[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 161 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10702-H10710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1424, 
              EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1525 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1525

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1424) to amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health 
     Service Act, section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and 
     substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, 
     to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic 
     information with respect to health insurance and employment, 
     and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, 
     and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
     point of order, a single motion offered by the chairman of 
     the Committee on Financial Services or his designee that the 
     House concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments 
     and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall 
     be debatable for 90 minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Financial Services, and 30 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means: The previous 
     question shall be

[[Page H10703]]

     considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of the motion to concur 
     pursuant to the first section of 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.

                              {time}  0915

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentlewoman from New 
York is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
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 1525.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1525 provides for the 
consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1424, the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The rule will allow the 
House to concur in the Senate amendments to this bill and vote on the 
text of the bill that was adopted in the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, today, this body meets under dire circumstances as our 
great Nation stands on the precipice of the most serious financial 
crisis since the Great Depression. Our stock market is fluctuating at 
an alarming rate, and our unemployment rate is soaring. Many of our 
financial institutions, some of which were deemed too big to fail, have 
failed or are close to collapse. Credit, even for the most 
creditworthy, is hard to come by. Our once robust and booming economy 
is on the brink of disaster, and that is why we have this bill before 
us today.
  Like so many Americans, I have absolutely no interest in bailing out 
any fat cat executives on Wall Street. I stand firm in my belief and in 
solidarity with the American people when I say that corporate greed 
should never be rewarded, but the crisis we're facing today is much 
bigger than the corporate greed. It's bigger than Wall Street. It 
reaches beyond the Wall Street titans and directly into the lives of 
hardworking, middle class Americans.
  Our savings--retirement savings, college savings for our children and 
investments in our future--are all at risk if this industry fails. The 
financial crisis threatens our ability to get a loan even if we have 
outstanding credit. The crisis threatens our jobs.
  Without decisive action, most experts believe that our economic 
situation will only grow worse. Credit markets will freeze, and Main 
Street and all of America will suffer. Families living paycheck to 
paycheck will see their credit card limits slashed and their interest 
rates increased. Families won't be able to take out basic home and car 
loans, and employers may not be able to make their payrolls.
  Take, for example, earlier this week when the body failed to pass a 
previous version of this rescue bill, and the country watched in horror 
as the Dow Jones plummeted more than 750 points. That dive, that single 
day in the stock market, cost our economy over $1 trillion, but when 
the stock market crashed, the majority of the $1 trillion that was lost 
did not belong to Wall Street giants. It came from the pensions of 
people who have retired or from people who have frugally worked for 
their entire lifetimes to save a few dollars for their families' 
futures.
  It is for this reason that Congress must intervene. The bill before 
us is intended to rescue Main Street. By rescuing the financial 
institutions, we rescue the jobs, the savings and the ability to get a 
loan for each hardworking American. However, as we go ahead with this 
bill, we must be mindful of the road that led us to this crisis. After 
all, if we don't know what went wrong, how can we make sure it will not 
happen again in the future?
  Like so many Americans, I am deeply disappointed by the Bush 
administration's reckless deregulation policies that wrecked our once 
booming economy. This President put incompetent people in charge of the 
Nation's most critical regulatory agencies. Transparency was lost. 
Business was allowed to regulate itself, and the total deregulation of 
the financial services industry ensued.
  Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Cox just recently noted 
``voluntary regulation does not work.'' I'll say it doesn't. Looking 
back in history, we saw that, when deregulation occurred in the last 
century, it led to bread lines and to Hoovervilles.
  President Franklin D. Roosevelt, well acquainted with the havoc 
wreaked by deregulation, said, ``We have always known that heedless 
self-interest was bad morals. We now know that it is bad economics as 
well.''
  President Roosevelt led our Nation through that crisis by regulating 
the financial industry. However, deregulation proponents have removed 
FDR's regulations because, for them, big business comes first and knows 
everything.
  That is why, when the administration handed Congress an ultimatum for 
a $700 billion blank check which lacked the very accountability and 
transparency that contributed to the problem, Democrat leaders said 
absolutely not. Over the past 2 weeks, we have insisted that the 
original rescue package proposed by President Bush and by Secretary 
Paulson be changed dramatically. As Democrat leaders negotiated plans 
to rescue the economy, we fought tooth and nail to make sure that any 
proposal included expanded oversight, transparency and an assurance 
that taxpayers will be reimbursed in full. That is what the proposal in 
front of us does today.
  We have a three-part plan to reinvest, to reimburse and to reform. We 
will rescue the troubled credit and financial markets to stabilize and 
to reinvest in our economy, to insulate hardworking Americans, to 
reimburse the taxpayers for every dime, and to reform how business is 
done on Wall Street.
  With this bill, we are standing up for all Americans by ensuring that 
there will be no help for Wall Street without help for Main Street. We 
are standing up for taxpayers by requiring strong, independent 
oversight, transparency and accountability for the money spent.
  Even the General Accounting Office will be moving into the Treasury 
Department.
  We are standing up for the working Americans by limiting excessive 
compensation for CEOs. We are standing up for homeowners, basically the 
crux of what happened here, by requiring the government to steer 
mortgages in danger of foreclosure to loan workout programs to prevent 
the foreclosures that are driving down home values all across the 
country. We are insuring more of the hard-earned money saved by 
families and by small businesses across America by upping the Federal 
protection of bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000.
  I am proud to say that three House committees will begin oversight 
hearings very shortly. In January, with a new Congress and with a new 
President, we will be ready to reinstate the regulations so cavalierly 
removed by an administration which believed that the financial industry 
could regulate itself, leading us to the dire consequences we face 
today.
  Taxpayers should know that we push to ensure that the government 
receives shares of any company it provides with aid, and after agreeing 
to rescue AIG from filing for bankruptcy, the government received 
nearly an 80 percent share in the company. The action was reassuring 
enough to the market that people are now clamoring to buy AIG assets.
  By making sure the government gets shares of companies we aid, we are 
working to revitalize this industry in a way that will benefit the 
taxpayers who are funding this rescue. By doing so, the New Direction 
Congress is standing up for swift action to ensure a more sound 
economic future for all Americans. We are absolutely committed to doing 
everything possible to ensure that America keeps working and that 
government is also working for America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I want to express my appreciation to my very good friend

[[Page H10704]]

from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, at this moment, we are beginning the debate on this 
very, very important package. For the second time this week, this body 
will consider a plan to unclog our banking system and to unfreeze our 
credit markets. The plan before us today is similar to the one that 
failed to pass on Monday but with two very important and key additions.
  First, it allows the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to insure 
larger bank deposits, which is absolutely essential for protecting our 
Nation's small businesses. Second, it extends a number of critical tax 
credits and protections that will reduce burdens on middle-income 
Americans, that will increase the use of renewable and alternative 
energy and, very importantly, that will promote job creation and 
economic growth for businesses, large and small. These are significant 
improvements, Madam Speaker, that make this a better bill, but the bill 
isn't the only thing that has changed since Monday.
  The economic landscape has shifted as well, or more accurately, the 
landscape has become clearer. Prior to Monday's vote, we had a 3-hour 
debate. We heard from a lot of Members with dire predictions if there 
were a failure to act. I was one of those who expressed a deep concern 
for the economic consequences if we could not enact an effective rescue 
package. This was reasoned speculation but speculation nonetheless.
  Today, we can act on more than speculation, Madam Speaker. As 
Monday's vote went down, it took the Dow with it. Anyone who watched 
CNBC's coverage saw a direct juxtaposition. One half of the screen 
showed this House floor. The other half of the screen showed the floor 
of the New York Stock Exchange. With each new ``no'' vote, the Dow lost 
points, and greater panic spread throughout the trading floor.
  By the end of the day, as we all know, the Dow dropped 770 points, or 
$1.2 trillion. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: There was more than 
$1.2 trillion lost on that day, and as we all know, that was the single 
largest point loss in the history of our Republic.
  The next day, as hope was renewed that there would be a second bite 
at the apple, a rebound began. It wasn't a full recovery of Monday's 
losses, but significant ground was regained on the hope that this 
rescue bill would ultimately pass.
  Now, I know that deep and pervasive skepticism of this package 
persists, and I understand that skepticism very well. I, myself, am 
very skeptical about this package. I held a telephone townhall meeting 
Wednesday night, and a number of different points of view were 
expressed by my constituents. Those who oppose this bill explained 
their reasons very carefully, and I agree with every single word that 
they said. They said we should let the market sort itself out. They 
said that people must not be shielded from suffering the consequences 
of their own bad choices. They said that we should be considering 
alternative solutions based entirely on market principles. These are 
precisely my instincts as well, and I couldn't agree more, but I've 
ultimately concluded that this bill is a necessary evil.
  Why can't we let the market sort itself out this time?
  Because, Madam Speaker, the market didn't cause this mess. Let me say 
that again: While people say we should allow the marketplace to sort 
this situation out on its own, we should not do that because the 
marketplace did not create this mess. Government-sponsored enterprises 
like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made this mess possible. Government 
regulators failed to apply adequate oversight. Today, we are not 
experiencing market failure. Let me say that again, Madam Speaker: 
Today, we are not experiencing market failure. We are experiencing the 
inevitable failure of government attempts to manipulate the market. The 
Federal Government must now do its part to undo the damage and allow 
the market to operate freely once again.
  Shouldn't we let people suffer for their own mistakes?
  Yes, we should, starting with the Wall Street executives who 
exacerbated this problem. This bill bans golden parachutes for those 
who seek assistance, which is one of the things that consistently came 
forward from my constituents, but the problem with today's crisis is 
that responsible people who have followed the rules are suffering, too, 
not just those who behaved irresponsibly.
  Madam Speaker, as you know very well, small businesses are losing 
their lines of credit. Families who have saved for a down payment for 
years are unable to get home loans.

                              {time}  0930

  Parents and students are finding it difficult to get loans for 
tuition. Those nearing retirement have seen their nest eggs evaporate 
as the stock market has fallen. Today's credit crunch is hurting 
businesses and individuals indiscriminately. It is bringing our engines 
of growth to a grinding halt and shutting hardworking Americans out of 
their dreams.
  The Los Angeles Times, my hometown paper, yesterday chronicled this 
deepening crisis, declaring, and I quote, ``Credit Freeze Puts Business 
on Thin Ice.''
  Madam Speaker, we know that our State of California is faced with 
very difficult circumstances as a State. We've heard that from our 
Governor. Small businesses all over California, as is the case in the 
rest of the country, are losing access to credit, getting forced into 
laying off workers and cutting operations. And they're looking for 
leadership from Congress. One business owner is quoted as saying, and I 
quote, ``Payrolls are getting harder to meet. Cash flow is extremely 
difficult. I'm getting the feeling that if we don't have a Federal 
deal, a lack of cash flow is going to bring everything to a halt.''
  Now, Madam Speaker, today's bill is rightly called a rescue bill. But 
who are we rescuing?
  Madam Speaker, as you know very well, we're not rescuing the fat 
cats. The fat cats can take care of themselves. Today we want to rescue 
the working Americans whose livelihoods are threatened by our current 
economic situation which, again, has been caused by bad government 
policy.
  Finally, there is the question of why we must consider this 
particular bill and not alternatives. This is a very good question, 
Madam Speaker.
  I've been a big proponent of having an open process that allows for 
other plans to be considered. And just last night, I've offered plans 
like the LaTourette plan and others at the Rules Committee for us to 
allow just that. But those amendments have been rejected by the Rules 
Committee and we have only this one bill before us. So our choice is 
very simple, pass this bill, or do nothing.
  This is not a perfect bill. It is far from a perfect bill, far from 
it. But it is far better than the original Paulson plan. It includes 
strong bipartisan oversight, accountability, a ban on golden parachutes 
and a 100 percent guarantee that the taxpayers will earn back every 
penny of their investment. Those are critical protections that 
Republicans fought for and won for the American taxpayers.
  This bill was improved further by the Senate, which added more 
protections and credits for taxpayers. We can accept this important but 
imperfect bill or, Madam Speaker, we can do nothing. We saw on Monday 
the consequences of doing nothing. Today we have a second chance.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the well 
while another is under recognition.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Wall Street wants the $700 billion so bad they can taste 
it. To get it they need two things. First, you create panic; then you 
block alternatives, and then you herd the stampeding cattle toward 
passing a bad bill.
  We are told that we must act in hours. The fact is, we have taken 2 
weeks and we can take another week, not a week of trying to jam us with 
a bad bill, but a week of writing a good bill. As over hundreds of 
economists have told us, including three Nobel Laureates, we ask 
Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings and to carefully 
consider the course of action.

[[Page H10705]]

  What have they done to the bill?
  They've added earmark pork to the bill that they think will finally 
get us to buy it.
  Don't fall for it. If we're going to deal with this crisis, we need 
to deal with it with other alternatives. Defeating this bill today is 
not the last step, it's the first step in passing a good bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from 
Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I 
rise today at a crucial time in our Nation's history, to address one of 
the most critical decisions Congress has ever made.
  Without question, these are challenging times for our country. 
Citizens everywhere recognize that our economy is in peril. Yet 
Americans are divided over the solution, and rightfully so. What we do 
here will have a lasting impact on our Nation now and for future 
generations, so we have an obligation, not just to get this done 
quickly, but to get it done right.
  Honestly, Madam Speaker, I have struggled with and reflected upon 
this decision more than any other I have made as a Member of Congress. 
But today, I will be casting a ``no'' vote on this bill. I do so after 
long, thoughtful, prayerful consideration, and after hearing from 
constituents on both sides of the issue, those who vehemently oppose 
this bill, and those who resolutely fear the consequences of inaction.
  I do believe this legislation will pass today because fortunately, 
Congress has resolved to do something in a bipartisan way to address 
this looming financial crisis that has hit Wall Street and will soon, 
if not already, hit Main Street. While this bill aims to be an answer 
to the problem, I'm not convinced that it is the best answer.
  To those who support passage of this bill, I agree with you that 
something must be done. Inaction is not an option. But I also fear that 
this bill treats the symptoms without curing the disease that plagues 
our economy.
  Conservative Republicans, led by Senator McCain, have fought every 
step of the way for a meaningful solution that addresses the root of 
the problem and preserves our free-market principles. Because of their 
efforts, the economic rescue portion of this bill has been markedly 
improved since Secretary Paulson first made his request. But it does 
virtually nothing to assure that this will never occur again on our 
watch.
  Madam Speaker, I hope and pray that what may be accomplished here 
today will ultimately work. But let's not lose sight of the fact that, 
no matter the outcome today, our work is not finished. Republicans and 
Democrats must come together and address the underlying causes of this 
economic turmoil. Wall Street and Washington, as well as individuals, 
must take responsibility for their actions. The American people demand 
accountability, and they deserve nothing less from us.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday morning a woman in my district 
shouted at me, ``Tell all those guys on Wall Street to''--how should I 
put this?--``take a long walk off a short pier.''
  I can appreciate how she feels, Madam Speaker. I kind of feel the 
same way. I would very much like someone to pay a price, or to at least 
assume some responsibility for this economic mess before we do anything 
else. But while that might be good therapy, it's not good economic 
policy.
  Anger won't keep anybody in their house. Anger won't help anybody get 
a car loan or a student loan. Anger won't help small businesses get the 
credit they need to maintain inventory or pay their employees.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us is far from perfect. I wanted 
stronger bankruptcy protection language. I wanted the economic stimulus 
package included in this bill. I wanted tougher language on banning 
golden parachutes for CEOs, and I wanted firmer pay-back provisions so 
taxpayers don't get stuck paying for any of this.
  And while some of the new tax provisions that the Senate added are 
good, most are not paid for, which troubles me very much, given the 
fact that we have the biggest debt in the history of our country.
  But the way I see it, we don't have much of a choice. The bill will, 
hopefully, help stabilize our economy. I can't guarantee that it will 
work, but I do know that killing this package today would be a serious 
mistake. The credit markets would further tighten, and the people that 
I represent, even those who want me to vote ``no,'' would be hurt very 
badly.
  It's hard to get anything done around here with a divided government. 
I'm hopeful that next year we can do some of the things that we are 
failing to do today. We need to enact a stimulus package that will 
invest in our infrastructure, schools and housing. We need health care 
for all. We need to revolutionize our energy system. We need to tackle 
hunger, poverty and homelessness.
  But I have come to the conclusion that none of that, none of those 
priorities will be possible if the financial system of this country 
collapses. So I will vote ``yes,'' and I would urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Barney Frank, who I think has done an incredible job for 
championing the causes and the voices of middle class Americans and 
those who are struggling in poverty. All of us are grateful for his 
leadership.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Concord Township, Ohio who has been working very 
hard on this issue.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I 
actually moved to Bainbridge Township now, so nobody can find me.
  Madam Speaker, this was a bad bill that we voted on Monday. It got a 
little better with some tax extenders, with the FDIC insurance, but 
it's gotten a lot worse, and it's gotten a lot worse because our 
friends on the other side of the Capitol just couldn't help themselves. 
They couldn't help themselves by larding this bill up with another $180 
billion of tax giveaways.
  As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I urge you to read yesterday's 
New York Times. There's a provision in here for $2 million for wooden 
arrows for children that apparently benefits a company in Oregon; and 
God bless any Oregonian that got it into the bill. And the CEO of the 
company says, we're waiting, and if we get it into the House bill and 
they pass it, we will be unpopping the champagne corks here, because 
this is a great deal for my company.
  How am I going to tell the people back in Ohio that the champagne 
corks are popping in Oregon over a tax subsidy of $2 million for wooden 
arrows? $192 million for rum?
  Madam Speaker, last night I took an amendment to the Rules Committee, 
and I asked one simple thing, to save half a trillion dollars, take the 
number down to $250 billion. I asked that the vote that when we come 
back, when the Secretary says he wants more money, make it a positive 
vote, not a negative vote that the President can veto, and I stripped 
the pork.
  8 to 4 was the vote last night, Madam Speaker. Each of us represents 
about 600,000 people. 4.8 million people voted to deny 300 million 
people the vote.
  There is not a rush. The Senate's in town. Let's do it right. We can 
save half a trillion dollars, and we can cut the pork. The pork doesn't 
belong in this bill. This is a financial rescue package.
  We're being told that the economy is melting down. And the number, 
Madam Speaker, where did $700 billion come from?
  The administration says we didn't have any data point. We just wanted 
to pick a really large number.
  Come on. $700 billion--for NASCAR, rum, television and wooden arrows 
for children.
  Vote ``no'' on this egregious rule and the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the Chair of the Rules Committee for granting me 
the minute.
  My colleagues, a vote to reject this bill is not a vote to do 
nothing. I will vote ``no'' on the rule and on the bill because I want 
to vote to do something that really works. My ``no'' vote will be a 
call to not reward speculators, but first to bring in the regulators to 
do their job.

[[Page H10706]]

  We should be using the regulatory powers of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation and the accounting powers of the Security and 
Exchange Commission to unseize credit lines to our banks. That is at 
the heart of the problem that we are facing. Let's do that first.
  I would urge the leadership of this House to put a sense of Congress 
resolution attached to this agreement that does exactly that. Let us do 
that first. Let's wait a week. Let's see what happens. Let's see if 
those actions defuse the tension in the credit markets.
  We must craft an alternative that will also provide help to our home 
owners facing foreclosure now. How can we reward Wall Street, who made 
bad decisions, but yet allow millions of our people to be thrown out of 
their homes by the first of the year?
  Let's work on a bill that doesn't reward bad behavior but corrects 
the real problems inside this marketplace.
  Let's unleash the power of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
and the Securities and Exchange Commission to use their authorities to 
unseize credit flows and mark mortgages to the true economic value of 
the assets. This will not cost the taxpayers a cent. It will restore 
rigor to the markets and use the market, as was done in the 1970's and 
1980's successfully, to resolve troubled banks suffering under the 
weight of real estate foreclosures.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield a minute to my very 
good friend from Alexander, Iowa, a very hardworking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Latham.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the ranking member, my good friend from 
California.
  Ladies and gentlemen, last night Mr. LaTourette and myself went to 
the Rules Committee to ask that an amendment be made in order which 
would reduce the size of this bailout bill from $700 billion down to 
$250 billion, and then we would have the opportunity to come back to 
see if this thing is actually working and have a vote to actually 
affirm and spend more money if, in fact, this was working and this plan 
was right.
  Now the Rules Committee denied that. And I think it's very 
unfortunate that the will of the House is not being heard today. We do 
not have the chance to vote on an amendment which I believe would pass 
overwhelmingly in this House of Representatives, because it will bring 
some accountability to the administration. It won't just write the 
check to the Secretary of the Treasury. And we can finally solve this 
problem and still have the accountability that people are looking for 
in Congress.

                              {time}  0945

  I would just encourage everyone to vote down this rule so that we can 
have a fair chance at an amendment that makes real sense to everyone.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, today I rise with a heavy heart but in 
support of the rule. Our economy is not stable. Working families are 
suffering. Unemployment is over 10 percent in my own district. We have 
over 2,300 people who have lost their homes to foreclosure. Retirement 
and pension funds are losing value. Local government can't make 
decisions. Half of small business owners rely on mortgages for lines of 
credit and many small minority and women-owned businesses are suffering 
right now.
  We have to have regulatory reform and oversight. We have to address 
this foreclosure crisis, and I believe that our leadership will do 
everything they can in their power to make sure that we make these 
Americans whole. We have to restore trust in our banking institutions 
and we have to cap CEO payouts. That's why I am now looking at 
supporting the rule and supporting the bill. I know it's hard for my 
constituents, but I think we have to do the right thing. This is what 
we were brought here in Congress to do today.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ennis, Texas, the hardworking ranking Republican on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to 
the underlying bill. The bill is trying to treat a symptom, not the 
disease. It's like you have a fire and instead of sending the fire 
truck to put the fire out, you develop a climate change model to cause 
it to rain everywhere so some of that rain may put the particular fire 
out that you're trying to put out.
  The reason that our economy is in distress is because fundamentally 
we're becoming less competitive in international markets. If we want to 
do something to restore the value of the dollar, how about cutting 
spending here in the Congress? How about coming up with a tax program 
that encourages entrepreneurship in America? I could go on and on, 
Madam Speaker. We need to solve this problem, but we need to do it in a 
targeted way.
  The underlying bill that has come back to us from the other body is 
basically the same bill we voted down Monday with some sweeteners to 
try to bribe enough Members to vote for it so that it will pass.
  Vote no on the rule and no on the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Listening carefully to neighbors concerned about their 
retirement, home, or small business, when some in Washington repeatedly 
hit the panic button, I recognize the need for a swift response.
  But when asked for $700 billion in taxpayers' dollars, almost 
overnight, we have a duty to secure a responsible plan. What President 
Bush is demanding in response to this subprime lending debacle that we 
reward Wall Street with what is essentially the biggest subprime loan 
in American history. We cannot afford to give almost unlimited 
discretion to one man to determine what toxic securities to buy and at 
what price, and we should not bail out the entire world.
  I will not be stampeded into voting ``yes'' when President Bush 
employs his standard my-bill-or-no-bill approach. Today, we must draw 
the line so that tomorrow other irresponsible actors will not be in 
line asking for a handout.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the well 
while another is under recognition.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to our very 
thoughtful colleague from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Our Nation is confronted by a serious financial crisis. It's a crisis 
of confidence in our financial markets and a crisis of confidence in 
government. While many are anxious about how we will confront this 
crisis as I saw on the faces of my constituents this week, many more 
approach this moment with faith, not fear.
  We will get through this. But we must do so in a manner consistent 
with the principles that make America great. The President and Congress 
were right to act with all deliberate speed and I am confident all my 
colleagues are motivated by the best interests of the Nation.
  It must be said that Republican leaders and my colleagues in the 
House worked hard to improve this bill. We slowed the process down, 
removed outrageous subsidies that were to be added and managed to 
include an optional insurance plan. And because of the principled stand 
that Republicans took on this floor last Monday, the bank deposits of 
Americans are safer and the balance sheet of their local bank is more 
secure. But even with these important improvements, this legislation 
remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever 
changes the relationship between government and the financial sector 
and passes the cost along to the American people.
  I did not come to Washington to expand the size and scope of 
government. I did not come to Washington to ask working Americans to 
subsidize the bad decisions of corporate America. Therefore, I cannot 
support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
  While this bill promises to bring near-term stability to our 
financial

[[Page H10707]]

turmoil, I ask my countrymen, at what price? The decision to give the 
Federal Government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage 
in America interrupts a basic truth of our economy. When the government 
chooses winners and losers in the marketplace, every American loses.
  Some say this crisis is too acute to rely on antiquated notions about 
the role of government in the private sector, but I disagree. I believe 
the principles of limited government, free enterprise and 
representative government are as relevant today as they were in 1776.
  In another October--1964--Ronald Reagan addressed another time for 
choosing. He said their choice was ``whether we believe in our capacity 
for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and 
confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can 
plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.''
  There are no easy answers, but the American people deserve to know 
there were alternatives. House Republicans offered an alternative that 
would have made Wall Street instead of Main Street pay the cost of this 
recovery and would have injected liquidity into our markets through 
fast-acting tax strategies.
  Should this current legislation pass and our economy continue to 
struggle, I am hopeful Congress will turn to these proven remedies 
based on American ideals. Teddy Roosevelt said, ``An American must face 
life with resolute courage, win victory if he can and accept defeat if 
he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility 
which is not theirs.''
  With this bill we place upon the American public a responsibility 
which is not theirs: bailing out financial institutions after they made 
irresponsible business decisions. This we should not do. Instead we 
should confront this crisis with resolute courage, with faith in God 
and faith in the principles of freedom and free enterprise. I 
respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I sincerely thank the gentlelady.
  According to the Akron Beacon Journal, Addie Polk took out a 30-year, 
6.375 percent mortgage just 4 years ago for $45,620 with a Countrywide 
home loan office. She took out a line of credit that same day for 
$11,380. Her home was appraised in 2004 at $31,230. At the age of 90, 
Addie Polk found herself in foreclosure this week, about to be forced 
from the home she has lived in for nearly 40 years. So with a gun in 
her hand, the Akron widow apparently shot herself in the chest as 
deputies were knocking on her door with eviction papers in hand. This 
bill does nothing for the Addie Polks of the world. This bill fails to 
address the fact that millions of homeowners are facing foreclosure, 
are facing the loss of their home. This bill will take care of Wall 
Street and the market may go up for a few days, but democracy is going 
down here.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 11\1/2\ 
remaining; the gentlewoman from New York has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me 
time and I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I listened to my constituents' concerns about this rescue plan and 
throughout this debate it has become clear that Congress must act to 
restore our credit markets. If we don't, we risk further putting jobs 
and the financial security of hardworking Americans at risk. Small 
businesses will have a difficult time making payroll to pay their 
employees. Hardworking Americans will see their savings and retirement 
funds diminish. Americans will have a difficult time buying a home, 
sending their children to college or just making ends meet. This plan 
is a revised plan. It's not the same three-page plan the Secretary of 
the Treasury brought to us. It is not simply a blank check to Wall 
Street.
  I am glad that this plan includes many safeguards that are important 
to my constituents:
  Independent oversight board to ensure transparency and accountability 
of taxpayer money.
  A plan to help foreclosures that are devastating our families, 
neighbors and communities. And we will also do more beyond this, too. 
Limits on excessive compensation for CEOs and executives. And allowing 
taxpayers to share in any profits resulting from the government's help.
  Madam Speaker, this is not a perfect plan and I know it's going to be 
a hard vote, but the risk of inaction is too great.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying bill. I would like to just put three faces if I could on 
this piece of legislation. One is a woman who worked at a grocery store 
in my district for 34 years. Her 401(k) has gone down $120,000 because 
of this crisis. The other is a man who came into my district office, 
the victim of a predatory lender, a 20 percent interest rate. He will 
be losing his home very shortly. And lastly, the face of a freshman 
Member of Congress.
  When I was growing up, my parents lost their home. On the day my 
oldest sister was married, we came home from the reception to find a 
process server with an eviction notice for my family because my father 
had been too ill to make the payments. Prior to his death, he asked me 
to do two things--take care of the girls and your mother and, whatever 
you do, make sure that no other family ever has to go through what this 
family has gone through.
  Today, Madam Speaker, I will keep that promise to my father and to 
the 2 million other people who are about to be in foreclosure. I ask 
all my colleagues to please vote for this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Horrible unemployment numbers today, and not a penny of 
this $700 billion is going to do anything to put anybody back to work, 
to keep anybody in their home, to put underpinnings on the crumbling 
values of housing in this country. No, it will give unprecedented, 
unbelievable authority to Henry Paulson, a Wall Street speculator who 
created the financial weapons of mass destruction and now says he knows 
how to disarm them. He can buy any asset he deems appropriate from 
anybody at any price.
  I heard a much more sensible plan from William Isaac, head of the 
FDIC under the Reagan administration. Declare a banking emergency. Use 
the same insurance provisions they used for the Wachovia general 
creditors. Insure all general creditors and depositors in all banks in 
America. That would free up the lending, we would save $700 billion, 
and then we could begin to invest that money in putting America back to 
work.
  Mr. DREIER. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time, Madam 
Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  1000

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  We are here to do the people's business. That business must be done 
in the context of the Constitution. And so I will support this rule, 
but I will raise a number of questions dealing with the constitutional 
protections of Americans, the restraining of the power of the Secretary 
of the Treasury, the understanding of this body being called back to be 
able to immediately respond if the irresponsible actions of this 
administration continue with the monies that may be given through the 
passing of this bill.
  I tried to put more structure into the bill by giving $10 billion in 
amendments, $10 billion just for mortgages

[[Page H10708]]

for people who want to restructure. We talked about bankruptcy language 
that should have been put in that I offered; we talked about making it 
stronger and how you restructure the mortgages, rather than encourage 
them to restructure the mortgage, requiring them to do it. I had 
language that would address the question of making sure the courts were 
stronger, that courts had the ability to render equitable or injunctive 
relief. I also had an amendment to give us a 9/11-type commission, 
criminal liability. We tried to make the bill better, but we are going 
to work through this process.
  I am going to watch this process, and determine whether or not we can 
do the people's business. That is what I think is important.
  Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you 
today on H. Res. 1525, providing for consideration of the rule on the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I want to begin by 
stating that I worked very hard. I worked hard to make this bill 
better. I will be listening intently to the debate throughout the day 
to establish the perspective and the legislative history we need for my 
constituents, the State of Texas, and for all of America.
  I offered several amendments to make the Act better.
  The first amendment that I would like to offer sets aside $10 billion 
as a firm allotment to address the question of individual American 
homeowners facing foreclosure in light of the absence of a bankruptcy 
provision in the bill. I believe that the amount in reality should be 
higher; however, $10 billion is a good starting point.
  This provision is important because the American people that are 
currently in mortgage foreclosure are facing a real and present crisis. 
Indeed, these are tough economic times. This money can be given to them 
by the Secretary of Treasury. This is a modest attempt at addressing 
the present crisis and it ensures that those on Main Street get the 
relief that they long deserve.
  The second amendment that I would like to offer permits bankruptcy 
judges to allow persons in default of their mortgage on their primary 
residence to alter the terms of their mortgage. As Senator Barack Obama 
has recently stated, he is committed to altering the Bankruptcy Code in 
the future to assist homeowners on the question of restructuring their 
mortgages. Therefore, I believe that there should Sense of Congress 
language that provides that the Bankruptcy Code should be reviewed and 
amended in the future to permit bankruptcy judges to address the 
question of individual home mortgages. This would send a clear message 
that Congress is interested in helping Americans pay off their debt 
despite its not changing the Bankruptcy Code at this time.
  The third amendment that I would like to offer makes an addition to 
Section 109 of the bill, which addresses ``foreclosure mitigation 
efforts.'' The present language of 109 provides that the Secretary of 
the Treasury should be encouraged to allow individual homeowners who 
face mortgage foreclosure to modify the homeowners' loans to prevent 
mortgage foreclosure. My amendment would change the words from ``shall 
encourage'' to ``shall require'' to provide stronger relief for 
Americans.
  In listening to the discussions that have been coming out of the 
mouths of voters across America, there is confusion as to what the 
monies will be used for. It would be very helpful in the legislative 
history or report language to designate how the monies will be 
utilized.
  My fourth amendment addresses enforcement. There needs to be greater 
enforcement. In the section on judicial review there should be language 
that specifically provides that ``the courts should be able to exercise 
their discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable relief if the 
court determines that such relief would not destabilize financial 
markets.'' These are remedies available at law and in equity that inure 
to the litigants benefit. There has been no compelling reason put forth 
to vitiate or limit these remedies insofar as their implementation does 
not unduly affect or destabilize the financial markets.
  My fifth amendment would create a new independent, commission to 
exercise oversight over what happened and the commission should 
regularly provide reports to Congress. This Commission unlike the one 
presently in the bill would be backward looking.
  My sixth amendment would provide for narrowly crafted enforcement 
language. It provides that corporate executives who have been convicted 
of criminal malfeasance in the financial sector would be barred from 
conducting financial business with the government for a period of seven 
(7) years.
  This is important because those corporate executives who have been 
convicted of criminal wrongdoing should not be allowed to continue in 
conducting business with the government. They should be barred for a 
period to attenuate the taint of their wrongdoing.
  My seventh, amendment would permanently lift the present insurance 
cap of $100,000 that FDIC has established to insure funds stored in 
FDIC-backed banking institutions. This is different from the Senate 
bill because it makes the increase to $250,000 permanent.
  My eighth, and final, amendment concerns Section 109 of the bill. 
Specifically, in Section 109, which addresses ``foreclosure mitigation 
efforts,'' the language should be changed from ``shall encourage'' to 
``shall require'' to provide stronger relief for Americans.
  Specifically, current section 109(a) states in pertinent part that 
``the Secretary shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize 
assistance for homeowners and use the authority of the Secretary to 
encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages . . . to minimize 
foreclosures.'' I believe if the true intent is to bailout ``Main 
Street,'' the Secretary should be ``required'' to minimize 
foreclosures.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank my colleague from New York, Louise 
Slaughter, for the time, Madam Speaker.
  I am listening to all my colleagues and their arguments on both 
sides. This is not about Wall Street anymore; this is about my 
constituents. This is about the small stores on Main Street in every 
town that I represent. This is about the people that have put away 
money, small amounts of money every single month to try to have a 
pension. This is about stopping the bleeding that is going through this 
economy. This is about taking care of our people.
  No one wants to be here to make this vote. But do you know what: 
Everything that has been mentioned here today on the floor, we can 
still take care of that. We can still do that. We are going to make 
sure that those CEOs don't get those large golden parachutes. We are 
going to make sure that those people who are going through foreclosures 
are going to be protected. These are the things we are going to be 
working on.
  Today is not the end of all days. Today is the beginning of getting 
legislation passed so that we can protect the American people even 
more, so this does not happen again.
  My colleagues, none of us like to have this vote today. None of us. 
It is our job to protect our people.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to my friend from Ohio, in his newly established home in Bainbridge, 
Ohio.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I 
can't address other Members, so I am going to make these comments to 
you.
  I have heard a number of speakers on the other side say they wish 
they could have had other things, like the cram-down on the bankruptcy, 
money for ACORN and a lot of other things. The only way you are ever 
going to have that opportunity is to make our amendment in order and 
turn the negative vote in November into a positive vote. And any Member 
that thinks that if you vote for 700 and you go home and say, well, we 
really only gave them 350; no, you didn't. You gave them the full 700, 
because we have to say no to the additional 350. And if we say no, the 
President vetoes it, then it takes 290 Members to deny that $350 
billion.
  To the Democrats, Madam Speaker, I would say to you that make our 
amendment in order, come back on November 17, see how this program is 
working. And there is your opportunity, there is your leverage to go to 
your friends that want cram-down in bankruptcy and all the other things 
that their speakers are talking about. Give us the amendment; stop this 
overspending. The Secretary says he can only spend $50 billion a month. 
If we give him $250 billion, he still should have about $200 billion 
rolling around in his pocket when we come back.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has 
further speakers?
  Mr. DREIER. Has the gentlewoman completed with her side?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have.
  Mr. DREIER. Then I will just take a couple of minutes to close if I 
might.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H10709]]

  Madam Speaker, we are obviously dealing with a very, very serious and 
challenging issue here. The American people are hurting, and they are 
looking to us for leadership.
  I strongly support the statement that was just outlined by my friend, 
Mr. LaTourette, the gentleman from Ohio. And we sought to make his 
amendment in order in the Rules Committee last night; unfortunately, it 
wasn't made possible.
  We are faced with a clear choice: either deal with the situation that 
we have, the bill that is before us, or do nothing at this juncture.
  So, Madam Speaker, I am voting ``no.'' I am voting ``no'' to a 
bailout for Wall Street. I am voting ``no'' to golden parachutes for 
those bums who have gotten us into this situation. I am voting ``no'' 
to a blank check for Secretary Paulson. I am voting ``no'' to taxpayer 
funding for ACORN. I am voting ``no'' to allowing judges to reduce the 
value of our homes. I am voting ``no'' to mandating union leaders to 
serve on boards of private businesses. I am voting ``no'' to government 
manipulation of the housing market.
  Madam Speaker, I am voting ``yes'' to unclog our banking system. I am 
voting ``yes'' to increase protection for family and small business 
savings. I am voting ``yes'' to ensure that sons and daughters can have 
access to student loans so that they can get a college education. And I 
am voting ``yes'' to guaranteeing that taxpayer dollars are in fact 
going to be repaid and made whole. And, I am voting ``yes'' not to 
1930s type of regulation; I am voting ``yes'' to 21st century 
regulation and oversight.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, we have found ourselves again at a 
junction where we have found ourselves many times in these last few 
years, at the mercy of the Senate. We have the bill that they passed; 
and, unfortunately, if we were to open it again, we would probably be 
here for another 2 years trying to do this bill, because I think both 
sides have many issues that they would have preferred to see here. But 
nonetheless, we understand the emergency that we are under, what it is 
that we have to do.
  I take great comfort and want to say again that three of the major 
committees having oversight over financial services will begin very 
shortly to have hearings not only to determine why we are in this 
position, but what we can best do in January in the new session to 
remedy it and make sure that it never happens again.
  We are expecting very quick action from those three committees. We 
wish them well. And we want the Nation to know that we are not just 
leaving town and letting that go, but we will be working on this 
throughout the rest of this time.
  With that, I want to urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.
  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. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 190, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 679]

                               YEAS--235

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     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
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     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
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     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
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cubin
     Gilchrest
     Langevin
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Oberstar
     Tancredo
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  1025

  Messrs. SMITH of Nebraska, LYNCH, SHADEGG, BONNER, EHLERS and 
DONNELLY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. McCRERY, LEWIS of California, JACKSON of Illinois, SPRATT, 
CLAY, HILL of Indiana, DOYLE, SALAZAR, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and Mrs. 
WILSON of New Mexico changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.

[[Page H10710]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, on October 3, 2008, I was unavoidably 
detained and unable to be in the Chamber for a rollcall vote. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 679, Ordering 
the Previous Question on H. Res. 1525.
  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. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 205, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 680]

                               YEAS--223

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     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
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     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
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cubin
     Gilchrest
     Obey
     Tancredo
     Thompson (MS)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes are remaining 
on this vote.

                              {time}  1034

  Ms. GRANGER changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________