[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 60 (Wednesday, April 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2367-H2374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2634, JUBILEE ACT FOR RESPONSIBLE
LENDING AND EXPANDED DEBT CANCELLATION OF 2008
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1103 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1103
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. 2634) to provide for greater responsibility in
lending and expanded cancellation of debts owed to the United
States and the international financial institutions by low-
income countries, 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 Financial Services. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now
printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. 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. 2634
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 Vermont is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 1103.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Vermont?
There was no objection.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1103 provides
for consideration of H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending
and Expanded Debt Cancellation, under a structured rule. The rule
provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on
Financial Services. The rule also makes in order four amendments
printed in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for
10 minutes. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Madam Speaker, structured, responsible debt relief has been proven to
be one of the most effective methods of fighting global poverty. In
1996 the World Bank and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund,
developed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC, Initiative to
provide debt relief to the world's most impoverished nations. The 28
countries that participated in this program have been spending the debt
relief on good things in their country for the very poor people, on
education and health. In the first 10 years of the program, the IMF and
the World Bank provided $62 billion of debt relief, cutting the
countries' debt by an average of two-thirds.
The results speak for themselves. The participating countries now
spend four times as much on health, education, and social services as
they do on paying back debt. Tanzania, for instance, has used its money
from debt cancellation to eliminate school fees for elementary school
education. Think about it. The poorest countries, their kids were
having to pay fees to go to elementary school, something that's not
even required here, while Zambia eliminated fees for health care in
rural areas. Multilateral efforts in Niger reduced debt from 76 percent
of their
[[Page H2368]]
gross domestic product, and think about that, 76 percent of the gross
domestic product was used in debt relief, in 2002 to 14 percent in
2006. With that savings Niger has been able to make investments in
health and education. They've reduced the infant mortality rate, cut it
in half. Primary school completion has increased from 16 to 28 percent,
and access to drinkable water increased from 40 percent for the people
in Niger to 69 percent.
The bill that this rule will bring to the floor today will build on
this record of quantifiable success to expand efforts to reduce the
debts owed by impoverished nations. This legislation makes debt
forgiveness immediately possible for nine countries that meet the
standards of the Jubilee Act. This is not a giveaway program.
{time} 1130
These nations are among the poorest in the world with per capita
incomes of less than $3 a day, $1,065 a year. Countries initially
eligible under this legislation for debt relief would include Cape
Verde, Georgia, Kenya, Mongolia and Vietnam.
But as I mentioned, the Jubilee Act does not give countries that
borrowed money a free ride with debt forgiveness. It includes strict
parameters to ensure that the participating countries: one, have
transparent and effective budget processes; two, do not support
terrorism; three, cooperate in international counternarcotic efforts;
and, four, uphold human rights standards.
In addition, funds made available as a result of loan forgiveness
must be directed toward antipoverty programs, and countries must
publish an annual report to be accountable on how those funds were
spent.
These criteria ensure the loan forgiveness funds are used wisely and
well. They provide an incentive for noneligible countries to reduce
corruption and improve human rights practices so they may, one day,
become eligible for debt forgiveness.
Fifteen additional countries, including Bangladesh, Nigeria and
Zimbabwe would be eligible for debt cancellation upon making required
reforms.
This is the brand of leadership that America needs more of where we
are doing our share, but we are working with our allies and where we
are using the incentive of debt forgiveness. Many of these debts,
incidentally, were taken by kleptocrats who formerly ruled in these
countries, and now these countries are trying to free themselves of the
yoke of this terrible leadership. This debt forgiveness program allows
us, working with our allies, the IMF and the World Bank, to give them a
boost.
Finally, Madam Speaker, it must be noted that because the
international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF
are expected to pay the bulk of the debt relief, the tremendous
improvements that can be achieved under this bill come at a very
reasonable cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
The cost of America canceling bilateral debt for the countries
initially eligible is estimated to be $197 million. That is less than
what we spend for 14 hours in Iraq, just to put it in perspective.
However, this bill does not actually authorize any debt cancellation.
It authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into negotiations
to cancel debt. Any debt cancellation agreement reached by the
Secretary returns to Congress for our approval. In fact, the
Congressional Budget Office has scored this legislation at no cost to
the taxpayers.
Debt reduction has been proven to be one of the most effective, both
cost effective and socially effective, ways to achieve significant
reductions in global poverty.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman
from Vermont, for the time that he is yielding me to discuss H.R. 2634,
the Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Cancellation Act
of 2007. This legislation follows on the heels of legislation passed
just 2 weeks ago providing aid to mostly African and Caribbean
countries to fight AIDS and promote development programs in
underdeveloped countries, including programs to improve food, water,
the treatment of other infectious diseases, poverty alleviation
programs, microcredit, schools and teachers, legal aid, agricultural
assistance and biomedical research.
Today's legislation would follow up on this enormous prior financial
commitment by further reducing or eliminating the debt obligations of
the world's poorest nations. It attempts to accomplish this goal by
creating a framework to having the debts of low-income countries owed
to the United States and to international financial institutions
eliminated.
To do this, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
negotiate the full cancellation of these countries' debts with the
Paris Club, the IMF, and the World Bank, and to reach agreements on
future creditor transparency and responsible lending.
It improves oversight by ensuring that countries receiving this debt
relief have economies that are capable of redirecting their debt
services payments, and requires a GAO audit of countries where illegal
loans may have been made. Finally, it includes a sense of Congress that
the U.S. should pay off $600 million worth of arrears to multilateral
development banks.
Madam Speaker, no one in this body disputes the worthiness of this
goal that is enshrined within this legislation. The reduction of global
poverty and suffering around the world is a laudable goal, and it is
certainly in our national interests to combat conditions that may breed
the hopelessness and poverty that allows dictators and terrorists to
thrive.
So it is doubtlessly important that the most heavily indebted poor
countries be relieved of these kinds of crushing debt that prevents
their future development, self-sufficiency and the improvement of their
citizens' lives.
This policy should be implemented, along with other policies that
increase public sector investment and decrease the barriers to trade
with these countries, as well as ensuring that the countries eligible
for this relief do not encourage terrorist activities or abuse human
rights.
I am surprised, however, that Speaker Pelosi didn't see the irony in
scheduling this step forward for developing nations on the first
legislative week after handing them a serious defeat by turning off the
fast track authority for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In other
words, here we're trying to help poor countries and now the decision is
made that we won't engage in trade with them that would help their
countries also grow economically free.
While giving the most heavily indebted countries relief from crushing
and unserviceable debt is necessary to increase their future
development, it is simply not sufficient. The economies of these
countries must be more integrated with the rest of the globe to provide
their citizens with real choices and development alternatives for their
future, and increased trade with America is a great way of
accomplishing this.
So while I appreciate the Financial Services Committee's efforts on
the issue of improving conditions for the world's poorest countries, I
remind my colleagues that development does not occur in a vacuum, and
that by postponing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we have
effectively told all of these countries, people who should be our
friends and we should be concerned about more than just their debt, but
about their economic viability, we've said that Congress is less
concerned about promoting trade with them and growing their economies
than it is with complying with the demands of labor union bosses in an
election year.
I encourage the Democrat leadership to take a long-term and more
holistic view of global poverty, recognizing that these cycles of
abject poverty cannot be broken without creating the conditions that
encourage private sector investment, such as respect for contracts and
rule of law and that it also encourages international trade.
Madam Speaker, I believe that a broader policy of understanding
poverty and the United States' role in helping to make our world better
would include trade and would include encouraging the private markets
around the world.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
[[Page H2369]]
Frank), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we
appear to have a very broad consensus in favor of this. My friend from
Texas is right. There is no one single answer to the problems of
poverty. But I am pleased that we have agreement that this is an
important part of it.
We have some history here that argues for this bill. In the year, I
think it was 2000, we in this House passed a bill on the floor over
some objection from the administration at the time, the Clinton
administration, and from some of the House leadership. But we passed a
bill to begin the process known as the HIPC, the heavily indebted poor
country debt relief, and it has worked very well. And for those who
think that these enterprises are doomed to failure, we can point to
many successes in HIPC. And we did this in a way so that countries that
had not lived up to what should have been their part of the bargain
didn't get the benefit.
The time has now come to do this again. And if this is done right,
relieving countries of debt--debt that was often incurred by prior
undemocratic and repressive regimes, and they will be primarily African
but not entirely--relieving these countries of debt does as much to
promote education and reduce poverty as anything else we can do.
I think it is particularly noteworthy on this day when His Holiness
the Pope is in our city that we received a letter from the Most
Reverend Thomas G. Wenski, the Bishop of Orlando, who is chairman of
the Committee on International Policy of the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops. He strongly supports the bill, and I ask that that
be introduced into the Record now, along with a letter from the Jubilee
Coalition, the Jubilee Network, many religious and civic organizations,
and the NAACP.
Committee on International Justice and Peace; Department
of Justice, Peace and Human Development, U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Washington, DC, April 9, 2008.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: As Chairman of the Committee on
International Policy of the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I urge you to support the Jubilee
Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of
2007 (HR 2634).
Inspired by the call of our late, beloved Pope John Paul
II, USCCB has long been a strong advocate of lifting the
heavy burden of debt from the backs of millions of people
living in the world's poorest countries. As Pope Benedict XVI
makes his first Apostolic Visit to the United States, it is
fitting that Congress show support for this important
initiative that would help alleviate the debt burden of some
of our poorest brothers and sisters around the world.
As you know, since 1999 major new debt relief initiatives
have been adopted by the international community. These
initiatives have resulted in the reduction of the debt of 22
poor countries by over $60 billion. Another 19 countries are
receiving, or are potentially eligible to receive, billions
more in debt cancellation. These reductions are freeing up
substantial funds each year for expenditures in education,
health and other investments essential for improving the
lives of poor people.
Despite this progress, a substantial number of needy
countries are not eligible for the existing debt relief
initiatives. HR 2634 represents a major new step towards
correcting this deficiency and making debt cancellation a
reality for virtually all very poor countries that have
participatory processes and financial management systems
sufficient to assure that debt cancellation savings will be
used to benefit the poor. We urge you to complete the
unfinished business of poor country debt relief and support
HR 2634.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas G. Wenski,
Bishop of Orlando,
Chairman.
____
September 4, 2007.
Dear Member of Congress: As organizations committed to
ending global poverty, we write to urge you to co-sponsor the
Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt
Cancellation of 2007 (H.R. 2634). The Jubilee Act safeguards
the gains made by debt cancellation to date and expands
eligibility for cancellation to countries that need it to
meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Debt cancellation is a proven way to reduce poverty. The
debt cancellation supported by Congress in 1999 and 2005 has
reached more than two dozen countries in Africa and Latin
America. This year, Zambia is using its savings of $23.8
million on agricultural projects and to eliminate fees for
health care in rural areas. Uganda is using the $57.9 million
freed by debt cancellation to increase spending on primary
education, malaria control, health care and infrastructure.
But significant challenges remain. First, the IMF and World
Bank continue to urge impoverished nations to adopt policies
including privatization of essential services and
liberalization of trade in sensitive sectors in exchange for
debt cancellation or new aid, the net effect of which can be
to limit spending on public services. Today, IMF/World Bank
conditions are holding up much needed debt cancellation for
eligible countries including Haiti, the Democratic Republic
of Congo, and Liberia. These economic conditions are
undermining the benefits of debt cancellation and hurting the
poor; the Jubilee Act would prohibit them. Second, rogue
lenders and so-called ``vulture funds'' threaten to
compromise the benefits of debt cancellation. The Jubilee Act
requires the Secretary of the Treasury to curtail the
activity of vulture funds.
2007 marks the half way point to the MDGs, but we are far
from halfway to meeting the goals, especially in Africa. Debt
cancellation should be expanded to include countries that
need it to meet the MDGs and to fight HIV/AIDS and other
diseases. The Jubilee Act would make up to 27 additional low-
income countries eligible for debt cancellation by the United
States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund
provided that they demonstrate their ability to use the money
to fight poverty and provide an annual report detailing the
use of funds on poverty reduction.
In order to learn from past errors and ensure more
responsible lending, we must address the problem of odious
and unjust debts (debts accrued by undemocratic regimes or
that did not benefit the population). The Jubilee Act does
this by requiring the Comptroller General of the US to
undertake audits of debt portfolios of previous regimes in
countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and South
Africa, where there is accepted evidence of odious loans.
In order to prevent a continual and wasteful debt/
forgiveness cycle, it is essential to establish a framework
for responsible and transparent lending in the future. The
Jubilee Act calls for the development of responsible
financing standards where creditors and aid/loan recipients
alike adhere to standards to assure transparency and
accountability to citizens, human rights, and the
avoidance of odious debt, while encouraging the
development of renewable energy and a transition away from
dependence on oil.
The U.S. can lead the way to completing the good work
already begun on debt cancellation. We urge you to cosponsor
H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and
Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2007.
Sincerely,
ActionAid International USA.
AFL-CIO.
Africa Action.
Ainsworth United Church of Christ, Portland, Oregon.
Alliance for Global Justice.
American Friends Service Committee.
American Jewish World Service.
Americans for Informed Democracy.
Bread for the World.
Capuchin Franciscans, Midwest Province.
The Capuchin Province of Mid-America.
Center of Concern.
Church World Service.
Citizens for Global Solutions.
Conference of Major Superiors of Men.
DATA--Debt AIDS Trade Africa.
The Episcopal Church.
Essential Action.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Friends of the Earth US.
Gender Action.
Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti.
Jubilee Justice Task Force of the United Church of Christ.
Jubilee National Capital Area.
Jubilee Northwest Coalition, Seattle, Washington.
Jubilee San Diego.
Jubilee USA Network.
Justice, Peace & Integrity of Creation Office of the
Wheaton Franciscans.
Marianists International.
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns.
Medical Mission Sisters' Alliance for Justice.
Mennonite Central Committee.
Metanoia Peace Community United Methodist Church, Portland,
Oregon.
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Justice, Peace/
Integrity of Creation Office.
Missionary Society of St. Columban (US Region).
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP).
Nicaragua Network.
Oil Change International.
The ONE Campaign.
Oxfam America.
Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement.
Presbyterian Church, (USA), Washington Office.
Priority Africa Network.
RESULTS.
SHALOM Network, Dallas Unit of the School Sisters of Notre
Dame.
School Sisters of Notre Dame, Mankato Province.
School Sisters of Notre Dame-St. Louis Mission
Effectiveness Office.
Sisters of the Holy Cross, Notre Dame, IN.
Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
South Bay Jubilee Coalition.
St. Francis Xavier Jubilee parish, Missoula, MT.
[[Page H2370]]
TransAfrica Forum.
Union for Reform Judaism.
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries.
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and
Society.
Washington Office on Africa.
Witness for Peace.
Women's Edge.
____
Washington Bureau, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People,
Washington, DC, April 14, 2008.
Re Support for the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and
Expanded Debt Cancellation Act of 2007, H.R. 2634.
Members,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), our nation's
oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots civil
rights organization, I strongly urge you to support
legislation to address the debilitating debt that many
countries throughout the world face. While debt is often a
necessary tool used for a plethora of economic reasons,
unmanageable debt can cripple a country, preventing it from
meeting the most basic human needs of its people.
Specifically, I urge you to support H.R. 2634, the Jubilee
Act, when it comes before you on the floor of the House
tomorrow.
As a signatory to the Millennium Development Goals, the
U.S. is charged with helping to alleviate poverty as well as
promote education and health throughout the world. H.R. 2634,
the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt
Cancellation of 2007, would make great strides in freeing
resources to achieve these goals through the forgiveness of
debts. This crucial piece of legislation would help ease the
overwhelming debt burden many countries face while making
available funds for these nations to use to provide their
citizens with vital resources and services. For example, in
countries such as Burundi, Ghana, Honduras, Tanzania and
Zambia, money saved from debt relief has been used to improve
infrastructure, education, and health care and to increase
access to daily necessities of life such as food and clean
drinking water.
While these reports are certainly encouraging, more needs
to be done. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the
approximate number of people living on less than a dollar a
day has actually increased since 1990. If current trends are
not reversed, Africa will be the only region in the world
where there will be more poor people in 2015 than in 1990.
Thank you in advance for your attention to the NAACP
position. Should you have any questions or comments, please
do not hesitate to contact me at my office at (202) 463-2940.
Sincerely,
Hilary O. Shelton,
Director.
Helping countries reduce the debt is a very effective way of giving
them the tools to go forward with development.
One other important point here. We have been plagued in the past by
the international financial community and the judgment of many of us,
liberal, conservative, Democrat and Republican, unduly injecting itself
into the decisions in particular countries. Democratic societies should
not be told from the outside what the water rate should be, what the
tax structure should be and what education fees should be. And very
often in the past, these had a very negative effect from the standpoint
of poverty alleviation.
Unanimously out of our committee, this bill includes a restriction on
what is called conditionality of that sort. There will be no
possibility of using debt relief as a lever for outsiders to impose on
these Democratic societies choices that ought to be made within their
society. We do say that the donors, and these are both the individual
countries and the international financial institutions, should insist
on a variety of procedural safeguards of democracy, of openness and
negotiating with the minority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We have said that from the standpoint of
the U.S., in order to be eligible for our help, they will have to
cooperate with us against human trafficking, against terrorism and
against illegal immigration. Those are the kind of conditions that is
appropriate to impose.
Finally, we should note that this bill obviously does not, as it
cannot itself, accomplish debt relief. It is a mandate to the United
States executive branch to begin negotiations. And these negotiations
must be multilateral, because we do not want to see America give debt
relief when other countries don't do it and that nullifies the effect.
And we also want to press the international financial institutions to
do it using our influence there.
Today, we take a step widely hailed by particularly those who are
concerned with the alleviation of poverty in other parts of the world.
We take the step that does more than any other single step to reach
that goal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts
has again expired.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We have had a problem in the world of
economic growth occurring in ways that shut out a great majority of the
people in various countries from the benefit. We need a coordinated
strategy so that we can have growth, but we can have growth in an
equitable way. Debt relief is an essential part of that overall
strategy.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of my friend of any
remaining speakers that he has.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am the last speaker on our side.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman very much.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized to
close.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to put into the Record a
statement of administrative policy from the White House on this bill.
Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2634--Jubilee Act for
Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008
(Rep. Waters (D) CA and 104 cosponsors.)
The Administration has provided strong international
leadership on debt relief for the world's most heavily-
indebted poor countries. Ongoing debt relief initiatives,
including the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)
Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative
(MDRI), are expected to provide over $100 billion in debt
reduction to 32 countries and another eight countries could
eventually qualify under these initiatives. To ensure that
gains from debt relief are available for the long term, the
Administration led efforts in the multilateral development
banks to use a debt sustainability framework to determine the
appropriate mix of grants and lending. While the
Administration believes the goals of this bill are laudable,
the Administration does not support H.R 2634 for the reasons
stated below.
The countries to be covered by the bill are managing their
debt, and some of the countries that would be covered by this
bill are now actively working towards expanded access to
international capital markets. Providing debt relief to
countries that can service their debt sends the wrong
message, and undermines efforts to assist countries in
developing sound debt management practices that will allow
them to transition gradually toward access to private capital
markets.
Any debt relief should be conditioned on the adoption of
policies that promote sound economic practices. Policy
conditionality is important and often necessary to ensure
that debt relief is used in a manner that will promote
economic growth and provide real benefits to the poor.
The budget impact of such a program would be significant,
and would require trade-offs that could affect key foreign
policy priorities. The Treasury Department estimates that the
budget cost to forgive the $2.5 billion in nominal debt
(including loan guarantees) owed to the United States by
countries that do not currently qualify under the HIPC
Initiative would be approximately $1 billion. This cost
estimate assumes that all potentially eligible International
Development Association countries would qualify for debt
relief in FY 2008 and would change depending on the year that
each country qualifies. These countries also owe the World
Bank and IMF over $32 billion in nominal debt, in addition to
other bilateral and multilateral debts. While the bill calls
for international financial institutions to fund debt relief
from internal resources, the availability of such resources
is very likely to be limited, as recently demonstrated by the
requirements for donor funding of the MDRI. Any additional
debt relief from the international financial institutions is
therefore likely to require substantial additional
contributions from the U.S., in addition to the estimated $1
billion cost of the bilateral debt relief portion of the
proposal. Rather than embarking on expanded debt relief, the
United States must focus on fulfilling its current
commitments.
The Responsible Lending Framework described by the bill
could also hinder access by poor countries to private
capital. The bill calls for the creation of a binding
international legal framework for lending by all
multilateral, bilateral, and private creditors. While we
recognize the goals underlying such a framework--to encourage
sustainable lending and borrowing levels--the prospects for
such an agreement are doubtful. Given the wide range of
international creditors, creation of such a framework would
be very difficult and enforcement would be nearly impossible.
Finally, the threat of sanctions
[[Page H2371]]
based on such a framework would likely discourage legitimate
creditors from lending to poor countries, further reducing
these countries' access to financial markets.
Finally, H.R. 2634 contains several provisions raising
constitutional concerns by purporting to limit the
President's ability to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs.
Madam Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, yesterday
was Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file
taxes without incurring financial penalties. This is not to be confused
with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined as
the day on which the average American has finally earned enough money
to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, State and local
level, which won't arrive this year until next week on April 23.
{time} 1145
In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer's
calendar, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is
defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order for the House to
consider H.R. 2734, a comprehensive bill offered by my friend from
Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.
This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted
by that act permanent. In other words, instead of increasing taxes, we
would like to make these tax cuts permanent for economic growth and
development in this country, which will encourage investment and
thereby grow jobs in this country.
We have heard today several speakers from the Democrat majority
question what is wrong with America today, and even blaming President
Bush for the economic woes that exist. But today the Republican Party
is saying if we want to do the things that President Bush wants, and I
think that the American people want, let's make tax cuts permanent to
ensure that we have job growth and development of companies and
employers in America.
It also repeals the termination date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs
and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, reducing income tax
rates on dividends and capital gains, because that is how you grow
jobs. The reverse is happening, which America understands right now,
and that is the new Democratic majority wants to increase taxes, which
causes the economy not to stimulate, but to contract, which is exactly
what is happening now, which is exactly what we understand the new
policies of the Democratic majority have been about for 17 months.
At some point, this Democratic majority is going to have to take
responsibility for the things that happen under their watch, instead of
just blaming President Bush. President Bush says let's make these tax
cuts permanent. That is what has worked up to now, and we need to do it
today.
We will also amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent a tax
deduction for State and local sales tax. That needs to be done. We have
done that each of the last 5 years. Also the tax deductions for
tuition. Let me repeat that; the tax deduction for tuition. Here we are
on the floor trying to do something for students, to get student loans,
but yet we will not have a deduction for tuition and related expenses.
The increased expensing allowed for small businesses. Small business
is the engine of our economy. That is why Republicans want to make the
tax cuts permanent, so that we make sure that we allow small businesses
to grow, not contract.
And the tax credit for increasing research and development. Research
and development is how we are going to cure the ills and the problems
of the world that we see today.
Instead, the new Democratic majority, now for 17 months, wants to
increase taxes. They want to take away the deductions for tuition; they
want to increase taxes on small business; they want to make investment
very difficult in this country, doubling, if you listen to some of the
candidates that are on the trail, doubling the capital gains rate. And
certainly they won't be for increasing research and development. They
want to tax that.
Finally, this opportunity today would express the sense of the House
of Representatives that the Committee on Ways and Means should report
legislation on or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal
income tax system.
Madam Speaker, I can think of no more fitting action for Congress
during this week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day than to provide
this kind of certainty to the American taxpayer. That is what we should
be about, is good policy that encourages the opportunity to grow our
economy and have new jobs.
By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting
to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be
voting to provide tax relief, so that we can grow our economy for
Americans at the same time that we provide debt relief to the world's
poorest countries. What a wonderful opportunity.
Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask unanimous consent to have the
text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I want to point out a couple of
things. Number one, this legislation comes to you with bipartisan
support from the Financial Services Committee. There was a recognition
on that committee between the members on the majority and the members
on the minority that this Congress had an opportunity to do something
concrete, something practical, to help the most impoverished countries
in this world.
This legislation is practical. It is going to give relief that
translates into higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates and
better access to education, and it is done at very modest expense to
the American taxpayer. It also is America working with other countries
and with international institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, to
have a positive influence in foreign policy. It makes sense. It is
bipartisan. It should be done.
I have to say I disagree with the suggestion of my good friend from
Texas that we essentially transform this into a debate about extending
the Bush tax cuts. That is a refrain we are hearing constantly that is
brought up as a way of taking attention off of the things that we can
do immediately in the legislation that is before us.
The fact of the matter is that what we have seen in the past few
years under the fiscal leadership of the Bush administration is we have
gone from a record surplus to a record deficit. We have gone from a
point of paying down our national debt to increasing it to close to $7
trillion.
The reality is that this legislation is about one thing and one thing
only: It is about helping countries where the daily income of its
citizens is on average $3 a day. That is what it is. We can decide that
we are going to take concrete action to help those countries move
ahead, or use this as an opportunity to engage in a debate about
whether to extend tax cuts, as is being requested by the gentleman.
So, Madam Speaker, by passing this proposed rule and this bill for
which it provides consideration, Congress can build on this immensely
successful debt relief effort we have had on a bipartisan basis and
started more than a decade ago to provide relief for the world's
poorest countries. It is an essential tool in the fight on the war on
poverty.
Incidentally, it is money well spent. Much less of our money and the
money of our allies is spent than when we have to engage in military
conflict. The legislation represents what I believe should be the face
of American leadership around the globe. I believe the sponsors of this
legislation believe it will make the world a better place and make the
world safer and more stable.
This is a good bill, a bipartisan bill. It enjoys the support not
only of Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters, but of their Republican
counterparts on the committee, our colleagues Congressman Bachus and
Congresswoman Biggert. That is why I urge a ``yes''
[[Page H2372]]
vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H. Res. 1103--Rule providing for consideration of H.R.
2634--Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt
Cancellation of 2007. I also strongly support the underlying
legislation, H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and
Expanded Debt Cancellation, which I am proud to join over 100 of my
colleagues in cosponsoring. I would like to thank my colleague,
Congresswoman Waters, for introducing this bill, as well as the
Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Congressman Frank, for
his leadership on this important issue.
This rule allows for the consideration of four amendments. I am proud
to support the Manager's Amendment, introduced by Congressman Frank,
which adds additional conditions to the eligibility criteria for debt
relief, including complying with minimum standards for eliminating
human trafficking, cooperating with American efforts to stop illegal
immigration, and being committed to free and fair elections.
I also support the amendment offered by my colleague Congressman
Hastings of Florida. This amendment adds a Sense of Congress stating
that, due to the current humanitarian and political instability in
Haiti, including food shortages and political turmoil, the Secretary of
the Treasury should use his influence to expedite the complete and
immediate cancellation of Haiti's debts to all international financial
institutions, or if such debt cancellation cannot be provided, to urge
the institutions to immediately suspend the requirement that Haiti make
further debt service payments on debts owed to the institutions. After
deadly food riots last week in Port-au-Prince, which resulted in the
death of a Nigerian U.N. peacekeeper, I believe that this amendment is
both crucial and timely.
I also support the amendment introduced by my colleague Mr. Weiner.
This amendment modifies the qualification for ``eligible low-income
country'' to include those countries that are eligible for both
International Development Association loans and World Bank loans.
Countries throughout the world suffer from the heavy burden of debt.
The inability of nations to escape from these financial commitments has
profound impacts on any attempts they make at poverty reduction, health
care, economic development, and sustainable growth. The Highly Indebted
Poor Countries, HIPCs, the majority of which are located in Africa, are
particularly crippled by debt. Nearly three years ago, we saw an
outpouring of support for debt relief as G8 leaders met in Gleneagles,
Scotland, to pursue a policy of poverty reduction. While some positive
progress has been made since that meeting, it is absolutely undeniable
that this is an issued on which a great deal remains to be done.
Today, we have an opportunity to take a positive and concrete step
toward ending global poverty by helping needy and deserving low-income
countries. The Jubilee Act expands existing debt relief programs for
the world's poorest countries, and it includes measures to ensure that
the benefits of debt relief are not eroded by future abusive lending.
Debt relief has, in the past, proved an effective tool to reduce
poverty in some of the world's poorest countries. Debt relief
initiatives passed in 1999 and 2005 are benefiting more than two dozen
countries in Africa and Latin America. Uganda is using the $57.9
million it has saved from debt cancellation on primary education, to
ensure a future for its children, as well as much needed improvements
in malaria control, health care, and infrastructure. Zambia is using
its savings of $23.8 million on agricultural projects, and to eliminate
fees for health care in rural areas.
Debt cancellation has enabled programs in Uganda and Zambia to
directly help the people of these nations. However, there are many
impoverished and deserving countries that do not currently benefit from
debt relief. The International Monetary Fund, IMF, and the World Bank
continue to place restrictive conditions on debt cancellation, calling
for policies requiring the privatization of essential services and the
liberalization of trade in sensitive sectors in exchange for debt
cancellation. These conditions are currently holding up desperately
needed debt relief in several eligible countries, including Haiti, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, and Liberia.
Madam Speaker, the legislation we are considering today will not only
bring the benefits of debt cancellation to more countries than ever
before, it will also ensure that these benefits are felt by all strata
of society. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to
negotiate an agreement with the IMF and World Bank, as well as other
bilateral and multilateral creditors, to make up to 25 additional low-
income countries eligible for complete debt cancellation. Governments
of these countries will be required to allocate the money saved through
debt cancellation to poverty reduction programs, such as initiatives to
improve economic infrastructure, basic education, nutrition, health
services, and programs to redress environmental degradation.
This legislation does not remove all conditions from debt relief
programs. Countries still must demonstrate transparent and effective
budget and financial management systems, and they can be excluded from
debt relief if they do not. In addition, countries committing massive
violations of human rights are not eligible, nor are countries that
support international terrorism, have excessive levels of military
expenditures, or fail to cooperate on international narcotics control.
The Jubilee Act encourages the developing of responsible financing
standards, and assures financial transparency and accountability.
Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the Jubilee Act calls for the
development of a responsible financing framework for the future. Debt
forgiveness is a good short-term solution, but to be truly effective we
must find a way to fix the broken system of international lending. Of
particular concern to me has been the proliferation of vulture funds,
which, like their avian namesake, seek to make a profit off of already
weakened prey.
Madam Speaker, vulture funds purchase the debt of countries (or
companies) in financial distress. They then hold out for the full value
of the debt, plus any interest, which they pursue through litigation,
much of which takes place in U.S. courts. The inability of nations to
escape from these financial commitments has profound impacts on any
attempts they make at poverty reduction, health care, economic
development, and sustainable growth. The Highly Indebted Poor
Countries, HIPCs, the majority of which are located in Africa, are
particularly crippled by debt. Though these countries may not appear to
be the most profitable prey for vulture funds, which in theory prefer
to purchase debt that a country has, or may in the future develop, the
ability to pay, according to reports there are numerous lawsuits
currently pending against HIPC countries.
Vulture funds, together with other forms of irresponsible lending,
undermine international efforts to provide much needed debt relief to
the world's most indebted poor countries. The Jubilee Act directs the
Secretary of the Treasury to develop and promote policies to prevent
bilateral, multilateral, and private creditors from eroding the gains
of debt relief through irresponsible or exploitive lending. I am
particularly pleased that this legislation takes this important step
toward fixing broken systems of international lending.
Madam Speaker, if we are serious about meeting the Millennium
Development Goals, we must take concrete steps toward reducing poverty.
Debt cancellation is a proven way to do this. This legislation has the
support of numerous organizations doing excellent work around the
world, including the AFL-CIO, American Jewish World Service, Church
World Service, DATA--Debt AIDS Trade Africa--Jubilee USA Network, the
ONE Campaign, Oxfam America, and RESULTS.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule, and
the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1103 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the bill (H.R. 2734) to make the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and certain
other tax benefits permanent law. All points of order against
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)
an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by
Representative Rangel of New York, which shall be considered
as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
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 H2373]]
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. WELCH of Vermont. 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. SESSIONS. 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 will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered;
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1107; and adopting
House Resolution 1107, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 196, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 192]
YEAS--217
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
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
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
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
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)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
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
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Bono Mack
Brady (PA)
Costa
DeLauro
Fattah
Ferguson
Harman
Mack
Markey
Meek (FL)
Nunes
Peterson (PA)
Roskam
Rothman
Rush
Slaughter
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes are remaining
on this vote.
{time} 1218
Mr. SAXTON and Mr. BARTON of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota and Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 192, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
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. 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. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 190, not voting 21, as follows:
[[Page H2374]]
[Roll No. 193]
YEAS--220
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
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
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
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
Speier
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)
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--190
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
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
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Aderholt
Brady (PA)
Costa
Cramer
DeLauro
Fattah
Ferguson
Harman
Mack
Markey
Meek (FL)
Nunes
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rothman
Rush
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes are remaining
in this vote.
{time} 1225
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.
____________________