[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H9218-H9231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2638, CONSOLIDATED SECURITY, 
      DISASTER ASSISTANCE, AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1488 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1488

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2638) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a 
     motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The 
     Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. 
     The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption 
     without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of the motion to concur 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of such motion to such time as may be 
     designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3.  The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
     shall insert in the daily issue of the Congressional Record 
     dated September 24, 2008, such material as he may deem 
     explanatory of the motion.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1488 
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver on all points of order 
against consideration of the motion to concur, which includes a waiver 
of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which also causes a 
violation of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific 
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated. 
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of 
consideration.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each will control 10 minutes of debate on 
the question of consideration.
  After that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm standing today is to question 
this bill in terms of the unfunded mandate point of order. I can tell 
you honestly, I have no idea if this bill contains unfunded mandates, 
and I would suggest that most people here are in that position because 
we only got this bill last night. We haven't been able to read its 
contents. We know very little of it except that we know very little of 
it.
  This is a massive bill. Let me just take one part of it, and this 
part has concerned me about a lot of the legislation that's come 
forward before this body in recent years. We were told earlier this 
year that we were going to have a transparent process in terms of 
earmarks. And, frankly, some good language was passed--earlier this 
Congress, I should say--to provide transparency and to ensure that when 
earmarks are passed, they receive a thorough vetting, at least that we 
know who introduced them and have a chance to actually challenge those 
earmarks on the floor of the House. We have not had that opportunity 
here.
  This legislation is coming to us with more than 1,200 earmarks that 
were attached to it in the subcommittee. Now, these earmarks were known 
only to my office because we managed to get a copy from the 
Appropriations Committee--that we could not get officially, we had to 
get unofficially. I would venture that very few other Members have even 
seen the list of earmarks. Keep in mind that this bill, this Defense 
Appropriations bill that is included in this CR, has not even been 
marked up by the full committee. So the full committee has not even 
seen these earmarks. There are more than 1,200 in the House version; I 
think there are more than 800 in the Senate version. So, more than 
2,000 earmarks that have been added that very few outside of the 
committee--and outside of the subcommittee that actually dealt with 
it--have even seen.
  Now, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee was asked about 
this secretive process earlier today, and Bloomberg said, and I quote, 
``He was asked if the process has been secretive, and he said, ``It 
has; because if it's done in the public, it will never get done.'' The 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said he wanted to avoid his 
colleagues pontificating on the content of the legislation, saying 
that's what politicians do when this stuff is done in full view of the 
press. He said, ``We've done this the old fashioned way by brokering 
agreements in order to get things done, and I make no apology for it.''
  Now, think of that statement. We've passed rules in this House saying 
that we would have a thorough vetting, yet we're bringing more than 
1,200 House earmarks to the floor that have not even been vetted by the 
committee. We're supposed to have that list long before and to be able 
to vet them, we haven't done that. And we don't even have a chance 
here. I don't have the opportunity to stand and question any of these 
earmarks, and neither do any of my colleagues.
  Let me just read a few of them that are in here. The Presidio 
Heritage Center, one of the Speaker's Office's earmarks, $1.7 million. 
What is it? We really have no idea. We only got the disclosure letter 
last night or this morning, and that doesn't tell you all that much. 
Why is the Presidio Heritage Center in the Defense bill? Yet we won't 
be able to challenge that here; we won't be able to have a vote on that 
because it was slipped in, not even vetted by the committee, and 
certainly not vetted by the full House.
  There is a $3 million earmark for a Cold Weather Layering System. 
What is that? Is that a coat? We don't know. All I know is this is 
likely an earmark that's going to a private firm. This is a sole-source 
contract that everybody has been, rightly, up in arms about when the 
Federal Government gives out single-source contracts. Here we are doing 
it without even vetting it in the committee; we're not even vetting it 
on the House floor. It's passed and done, and we don't even know who 
it's for or what it's about. Yet, we're doing it. Why? What is the rush 
to do something like this?
  I understand that this all may seem a little trivial in a week that 
we may approve $700 billion, but I think it speaks to why people across 
the country are

[[Page H9219]]

fed up with us as a Congress for not even vetting these kind of things 
and for letting 1,200 earmarks come into a bill that we haven't even 
seen and won't be able to vote on.
  We have an up-or-down vote. This is not even a conference report. 
There aren't even motions to recommit. This is up or down, take it or 
leave it, 1,200 earmarks that you have never seen. How does that square 
with the promises that were made earlier this Congress?
  Now, I make no bones about it; I don't think our party on the 
Republican side did well with earmarks. We let far too much go. And 
some of us stood up and tried to stop it. The majority party came into 
Congress, won the elections in 2006, took over the majority on promises 
that they would do something. And I have to say that this is proof, 
once again, that it hasn't been done. How in the world can anyone stand 
up today and say we have kept our promise in terms of transparency?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, technically, this point of order is about whether or not 
to consider this rule, and ultimately the underlying bill. And in 
reality, it's about trying to block this bill without any opportunity 
for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on 
keeping the government running, providing hurricane and other disaster 
assistance and other critical items. So I think that that is just 
wrong. And I hope that my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can 
consider this important legislation on its merits and not kill it on a 
procedural motion.
  We need to move forward with this legislation. We need to keep this 
government running. Those who oppose this bill can vote against final 
passage, but we need to move forward. So I would urge my colleagues to 
not allow a purely procedural tactic to kill this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I'm here on an unfunded 
mandates point of order. It's the only chance I've got. They don't 
allow anybody to stand up and challenge any earmarks. That's not 
allowed under the rule. So this is the only chance anybody has to stand 
up and say anything about this bill, and it's a crying shame.
  And I don't blame the gentleman from the Rules Committee for not 
wanting to address the point at hand here; I don't blame him at all. I 
wouldn't want to either. I wouldn't want to say that I'm a member of a 
Rules Committee that would violate the very rules that we ourselves 
adopted earlier this year so blatantly to simply say we're just not 
going to discuss it, we're going to bring 1,200 earmarks to the floor 
and not discuss them at all.
  Let me suggest why it happens this way. I mentioned this was done 
behind closed doors without rank-and-file Members knowing anything 
about these earmarks at all. There is good reason for that. If you look 
at these earmarks, a total of 1,200 worth about $5 billion, 60 percent 
of the earmarks in this bill go to members of the Appropriations 
Committee. I'm sorry. The Appropriations Committee are getting 37 
percent of all earmarks. When you add to the appropriators those in 
leadership, those who are committee Chairs, those who are ranking 
members, so the leadership and the powerful here, 60 percent of the 
earmarks in this bill are going to that group, which makes up, I think, 
just under 25 percent of this body.
  Now, if anybody's wondering why this is done behind closed doors and 
in secret and not with rank-and-file Members able to even see this, 
that's one of the reasons. Because not only are earmarks bad and it's a 
misallocation of resources, it can lead to things that we have seen in 
this House, but it's a spoil system, it's a spoil system. When 
leadership and those who are on the right committees get these 
earmarks, it shows what a sham the argument is that we have to do this 
because we as Members of Congress know our districts better than those 
bureaucrats and we have to earmark those dollars. Well, does somebody 
who happens to be a chairman or a ranking minority member happen to 
know his district a lot better than anybody else? Because that's what 
we're seeing here, we're seeing a spoil system.
  And it's simply not right. It is not right that we are approving 
here, with one fell swoop, 1,200 earmarks from the House--800 from the 
Senate, but that's their business, our business is here--over 1,200 
earmarks that nobody in this body has really seen, unless you happen to 
serve on the subcommittee of Appropriations because the full Committee 
on Appropriations never vetted these earmarks either. That is simply 
not right.
  I don't know when we stand up and say we've had enough, because 
people all over the country certainly have. I don't know why we haven't 
realized it. I'm sure it's reflected in the 9 percent approval ratings 
that we have. But in a week where we're approving $700 billion--or 
likely to approve $700 billion--to bail out other institutions, this 
might seem trivial to some to be approving $5 billion in earmarks.
  But I think why people across the country are upset is they say, you 
know you have control of this. You made promises years ago that you 
would clean up this process and you aren't, because nobody with a 
straight face can say that we have cleaned up this process when you 
bring to the floor, under this bill, more than 1,200 earmarks that have 
received no vetting whatsoever and will receive no vetting whatsoever 
because we can't even challenge those on the floor today.
  I have no time remaining. Let me just say, let's hold back. Let's 
slow this legislation down--whichever we can, whether it's procedurally 
or otherwise--because we cannot continue to do business this way.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply respond to one thing the 
gentleman said. He said that no one has done any reforming of the 
earmarking process since the Democratic Party took control of this 
House.
  I would point out that the facts indicate quite the contrary. The 
first year that we were in the majority, we eliminated all earmarks for 
a year until we could get a handle on the process that had been driven 
wildly out of control by the previous majority from the other side of 
the aisle. The second year, we indicated that we would try to cut the 
amount of money spent on earmarks by 50 percent. The Senate dissented 
from that. And in the end we were only able to cut it by 40 percent. I 
would say that is a significant change.
  We also, in the process, provided the public's right to know by 
guaranteeing that every Member who sought an earmark would have to sign 
a letter, publicly displayed, which spelled out who asked for the 
earmark and which spelled out and made quite clear that the Member 
would have no personal financial interest in the earmark. We also 
provided that these earmarks would be posted on the committee Web site. 
As a result, the public will know who has asked for what and they will 
know who got what. I call that reform even if the gentleman doesn't 
want to admit it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the 
remarks of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  I should point out that all of the earmarks are made public. They are 
on the Rules Committee Web site. They are available in the 
Appropriations Committee. I should also point out that we have 
instituted reforms so that what happened when the Republicans were in 
control, for example, when they air-dropped a provision to provide 
blanket immunity to drug companies and inserted it into a defense bill 
after everything had been closed cannot happen.
  I will also say that I think Members of this Congress should have the 
right to advocate for their districts and make decisions as to how 
money

[[Page H9220]]

should be allocated. It is our responsibility as the legislative branch 
to have a role in where that money goes versus bureaucrats who work 
with the White House.
  I will also say that there are a lot of Republicans who have applied 
for and received earmarks. They have gone through this process where 
they had to fill out forms and vet it through the committee. I know a 
lot of Republicans, including some of my Republican colleagues on the 
Rules Committee, have earmarks on this bill because it's public. And I 
actually trust them to be advocates for their district.
  So, I would point out to my colleagues that things are very different 
from how they were when the Republicans were in control of this House. 
There is more sunshine. There is more accountability. I would urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to consider.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). All time having been yielded 
back, the question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 168, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 628]

                               YEAS--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--168

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Baird
     Bishop (UT)
     Boyd (FL)
     Brown, Corrine
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Ellison
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Farr
     Fossella
     Hinchey
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Larson (CT)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Musgrave
     Paul
     Reynolds
     Spratt
     Udall (CO)
     Whitfield (KY)

                              {time}  1213

  Messrs. HALL of Texas, DOOLITTLE, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, 
and Mr. POE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COSTELLO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on September 24, 2008, I inadvertently 
missed Rollcall No. 628. If I were present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask 
unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which 
to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1488.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1488 provides for consideration of 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster 
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.
  The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendment with a House 
amendment. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally 
divided and controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.
  The House amendment inserts language for continuing appropriations 
for fiscal year 2009, making emergency supplemental appropriations and 
covering three regular fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills, each in a 
separate division.
  Division A provides continuing appropriations for all agencies and 
activities that would be covered by the regular fiscal year 2009 
appropriations bills until enactment of the applicable regular 
appropriations bill or until March 6, 2009, whichever occurs first. 
Emergency FY09 appropriations for LIHEAP and advanced technology 
vehicle manufacturing loans are also included.

[[Page H9221]]

  Division B provides $22.9 billion in emergency supplemental 
appropriations for relief and recovery from hurricanes, floods, and 
other natural disasters.
  Division C provides $487.7 billion in FY09 funding for the Department 
of Defense.
  Division D provides $40 billion in FY09 funding for the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Division E provides $72.9 billion in FY09 funding for Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the good news, a fact that my friends 
on the other side of the aisle cannot refute. This is the last time 
that we will have to deal with Bush's budget priorities. After 8 years 
of President Bush's fiscal mismanagement, we will soon vote on the 
final Bush appropriations bill.
  Eight years ago, George Bush became the 43rd President of the United 
States. Are the American people better off after 8 years of George 
Bush? The answer is a clear and resounding no. His administration and 
the then Republican-controlled Congress inherited a $5.6 trillion 
budget surplus from President Clinton, and they turned that into about 
a $3.2 trillion deficit and have left us with a national debt that 
stands at $9.8 trillion. That is the biggest debt we have had in the 
history of the United States of America.
  Because of George Bush, we are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. Because 
of George Bush, more people are living in poverty and more people are 
going hungry than they were 8 years ago. And because of this President 
and his administration, we have the worst financial crisis since the 
Great Depression. Just 40 days from the election and 117 days until the 
next president is inaugurated, President Bush is asking for a $700 
billion blank check to fix the mess on Wall Street that he and his 
allies helped create.
  Thankfully, this continuing resolution will keep the government up 
and running until March 6 of 2009 and hopefully, at that time, we will 
have a President with a very different set of priorities.
  The process getting here hasn't been perfect. I am disappointed that 
we weren't able to consider all of the appropriations bills here in the 
House under regular order. But my Republican colleagues share much of 
the blame for this inaction. Every time the Republicans had an 
opportunity to act like statesmen and do the business of the American 
people, they decided to do the opposite, to play partisan games in 
attempts to score political points. Instead of acting like honest 
brokers, they decided to demagog these bills until there was no ability 
for the House to act on them.
  We should all remember last year when the Republicans tried to 
filibuster the Agriculture appropriations bill by offering silly 
amendment after silly amendment, cutting a program by $50,000, then 
$75,000 and then $100,000. And we should all remember earlier this year 
when the Republicans attempted to kill the Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill by replacing it in committee with the Interior bill. So when my 
friends on the other side of the aisle complain about the lack of 
regular order, I would suggest they take a good, long look in the 
mirror.
  And this bill isn't perfect. Because of the intransigence by the 
White House, there are a lot of programs that I care deeply about that 
are underfunded. But this is the best product we could hope for under 
these circumstances. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the 
chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey, and his 
incredible staff, there are some bright spots in this bill.
  First and foremost are the increases in LIHEAP and WIC. This bill 
fully funds LIHEAP, something the Republicans never did, and increases 
funding for the WIC program by $1 billion over 2008. At a time when 
energy and food prices are skyrocketing, we cannot and will not ignore 
the plight of Americans who are struggling to heat their homes or put 
food on the table. I am also pleased the bill includes $23.5 million 
more for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This increase will 
prevent 70,000 low-income women, infants, children and seniors from 
losing access to food.
  I am also pleased that there is a $2.5 billion increase in Pell 
Grants. Unfortunately, this will not restore Pell Grants to the 
original purchasing power, but it is a good start that will prevent 
potential cuts in student aid that could come during the school year.
  Another critical component of this continuing resolution is the 
disaster aid package. Earlier this year, Iowa and the Midwest were hit 
with disastrous floods. Wildfires have caused major damage in the West. 
And this hurricane season has already been deadly and costly with 
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike causing major damage in the gulf coast 
States. This continuing resolution includes almost $23 billion to 
address these natural disasters. Funding will be directed to FEMA, the 
Community Development Block Grants Program, the Army Corps of 
Engineers, and several other important disaster recovery efforts that 
will help these ravaged areas across our Nation. I am also pleased that 
there is $100 million to help Haiti recover from Ike and other 
hurricanes, and another $100 million for international food aid to 
provide emergency food assistance.
  In addition, the fiscal year 2009 Defense, Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security appropriations bills are all 
included in this continuing resolution. There is no higher priority 
than providing funding for our military and for the men and women who 
defend our Nation.
  Finally, let me comment on what is not in this bill. Unfortunately, 
and at the insistence of the White House, there is no economic stimulus 
package, no new money for food stamps, unemployment insurance or 
Medicaid. There is no new money for transportation projects to help 
jumpstart our ailing economy, and there is no ban on offshore drilling.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand how this President and his 
Republican partners in the House and Senate can ask for a $700 billion 
blank check for Wall Street, but oppose $50 billion to help people 
afford to put food on the table or to make ends meet while they look 
for a job in this ailing economy or prevent States from cutting health 
care benefits to people on Medicaid.
  Republicans like to say that people have to pull themselves up by 
their own bootstraps. Well, it's hard to do that if you can't afford 
any boots. During these tough economic times, it is critical that we 
help all Americans, not just the fat cats on Wall Street. Yet as 
Katrina and this economic crisis here have shown, the Republican Party 
has no interest in helping the people who need it most.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, the good news is that this is the last time that 
we will have to deal with this President and his budgetary priorities. 
Help, I believe, is on the way. With a new administration and more 
Democrats in Congress, we will be able to finally act on these 
priorities of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Wow. I couldn't help but listening to my 
friend from Massachusetts state at least his interpretation of history, 
but the fact is, just when the American people think that Congress 
can't sink any lower, the liberal leaders of the House and Senate prove 
that they are up to this challenge and they are finding another way to 
do it.
  I have only 30 minutes to speak today, and that's simply not enough 
time to detail each of the many broken promises that the Democrat 
majority made to the American people in the election of 2006, and they 
have promptly done exactly the opposite. For brevity's sake, let me 
just list some of the more egregious:
  Democrat leaders promised the most open House in history. That means 
allowing Members the open opportunity to offer amendments on the House 
floor to change and improve legislation. Instead of a record of 
openness, the Democrats have delivered the most closed down, sit-down-
shut-up record in the history of this country. That's not

[[Page H9222]]

an exaggeration, it's a fact. Sixty-three times the Members of this 
House have been totally blocked from offering even one amendment on the 
House floor. They have not just set the record for closing down the 
House, they have shattered it and left it in the dust. They promised 
one thing to get elected in 2006, and then promptly have done another 
thing.
  In addition to shutting down the House and taking away the ability of 
Members to offer amendments and alternatives on bills, they perfected a 
procedure that should be known as the Pelosi ping-pong. It's a trick, 
it's a gimmick, a game that allows the House and Senate to just ping-
pong a bill back and forth between the two Chambers while writing in 
secret the text of the final legislation that will eventually become 
law.
  They play the Pelosi ping-pong to bypass and sneak around the normal 
process of holding conference committees where the House and the Senate 
work in public to bridge differences and publicly write final texts of 
new laws. By playing Pelosi ping-pong, Democrats keep Members of the 
House, Members of the Senate and the American people in the dark while 
they work in a back-room way cutting deals, stuffing in unvetted 
earmarks, and hiding the process from public scrutiny.
  Despite their loud complaints and protests about conference 
committees not being properly followed when they were in the minority 
just 2 years ago, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid have abandoned 
them almost completely in this Congress for this far more abusive and 
secret game they are now playing.
  Speaker Pelosi promised that if the Rules Committee met in the dead 
of the night, after 10 p.m., that the House would not act on that bill 
the following day. Yet here we are, early this afternoon, considering a 
rule and a bill that the Rules Committee didn't even begin meeting on 
until after 11 p.m. last night. It's another broken promise to the 
American people.
  Speaker Pelosi and the liberal leaders of this House promised that a 
bill would be available for 24 hours before the House would vote on it. 
This would allow Members to read it and know what they are voting on. 
The text of this massive bill was not made available to the Rules 
Committee until 11 p.m. last night. It's over 1,100 pages long, yet the 
24-hour waiting period promised by Speaker Pelosi has been abandoned. 
This massive bill is being rushed through the House.
  The rules of the House were also unilaterally rewritten by Speaker 
Pelosi and the Democrats to block a vote on a fair trade agreement with 
Colombia, which is America's strongest ally in South America. The rules 
don't say there has to be a yes vote on the agreement, only that it 
hold a fair yes-or-no vote in a timely manner.
  Yet instead of respecting our best ally and holding a vote on the 
agreement, Democrats chose to, instead, change the rules. So this fair 
trade agreement is essentially being held hostage and is locked away 
someplace, probably in the basement of the Capitol.
  The fact is, Colombia already has open access to sell most of their 
goods into America. It's American farmers and businesses that face 
tariffs and hurdles to be able to sell their crops and goods into 
Colombia. This trade agreement is about fairness for American farmers 
and American workers.
  The people that Democrats are hurting by blocking a vote on this fair 
trade agreement are Americans. Colombia has one-way access to our 
country, which Democrats have overwhelmingly voted on to give them. By 
passing this agreement, we would be making it a two-way street and give 
Americans fair access to Colombia. That should be what fair trade is 
all about.
  Also, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leaders promised that earmarks 
would be scrutinized and be subject to debate and challenge on the 
House floor. Yet this 1,000-plus page bill contains an untold number of 
earmarks that have never seen the light of day. They have not been 
through a public review of any kind, no committee hearing, no debate on 
the House floor, no Senate and House conference committee review.
  And today the House is going to spend a grand total of 1 hour 
reviewing this bill.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, that is not a broken promise, it really is 
irresponsible.
  Now, the reason why this liberal Congress finds itself in this mess 
is because the fiscal year ends on September 30, and they have yet to 
pass a single one of the 12 appropriation bills needed to fund the 
Federal Government starting October 1. This Congress has totally failed 
in its most basic job.
  They shut down the work of the Appropriations Committee. In fact, in 
the middle of a working markup, they literally gaveled the committee to 
close, got up and left the room and just quit working. I should qualify 
that, they quit working in public because Democrats have been working 
feverishly behind closed doors to write this massive spending bill.
  But why did Democrats punt on their basic responsibility and retreat 
to work in secret and walk out of a markup? It is because Speaker 
Pelosi and the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to 
prevent us from lowering gas prices by producing more American-made 
energy with offshore drilling.
  Democrats are so opposed to drilling offshore that they shut down the 
work of the Appropriations Committee. But the good news, Mr. Speaker, 
on this issue they have failed. Republicans have succeeded in forcing 
the ban on offshore drilling to be lifted despite the massive battle 
that Democrats waged for months to try and block it. With passage of 
this bill, the moratorium on offshore drilling will be lifted.
  Yet, of course, this is just the first step. Democrats have shown the 
incredible lengths they will go to to block drilling. While they have 
been beaten this time, Americans, Mr. Speaker, should not be fooled. 
Democrats have chosen to play possum because election day is 
approaching and they want to hide from voters who support drilling 
offshore. There is much more to do, both now and after election day, to 
ensure that offshore drilling becomes a reality. But the reality is, 
Mr. Speaker, that Democrats and their allies will continue to use 
lawsuits and other tactics to block America from becoming more energy 
independent.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this Democrat Congress has broken promise after 
promise to the American people. It has failed to do the most basic job 
to pass 12 funding bills by October 1. It is now jamming through a bill 
that was only made public at 11 p.m. last night, a little over 13\1/2\ 
hours ago. It is a bill that is over 1,000 pages long. It is a bill 
written in secret, spends hundreds of billions of dollars and includes 
untold numbers of earmarks that haven't been publicly vetted. The House 
will debate this monster piece of legislation for just one hour.
  Mr. Speaker, for these many reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I always love to listen to the gentleman 
from Washington State, my colleague on the Rules Committee. But I have 
to say that I don't think there is a single American who hasn't 
concluded that they have had enough of the Republicans and their 
misplaced priorities. We are in a financial mess right now because of 
their fiscal policies, and we need to try to figure out a way to dig 
ourselves out.
  But I found it interesting, I think I got the quote right, he talked 
about stuffing in ``unvetted earmarks.'' Well, a quick look at the 
earmarks, which are published, by the way, are on the Website of the 
Rules Committee, I see the gentleman has some earmarks in here. I don't 
know whether or not the portable launch and recovery system and 
unmanned aerial vehicle operation was unvetted and stuffed in in some 
secret room.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  This particular earmark you're talking about and the others that I 
have sponsored have been vetted. In fact, they were in last year's 
appropriations bill. I have no problem with earmarks being vetted.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman that 
all of the earmarks in here went

[[Page H9223]]

through the same process that he went through. So it is just a little 
bit frustrating to hear some of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle complain about earmarks when they have earmarks in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also remind people that in this bill is $22.9 
billion for disaster relief to deal with the disasters in Iowa and 
Florida.
  I will point out to my friends in this Chamber that my Republican 
friends on the Rules Committee all voted last night to block this bill 
from coming to the floor and block this disaster relief from getting to 
where it needs to go.
  At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Braley).
  (Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from 
Massachusetts for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the passage of $22.3 billion in 
domestic disaster relief. This is critical funding which will help my 
State of Iowa make a full recovery from the unprecedented natural 
disasters that hit our State this summer.
  I have been working hard to secure this funding for months now, ever 
since my district was ravaged by record floods and tornadoes which 
destroyed farms and businesses and displaced thousands of Iowans.
  I am especially pleased that this disaster relief package includes 
$6.5 billion in community development block grant funding which will 
provide devastated communities with the flexible grants they need to 
provide temporary housing, repair and replace damaged homes and public 
infrastructure, and fund critical economic development activities.
  I am also pleased that the package includes $7.9 billion for FEMA 
disaster relief funds which will help ensure that FEMA can continue its 
work helping communities recover from recent disasters, and provide the 
resources necessary to respond to future disasters.
  In addition to the damage to homes, schools, hospitals, businesses 
and cropland, Iowa also experienced serious infrastructure damages, 
including damage to numerous railroad bridges like the one here in 
downtown Waterloo that is pictured to my right.
  I fought very hard to repair and replace this damaged rail 
infrastructure, so I am glad that my efforts have paid off in this bill 
with funding that includes $20 million to fund the repair and 
replacement of damaged bridges, tracks and other rail infrastructure in 
Iowa.
  I pushed hard for funding for months, ever since the House put its 
initial deposit down of $2.65 billion in June. I am glad that the 
second disaster relief package is becoming a reality.
  I also encourage the Bush administration to ensure that this disaster 
relief gets to Iowans and other affected individuals around the country 
as soon as possible. Only yesterday, after these tragedies occurred in 
May and June, did the initial installment of $85 million of community 
development block grant funding get released from the $300 million we 
approved in June. Three months is too long to wait when Iowans are 
struggling to recover as we speak. There are hundreds of millions of 
dollars remaining from our initial $2.65 billion package, and the House 
is on the verge of passing billions more. The administration needs to 
get this money to the people who need it.
  The recovery process in Iowa has been very challenging. The 
infrastructure demands are great. Cities like Aplington-Parkersburg 
lost their high school, Waverly-Shell Rock lost elementary schools. 
Wastewater treatment facilities throughout my district and necessary 
improvements to infrastructure are not being met.
  This funding will provide critical assistance to people in need all 
over this country. I pledge to fight and continue these efforts to 
rebuild Iowa and other areas of the country until we finally achieve 
the victory of recovery.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I am talking about unvetted earmarks in this bill, and I 
would be happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts if he would 
tell me that he has, and stake his reputation, and he is a very 
valuable member of this committee, that there are no unvetted earmarks 
in this massive bill.
  I will yield to the gentleman if he will give me a ``yes'' or ``no'' 
answer.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman.
  I can simply say to the gentleman, all of my earmarks are vetted. I 
hope yours are. I mean, there is a process here. The deal is that----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time, 
Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington controls the 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman about 
unvetted earmarks, and his response was only his. I was talking about 
earmarks that everybody else would make, and the gentleman couldn't 
answer me.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I have to say that it is very sad that we are here at this point, 
having gone through the past several Congresses with the then-minority 
maligning us for not having completed our work. In the last Congress, I 
am happy we were able to actually pass out of the House 11 
appropriations bills. In this Congress, one appropriations bill, this 
session of Congress has passed out of the House. It is unfortunate 
having been maligned so viciously for such a long period of time that 
here we are using a structure which is one that was used only once in 
the 109th Congress, and it is a structure that denies any Member an 
opportunity to provide even the slightest opportunity for an amendment. 
No motion to recommit, no substitute, no amendment at all.
  This is actually concurring in a Senate amendment with an amendment 
which is a procedure that has now been used 15 times in this Congress 
to completely subvert the rights of the minority to do anything, to 
have, as I say, one bite at the apple. It saddens me that we are doing 
that again.
  And I think back to the promises that were made 2 years ago right now 
when we were in the midst of the 2006 campaign. We were promised that 
if we in fact allowed Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, it would be a whole new day and the kind of horrible 
action that we had seen in the past would be history.
  What we were told, Mr. Speaker, is we would not see closed rules. 
This happens to be the 63rd closed rule that we have had in this 
Congress, the largest number of closed rules, again preventing any 
Member from having any opportunity to offer any amendment at all. Not 
one single amendment allowed, and this is the 63rd closed rule. Mr. 
Speaker, never before in the 230-year history of the Republic have we 
had the number of closed rules that we have had in the 110th Congress.
  And then you look at the promises for things like not meeting after 
10 p.m. in the Rules Committee. Last night we met right up until 
midnight. You look at all of these promises that were made, and it is 
sad that the only statement that I regularly hear from my good friends 
on the other side of the aisle is how horrible we were.
  I was privileged to serve as chairman of the Rules Committee, and we 
continue to hear, well, you did this and how horrible it was when you 
were chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, they never once talk about the promises that were made 
to be different. I never, never thought that they would be as bad as 
they have been when it comes to this process of deliberation. Frankly, 
where we are right now with this rule for consideration of this measure 
is exactly that, denying any opportunity whatsoever. And again, it is 
the 15th time in this Congress where we have concurred in a Senate 
amendment with an amendment which again shuts out--and, by the way, we 
never, we never contemplated doing this, Mr. Speaker, in the 
consideration of an appropriations bill. Appropriations bills, as we 
all know, are regularly considered under by and large a completely open 
process.

[[Page H9224]]

  Having said that, I will say, and we had our exchange with the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee last night, 
there are some things in this bill that I am very, very happy about. My 
distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx, along with 
our colleagues Mike Pence, Tom Price and others, and I was privileged 
to be here on one occasion, they were here virtually every single day 
during the month of August. Why? Well, to refresh the memories of our 
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and yours as well, at the very end of the 
month of July just as Congress was getting ready to leave for the month 
of August, we were arguing that we should in fact have a debate and a 
vote on considering a wide range of proposals that the American people 
had said that we should at least have a vote on that would allow us to 
see the price of gasoline come down, that would allow us to see the 
cost of the price of natural gas come down, and allow us to vigorously 
pursue important alternative energy sources--wind, solar, biodiesel, 
green crude, nuclear. We said in late July that we should have a debate 
and we should not leave the Congress, we should not leave Washington 
until we completed that.
  And so on the last day, by a one-vote margin, the minority was denied 
an opportunity to be able to even speak, to even address this issue. So 
we all know what happened right after. Even when the gavel came down 
and by a one-vote margin the majority chose to cut off specials orders 
that would have simply been an opportunity to talk about the need for 
looking at alternative energy sources and allowing for exploration on 
the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR and other areas, what happened, 
well, Members on our side of the aisle took to the well, when the 
lights were dim and there were only tourists who were here in the 
Chamber. Mr. Speaker, that went on during the entire month of August. 
During the entire month of August.
  And the American people were able to come in, fill this Chamber, even 
though the lights were out and the microphones weren't working, and 
Members on our side, led by Virginia Foxx and the others whom I have 
mentioned, they talked about the need for us to have an all-of-the-
above solution to the problem of high gasoline prices and overall high 
energy prices.
  We are still dealing with that serious problem. I see my fellow 
Angeleno, Jane Harman, here. In Southern California, we pay very high 
prices for gasoline and people drive great distances. I know that her 
constituents, just as mine are, are very, very concerned about high 
gasoline prices. They still want to see the cost of gasoline go down 
and do what we can to get gasoline costs down and deal with 
transportation and a wide range of other issues.

                              {time}  1245

  I was really struck when, over that August break, Santa Barbara's 
County Board of Supervisors--Santa Barbara, California, and to refresh 
your memory, Mr. Speaker, 39 years ago, one of the most horrendous oil 
spills took place off the coast of Santa Barbara. Seals, birds, it 
killed, all kinds of devastation, because of this horrible oil spill 
that took place 39 years ago.
  And yet, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is the members of the Santa 
Barbara County Board of Supervisors have recognized that the technology 
that exists in 2008 is dramatically advanced from that that existed 39 
years ago when we saw that horrible oil spill. They know that today we 
have safety valves and lots of other advances that have been made that 
will work to ensure that we would not see that kind of accident.
  And so what has happened, even in Santa Barbara County, California, 
the County Board of Supervisors voted to allow exploration in the Outer 
Continental Shelf. They said that they don't have the power to do it, 
but they voted in favor of doing that.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that one of the good things in 
this measure is that we are going to, with its passage, see the 
expiration of that moratorium that was put into place following the 
Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. It's existed for a long period of 
time, but the American people recognize that we can, in an 
environmentally sound way, in a safe way, engage in this kind of 
responsible exploration.
  I also want to say that as we look at this overall energy issue, 
there are many other things that need to be addressed that are not 
being addressed. Yes, we are taking some of these things in a piecemeal 
way. Why? Because both Democrats and Republicans alike have heard from 
their constituents about the need to deal with high energy costs and so 
some of these things are being addressed.
  But we have been arguing, Mr. Boehner and others, that we need to 
have this all-of-the-above solution. And so I want to say again to my 
colleague, Virginia Foxx, and to the others who virtually every single 
day during the month of August, came here, stood in a dark Chamber 
without the benefit of a microphone talking to a place filled with 
tourists who were here and getting a very, very positive response, 
thank them for continuing to keep this issue in behalf of the American 
people on the forefront, in the forefront in this debate.
  I will say that again there are other items in this measure that are 
important. But one thing that I find particularly troubling is the date 
at which time this continuing resolution will expire. I happen to 
believe that, as we look at the economic challenges that we are facing, 
and we all know that we've had meetings with the Secretary of the 
Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and a wide range of 
other people who are involved in trying to responsibly deal with a 
rescue package that we are going to have to face, I have grave concerns 
about what I've seen, but it is an issue which we need to address. 
Creating American jobs and getting the economy growing is the single 
most important thing that we can do to deal with the fiscal crisis that 
we face right now. Economic growth is the key. And that's why I'm 
troubled with this March 6, 2009, expiration date, Mr. Speaker.
  Why? Because by virtue of our taking this action, we, I believe, 
will, for all intents and purposes, not have a chance to vote on a 
very, very important agreement, a trade agreement that is designed to 
pry open new markets, to create jobs right here in the United States of 
America. And I'm talking, first and foremost, about the very important 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the State of Ohio is a State that 
has suffered from the economic slowdown. There are great products that 
are made in Ohio, in Illinois and other States that have been 
suffering. Caterpillar tractors, Whirlpool washing machines and 
refrigerators and all. Those things could be sold in great numbers to 
the 40 million consumers in Colombia, tariff-free, if we were to 
actually pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, 
extending this continuing resolution to March of next year, I believe, 
will play a big role in diminishing the prospect for a so-called lame 
duck session that would allow us to do that.
  This is a slap, not only at Colombia, our strongest ally on the South 
American continent, but at all of Latin America, and, Mr. Speaker, it 
is a slap at any country in the world that might be contemplating 
embarking on negotiations with the United States of America in its 
attempt to deal with this.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Since you mentioned 
the State of Ohio, I thought I should just state for the record that 
the vast numbers of people in our State do not favor the extension of 
NAFTA to Colombia. Indeed, the entire Catholic and Christian 
communities as well or other organized against this agreement because 
of the horrendous treatment of Afro-Colombians on the northwestern side 
of Colombia, as well as the massive killing of labor leaders, the 
largest number in the world, more than all other countries, combined. 
So we place human life first, and I just wanted to thank the gentleman, 
but I don't think you should use the State of Ohio in your argument 
about Colombia trade. I thank you for yielding to me.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for her very thoughtful 
contribution, and let me just respond to a couple of points.
  First and foremost, I place human life first, at the top. And so I 
think it's

[[Page H9225]]

absolutely essential, I would say to my friend from Ohio, that she know 
that that is priority number 1. Human rights are priority number 1. And 
the fact is, we have seen Colombia, as a nation, in a 5-year period of 
time, go through a more positive transformation than any nation in 
modern history. And the fact that the Colombian Government, under 
President Uribe, has stood up and fought very, very vigorously in 
behalf of bringing to justice those who have been responsible for any 
killings. The demobilization, taking people who have been part of the 
FARC and the paramilitaries and bringing them into society, Democrats 
and Republicans alike have seen that time and time again as I have in 
two recent trips that I have taken to Colombia.
  I want to say, Mr. Speaker, the reason I mentioned the State of Ohio 
is that I want to do everything that I possibly can to create more good 
jobs for the constituents of Ms. Kaptur and other Ohioans throughout 
the State. Whirlpool is a very important Ohio company, and this 
agreement will allow workers for Whirlpool to create products that can 
be sold into Colombia.
  And so all I'm arguing, Mr. Speaker, is that by virtue of having this 
date, it is a slap at the American worker and it is undermining our 
chance to get this economy growing again by prying open these new 
markets so that we can export our goods and services into the country.
  Mr. Speaker, again, there are good things in this measure, but I am 
strongly opposed to this rule, the structure around which we are 
considering it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just rise to associate myself with the remarks of 
my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) on the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement. Colombia continues to be the most dangerous place in the 
world to be a member of a union. It is number 2 in the number of 
internally displaced people, the largest number of internally displaced 
people, second in the world. And extrajudicial killings by security 
forces are on the rise.
  So if we're going to have a trade agreement, and human rights 
matters, then I don't think it's too much to ask the Colombian security 
forces to stop killing and targeting its workers.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to my friend for 30 seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend, and say that all we're asking for is a 
vote on this issue. I understand that the gentleman has a different 
view on this question, Mr. Speaker. It's very clear that he does.
  I happen to believe that humans rights are very, very important, and 
we should recognize that enhancing the economies of both the United 
States and Colombia will help in that effort.
  All we're saying is that we've been denied a vote, something that has 
never happened since the 1974 Trade Act was put into place under this 
structure, and by virtue of having this March 6, 2009, date, we're 
denying even a chance for a vote because I suspect we won't have a lame 
duck session.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I would also disagree that a Colombia Free Trade 
agreement is going to help create more jobs in Ohio or Massachusetts or 
anywhere else for that matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I also, going back to what the gentleman from Washington 
State had talked about earlier, he mentioned stuffing in unvetted 
earmarks. I've been going through the bill here, and I found that the 
ranking Republican member of the Rules Committee has a number of 
earmarks, too. You may want to check with him whether or not he vetted 
them and whether they went through the proper process. I assume they 
did, because I would not expect anything less from him. But I want to 
point out again that as you go through this bill, you see a number of 
earmarks that are attributed directly to the Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out to the gentleman who 
was expressing concern about earmarks in the Defense bill, that if this 
CR represented the CR that I wanted to bring to the House floor, it 
would not contain the Defense bill. The original CR that I brought 
forward did not contain the Defense bill. The Defense bill was added at 
the express request of the minority and at the express request of the 
Secretary of Defense who wrote us the following letter:
  ``I understand that there is a consideration in the House to not 
include full year funding for the Department of Defense in the fiscal 
year 2009 continuing resolution.
  ``While I understand that some have expressed policy concerns with 
the bill, I believe it is critical for the orderly operation of the 
Department of Defense that Congress pass a full year fiscal 09 Defense 
appropriation bill in order to avoid the significant negative effects 
of having to operate under a continuing resolution.
  ``Accordingly, I urge you to include such an appropriation bill in 
the final continuing resolution.''
  When you make concessions such as we did to this letter, I'm sorry if 
the clock doesn't give us enough time to do so in a pristinely orderly 
fashion, but we simply had to move this forward to keep the government 
open.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, what is the time on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 14 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the normal process for appropriation bills are for them 
to come to the House floor and be debated under an open rule with the 
earmarks that are in the bill being open for everybody to look at them.
  Now I find it rather interesting, when other Members were talking I 
saw my friend and his staff from Massachusetts frantically going 
through this 1,100 page bill to try to find earmarks. Well, if we'd 
gone through normal process, we would have known what those earmarks 
are. I have always said that I am one that is not necessarily opposed 
to them, but I think there ought to be transparency to this whole 
process. And there hasn't been any transparency, because only one, Mr. 
Speaker, only one of the appropriation bills was passed by the House, 
and that was not done under an open rule.
  Had we had the normal process, all these earmarks would have been 
vetted, asked about, explained and so forth. But here we are, 1 hour to 
debate this 1,100-page bill of which there are three appropriation 
bills a part of this CR, and no real process to look at what the 
earmarks are. That's my whole point. Nothing more than that.
  Yet because we aren't going through the regular order as we say, open 
process, in fact we go through 63 closed rules, Members don't have an 
opportunity to find out how the taxpayers' money is being spent on 
particular earmarks that all Members of this House have an opportunity 
to put in these bills. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what the qualms are 
over there. It's their process, they run this place, and it hasn't been 
open.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would just say that the American people can see what earmarks exist 
in this bill and who is responsible for those earmarks because it is 
open. What the gentleman is complaining about is he can't play politics 
with some of the earmarks on the floor today.
  The other thing is, I will restate what the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee said. The reason why the Defense 
appropriations bill is in this continuing resolution is because of the 
request of the Republican administration.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. He is one of the most 
conscientious Members of this House, and I enjoy being his partner and 
working together.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, there is much to admire and support in this Continuing 
Appropriations Act. As usual, Chairmen Murtha and Edwards have crafted 
excellent Defense and MilCon-VA appropriations bills. Disaster relief 
and

[[Page H9226]]

LIHEAP funding are critical to support, and I'm aware of many other 
efforts by Chairman Obey to make this CR help those in need.
  But the act contains two huge flaws which I would like to speak to 
this morning. First, the homeland security portion of the bill 
effectively allows some funding for the hastily erected and legally 
suspect National Applications Office, or NAO. The NAO is intended to 
make feed from U.S. defense intelligence satellites, our most powerful 
spy satellites, available to DHS and, in the future, to State and local 
law enforcement. The specific capabilities of these satellites are 
classified, but I can say that their ability to capture detailed visual 
data about activities on the ground is truly stunning.
  Before we stand up a new office to turn these powerful satellites 
toward America, I believe there must be a comprehensive legal framework 
in place to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. As we speak, 
that comprehensive framework does not exist.
  I agree with the GAO, which recently completed a study of the NAO, 
and concluded that ``DHS has not fully justified its certification that 
the NAO complies with applicable laws.'' The GAO says there are 
significant unresolved legal and policy issues regarding the use of 
satellite images in law enforcement. There are weak management controls 
to ensure compliance with the law, and unaddressed privacy and civil 
liberty concerns.
  Second, on a different topic, Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed, as are many 
of my constituents, that this act allows the moratorium on drilling in 
the Outer Continental Shelf to lapse. That moratorium has been in place 
for two decades in Republican and Democratic administrations and 
Republican and Democratic Congresses.
  I know that this lapse is not the favored outcome of many in my 
party, and I recognize that a new President could reverse it, but that 
doesn't mean we should signal we are ready even now to impose drilling 
as close as 3 miles off our coasts when a State does not want that 
drilling. I am aware that the Republican Governor in my State does not 
want that drilling.
  According to the Bush administration's own Energy Information 
Administration, if we open the entire Outer Continental Shelf for 
drilling tomorrow, we could expect an increased domestic production of 
200,000 barrels of oil per day by 2030. The world consumes around 80 
million barrels of oil per day today, and so the impact on oil prices 
from such a minuscule increase would be, and I quote the Bush 
administration, ``insignificant.''
  And what do we risk for this ``insignificant'' increase in supply? 
Well, we risk thousands of miles of environmentally sensitive and 
economically indispensable coastline in California, South Carolina, 
Florida and elsewhere, and we increase our carbon footprint. These are 
not risks we should take, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the 
State of Texas, and all of my colleagues that have been working on the 
devastation that we experienced in Hurricane Ike, I say thank you to 
our leadership and chairman of the Appropriations Committee and my 
colleague, Chairman Obey, and the staff, because disasters always need 
the benevolence and the friendship of the American people. And I thank 
you very much for your concern about the people in the Midwest and on 
the gulf region who have suffered, through no fault of their own.
  And so this is what our newspaper looks like every day for the last 
10 days. The picture is one of a gentleman, 80 years old, Roy Krause in 
my district, with a tree protruding out of his house. His wife is in 
the hospital, no lights, no place to go. Galveston and regions around 
are suffering. And so I am very pleased that we can see the light at 
the end of the tunnel.
  This rule is necessary so that we can begin to help people. The $6.5 
billion in CDBG money, one-third of it will be out of Washington, into 
the hands of the State of Texas, in 60 days. We have thousands of 
people returning as evacuees with no place to live; $400 billion for 
Economic Development Agency because we have businesses whose lights are 
still out; $800 million to FEMA that could help our businesses that 
have suffered business interruption.
  I met a couple as I was giving out MREs and water and ice. They had 
just come back from being evacuated. They are on hourly wages. They 
don't know how they're going to pay their rents.
  Social services block grants, $600 million. Because of our utility 
company, CenterPoint, we have hospital and nursing homes today without 
power and electricity. Those hospitals cannot dry out because they 
don't have power. And so this grant that we will have will be 
necessary.
  The Army Corps of Engineers, we don't have levees. I'm grateful for 
the levees. We have bayous that overran themselves and flooded people. 
So we are grateful for this, $200,000 in an earmark that I was able to 
secure for predisaster work and $1 million for flooding.
  But the real crux is human needs. We need this money now. And in 
addition to this legislation, I'm glad that we are taking care of our 
veterans, many of whom were displaced because of the hurricane, 
homeless veterans, people who were about to transition to a better 
life, then got wiped out.
  Yes, we need moneys for the Red Cross, and I support the $150 million 
that they need, but I really want this money to get to our people.
  And finally let me say, some of this devastation comes about because 
our utility companies were too worried about profits than performance, 
and so I have 180 schools that are out because of lack of power. I'm 
glad this bill will provide moneys from FEMA for public buildings to 
help them rebuild.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. But let me say this to my colleagues, we 
have got to address the crumbling infrastructure in America.
  The PUC of Texas ordered our utility company to precut limbs, to 
rebuild their power lines, to make them metal. They did not do it, and 
now we have close to 800,000 people without power still, not because we 
are trying to get more than we expect after a disaster, but it is 
because we have poor performance. Our trees are down. They are 
confused. They don't have an organized special needs list. My nursing 
homes are without power. My hospitals are without power.
  I'll be writing legislation to correct this immediately and provide 
penalties for those who cannot provide service.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated 
Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act. 
Although this legislation does not include the important legislative 
and policy language I sought to help my fellow Houstonians and Texans 
on the road to recovery from the devastation of Hurricane Ike, it does 
appropriate $22.9 billion in disaster assistance, which will help 
communities in Texas and across the nation rebuild, rejuvenate their 
local economies, and take steps to fortify ourselves from future 
disasters.
  I have been working diligently and tirelessly to prepare for the 
devastation wreaked by Hurricane Ike since September 11, and I have 
been in Houston nearly every day since Hurricane Ike hit landfall to 
assist my constituents and my fellow Texans respond to and recover from 
the widespread impact. The government should not abrogate its 
responsibility over the general welfare of its citizens, and all levels 
of government (federal, state, and local) must do a better job of 
coordinating and ensuring that relief is delivered in a timely and 
efficient manner. I am optimistic that this bipartisan legislation does 
that by assisting the victims and states affected by Hurricane Ike, 
especially in Texas, get on the road to recovery.
  I worked with Chairman Obey and my fellow Texan colleagues to 
appropriate $7.9 billion in disaster relief funds for FEMA so that this 
Agency can continue helping communities recover from Hurricane Ike by 
using these funds for emergency housing, school repairs, debris 
removal, infrastructure improvements, emergency protective measures, 
utility repairs, and water facilities. I also worked to provide $6.5 
billion in Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs), which are 
flexible grants that help communities recover from disasters by 
providing temporary housing, repairing and replacing damaged homes and 
public infrastructure, and stimulating economic development activities. 
I also worked to include $600 million in social services block grants 
to provide

[[Page H9227]]

states with flexible sources of funding to address emerging needs 
ranging from food assistance to urgent healthcare needs. We also have 
appropriated $1.3 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers to repair 
damage to infrastructure, especially bayous, drainage channels, and 
levees to bolster flood control efforts. Furthermore, we have 
appropriated $799 million for loans and technical assistance by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA) to businesses and homeowners who 
have been hit hard and need increased assistance. This legislation also 
includes assistance for emergency highway relief, levees in New 
Orleans, wildfires, economic development assistance, international 
disasters, and international food aid.
  While Hurricane Ike has left an enormous amount of devastation, it 
has brought out the amazing unity, strength and resilience that Texans 
and Americans possess. Whether rich or poor, black or white, young or 
old, Democrat or Republican, everyone has been working together to 
rebuild and move forward. This is a great testament to the 
insurmountable American spirit.
  More than 60 Americans and over 28 Texans have died as a result of 
Hurricane Ike. In addition, the hurricane has caused millions of 
dollars of damage in Houston and Galveston and billions of dollars 
damage throughout the Nation. After touring the devastation throughout 
the Houston and Galveston area, it is clear that the funds I helped 
secure for FEMA and CDBG grants are needed to help residents with 
recovery efforts in Houston and throughout Texas.
  As a senior Member of the House Homeland Security Committee, which 
has oversight over FEMA and DHS, I saw firsthand the waste, fraud, and 
abuse that occurred in the response and recovery effort to Hurricane 
Katrina. Furthermore, the almost exclusive use of major, national 
contractors marginalized and excluded small, minority, and local 
contractors from participating in the cleanup and rebuilding of New 
Orleans in particular. This exclusion of small, minority, and local 
contractors cannot be allowed to occur again in the response and 
recovery effort in Houston and throughout Texas. I am committed to 
exercising my oversight over funds appropriated to DHS and FEMA to 
ensure that they utilize, small, minority, and local businesses that 
must play an integral role in the recovery and rebuilding of their 
communities.

  Furthermore, the response efforts to Hurricane Ike in Texas, 
unfortunately similar to Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana but to a 
smaller extent, revealed breakdowns in communication between the state 
and local government on the one hand and FEMA and the Federal 
Government on the other hand. These communication failures resulted in 
unnecessary and avoidable delays in deploying vital resources to 
individuals and families in need. I look forward to hearing from the 
panelists on how we can increase the role that FEMA can play in the 
response and recovery efforts to natural disasters in order to ensure 
the most expeditious and efficient decision-making process possible. 
Whether it be through legislation or simply improved preparation and 
communication, we must take concrete steps to ensure that in the 
ongoing recovery effort, bureaucratic barriers are eliminated and 
minimized and that resources are deployed to individuals and families 
in need efficaciously.
  Nearly 6 million people nationwide and over 2.5 million Texas 
residents lost electricity and approximately \1/3\ Houstonians still 
have not regained power. This is unacceptable. CenterPoint, and to a 
smaller extent Entergy, have demonstrated that their utility 
infrastructure is lacking and insufficient to deal with a disaster of 
this magnitude. Clearly, we need to invest substantial funds to improve 
our electric grids to ensure that the disparate impact on vulnerable 
populations such as the elderly, disabled, and impoverished, are 
corrected and are never allowed to reoccur. Furthermore, I am drafting 
legislation to ensure that utility companies who ignore recommendations 
to upgrade their power infrastructure and fail to prepare for natural 
disasters face both civil and criminal liability for their negligent 
actions.
  Also, nearly 1 million people evacuated before Hurricane Ike and tens 
of thousands of Houstonians and Texans are facing a major housing 
crisis that must be addressed. The City of Houston will need over $2 
billion for emergency shelters, temporary housing, removal of debris, 
emergency protective measures, and repairs for infrastructure, schools, 
and water facilities. The City of Houston also estimates that it will 
require over $300 million in CDBG grants for permanent housing to 
address this housing crisis. I am confident that I will have the strong 
support of my congressional colleagues in my efforts to ensure that 
Houston and Texas receives the funds it so desperately needs on the 
road to recovery.
  Also, the procedure for reimbursement of uninsured home damage is 
extremely cumbersome and slow and must be streamlined to assist 
families on the path to recovery. The current steps which allow for 
applicants to be rejected by the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
after they have registered with FEMA and have had their homes inspected 
and their losses assessed is broken and must be fixed.
  Although I support the additional support of our troops included in 
the Defense Appropriations portion of this legislation, I still must 
reluctantly oppose allowing President Bush to continue a war which the 
American people also oppose by failing to impose timelines for 
withdrawal. However this legislation also restores the crucial American 
priorities shortchanged by the President's proposed budget, this 
legislation restores vital homeland security programs, life-saving 
medical research, education for our children, financial aid for 
secondary studies, energy independence, and services for seniors.
  Throughout this year, the Democratic-led Congress has worked to 
restore these critical programs, and this omnibus appropriations bill 
represents the final rejection of the President's misguided budget 
cuts. Instead, this legislation provides funding for medical research, 
health care access, and rural hospitals. It increases funding for K-12 
education, student aid, and vocational education. This legislation 
invests in our Nation's first responders, invests in highway 
infrastructure, and in a safe future for our children through renewable 
energy.

  Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the Congress, as the direct 
representatives of the American people, approve appropriations 
legislation that reflects the priorities of the American people. That 
is what this bill does. It restores funding, supported by a strong, 
bipartisan majority, for a wide variety of American needs. Even as the 
President asks for billions more to fund a war that the majority of 
Americans do not support, he proposes to essentially freeze most 
domestic funding.
  In addition, I am pleased to have been able to secure funding for a 
number of projects benefiting the citizens of the 18th congressional 
district of Texas such as $1 million for Harris County Flood Control 
District, $200,000 for City of Houston, and $200,000 for FEMA Pre-
Disaster Mitigation. These funds will be crucial to ensure the havoc 
wreaked by Hurricane Ike is not repeated.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased with many of the provisions of this 
legislation, this legislation contains some language which is 
unacceptable to me, and is unacceptable to the American people. My 
colleagues and I in the House of Representatives have tried, numerous 
times, to provide funds for the troops in Iraq specifically linked to a 
requirement for the immediate commencement of the redeployment of U.S. 
forces.
  As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young 
men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the 
battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We 
sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst 
of an insurgent civil war and continuing political upheaval. The United 
States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi government 
and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, 
and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their 
nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. However, whether or not my 
colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces 
from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord 
that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.
  Mr. Speaker, we have already lost over 4,100 American lives and $500 
billion in taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We have occupied the country for 
over four years. And our President continues to push a strategy devoid 
of clear direction and visible targets, while rejecting congressional 
calls to solidify an exit strategy.
  In November 2006, the American people clearly stated that they did 
not want to see an endless conflict in Iraq; they went to the polls and 
elected a new, Democratic Congress to lead our nation out of Iraq. I am 
proud to be a member of the Congressional class that listens and 
adheres to the will of the American people, as we did when both houses 
of Congress approved Iraq Supplemental bills that instituted a 
timetable for U.S. withdrawal. We need a new direction, because we owe 
our brave, fighting men and women so much more. Washington made a 
mistake in going to war. It is time for politicians to admit that 
mistake and fix it before any more lives are lost.
  This Congress will not, as the previous Republican Congress did, 
continue to rubber stamp what we believe to be an ill-conceived war. As 
we continue to receive reports on the situation in Iraq, it is 
important that we continue to look forward, to the future of Iraq 
beyond a U.S. military occupation.
  Despite the multitude of mistakes perpetrated by President Bush and 
former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops have achieved a military 
success in ousting Saddam Hussein and assisting the Iraqis in 
administering a democratic election and electing a democratic 
government. However, only the Iraqi government can secure a lasting 
peace. Time and time again, the Iraqi government

[[Page H9228]]

has demonstrated an inability to deliver on the political benchmarks 
that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national 
reconciliation. Continuing to put the lives of our soldiers and our 
national treasury in the hands of what by most informed accounts, even 
by members of the Bush Administration, is an ineffective central Iraqi 
government is irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the 
overwhelming majority of the American people.
  Our nation has already paid a heavy price in Iraq. Over 4,100 
American soldiers have died. In addition, more than 30,600 have been 
wounded in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. This misguided, 
mismanaged, and misrepresented war has claimed too many lives of our 
brave servicemen; its depth, breadth, and scope are without precedent 
in American history. In addition, the U.S. is spending an estimated $10 
billion per month in Iraq. This $10 billion a month translates into 
$329,670,330 per day, $13,736,264 per hour, $228,938 per minute, and 
$3,816 per second. Ultimately, many estimate that Bush's misadventure 
in Iraq will cost over $1 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, this House previously passed legislation providing our 
brave soldiers in Iraq with the resources they need, while requiring 
that the President begin to redeploy our troops. We have worked 
tirelessly to keep our soldiers and our nation safe. The open-ended war 
funding provided by this legislation is not the will of the American 
people, and I am proud to stand here, on their behalf, and oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I want to commend Chairman Obey and members of the Appropriations 
Committee for working together to bring this continuing resolution to 
the floor today.
  One area I want to specifically address is LIHEAP, the Low-Income 
Heating Assistance Program. Thousands of the people I represent in New 
Hampshire are staring out at a cold winter ahead and record-high home 
heating oil prices. This continuing resolution provides $5.1 billion 
for the heating assistance program. While this is a record amount of 
funding for the program, it unfortunately will do little more than 
provide the same amount of fuel to the same number of families as New 
Hampshire covered last year, leaving thousands of families with no 
assistance at all. I am deeply disappointed that we could not find more 
to help meet the needs of families in my district and in districts 
around this country.
  What this lack of funding will mean is that many eligible families 
for this program will not be able to receive assistance to keep their 
homes warm this winter. I will reluctantly support what is before us 
because this crisis is too important for us to come home emptyhanded 
this winter.
  But I want to express my frustration that we cannot find more funding 
for the families in New Hampshire and around the country who will not 
be able to get critical heating assistance this winter. Many folks are 
going to have to choose between heating their homes and feeding their 
families.
  This week, Congress is discussing and debating the proposed $700 
billion bailout of Wall Street. It is bitterly ironic that this 
Congress will shortchange families struggling to keep their homes warm 
this winter but still find money to bail out Wall Street.
  As we debate the administration's financial package this week and 
contemplate their reckless disregard for the welfare of the American 
people, Members and leaders on both sides of the aisle should think 
long and hard about spending $700 billion of taxpayer money on bad Wall 
Street debt, while millions of our own taxpayers will not be able to 
heat their homes this winter.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a valuable member 
of the Appropriations Committee, who is leaving the Congress after this 
term.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
Washington for yielding me the time.
  I am very disappointed. After the disappointment of moving to 
minority in the year 2007, I took some solace in the fact that the 
three highest elected Democratic leaders are all members of the 
Appropriations Committee, and I thought that they would work the will 
of the committee within the committee.
  I am disappointed that in my last year as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee this majority has not seen fit to bring one 
regular spending bill before the House of Representatives.
  It is no secret that I do not always agree with the current President 
on spending levels, but even if I did, he is brought into the process 
only after we complete our work. He has been a primary consideration 
throughout this process, and that's why we haven't worked our will.
  In short, we gave up a fight without a fight, and that disappoints 
me, and that should disappoint those we represent.
  We gave up without letting the Appropriations Committee work its 
will, without letting the membership of the House work its will.
  The Senate is the Senate. We have no control over what happens or, 
more likely, what doesn't happen over there, but we do have control 
over whether or not the House gets its job done, and quite frankly, 
that did not happen this year.
  So here we are, punting on second down.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must say that as I reflect on my 20 
years here, 16 of those on the Appropriations Committee, 12 of those as 
a subcommittee Chair on this, I believe, the greatest committee of the 
House of Representatives, there's been much more satisfaction than 
disappointment.
  As this is probably the last time I will address this body on a 
pending appropriations bill, I respectfully ask my Chair and the 
members of the committee to in the future restore regular order and 
protect the prerogatives of this committee. It is of signal importance 
to the Congress that the Appropriations Committee perform its will.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I could yield myself 30 seconds, I just 
want to say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) that it has been 
a pleasure and honor to serve with him in the Congress, and I think I 
speak for Democrats and Republicans when I say that we will miss him.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Washington whether he has any other speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Neither do I, so I reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question because, by defeating the previous question, I will 
move to amend the rule to ensure that the Congress will not adjourn, 
Mr. Speaker, until a comprehensive energy legislation bill has been 
enacted.
  What this means, Mr. Speaker, is passing an all-of-the-above energy 
plan that, in addition to drilling offshore, we need to open the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, and shale oil reserves in other 
parts of our country. We also need to extend renewable energy 
incentives. We need to streamline approval of new refining capacity in 
the United States and nuclear power facilities in the United States, 
and we need to encourage advanced research and development of clean 
coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies.
  And finally, we need to minimize drawn-out legal challenges that 
unreasonably delay and prevent actual domestic energy production, 
because I had mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that while the offshore 
is now open on October 1 to exploration, I'm almost sure that the 
lawsuits will ensue. The bill that I will be amending this rule to 
contemplate takes care of that provision.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials inserted into the Record prior to a 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask my 
colleagues now to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can 
simply amend the rule and take up this legislation.

[[Page H9229]]

  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it's important that we pass this continuing resolution 
for a number of reasons. One is it contains money for LIHEAP. With the 
high cost of energy, we need to make sure that people have the 
emergency assistance so they can heat their homes, so they don't have 
to choose between heating their homes and their medication, or heating 
their homes and food.

                              {time}  1315

  We need to support this bill because it has money to help combat 
hunger--which unfortunately, under this administration's watch, has 
gotten worse in this country. There are people in the United States who 
are hungry, and that is something that every one of us should be 
ashamed of.
  We need to pass this bill because it contains money for disaster 
relief. We have had hurricanes in Florida and Texas. We have had floods 
in Iowa. People are in need of assistance from the Federal Government 
to help rebuild. Why anybody would want to hold that up is beyond me.
  We need to support this bill because it supports our troops. And we 
need to support this bill because it supports our veterans. We have a 
lot of talk around here about how we have to support our troops and 
veterans, and yet here we have an effort to try to block a bill that 
will do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is about keeping the government running. And I 
gotta tell you, I, for one, am glad that this bill will take us into 
March because hopefully in March we will have a different leadership in 
the White House; we will be moving in a vastly different direction than 
the one this President and his Republican allies in this Congress have 
taken us over the last 8 years. We are in a fiscal mess. Our economy is 
on the verge of collapse as a result of the incompetence and the 
inability of this administration to lead us in the right direction.
  Enough. Enough.
  It is time for us to move forward. It is time for us to get this work 
done. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and a 
``yes'' vote on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1488 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 4. It shall not be in order in the House to consider a 
     concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of either 
     House of Congress until comprehensive energy legislation has 
     been enacted into law that includes provisions designed to--
       (A) allow states to expand the exploration and extraction 
     of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf;
       (B) open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale 
     reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and 
     extraction;
       (C) extend expiring renewable energy incentives;
       (D) encourage the streamlined approval of new refining 
     capacity and nuclear power facilities;
       (E) encourage advanced research and development of clean 
     coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies; 
     and
       (F) minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably 
     delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered; 
and the motion to suspend the rules with regard to S. 3001.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 198, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 629]

                               YEAS--231

     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)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     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 (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)

[[Page H9230]]


     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
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     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
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     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
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bishop (UT)
     Boyda (KS)
     Cubin
     Rush

                              {time}  1344

  Messrs. GARRETT of New Jersey, GILCHREST and CHILDERS 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. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 202, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 630]

                               YEAS--228

     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)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     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
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     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)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--202

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     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 (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bishop (UT)
     Cubin
     Hirono


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1353

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H9231]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 630, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________