contract is a 
major financial boon for these entrepreneurs, especially veterans, 
women, and businesses in low-income areas.
  We cannot afford for our budding entrepreneurs to be shut out of what 
should be an open market and be denied opportunities to succeed, not 
when their existence is so vital to our economy, especially. H.R. 3867 
takes several critical steps to assist small businesses' participation 
in Federal procurement by updating and expanding the SBA's procurement 
programs.
  First, it improves contracting opportunities for service-disabled 
veteran businesses. Today only 0.87 percent of Federal contracts are 
granted to service-disabled veteran businesses, a far cry from the 3 
percent goal that was enacted in 1999.
  H.R. 3867 gives service-disabled veteran businesses priority for 
Federal contracts, providing more opportunities for our Nation's 
veterans to become successful entrepreneurs.
  It also codifies President Bush's executive order directing agencies 
to provide veterans resources and assistance they need to participate 
in Federal contracting processes.
  Second, H.R. 3867 aids women-owned businesses with Federal 
procurement processes. The Women's Procurement Program was enacted 7 
years ago to increase the number of contracts awarded to businesses 
owned by women.
  However, the SBA has been dragging its feet in implementing the 
program, costing women tens of billions of dollars in lost contracting 
opportunities. H.R. 3867 fully implements the Women's Procurement 
Program, giving women-owned businesses greater access to the Federal 
marketplace.
  The bill also takes the first step in modernizing the 8(a) program, 
which helps minority-owned businesses secure Federal contracts; but it 
has not been updated in over 20 years. The bill updates the 8(a) 
program to reflect today's economy so that minority-owned businesses 
have time to grow and graduate from the initiative.

                              {time}  1100

  Finally, H.R. 3867 continues the Democrats' commitment to combating 
fraud and eliminate wasting taxpayer dollars.
  The bill enhances business integrity standards to ensure that 
taxpayer dollars only go to reputable individuals. It promotes self-
policing to allow small businesses to challenge individual program 
awards. It protects disabled veterans by penalizing firms that falsely 
represent themselves as service-disabled veteran businesses, and it 
requires on-site reviews by SBA personnel before HUBZone contracts are 
awarded.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 3867, has extremely 
strong bipartisan support. It passed the Small Business Committee by a 
vote of 21-4.
  Among other organizations, it is supported by the National Federation 
of Independent Business, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the 
National Black Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Women's Chamber of 
Commerce, the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars.
  I would like to thank Chairwoman Velazquez and members of the Small 
Business Committee for their hard work that went into this piece of 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, we all recognize the importance of small businesses to 
our economy. It is imperative that we follow through on our commitments 
to small business and give them every opportunity we can to succeed.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for the 
time, and I would yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Small business is the engine that drives our economic strength. The 
almost 26 million small businesses in the United States employ over 
half of all private sector workers and pay approximately 45 percent of 
total U.S. private payroll. Over the last decade, small businesses have 
generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually.
  Congress, for decades, has acknowledged the important role small 
businesses play in the Federal procurement process. This is evident in 
the Small Business Act of 1953. The Act says that, and I quote, ``it is 
the declared policy of the Congress that the government should aid, 
counsel, assist and protect . . . the interests of small business 
concerns in order to preserve free competitive enterprise and to ensure 
that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or 
subcontracts for property and services for the government . . . be 
placed with small business enterprises.''
  In 2006, the Federal Government spent over $400 billion on goods and 
services in over 8 million separate contracts. Small businesses won 
about 80 billion worth of those contracts, a little over 20 percent.
  The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 
1999 established a goal of 3 percent for Federal contracts awarded to 
service-disabled veterans. Unfortunately, we have yet to meet that 
worthy goal.
  The underlying legislation being brought to the floor today, H.R. 
3867, the Small Business Contracting Improvements Act, seeks to expand 
procurement opportunities for businesses owned by service-disabled 
veterans by placing these businesses at the top of the priority list 
for receiving Federal contracts.
  The legislation adjusts the net worth standard for businesses in the 
8(a) program for the first time in about 20 years, to $550,000, so it 
is more consistent with inflation. To take part in the 8(a) program a 
business must be owned by citizens who are socially and economically 
disadvantaged. Participants in the program are eligible for sole source 
and limited competition government contracts. They also can receive a 
10 percent cost advantage in some procurements.
  As part of their campaign, Madam Speaker, the new majority spoke 
often about taking the House of Representatives in a new direction. 
Unfortunately, that direction seems to be backwards because now the 
Rules Committee no longer allows Members to present their amendments 
even if they're a few minutes late. That is a departure from the 
practice of the Rules Committee under the prior majority.
  Last week, several Members attempted to file amendments with the 
Rules Committee. The majority denied the Members even the ability to 
file the amendment because they were a few minutes late, thereby 
denying Members the right even to come before the Rules Committee to 
speak about the merits of their respective amendments.
  Representative King attempted to file his amendment on-line as 
required by the committee; however, due to technical issues, he was not 
able to file the amendment on-line. Representative King was told by the 
majority on the Rules Committee that they would waive the electronic 
filing requirement; however, because he had spent time trying to get 
the amendment filed electronically, he missed by a few minutes the 
deadline to physically file the amendment. It's disappointing that the 
majority would not allow Representative King to offer his amendment 
when it was clear he was trying to comply with the filing requirements. 
Because of technical issues, he was delayed.
  I understand the need the majority may have in issuing a deadline. 
But in the prior majority, Madam Speaker, we always allowed Members to 
at least file their amendments even if they were past the deadline, and 
even made some of those amendments in order. It is a shame that the new 
majority has decided to take a step back and not allow some discretion 
in this matter.

[[Page H12166]]

  This new hard-and-fast time requirement is particularly difficult, if 
not impossible, when a Member is trying to file a second-degree 
amendment. As you know, Madam Speaker, a second-degree amendment is 
written to amend an amendment, so that it is not possible to draft such 
an amendment until the initial amendment was made public, and that list 
of amendments filed is not made public until after the amendment 
deadline.
  We already saw how the new majority's requirement blocks amendments 
when, during a previous rule, Representative Akin was not allowed to 
offer a second-degree amendment.
  It's unfortunate, Madam Speaker, by not allowing Members to even 
offer amendments in the Rules Committee, we believe that the majority 
is, in effect, silencing the voices of millions of Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would respond to my friend from Florida 
by saying that it is the hard copy being received in Rules Committee 
that needs to be done by the time that has been specified by the Rules 
Committee. Timely filed amendments were all made in order on the 
Republican side for this measure. We certainly look forward to our 
Republican colleagues filing amendments in committee when we've called 
for amendments to a bill, and encourage them to file on time.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me thank the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and thank the 
chairwoman and the ranking member of the full committee on the Small 
Business Administration, and acknowledge the important step that is 
being made here today dealing with insuring government contract 
opportunities for small businesses owned and controlled by service-
disabled veterans. We are certainly going to have more of those. And 
every time you meet with a veterans group they wonder what are the 
opportunities for them.
  Small businesses are the backbone of America and I do support this 
with legislation. I also hope, however, that this bill does not do harm 
to the HUBZones that have been used by many small businesses across 
America. And as we review it, I will look closely at this legislation 
to ensure that HUBZones are protected.
  And I ask the question as to the formula that requires a site visit 
to the small business and background checks. I know for sure that many 
in the minority community use a small business as a step of opportunity 
out of a past that might not have been as they would have liked it to 
be. People who are rehabilitated who move forward in life should have 
an opportunity to provide for their families, and I would hope that 
that would be the framework of this particular legislation, that we're 
not doing harm to those opportunities because this is America.
  And then I certainly would have wanted to have the amendment that I 
offered that indicated in times of natural disaster and/or an act of 
terrorism that small minority and women-owned and disabled veterans 
businesses be utilized in the area of the disaster. Certainly, if there 
is a disaster, those small businesses may be impacted. But what we saw 
in Hurricane Katrina, we saw the misuse of the small businesses who 
were there, meaning that they did not have the opportunity to, one, 
save the government money, but, at the same time, do the job on behalf 
of their community of which they loved. And so I hope that we will be 
able to work this language in, maybe through conference, because I 
think it is an important sense of Congress' statement, and I also hope 
that we will protect those HUBZones and make sure that we reaffirm the 
opportunities for all small businesses across America.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask my 
dear friend how many speakers he has remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I have one additional speaker that has arrived.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, we reserve.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to, at this time, yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Small 
Business Contracting Program Improvements Act.
  Small business, as we all know, is the lifeblood of our communities. 
Small businesses are responsible for creativity, innovation, and 
community investment. I honestly believe that a community that has 
strong small businesses is a strong and vibrant community.
  This legislation is going to give small businesses in my home state, 
southern Arizona, a chance to be competitive with federal contracts, 
whether it's in Oro Valley down to Green Valley or Tucson all the way 
to Bisbee and to Douglas.
  For example, OfficeSmart in Sierra Vista, was founded in 1993 by 
Glenn McDaniel, a veteran, along with his wife, Diane. OfficeSmart has 
12 employees and nearly 1,000 commercial customers in southern Arizona. 
They compete for federal contracts and to provide office supplies to 
Ft. Huachuca.
  This bill is going to keep federal contract benefits targeted at 
local small businesses like OfficeSmart in local communities. It also 
honors our commitment to disabled veterans.
  We know with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there will be more and 
more veterans. This legislation also kick-starts the SBA's Women's 
Procurement Program.
  As a former president, CEO, and small business owner myself, I know 
the importance of small businesses and how difficult it is to compete. 
I strongly support passage of this bill and I urge Members on both 
sides of the aisle to support it.
  Thank you, Madam Chairwoman for your hard work on this committee.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask my friend if he has 
no other speakers.
  Mr. CARDOZA. No other speakers. We will be ready to close.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I will be asking 
for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this 
rule and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act.
  The House of Representatives passed the veterans and military funding 
bill on June 15 of this year by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate 
following suit and naming conferees on September 6 of this year. 
Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move 
forward on this bill and name conferees.
  Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill, with 
bipartisan support, because that's what this is. This legislation has 
extraordinary bipartisan support. It was almost unanimously passed by 
this House.
  Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill forward?
  Well, according to several publications, Madam Speaker, including 
Roll Call, the majority intends to hold back from sending 
appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming 
anticipated veto of one such bill, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to 
serve as an, and I quote, ``an extension of their successful public 
relations campaign on the SCHIP program.''

                              {time}  1115

  So for purely partisan tactical reasons, Madam Speaker, the majority 
is holding back from sending to the President legislation to fund our 
veterans and military construction.
  Now, recently, Madam Speaker, Republican Leader Boehner took a step 
towards naming House Republican conferees. Now, Speaker Pelosi should 
follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin 
on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into 
law.
  Madam Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act to move 
this legislation forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our 
veterans deserve better than partisan bickering holding back their 
funding. So I urge my colleagues to help move this important bipartisan 
legislation forward.
  But, frankly, Madam Speaker, it is an unfortunate fact to have to 
report that this is the first time in 20 years where we have reached 
this date, end of October, and we are still waiting for the first 
spending bill to be sent to the President for his signature. It is most 
unfortunate. Most unfortunate.

[[Page H12167]]

  So I urge my colleagues to help move the important legislation, the 
spending bill with regard to veterans and military construction, to 
move it forward, to send it to the President, to appoint conferees so 
that the final product can be sent to the President.
  For that reason, Madam Speaker, we oppose the previous question and 
urge all of our colleagues to join us in doing so.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, my friend, 
has indicated that we are not adequately funding our Nation's veterans. 
I would like to remind the gentleman, my good friend, that the recent 
Republican-led Congress shortchanged veterans funding by failing to 
provide sufficient increases to keep up with VA's growing number of 
patients and the rising cost of health care while they were in charge.
  In the summer of 2005, the VA confronted a $1.5 billion shortfall as 
they significantly underestimated the health care needs of the new 
veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. This year the VA expects 
to treat 5.8 million patients, 1.6 million more than in 2001.
  The new Congress, under the Democratic majority, committed to taking 
the country in a new direction. For 2007, the Democratic-held Congress 
increased veterans funding by $5.2 billion, and the Congress is 
proposing an additional increase of $3.8 billion more than the 
President in fiscal year 2008. That is the largest increase in veterans 
funding in 77 years.
  The Democratic Congress once again is bringing to the floor a bill 
that provides real solutions to the obstacles facing America's small 
business owners, innovators, and entrepreneurs. H.R. 3867 ensures that 
veterans, women, and minority-owned businesses and other 
underrepresented entrepreneurs receive the assistance they need to 
thrive in the Federal marketplace. It also paves the way for them to 
develop their companies, create jobs, and give a much-needed jolt to 
our economy.
  Madam Speaker, securing a Federal contract is a major boon for 
entrepreneurs, especially those owned by minority and veteran small 
businesses. This bill is yet another step towards ensuring that these 
businesses are not, in fact, left behind, but rather given every 
opportunity to succeed.
  I appreciate the debate with my friend from Florida, and I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

      Amendment to H. Res. 773 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 773 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House 
Resolution 773, if ordered; suspending the rules and concurring in the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 3678; and suspending the rules and passing 
House Joint Resolution 58.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 180, not voting 36, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1013]

                               YEAS--216

     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
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     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
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)

[[Page H12168]]


     Lee
     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
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     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
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--180

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     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
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     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
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     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.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Bono
     Carson
     Cleaver
     Cole (OK)
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     Engel
     Granger
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Mack
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Paul
     Price (GA)
     Roskam
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Souder
     Space
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wilson (OH)

                              {time}  1146

  Mr. GINGREY and Mr. BLUNT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COOPER and Mr. McDERMOTT 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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________