[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 171 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12806-H12814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3043, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the
distinguished gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on House Resolution 794.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 794 provides for consideration of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration. The conference report also includes the
House and Senate compromise on the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations Act.
The rule includes two additional provisions. The first provides that
only the majority leader or his designee can move to proceed to
consider H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act. It addresses a procedural motion under the trade
act and is often adopted by the House, including three times during the
last Congress alone. The second ensures that in the event that the
Senate on a point of order strips out the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs provisions from this conference report, that the
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education portion of the report
will not be further delayed and, instead, sent immediately to the
President for his signature.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the
underlying conference report. Of all the conference reports which
Congress will consider, the vote on this one will be the most telling.
It will be the most telling because Members will have an opportunity
tonight to take an up-or-down vote on the needs of our children and
Congress's commitment to America's veterans. Members are either for
$5.1 billion in mandatory increased funding for veterans military
benefits or they are not. They either support
[[Page H12807]]
$1.1 billion in increased funding for Pell Grants or they don't. We are
either for restoring the President's $287 million cut in job-training
programs for the unemployed or we are not.
Do you support $530 million in increased funding for VA hospitals and
other medical facilities, or do you oppose the funding increase? What
about Head Start? The conference report includes $154 million in
increases in funding for this critical early childhood education
program. Low-income energy assistance programs? There's a $250 million
increase in funding for these programs, which ensure that millions of
Americans are warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
How about the National Institutes of Health? The conference report
increases funding for this vital agency by $1.1 billion so that America
will continue to be the global leader in medical research and
technology. Or Ryan White AIDS programs? There's an $85 million
increase for them. I am especially appreciative of this increase
because of the continued epidemic that HIV/AIDS poses throughout south
Florida and particularly in the district that I am privileged to
represent. All of these priorities and many more are funded in the
underlying conference report on which Members will have an opportunity
to cast a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' vote if this rule is approved.
Democrats promised, Madam Speaker, that we would govern differently
than the previous majority, that our legislation would reflect not the
ideological views of a few, but the priorities of the many. Moreover,
we vowed to work in a bipartisan fashion. This is exactly what we did
with this conference report, as indicated by the numerous Republican
Senators spanning the ideological spectrum who signed the conference
report.
Finally, we promised earmark reform, and that is what is done in this
report. After Republicans spent 12 years increasing the number of
earmarks to more than 14,000, Democrats cut the number of earmarks
nearly in half in this conference report. Perhaps most importantly, we
have made available for public viewing earmark disclosure statements,
and any new earmarks placed in this conference report are clearly
marked and in full accordance not only with the letter of the law but
also its spirit. I am proud that we kept our promise for transparency
and reform.
Madam Speaker, the importance of this conference report transcends
partisan politics to address the disparities that exist in the
competition to meet our human needs. The programs in the underlying
legislation prioritize the livelihood of citizens from all walks of
life and helps those individuals live at a standard that should be
expected in the greatest Nation on Earth.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
conference report.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, 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. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good
friend and namesake, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes. Sadly, the Democrat leaders today are not taking
care of the business of this country. They've failed to get their work
done because, in my view, they would rather play political games than
do the job that Congress and all of us are elected to do.
The new fiscal year, Madam Speaker, began 37 days ago, on October 1.
Yet not one of the annual funding bills to fund the Federal Government
has been signed into law. You have to go back 20 years to find a record
this bad.
This rule would provide for the consideration of two separate
appropriation bills that have been combined together by the Democrat
leaders. The Veterans funding bill and funding for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Education have been forced together in this
conference report. These bills have nothing in common, or I should say
the only thing they have in common is the fact that they are
appropriation bills.
They do have one very, very important difference, the difference
being callously exploited by the Democrat leaders. The difference is,
Madam Speaker, the Veterans funding bill has the votes to pass this
Congress and be signed into law, while the Labor, Health and Education
spending bill will be vetoed because it increases spending by $10
billion over the President's request.
Democrat leaders are using the veterans to try and force through
their plan of higher spending. Veterans benefits and veterans health
care should not be held hostage. More than 400 of the 435 House Members
and over 90 of 100 Senators voted for the veterans spending bill. Yet,
Democrat leaders have blocked passage of this bill to be sent to the
President since September. For 2 months they have kept the veterans
waiting.
Madam Speaker, the Democrat leaders know full well this combined
spending bill won't be signed into law, but they have chosen to waste
our time by having the Congress vote on it anyway. The American people
have had enough of this Congress not completing its work and not being
serious about the business of this country. The Democrat leaders, in my
view, need to stop posturing, stop the game-playing and get serious
about doing its job in Congress.
Our veterans, Madam Speaker, have already carried a heavy burden for
our country. They shouldn't be used by the new majority to carry the
burden of passing this agenda of higher spending.
{time} 2000
Separate these two bills. Let Congress pass a clean funding bill for
our veterans.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule that provides for the
consideration of a combined conference report destined to be vetoed and
sustained.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) from the
Appropriations Committee.
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for his diligent and fair leadership on the Rules
Committee. Let me also thank Chairman Obey for this bill and for your
tireless efforts in crafting this legislation.
Our spending priorities do reflect our values as a country, and
during this week, which some of you heard last night, this is National
Bible Week. I think it is very important as we debate this bill to
remember some of the statements and speeches that were made last night
with regard to caring for the least of these.
I am pleased we were able to fund critical programs under the
Department of Health and Human Services, programs like nurses education
and the Ryan White CARE Act and the Minority AIDS Initiative. I look
forward to working with our colleagues to try to increase funding for
all of our AIDS initiatives in the coming year.
I also want to thank the committee for funding critical education
programs. What are we saying to the American people when we pass
legislation that funds education, like the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers, TRIO, GEAR UP, Upward Bound, and programs that
strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-
serving universities. We are saying these are our priorities. These are
the programs that we care about and want to see implemented which
invest in our children's future.
Madam Speaker, much has been said and reported about the President's
veto threat. What does this senseless veto threat say to the American
people? It says that the President's priority is funding an occupation
in Iraq as opposed to investing in the future of our country.
We are now spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. For the price of 1
month of our occupation in Iraq, we could be paying for 1.5 million
children to go to Head Start for a whole year. We could hire 200,000
new school teachers for a year, and we could even insure 7 million of
the 8.7 million children living in this country that do not have health
care insurance for a whole year.
This is a fundamental question where we should spend our priorities.
We actually could continue to spend our tax dollars on a war without
end, or we could use our tax dollars to spend on our children, our
schools, our communities and on our veterans who have valiantly
sacrificed so much. They deserve an ``aye'' vote on this rule and the
underlying conference report.
[[Page H12808]]
Let's remember this is National Bible Week and let us do what the
Scriptures would dictate on this bill and support the rule and the bill
for the least of these.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a valuable member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from
Washington.
Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida says that this new Democratic
majority was determined to govern differently than previous majorities.
He has succeeded in this regard, Madam Speaker: This is the latest the
Congress has gone without sending a single appropriation bill to the
President for his signature since 1987. I don't think that is what the
Democratic majority had in mind when they said they would govern
differently, but they have certainly done so.
So I rise to express my opposition to the rule and to the conference
report that will serve no purpose other than to delay funding for
veterans, for our troops and for their families.
The conference report before us includes both the Labor-HHS Education
appropriation bill and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
appropriation bill. The President stands ready to sign the MilCon-VA
bill into law. He could have done so already and made funding available
for key veterans health and benefit programs and much-needed military
construction projects.
But the majority has chosen to link that bill with a bloated Labor-
HHS, Education bill, a measure which the President will veto. So this
exercise today amounts to a waste of time and sends the wrong message
to veterans and military personnel. Instead of honoring these men and
women for their sacrifices and providing assistance to them today on
the eve of Veterans Day, we are short-changing our veterans in the
interest of political gamesmanship.
The majority's strategy was to couple these bills with the
expectation that many Members of Congress would not have the political
will to oppose funding for veterans even temporarily. We should not use
our veterans as pawns and we should not insult their intelligence. Give
our Nation's heroes more credit than that. Our veterans can see through
this ruse. So can the American people, and they should be rightly
outraged by it.
I have in my hand a statement taken from the Web page of the American
Legion, our Nation's largest veterans organization. The American Legion
says, ``Here we are again, the start of a new fiscal year and Congress
still has not passed the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.'' The American Legion goes on to
ask the question: ``So what is the problem?'' And their answer is
accurate: ``Politics.''
The American Legion goes on to denounce Congress' plans to hold VA
funding hostage.
Another veterans organization, VetsForFreedom.org identifies this
process for what it is: ``A cynical attempt to use veterans as a
political shield for further wasteful government spending.''
VetsforFreedom goes on to say they call on Congress to pass clean bills
for the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense as
quickly as possible.
Madam Speaker, we should be moving this legislation under regular
order. It is true that Congresses in the past have used omnibus bills,
but always as a last resort after first trying to follow regular
established procedure. In this instance, the Democratic leadership did
not even attempt to follow regular order. Instead, their first attempt
to bring these conference reports to the floor amounts to an
unprecedented departure from established procedure.
I very much regret the decision of the majority to link these two
bills. The House passed its version of the MilCon bill in June by a
vote of 409-2. The Senate passed its bill on September 6, 2 months ago,
with a vote of 92-1 in favor of the bill. For 8 weeks, Chairman Edwards
and I stood ready to conference these bills. We could have brought a
bill to the floor weeks ago that would have passed overwhelmingly and
been signed into law by the President.
Instead, after waiting 8 weeks, when we were finally given the green
light to move forward with a conference, the members of our
subcommittee were not appointed as conferees as is normally the case.
The majority decided that the Labor-HHS conferees, most of whom did not
attend MilCon-VA hearings or participate in our bill's creation, would
be involved in deliberations on VA-specific provisions.
Mr. Edwards and I, as chairman and ranking member, have worked along
with our Senate counterparts and our staffs to craft a compromise
between the two versions of the MilCon-VA bill. The compromise before
the House includes funding for numerous military construction projects
that are vital to support the working environment and quality of life
of our soldiers and their families.
We have included funding for base realignment and closure. We have
included funding for initiatives to restation 70,000 troops and their
families to Europe and Korea; projects necessary for increasing the
active duty Army by 65,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000; relocation
of Marines from Okinawa to Japan; consolidating U.S. forces in South
Korea; establishing enduring bases in Afghanistan and Djibouti;
barracks and family housing projects; new medical facilities; and
needed support facilities for our Guard and Reserve. And all of this on
a bipartisan basis.
I was especially pleased to join Chairman Edwards in a very important
quality of life initiative, funding much-needed child development
centers.
With regard to the VA portions of the bill, the department is
receiving the largest increase in the department's history, an increase
of $4.8 billion over fiscal year 2007. This increase even exceeds the
independent budget request submitted by the various veterans service
organizations. The bulk of this increase is going to boost medical
services at VA hospitals and clinics. In fiscal year 2008, it is
estimated that the VA will treat 5.8 million patients, including
263,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
The conferees have produced a bipartisan conference report. It is a
good work product. It continues the long-standing tradition of support
and commitment for the men and women and their families who are serving
our country and those who have served our country in the past.
It is unfortunate that these worthy projects are now joined with a
bill that includes $10 billion in excessive spending on domestic
programs.
Included in the Labor-HHS portion of the bill is a new duplicative
program for the CDC for comprehensive sex education; a new grant-making
initiative at the Department of Education targeting the creation of
full-service community schools.
The only office at the Department of Labor the majority has seen fit
to cut is the one responsible for union oversight. Apparently union
accountability is unimportant to the majority, so they cut the labor
management standards budget by 20 percent.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I mention these things to point out
that there are legitimate differences surrounding the Labor-HHS bill.
There are good reasons the President will veto Labor-HHS. But there are
no good reasons for this bill to be linked with MilCon-VA. Vital
funding for the VA and infrastructure for our troops could be in the
pipeline within a matter of days, but the majority will simply not
allow that. Instead, we are sacrificing veterans for the sake of a
cheap, cheap political stunt. Our Nation's veterans deserve better. The
American people deserve better.
Vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the conference report.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, sometimes I think I am living
here in la-la land. These people were in charge of the House; they were
in charge of the Senate, and they were in charge of the White House.
And they left us 11 appropriation measures that Mr. Obey and his
committee have had to deal with in trying to clean up their mess.
I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the chairman of Military Construction and the
VA Subcommittee.
Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, there is a clear difference between the
[[Page H12809]]
Republican leadership's approach to veterans and the new Democratic
Congress' leadership.
In the old Congress led by Republicans for 12 years, the Republican
leadership fired the Republican chairman of the VA Committee in the
House. Why? Because he put the interest of veterans above political
loyalty, partisan loyalty, to the leadership that didn't want to fund
our veterans adequately.
What is the difference? In the new Democratic Congress, Speaker
Pelosi and our leadership have said that supporting veterans, honoring
those who have honored us with their service in uniform, will be the
highest of priorities in this Congress, and that is exactly what we
have done and that is exactly what we are doing here tonight.
Let me respond to some of the comments of my Republican colleagues.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) said for 2 months
Democrats have kept veterans waiting. I don't know where my colleague
has been, but that is the last thing we have done. Perhaps my colleague
would remember that the first thing we did was pass a continuing
resolution for veterans funding for 2007 because the previously led
Republican Congress last year failed completely to ever pass a VA-
Military Construction appropriations bill.
In that bill, we increased veterans discretionary health care
spending by $3.4 billion. But that wasn't enough, we did more.
In the Iraq war supplemental bill, we didn't keep veterans waiting;
we worked hard to add an additional $1.8 billion to veterans
discretionary spending. So $3.4 billion and $1.8 billion, that adds up
to a $5.2 billion increase in VA discretionary and health care funding
this year alone before this bill comes to the floor. That is a larger
increase than any Republican House-led conference has ever reported
under Republican leadership.
{time} 2015
Now, some would say saying one thing and doing another is hypocrisy.
Others might call it a double standard. I will be polite and respectful
tonight. I'm going to call it politically convenient memory.
Our Republican colleagues are chastising us about being one month
late in passing a VA appropriation bill, although they ignored the $5.2
billion we've already added for our veterans. They seem to forget, you
know when the last time was under their leadership we passed a VA
appropriation bill on time? Anybody remember? It was a long time ago.
1996. That was the last time, under Republican leadership, in this
House we passed a VA appropriation bill on time.
Politically convenient memory. They're chastising us for being 1
month late this year? Seems that they forget, Madam Speaker, that in
2006 they didn't pass a bill at all.
They say we should separate the two bills, VA from Labor-HHS. Another
problem of politically convenient memory loss. Out of the last 5 years,
Madam Speaker, only once, only once under Republican leadership did
they pass the VA appropriations bill as a freestanding bill. Saying one
thing, doing another.
What Democrats are doing with this bill and what we've done this year
is to work with our veterans service organizations to pass the largest
increase in VA health care funding in the history of the veterans
administration. That's a record we can be proud of and we can remember.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as
much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member on the
Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I listened to the very distinguished
chairman of the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee, I've got to say that I was somewhat saddened
at this constant finger-pointing: the Republicans did this in 1996 and
we didn't know how to run the place and we didn't provide the funding
that was necessary for veterans and all of this sort of stuff and we
were late in doing these things.
The fascinating thing about this is that there's this brilliant
document that came forward during last fall's campaign, and it was
unveiled by the new Speaker of the House. It was called ``A New
Direction for America.'' And in it, it talked about this new spirit of
openness, the fact that we would have transparency and disclosure and
accountability, the likes of which we had not seen in a long time, if
ever.
Madam Speaker, I will tell you that we all know that we've gotten the
exact opposite of that. I unveiled a few weeks ago, along with my
colleagues Mr. Hastings, Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Sessions, an outline
of what has happened in this year.
Well, this process that we're dealing with at this very moment is an
example of the kind of arrogance that we have seen in trying to utilize
veterans as a political pawn.
Now, the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker), quoted the veterans publication in which they said very
clearly, we can do something that will ensure that the resources
necessary for our Nation's veterans are there. We can pass in a
bipartisan way a military quality of life appropriations conference
report. We can get it through both Houses of Congress, and we can get
it to the President of the United States. And then we will have, albeit
late, we will have been able to get the funding that is necessary.
Now, Madam Speaker, I don't believe that there are Members of this
institution who actually want to deprive our Nation's courageous
veterans from having access to the quality health care and the other
items that they need to have to address their concerns. I don't believe
that anybody sincerely wants to do that.
But I will tell you this, we know full well that there has been game-
playing in this process. In fact, all one needs to do is look at the
rule. We know that rule XVIII in the Senate basically says that you
cannot link up two appropriation bills. It's a scope violation, and it
can't be done.
Madam Speaker, on October 31, 44 Members of the United States Senate
signed a letter, and I'd like to include this letter in the Record at
this point.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, October 31, 2007.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Majority Leader Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid: We write this
letter to request that federal funding for our nation's
troops and veterans not be further delayed and held hostage
for partisan purposes. Congress must promptly complete its
work on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Military Construction-
Veterans Affairs (MilCon-VA) and Defense appropriations
bills, and they should be sent to the President's desk as
freestanding measures by Veterans Day.
It has been nearly two months since both Houses passed
their respective FY 2008 MilCon-VA appropriations bills, and
nearly one month has gone by since both chambers approved
their FY 2008 Defense appropriations bills. Plenty of time
has passed for these measures to go through conference and
get signed into law. Yet to date, this Congress has still not
sent a single appropriations bill to the President--a failure
of accomplishment that has not happened in decades.
Meanwhile, our brave soldiers are defending us overseas,
taking the fight to the terrorists, and keeping our nation
safe. Veterans continue waiting for increased funding, which
the President already has signaled that he would approve and
will lead to improved medical care and other benefits.
Swift action on the MilCon-VA and Defense appropriations
bills is not only fitting with Veterans Day coming in less
than two weeks, but it also is one of our highest
responsibilities as lawmakers. Our soldiers and veterans
already have done so much for our country. The Democratic
Congressional Leadership should not now cynically use them to
shoulder a bloated ``minibus'' funding bill up Pennsylvania
Avenue and wrest billions in excessive spending. Leading
veterans groups have expressed strong concerns about such an
approach. For months, the President has said that he would
oppose it.
Our troops and veterans cannot afford unnecessary delay,
and they rightfully expect Congress to put their interests
ahead of politics. It therefore is irresponsible to attach VA
and military funding measures onto a domestic spending bill
which we know will get vetoed. Instead, we urge you to work
with us in a bipartisan manner so we can quickly advance
freestanding MilCon-VA and Defense appropriations bills for
the President's signature.
It was addressed to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, and in
it they said that they were not going to
[[Page H12810]]
stand for this attempt to play politics, partisan politics, with
funding for our Nation's veterans.
And so we all know what is going to happen if this measure passes out
of this House. The Senate has the ability and 44 Members have signed
this letter saying that they are going to, in fact, raise a point of
order to prevent it from proceeding.
Now, it was 2 months ago today, Madam Speaker, 2 months ago today
that the Senate passed this appropriation bill; and, unfortunately, the
attempt to get the resources necessary for our veterans is, in fact,
being denied. I think that it is absolutely reprehensible that we would
use them to try and pass a bill that we know the President of the
United States has said he's going to veto.
So I suspect that just as we went through this debate on the State
Children's Health Insurance Program measure, there will be some that
say Republicans are voting against providing resources for our Nation's
veterans, and it's the power of the majority here in the House. They
can fashion things in such a way that that, in fact, can be described.
They can characterize the vote that way.
The veterans of this country aren't going to buy it. The American
people aren't going to buy it. They know that games are being played
with this very important funding measure.
Madam Speaker, it is essential that we defeat this rule, make sure
that we get a clean appropriation bill for our veterans to the
President's desk just as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's awfully difficult to
listen to lectures from people who left 11 appropriations measures on
the table before the Democrats achieved the majority.
I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and
I'm going to speak not to what was, but what is today and what should
be in the future.
I rise today in strong support of this conference agreement and the
rule, especially the agreement's increased funding for both the NIH and
the veterans health care system.
I have seen firsthand the amazing advancements in research that are
brought about through NIH funding. The University of Iowa's per capita
NIH research productivity is ranked sixth among public universities in
this Nation. Their important work benefits both Iowa and the Nation.
Unfortunately, over the past 5 years funding for the NIH has fallen
behind biomedical inflation, and we all suffer from these setbacks as
advancements in treatment and cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's
and many other diseases are jeopardized. That's why I strongly support
the increased funding for the NIH and other health care programs in
this conference report today.
In recent years, important veterans health care funding has also
fallen behind. I could not be more proud that this conference report
also includes the single largest increase in veterans funding in the
VA's 77-year history.
By providing $37.2 billion for VA hospitals and clinics, we will
ensure that the VA has the resources and oversight necessary to ensure
that veterans receive excellent health care, rehabilitation services,
and system-wide support. This funding will also provide research into
the treatment of traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress
disorder, two devastating conditions that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans
face all too frequently and will into the future.
I strongly believe that bold action such as this conference report is
necessary to address our Nation's and our veterans' health care needs.
Today, we are taking an important step forward. We are telling America
that we have our priorities right, and I urge my colleagues to support
this rule and the conference report.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking
member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I was
very sorry that my friend from Fort Lauderdale wouldn't yield to me,
and I would be happy to yield to him in a moment as I respond to the
statement that he made just when I completed mine.
He said that I was responsible for leaving 11 appropriations bills on
the floor. He said that he got a lecture.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
What I said was it was difficult to have lectures from people who
left 11 appropriations measures. I did not refer to you.
Mr. DREIER. Well, I had just completed my statement, Madam Speaker,
and the gentleman said getting lectures from people, and I'd given a 5-
or 6-minute statement. So I don't know, maybe it was an exaggeration
for me to infer that the gentleman was referring to what I said when,
in fact, I had served on the Rules Committee in a leadership position
in the past several Congresses. So maybe I was wrong in interpreting
that he was referring to my statement.
But, Madam Speaker, let me say this: we know that the House of
Representatives did, in fact, pass out those appropriations bills. We
worked in a bipartisan way to make that happen. We had a friendly
exchange with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on
Appropriations in which we characterized the Senate as the enemy and
the other party as merely the opposition.
The fact of the matter is we've had a real challenge in dealing with
the Senate. We know that as we look at this measure we, in past
Congresses, have, in fact, been successful at passing measures out of
the House of Representatives.
And I will say again that my friend referred to these lectures when,
in fact, I began my remarks by pointing to the fact that we were
promised a new day, and the fact is we're getting much, much worse.
We're getting much worse than the behavior and the performance that my
friend complained about of the past.
So, Madam Speaker, I've got to say that playing politics with our
Nation's veterans is exactly what we're going through right now, and I
think it's a very sad commentary. And I am gratified, I'm very
gratified, that our Nation's veterans organizations are recognizing
exactly what's happening, and I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Talk about a big day, a big day is the day
that veterans get an additional $7 billion and don't have to stand in
VA lines for months in order to receive their benefits.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the
Rules Committee.
If a gentle breeze were to come into this room and dispel the fog of
rhetoric that we've been listening to, we'd understand and return to
the basic proposition that's quite simple, and that is, the budget of
the United States Congress reflects the priorities of the United States
Congress.
And what will be debated and the substance before the House is
whether on the Labor-HHS budget we will appropriate and spend 2 percent
more than was recommended by the President of the United States. What
will be debated and decided by this House of Representatives is whether
we will approve and spend 4 percent more for military construction in
overdue services to our veterans. It comes to you from Chairs of
subcommittees who are operating under the tight restrictions of pay-as-
you-go budgeting that has been adopted by this new Congress after it
had been abandoned by the previous Congresses.
So what do the American people have to judge us by what we do? It's
this: first, we will pay for everything on a pay-as-you-go basis;
second, when the President says that we're spending more than he
recommended on Labor-HHS and for our veterans, we plead guilty. We're
paying for it, but we're doing it because we believe it's overdue and
it's right.
Think about the lack of investment that has occurred as a result of
the clear priorities of the administration approved by previous
Congresses: all Iraq all of the time and impoverishing our domestic
programs, even as Americans are struggling to make ends meet.
[[Page H12811]]
The Labor-HHS budget does a couple of things that are very
straightforward. It makes a fundamental commitment in the National
Institutes of Health. It increases LIHEAP funding, Low Income Heating
Assistance Program. Is it needed? Oil is at $93 a gallon on a barrel.
And on the veterans budget, this Congress has made a fundamental
decision, and it's very simple again. The cost of the war must include
the cost of caring for the warrior.
{time} 2030
Yes, it's true, this VA budget is the highest increase that we have
had in the history of the VA. Why? It's because it is absolutely
necessary to meet the obligation we have to the men and women in
uniform.
We will have an opportunity to vote yes or no. We will have an
opportunity to state explicitly and be judged by the American people as
to what our priorities are, and the priorities we have are to begin to
renew our commitment to our veterans and to renew our commitment to
basic science and investment in the people of this country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, how much time on both
sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
My friend from Vermont raised an issue on the issue of combining
these bills and suggesting that they are paid for. If the pay-for that
they are talking about is what was reflected in the budget document,
then that will result over time in the largest tax increase on American
citizens in the history of this country. If it is not the largest, it
is the second largest.
We will reserve the debate on that, because we are talking about
appropriation process tonight, but we will reserve that debate for
later on this week when there will be a tax extender bill coming to the
floor. We can more fully debate how these pay-fors work.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California, a member of the Appropriations Committee,
Mr. Farr.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in
strong support of the underlying bills. I can't believe what I am
hearing here tonight, that people are talking about this being a
bloated bill, that it's a bill that games are being played. They talk
about how much we love the veterans side of it, but we don't like the
Health and Human Services side.
Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot have a veteran without having a
family, without having a home.
This bill puts more money into the areas where the President cuts it.
In an area where the oil is going to $100 a barrel, they oppose this
bill because we give more money to LIHEAP for elderly people and people
who have low incomes to heat their homes in this winter that is coming.
They cut the budget for special ed, the President cut. We put it back
in. We put in money for autism. We put in money for people for
research, for strokes, for cancer, for Parkinson's Disease. These
things are related to veterans.
You can't stand a veteran alone. A veteran has a family. If that
veteran's family needs some help, by God, it's the government's
responsibility to provide for that good public education and that great
institute of health. That's in this bill, education, health, labor, the
essence of America, essential to having good veterans.
Vote for the rule and for the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I was compelled to come to the
well of the House here because I have listened very carefully to how we
are sacrificing our troops for political stunts. We have been told that
this bill, somehow, is unclean. I would submit that our troops have
fought for an American quality of life that is reflected in this bill.
As has been indicated, the National Institutes of Health is funded,
Centers for Disease Control, substance abuse and mental health, Ryan
White AIDS Programs, low-income heating energy programs, Healthy Start,
Head Start, the Community Services Block Grant program, the Social
Services Block Grant program, Child Care and Development Block Grant,
all of these unclean programs like foster care and adoption assistance,
the TRIO program, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, reading
programs, school reform programs, programs that help our disabled and
physically handicapped students, English language acquisition programs,
Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants, Perkins Loans, Pell Grants.
I would submit to you that those Marines and the Army, our soldiers
are out there fighting for precisely these kinds of programs. This is a
brilliant, brilliant joining of priorities.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
Chet Edwards from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, some of my Republican colleagues now say
this bill is about politics.
Let me respond, not with my words, let me respond using the words of
the Disabled American Veterans, the DAV, in their press release issued
today. The Disabled American Veterans, DAV, is commending lawmakers for
approving a conference report that will provide the largest increase in
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in its history.
DAV now calls on Congress and the administration to support this
important legislation and to enact it by Veterans Day. David Gorman,
the Washington D.C. Headquarters executive director of DAV went on to
say, and I quote, ``This increase in veterans health care and other
programs is especially welcome news at a time when our Nation is at
war.''
My Republican colleagues said we promised a new day under Democratic
leadership. We have done that. We did promise a new day for veterans.
After years of veterans health care and other programs struggling just
to try to come close to keeping up with inflation, we have authored the
largest increase in VA discretionary budget funding and health care
funding in history.
The most important step we took in that journey and in that new
direction was on March 29 of this year. We passed the 2008 budget
resolution which authorized that largest increase in history for
veterans health care and other benefits programs.
Unfortunately, not one Republican, not one Republican in this House
voted for that historic budget resolution that is now doing so much for
our Nation's veterans.
The same Republicans who railed tonight about our being 30 days late
seem to fail to point out we have already increased veterans health
care and other funding levels by $5.2 billion. A lot better record. It
is certainly a new direction compared to last year, and the same
colleagues who are complaining tonight didn't pass the veterans bill.
One last point, Republican colleagues are saying, because the
President threatened to veto this bill that includes such great
funding, important funding for our veterans, we ought to stop in our
tracks. If I had done that as chairman of the VA Military Construction
Subcommittee several months ago, our veterans would have lost $3.7
billion, because at that time, and as late as August 27, the same
administration wanted to veto this bill, said they didn't need a dime
more than the President asked for. That would have taken $3.7 billion
out of VA health care, VA benefits, adding new VA caseworkers. We are
in a new direction. That direction is good for our Nation's veterans.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The distinguished gentleman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Texas, made precisely my point, and he made the point that we have been
saying on this side. He made the point that my friend from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker) said. He talked about the benefits of the veterans funding
bill.
[[Page H12812]]
Mr. Wicker spent a great deal of time as ranking member saying how he
worked hand in hand in a bipartisan basis, and all we are saying is
that we know that bill has the votes to pass the Congress and be signed
into law. I thank the gentleman for making the point, because that's
the point we are making.
All we are saying is by linking these two bills together, you are
going to prolong it because it's going to be vetoed. I will be offering
later on a motion to defeat the previous question so we can separate
that. I hope the gentleman will vote with us because now we can pass
this bill that he extolled in such a very good way.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Mississippi (Mr.
Wicker).
Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, my friend from Texas, with whom I have
worked closely and for whom I have the greatest regard, mentions
proudly and properly this, the largest increase in veterans spending in
history.
I have to say that it does come on top of record spending increases
for veterans over the past 12 years. So, I take a second place to no
one in my support and in defending our stewardship of the Veterans
Administration over the past 12 years.
My friend quoted the DAV organization. I am sure they support this
bill. I am also sure, just like the American Legion and the Vets for
Freedom, that they don't want it delayed as this process will do, and
that's why I urge a defeat of the previous question and of the rule.
My friend says that not one Republican Member voted for the budget
resolution. The budget resolution provided great funding for the
veterans, but it also included the largest tax increase in the history
of this country, and that's why Republicans voted against the budget
resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I have to say that I am disappointed, as I mentioned and others have
mentioned, that the Democrat leadership refuses to let the House
consider the veterans spending bill, funding bill, separate from
funding from the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education.
This rule provides for the consideration of one conference report
that combines two separate spending bills that will be vetoed by the
President, and that veto will be sustained. I believe Members of this
House should have an opportunity to vote separately on these two
distinct measures.
Therefore, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so that I can amend the rule and allow a separate
vote on each of the spending measures.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record 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. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can separate this issue and
vote ``no'' on the rule if we do not prevail on our previous question
so that the Congress can pass a clean funding bill for our veterans.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
What we have heard from members of the minority regarding their
opposition to American priorities is nothing new. After all, it was
their manufactured obstructionism in this body and the other that
delayed this bill and has continued to delay the remaining
appropriations bills from being signed into law.
Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle announced that
they would oppose this conference report long before it was ever
written. The President, using his misdirected, ill-conceived and
ideologically driven policies as justification, has been threatening to
veto this bill for literally months.
Shame on them. Shame on them for refusing to support the malnourished
and the sick. Shame on them for voting against providing energy
assistance or for low-income families. Shame on them for voting against
making it more affordable for kids to attend college and obtain an
early childhood education. Shame on them for not supporting increased
funding for military housing.
Shame on them for passing measures and not funding them. Shame on
them for opposing increased funding for veterans health care. Shame on
them for voting to send our troops into harm's way but refusing to take
care of them and their families when they got home. There is no smoke
and mirrors here; there is no required reading between the lines and
nuancing. This is a vote about priorities. Today's vote on this
conference report will be the most telling of them all.
I ask my colleagues and vigorously urge them to support this rule and
the underlying conference report.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, the bill under consideration today
represents the core of what the American people send us here to do. It
invests in children's health and encourages our young people to serve
their communities. It helps people train for the workplace and provides
funding for crucial education programs. It represents the best of what
government by the people can do.
That is why I am pleased to support the rule and the underlying
legislation, Madam Speaker. I am particularly encouraged by the
investments it makes in children's health and in national service.
Today's appropriations package fully funds the National Children's
Study. This Study is a perfect example of the kinds of long-term health
initiatives that the government is perfectly positioned to lead.
It will examine 100,000 children from before birth to age 21. The
data generated by the Children's Study will help us develop cures for
diseases like autism, asthma, childhood obesity, and diabetes.
The Children's Study is the first of its kind, Madam Speaker. But we
do not have to wait decades for the Study to change lives. In just a
few short years, it will begin generating useful data on premature
birth, common birth defects, and prenatal links to autism.
I am pleased that today's appropriations package invests so wisely in
the National Children's Study, and I urge all my colleagues to support
it as a result.
Madam Speaker, the conferees also recognized the importance of our
National Service Programs. Over the last few years, service members
have provided humanitarian and educational assistance to the victims of
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. More recently, they have offered
their services to help calm the wildfires that have devastated my home
State of California.
I am pleased that the conferees appropriated high funding levels to
help sustain and grow our service programs. National Civilian Community
Corps received over $24 million in funding. Currently, there are only
three of these campuses in our Nation, and I am glad that this funding
will help build two new campuses.
I am also pleased to see that the other important programs--like
Learn and Serve America, Volunteers in Service to America and
AmeriCorps State and National programs--all received high levels of
funding. These National Service Programs are essential to the health of
our communities and Nation.
Madam Speaker, today's legislation is about making our priorities
clear. Protecting children's health and encouraging national service
are not choices we have as Members of Congress. They are
responsibilities. I am pleased that today's legislation fulfills our
collective responsibilities as representatives of the people.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 794
Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of section 1, insert ``It shall be in order for
a separate vote to be had upon demand on that portion of the
conference report consisting of Division B.''.
____
(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
[[Page H12813]]
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.)
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 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 noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of
the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 183, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 1047]
YEAS--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
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)
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)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
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)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
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
Space
Spratt
Stark
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
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--183
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
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
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
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)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
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
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Baird
Blunt
Boozman
Brady (PA)
Butterfield
Buyer
Carson
Chandler
Cubin
Feeney
Ferguson
Fossella
Gordon
Gutierrez
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
LaHood
McCrery
McNulty
Oberstar
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pryce (OH)
Rogers (MI)
Tancredo
Westmoreland
Wilson (OH)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
{time} 2108
Mr. TIAHRT and Mr. CHABOT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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. Madam 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 216,
nays 182, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 1048]
YEAS--216
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
[[Page H12814]]
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
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)
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)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
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)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
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
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--182
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
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
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
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)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
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
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--34
Baird
Blunt
Boozman
Brady (PA)
Butterfield
Buyer
Carson
Chandler
Cubin
Feeney
Ferguson
Fossella
Giffords
Gordon
Gutierrez
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
LaHood
McCrery
McNulty
Oberstar
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pryce (OH)
Rogers (MI)
Rush
Tancredo
Tiberi
Westmoreland
Wilson (OH)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
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} 2115
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.
____________________