[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H3347-H3355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5116, AMERICA COMPETES
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1344 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1344
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5116) to invest in innovation through research
and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United
States, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Science and Technology. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule.
Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Science and Technology now printed in the
bill modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
(b) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
be in order except those printed in part B of the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
(c) Each amendment printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules may be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question. (d) All points of
order against amendments printed in part B of the report of
the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc described in
section 3 of this resolution are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Science and Technology or his designee to
offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments
[[Page H3348]]
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Science and Technology or their
designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question. The
original proponent of an amendment included in such
amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the
Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of
the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 5. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on Science and Technology or his designee. The Chair may not
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
General Leave
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 1344.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1344 provides for consideration of
H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Act. It is a structured rule, making in
order 54 amendments. It also provides 1 hour of general debate, equally
divided between the chairman and ranking member from the Committee on
Science. It considers the amendment in the nature of a substitute to be
considered as an original bill. The rule waives all points of order
against consideration of the motion except clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
Finally, the rule provides authority to the chairman of the Committee
on Science or his designee to move amendments en bloc.
Madam Speaker, our Nation's economy fell off a cliff in the fall of
2008. By the end of the Bush administration, we were losing at least
700,000 jobs a month. In the last month of the Bush administration,
that number was up to 780,000 jobs in that month alone. Congress then,
working in tandem with the Obama administration, passed various pieces
of legislation to stabilize our economy in the short term and invest in
various fields for the long-run growth of our country.
Fifteen months since the passage of the Recovery Act, we are seeing
its impact. We went from 780,000 jobs lost the last month of the Bush
administration to 290,000 jobs created in April 2010, a pretty
significant swing given the fact that the loss was so drastic and so
quick in the fall of 2008 and the first month of 2009. But we are not
out of the woods yet. We are turning the tide.
This Congress recognizes no country on Earth can match the
creativity, productivity, and hard work of the American entrepreneur.
The America COMPETES Act builds upon this idea by investing in
scientific research, industrial innovation, and hard science education.
It gives our Nation's most creative scientists and engineers the
resources they need to develop the breakthroughs which will change the
world as we know it and make America even more competitive.
The bill reauthorizes programs in the National Science Foundation,
the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the Department
of Energy to capture their full potential. This empowers our
universities, which are undergoing tremendous strain as they weather
the recent financial collapse.
In my own district, the Colorado School of Mines and the University
of Colorado Health Science Center will have access to more funding to
develop green energy, medical communications, and other technologies.
The bill improves science, technology, engineering, and math education
to ensure that our Nation's workforce has the training and know-how to
maximize the investments that we make. It gives our innovators the
chance to compete for more resources so they can research, develop,
commercialize, and eventually transform our economy.
As we speak, there are scientists, inventors, and engineers in our
Nation who are devising the next groundbreaking advances. We cannot
afford to let those ideas wither on the vine. So I urge the passage of
the rule and the underlying bill, which will create jobs and solidify
the foundation for the long-term growth and prosperity of the United
States.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), for the
time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In order for the United States to compete in today's global
marketplace and to spur long-term growth, we must invest in basic
science research and development. In 2005, the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine, collectively known as the National Academies, published the
report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The report concluded that
the United States faces a serious challenge with regard to our future
competitiveness and standard of living. That report led to the
bipartisan enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, which
implemented the report's recommendations.
Today we are set to consider H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010. The bill reauthorizes the America COMPETES
Act for 5 years, increases authorization spending levels to $86
billion, and creates new programs.
I understand and I support the underlying principles of the America
COMPETES Act, prioritizing and strengthening investments in basic
research and development and STEM: science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics education. But we need to have an economic strategy
that encourages companies, businesses in the United States, to compete,
to grow, and to hire new workers, a strategy that includes the
streamlining of burdensome regulations, a strategy that reduces
taxation, that brings our Federal spending under control, and controls
the spiraling national debt.
{time} 1300
So, Madam Speaker, as much as I would prefer to support the
underlying legislation, I believe that at this time of severe budgetary
constraints, the underlying legislation includes excessive spending
levels.
The bill has an overall authorization of nearly $86 billion, which
represents approximately $20 billion in new funding above the fiscal
base of this year. That is a significant increase when we're facing
record budget deficits. And that is after the so-called stimulus bill
injected 6 billion additional dollars into the agencies funded by this
bill.
The current national debt projections and the majority's insatiable
appetite for spending are unsustainable. And if we continue on that
trajectory, the America that we know, love, and admire will be severely
threatened. Our excessive spending threatens the very foundation of our
economy and our way of life. We could very well find ourselves in a
position, soon, similar to today's Greece.
As we saw last week when the House considered the legislation on
credits for refurbishing homes by my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch),
Congress is beginning to realize the magnitude of the Nation's fiscal
problem--though the congressional majority leadership has not yet
realized it or simply does not care.
I may have voted in favor of the underlying legislation if the
majority, nevertheless, had allowed the House to consider and vote on
amendments that would have reduced the spending levels on the bill.
For example, my colleague Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida
came before the Rules Committee yesterday to request that the
[[Page H3349]]
committee allow the House to consider his amendment to cut the
authorization of the bill from 5 years to 3 years. His amendment would
have lowered the cost of the overall bill. It would also have given
Congress the ability to come back in 3 years and determine if the
legislation was achieving its intended purpose.
Perhaps if that amendment had been allowed, a number of Members like
myself who are concerned about the uncontrolled spending of this
majority could have voted for the bill. Instead, the majority in the
Rules Committee decided that they would block consideration of the
Mario Diaz-Balart amendment and also the Sessions amendment, amendments
that sought to reduce the spending in the bill. Not only did they block
the Diaz-Balart and Sessions amendments, they blocked out almost three-
fourths of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee,
while allowing nearly 90 percent of the Democrat amendments. So today
we will consider four Republican amendments and 48 Democrat amendments.
That's quite a contrast.
It's especially glaring when you consider that we were told that it
would not be this way. The distinguished Speaker promised the American
people that her party would run the most open and bipartisan Congress
in history; yet week after week the majority continues to block an open
process. We have yet to consider even one open rule during this entire
Congress--not even on the historically open appropriations process. It
is quite sad.
I reserve my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to a couple of
the things my friend from Florida said.
First, I'd remind him that at the end of the Clinton administration
there was a budget that was balanced. There was, in fact, a surplus
going forward; but under the Bush administration with tax cuts for the
wealthiest, the prosecution of two wars without paying for them, and a
financial sector in total disarray at the end of the Bush
administration, the Obama administration inherited a $1.3 trillion
deficit.
But in moving forward with the actions taken by this Congress to
stabilize the financial system and put people back to work, there's
been a swing now from the last month of the Bush administration, where
almost 800,000 jobs were lost, to a gain last month of 260,000, well
over a million-job swing towards putting this country back on track.
That will assist with revenues as the economy gets better. That deals
with budget deficits.
My friend is right. We have to look at the spending that this country
is engaging in, but we have got to put people back to work. This
America COMPETES Act does that by building on our science foundation.
We have, in this bill, endorsements and support from virtually every
kind of company and association possible, from business associations
like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of
Manufacturers, TechNet, et cetera, to various societies, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, university associations as
well, and a whole host of businesses, because they know how important
this bill is towards the investment that we're going to make in the
future for this country. But it's jobs today.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Missouri
(Mr. Carnahan).
Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Speaker, I can't think of a better time than now
to invest in America's can-do spirit. I would like to thank our
chairman, Bart Gordon, for his years of devotion working to ensure that
America is prepared to compete globally.
America has been at the forefront of every technological innovation
of the last century, and most of our jobs since World War II have been
created by new technology and innovation. I believe we can continue to
lead the world in innovation and technology, and my constituency in St.
Louis, Missouri, can play a major role in that effort.
Earlier this morning, I spoke with Missourians closely watching our
progress on this landmark innovation jobs bill, America COMPETES,
including Washington University in St. Louis and the University of
Missouri. Because of America COMPETES, these two great universities
will be able to work locally with teachers to spark interest in math
and science for future generations, as well as to continue research
looking into the next breakthrough technologies.
Today, I also heard from Chuck Gerding of Gerding Enterprises, a
small specialty manufacturer from Dittmer, Missouri, who has been
assisted by the Missouri Enterprise Program that helps small- and
medium-sized manufacturers. America COMPETES would strengthen the
Missouri Enterprise Program, helping manufacturers compete in the
global economy and hire more workers.
The section of this bill I am particularly proud of will strengthen
regional economies through Energy Innovation Hubs to help advance the
U.S. transition to a clean energy economy and to support the growth of
new sectors of the economy and jobs that come with them. In order for
the U.S. to remain competitive, we need to invest in the technologies
now that will create jobs immediately and make our economy stronger for
the long term.
The America COMPETES Act will strengthen how America competes and
empower American innovation.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my
friend, Mr. Perlmutter, for reminding us of the Clinton years.
I was elected to Congress when President Clinton was elected
President. Two years later, we, the Republicans, captured the majority
here in the Congress, and I remember how we had to fight tooth and nail
to balance the budget. President Clinton never submitted a budget with
a deficit less than $200 billion a year. I remember ad infinitum his
budgets at least had $200 billion of deficits. It used to be, Madam
Speaker, that $200 billion was a lot of money for a deficit. And I
remember how this Congress had to fight day in and day out, and we
finally achieved, in very arduous negotiations with the executive, a
balanced budget. So that's the record.
I would like, at this point, to yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee from California
(Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule and in strong support of
Muftiah McCartin. And I'd like to begin by outlining my opposition to
the rule, and then I'm going to take some time to talk about my support
of Muftiah McCartin.
Madam Speaker, my friend from Miami is absolutely right when he
focuses on the need and the importance for us to be fiscally
responsible. My friend from Colorado has made the same argument:
Everyone around here regularly decries wasteful Federal spending.
Now, this bill is extraordinarily well-intentioned, and as I said in
the Rules Committee yesterday, I've been a strong supporter of the STEM
concept. Science, technology, engineering, and math are very high
priorities. If we, as a nation, are going to remain competitive in this
global economy, it is absolutely imperative that we do all that we can
to focus on STEM education.
The concern with this measure is the fact that it's $22 billion over
the baseline, going up to $86 billion. I was asked in the Rules
Committee hearing yesterday by the chairman of the Science Committee
what level I believe to be appropriate as we focus on STEM education,
and that area would be at least at that baseline level, which would
take the $86 billion in funding and bring it down to what would be $64
billion. That would be a more acceptable level. Why? Because, while we
know how important this is, we also know that if we don't focus on our
spending that has been going on for so many years under both political
parties, we're not going to be able to compete globally at all.
Now, there are other concerns about this measure. I have just
obviously been talking about the amendment that the manager on this
side's brother--he simply described him as his ``colleague.'' He also
happens to be his brother, Mario Diaz-Balart, who very thoughtfully
came before the Rules Committee, and that amendment was not made in
order.
Mr. Bilbray, sitting behind me, has an amendment focusing on the very
important issue of ensuring that people who work in this country are
here legally.
[[Page H3350]]
And, of course, the very, very, very important issue that the ranking
member of this committee, Ralph Hall, brought before the Rules
Committee. By unanimous vote in the Committee on Science and
Technology, they incorporated language to ensure that there would be a
prioritization of those 59,700 disabled veterans who want to have an
opportunity to participate in the STEM program at the undergraduate
level and 8,700 who want to have the opportunity to participate at the
postgraduate level. That was agreed on by the committee, but,
unfortunately, when the measure got before the Rules Committee, it was
stricken. As Mr. Hall has described to me, some very, very watered-down
version which does undermine the ability of our Nation's disabled
veterans to be able to take advantage of this program the way they
should is, in fact, denied.
And so the fact that these measures are not made in order, Madam
Speaker, I am a strong opponent of this rule because I believe that we
can do better. And as Mr. Diaz-Balart said, having an open amendment
process--which we have not had in this entire Congress--should have
been the model for this bill in light of the fact that it has, in the
past, been reported out under suspension of the rules.
Now, having spoken about my opposition to the rule itself, Madam
Speaker, I'd like to speak briefly about my support for Muftiah
McCartin.
{time} 1315
Madam Speaker, in 1976, she was obviously a child, and this
institution was probably violating child labor laws when Muftiah
McCartin came to work as a clerk in the Parliamentarian's Office. That
is 34 years ago. In that 34-year period of time, she has had an amazing
career which has been, from my perspective, capped by her service as
the majority staff director of the House Rules Committee.
She was the first woman named as a parliamentarian back in 1991, and
she has worked for both Republicans and Democrats on the House
Appropriations Committee, and her work there was very important. As I
said, the fact that she has come to the House Rules Committee is a very
appropriate spot for her.
When she began her work, she pursued both her undergraduate and law
degrees when she began in the 1970s, and has been able to utilize those
skills extraordinarily well.
Madam Speaker, we are very sorry that she will be leaving us. In
fact, unless there is a massive disruption in the operations of this
institution through the week, this will be the last rule that will be
considered on the House floor during her period of time. I do know that
her husband, Terry, her four children, and her new grandchild will
anxiously look forward to spending more time with her.
The Rules Committee, as we all know, Madam Speaker, tends to be a
rough and tumble place, and Muftiah has had an extraordinarily good and
close working relationship with those of us in the minority. When I had
the privilege of being chairman of the Rules Committee, we worked
extraordinarily closely with her in her role in the Parliamentarian's
Office. And I know that things may still be rough and tumble within her
family; it will certainly be a great joy for all of her family members
to have her back. And so, Madam Speaker, I would like to extend
congratulations to Muftiah McCartin for her extraordinary 34 years of
service to this institution. And I know that her family is the only
thing that she loves more than this place, which we all respect and
love so much.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from California for
his remarks regarding Muftiah.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding
me the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the America
COMPETES Act, and more importantly, I also rise in strong support and
to pay tribute to the staff director of the Rules Committee, Muftiah
McCartin, as she finishes up her last week here in the House of
Representatives and prepares to move on to a new phase in her life.
Madam Speaker, Muftiah is an amazing woman. She has worked in this
body for 34 years, first in the Office of the Parliamentarian, then for
the Appropriations Committee, and finally on the Rules Committee. She
leaves as the top staffer on the Rules Committee, someone who not only
made the trains run on time, but also someone who definitely worked
through the dicey political and policy issues that the Rules Committee
is required to work through.
Muftiah will be missed here in the House, but I can honestly say this
body is better because of her hard work over the past 34 years. Over
that time she has shown dedication and passion for this institution.
Whether it was advising the presiding officer as parliamentarian, or
working for Congressman Obey and Chairwoman Slaughter, Muftiah excelled
at her job and helped us do our jobs better. But what we will miss most
is the way Muftiah brings everyone together. She unified the Rules
professional and associate staff. She made sure we, as Members of
Congress, were prepared and ready to do the business at hand. But she
also worked as both a mentor to her staff and to the associate staff. I
can honestly say that I and my staff do our jobs better today because
of Muftiah and the leadership that she has provided over the past few
years in the Rules Committee.
And while she has spent the last three decades here in the House, she
also has a life outside of this Chamber. She has a wonderful husband,
Terry, four children, Marissa, Elaine, Sandra, and Luke. And she just
became a grandmother for the first time, a young grandson named
Thaddeus.
Madam Speaker, I was a staffer before I was elected to Congress,
although I have to say that I started working here a few years after
Muftiah started her career on the Hill. But I understand the role the
staff play here, and I know this institution would not be the great
body it is without the dedicated staff that puts so much of their lives
into what we all do here. Muftiah embodies that dedication, and we are
going to miss her.
Let me say, Madam Speaker, in conclusion, to Muftiah, I want to thank
you for all the incredible work that you have done here. You will be
missed, and we love you.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, we have great
differences, great disagreements often here on the floor of this House.
Rare is the occasion when there is no debate, when there are no
differences.
Muftiah McCartin enjoys the admiration of all Members on both sides
of the aisle who have worked with her. She personifies the best of this
institution. She personifies competence, professionalism, and courtesy.
And as someone who has had the privilege of working with her, I thank
her for her service and commend her for her professionalism,
competence, and that courtesy.
So the best to you, Muftiah, and your family as you move on to other
endeavors. You are an example of the wonderful men and women who have
through the years made possible what this Congress gets accomplished.
And so I join all of my colleagues in wishing Muftiah the best.
I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from
Georgia, Dr. Broun.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to this rule.
I applaud the fact that 54 amendments were made in order, which is
the most amendments that the Democratic leadership have allowed in a
long time, maybe ever since they have been in control of this House of
Representatives in the 110th Congress.
I am pleased that one of my amendments to remove some new programs
that are in this bill will be debated later on this afternoon. However,
at a time when our deficits are projected to remain above $1 trillion
for the foreseeable future, I can't understand why two of my other very
important amendments dealing with fiscal responsibility were ruled out
of order.
My first amendment would have simply changed the authorization level
to 3 years from 5 years, and would have frozen spending to this year's
levels, and it would save over $45 billion of taxpayers' money. The
2007 COMPETES bill was originally a 3-year authorization. In these
tough economic
[[Page H3351]]
times, why are we expanding yet another Federal program?
My second amendment would have streamlined the overall COMPETES
program by removing all of the newly created programs. Again, in these
tough economic times, we can't do everything that we want to do. So we
need to prioritize our resources while ensuring basic research in
science.
Many of the new programs are duplicative of other existing programs.
For example, the loan guarantees are similar to the Small Business
Administration's loan guarantee program for which manufacturers are
eligible. Also, the HUD program appears to be redundant with existing
Department of Energy activities. These are only two examples of
duplicative programs that are in this bill.
Expanding the size and cost of this reauthorization while creating
duplicative programs is not what the American people want and certainly
not what they need. American families and American small businesses
have been forced to make difficult spending decisions. Shouldn't the
Federal Government do the same? We need to stop spending money that we
do not have on new programs that further increase our ever-expanding
debt.
Madam Speaker, our children and grandchildren are dependent upon us
being fiscally responsible. This rule and this bill is not fiscally
responsible. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule so that sensible
amendments, like the two that I have discussed and others that Mr.
Diaz-Balart discussed, can be included in this important debate.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I say to my good friend, Congressman
Broun, that he has forgotten that this bill satisfies the PAYGO rules
which CBO has scored at zero, so that there is not an increase, a rule
that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle eliminated, which
helped drive up the debt of this country.
And I would just say to my friend, the investments that are being
made in science and technology and in the education of scientists and
engineers and mathematicians is the kind of investment for the long-
term health of this country that has to be made right now.
I yield to my friend from California (Ms. Matsui) 2 minutes.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Investing in research and STEM education will help our country take
the lead in scientific, technological, and economic advancements. This
bill will also assist my hometown of Sacramento, where we are
positioned to become a leader in the clean technology sector. That is
why I am pleased that Chairman Gordon has pledged to support two smart
grid-related amendments that I plan to offer to the bill.
My first amendment will ensure that new smart grid technologies are
an important part of the Department of Energy's research and
development. My second amendment will ensure that smart grid
technologies are included in the list of research and development
activities undertaken by the Department of Energy innovation hubs. Both
of these amendments will be extremely valuable to Sacramento's
continued leadership in the field of smart grid technologies.
Now, Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment to recognize the
departing staff director of the Rules Committee. Muftiah McCartin, Muf,
affectionately known, has steered the Rules Committee through a
challenging period, and she has done so with skill and grace. We all
know that the Rules Committee can sometimes be a very contentious
place. I know I speak for my staff and for my colleagues when I say
that Muftiah will be sorely missed on the Rules Committee. We all wish
her the very best in her new position. And thank you for your very hard
work, Muftiah, and your dedication. And enjoy the next chapter of your
life.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my
friend from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee of
jurisdiction, I have been trying to work in a bipartisan effort with
this bill. I want to support this bill even though it has an $85.6
billion price tag. But sadly, the fact is that, just trying to do some
of those little things that the American people want us to move
forward, commonsense things, like making sure that the $85.6 billion,
that no portion of that is going in to financing illegal behavior such
as illegal employment, sadly, the Rules Committee has said we don't
have time to bother with assuring the American people that their money
is not going to be spent in the commission of a crime of illegal
employment.
It is bad enough, Madam Speaker, that we have a bill that does not
specifically require anyone who gets Federal funds or Federal grant
guarantees to do the thing that you and I do as Members of Congress,
the Federal Government does, that every contractor does since President
Obama has mandated; this bill doesn't require that the recipients of
Federal funds under this program have to make sure they check the
employment status of somebody before they start paying them with
Federal funds. Common decency.
But what is worse than that, Madam Speaker, is the Rules Committee
has denied both sides of the aisle the ability to vote on this issue.
The Rules Committee has denied us the ability, as Republicans and
Democrats and Independents, to go on record with the American people
and say, look, we want to make sure that your money is not spent for
illegal activities such as illegal employment.
I tried to work across the aisle on this issue. I have worked with
Chairman Gordon on this issue. All we asked was the common decency to
give Democrats and Republicans the ability to go on record and do a
little thing that the American people have been demanding for much too
long, and that is, when you spend money, even if it is more than we
want, make sure that you are not financing the violation of Federal
law. That is all I asked. But the Rules Committee couldn't find the
decency to allow a bipartisan vote on something that is so commonsense,
so common decency, as to make sure that we keep our promise to the
American people, that we uphold the Constitution, and make sure that
our Federal funds are not engaged in illegal activity.
{time} 1330
Madam Speaker, sadly, that is where I am today. I like a lot of this
bill. But if you ask me to go back to San Diego and face off my
constituents--right, left, Republican, Democrat--how can I look at them
with a straight face and say, I've done everything I can to make sure
your money is spent appropriately and legally. Sadly, this rule does
not require that little bit of common decency of making sure the
constituency gets legal expenditure of their $85.6 billion. That's the
price tag of not being bipartisan leadership.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from
California, it is common sense. The Rules Committee understands that
Federal funds can only be used for legal purposes. That must be in the
statutes 550 times. So he just wants to have a little more redundancy
in the law.
With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Colorado
(Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5116, the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. I commend Chairman Gordon on his
hard work and his leadership on this important legislation. This bill
is the product of our Nation's understanding that economic prosperity
and international competitiveness is the result of American innovation
and forward thinking. I'd also like to address the comments made by my
colleague from California, as well. As the gentleman from California is
aware, there is in fact widespread violation of Federal laws that are
out of touch with reality with regard to immigration. We don't know who
is here, what they're doing, where they are going. The America COMPETES
Act, of course, is not the proper legislative vehicle for addressing
that, but I do encourage my colleague from California to join me and
many others in sponsoring comprehensive immigration reform, which will
ensure, going forward, no one works in this country illegally and that
we have a way of tracking who is here and enforcing the rule of law
across this Nation.
[[Page H3352]]
I want to take this opportunity to thank Muftiah McCartin of our
Rules Committee. She is our Rules Committee staff director--the only
Rules Committee staff director that I have known in my time in Congress
who, as you know, is leaving us. On many occasions, Muftiah has trekked
to the fifth floor of Cannon, where my office is, and advised my staff
and me on important issues and parliamentary procedures and asked us
our questions and concerns and addressed them promptly. Of course, when
I found out today in these remarks that she had been here 34 years, I
began to think it was a different Muftiah than the one I know that is
retiring. I find it hard to believe that our Muftiah McCartin has
worked in this wonderful building for 34 years. Perhaps that time is
calculated because she frequently works until midnight, or even until 3
in the morning. I have borne witness to that. Perhaps for every year
she works, it's counted as 2 years time in, because that's the only
logical explanation that I was able to figure out for how she could
have possibly worked in this body for 34 years and is moving on to
other opportunities.
Her dedication to this body, this institution, this committee, both
in her current job and previous jobs, is something that I hope we all
strive to emulate with our accomplishments on committee and the House
floor, which are really a great testimony to her commitment of many
years. As a freshman member of the Rules Committee, she's repeatedly
assisted me and our colleagues on the sometimes Byzantine legislative
processes and has worked tirelessly to ensure that our Members and
districts have been able on walk away with success.
Thank you, Muftiah, for your service. You will be sorely missed.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would ask how much time each side
has remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to my friend
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and
colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. But I would also like to take a brief moment to
bid a fond farewell to Muftiah McCartin, the staff director of the
Committee on Rules. We've heard that she's done this for 34 years. I
came in contact with her first when she was with the Office of the
Parliamentarian. She was as diligent then and hardworking as she has
been with us. Muftiah has been an asset to this body and it is better
for her having served here as a staff member of the Rules Committee.
I've personally, as you've heard my other colleagues say, relied on
her more times than I can count. And I do need to say that I'm speaking
for Fred, David, Alex, Lale, and the entire staff in my office. She
combines a vast knowledge of congressional procedures with an
unflappable patience, putting both Members and staff alike at ease when
approached about complicated legislative matters, even during the most
politically heated moments.
More admirable than her remarkable career in the House, however, is
her incredible devotion to her family. While spending seemingly
countless hours at work, she's also managed to raise, with her husband
Terry, four beautiful children--Marissa, Elaine, Sandra, and Luke--and
is now a grandmother as well. I remember when she was at the
Parliamentarian's Office when she was carrying one of those children. I
didn't know how she was able to do it.
After her years of service to the Rules Committee and to the House of
Representatives, Muftiah is leaving us to embark on the next chapter of
her professional career. You're going to be missed, Muf, but I--and I'm
sure all of my colleagues--wish you much happiness and success in your
future endeavors, and my great hope is that you will continue to
flourish.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to now yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Colorado for his leadership on the America COMPETES Act. I rise in
strong support of the rule and the America COMPETES Act itself. I
believe it will play an integral role in creating jobs and turning our
economy around. I also rise in support of an amendment which I
introduced, which has been made in order under the rule, to instruct
the director of the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership to
evaluate challenges that are unique to small manufacturers and
facilitate improved communication between the MEP centers so they can
readily share with one another which solutions best address particular
problems faced by small firms, which really are the bulk of the types
of manufacturing businesses in my district in Florida.
In my meetings with many of the manufacturers in Palm Beach and
Broward Counties in Florida, as well as the South Florida Manufacturing
Association, I've been told that while MEP services are helpful for
some businesses, they often have greater expertise in developing
business solutions for medium- to large-sized businesses. Small
manufacturers, such as Uniweld, which is in Fort Lauderdale, a family-
owned business which has been run by a World War II veteran and his two
sons for many years, make up a large sector of the manufacturing firms
in Florida, and as a result, they are critical to our industrial and
technological competitiveness. In these challenging times, small
manufacturers in my home State have faced many obstacles, financing
being one of them, but many of the support services by the MEPs can
truly make a difference to our small manufacturers as well.
While basic research investment is important to advancing our
Nation's innovation infrastructure, we must build and sustain a strong
manufacturing base in the United States which will bridge the gap
between research and commercial development of new technologies. That's
where these small manufacturing businesses and the MEPs together can
accomplish that goal. Under my amendment, we will be able to provide
increased assistance to reduce manufacturing costs and increase
productivity, thereby allowing our small manufacturing base businesses
to significantly improve their bottom line.
I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and urge a ``yes'' vote
on this amendment and the underlying bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would just reiterate what Mr. Klein
from Florida was saying about the purpose and the need for this bill at
this time in this legislation. The America COMPETES Act is about moving
this country forward, making sure that for the next 20 years we
continue to have a strong science and engineering and technological
future for the country. The bill, as we said, provides all sorts of
funding to the National Science Foundation, to NIST, to NOAA, and to
the Department of Energy, so that we can do research in a whole variety
of ways across this country through our universities and other kinds of
facilities and institutions of higher learning.
Now I guess I'd like to speak on behalf of Muftiah--or speak to
Muftiah. Many people have presented a lot of accolades that I can't
top. But what I can say is, as a new member to the Rules Committee,
that we have had some very contentious, rough and tumble bills, to use
a couple of the terms Mr. Dreier used, Ms. Matsui, but we can look to
Muftiah--I can look to Muftiah--to give good advice and to bring a
calming influence to the committee and certainly to me as we were going
through the whole list of parliamentary procedures--what's in order,
what's not in order, why is it in order. She has stood out as somebody
who really knows the rules, understands the policy, and is willing to
work with both sides of the aisle and with all the members certainly on
the Democratic side of the Rules Committee to make sure we do the best
job that we can do. I thought I brought a lot of experience from the
practice of law, having served also in the legislature in Colorado. But
the rules and the
[[Page H3353]]
approach that's taken in the Congress, there are many more layers and
many more things that have to be understood.
I would say to you, Muftiah, you are a heck of an adviser. You are a
great teacher. I just wish you the best, as I know all the other
members of the Rules Committee and the Members of the House just wish
you the best in whatever you do, whether it's practicing law or raising
your family or just enjoying life, because we put in a lot of hours.
Thank you very much.
With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the
House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before
I begin my remarks on the legislation before us today, I want to join
my colleagues in saluting the wonderful work of Muftiah McCartin. She
began her work on the Hill--it couldn't be 1976. I can't believe that.
She has worked on the Appropriations Committee and is now leaving her
tenure as staff director on the Rules Committee.
We all know that she loves this institution. She has poured her heart
and soul into her work. We were all so proud when she became the staff
director of the Rules Committee. Her policy and technical expertise
have served both sides of the aisle over many years. She is a mother of
four children. It's hard to imagine she is now a grandmother. We have
been blessed with her service over many, many years. She will be sorely
missed.
Muftiah, thank you very much for all that you have done. This is
coming as news to me, by the way, so I'm quite taken aback by the fact
that you're leaving us. But thank you for your service. I wish you well
in the future. We have been very blessed by your service.
Congratulations on where you're going next.
Madam Speaker, 10 years ago, President Kennedy summed up America's
commitment to innovation when he launched the ``man on the Moon
initiative'' to send a man to the Moon and back--in those days, they
said a man--but a man to the Moon and back safely in 10 years. At that
time, he said, ``The vows of this Nation can be fulfilled only if we
are first, and therefore, we intend to be first. Our leadership in
science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations
to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort.''
{time} 1345
Over the past half century since then, Americans have lived up to
these words. Science and technological innovation have formed the
backbone of our progress as a people and our prosperity as a Nation.
And today in passing this innovation bill, this COMPETES Act, we are
reaffirming our leadership in science and in industry, and we are
keeping America first.
Few have done more for the cause of innovation in the Congress than
Chairman Bart Gordon, and I'm sorry he is not on the floor yet--he will
be momentarily to manage this bill--who was first in sounding the alarm
and heeding the call of the report, ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm.'' That was a report presented by a great innovation leader, Norm
Augustine, and the National Academy of Sciences. It provoked us to send
a team of Members, legislators around the country.
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren from the
Silicon Valley invited Chairman George Miller, chairman of the
Democratic Policy Committee and the Education and Labor Committee, to a
meeting at Stanford University to launch a series of meetings in a
bipartisan way to develop an innovation agenda.
We met, of course, with academics. We met with workers. We met with
venture capitalists to see where the private dollar would go because we
believed that this had to be a market-oriented initiative to build the
competitiveness of America. We met with every aspect of putting
together an innovation agenda, and we met all across the country to do
that. We had particularly strong presentations from members of the
Asian American community who were quite impatient with the lack of
progress that was happening in terms of public policy, and that
accelerated the pace of our time table for this.
So what came from that was the COMPETES Act that Chairman Bart Gordon
was instrumental in bringing to the floor in 2007. We had strong
bipartisan support in passing that legislation, I am pleased to say.
And again, we are here today to reauthorize the COMPETES Act, to spur
innovation, invest in cutting-edge research, modernize manufacturing,
and increase opportunity. And I thank you for your remarks, Mr.
Perlmutter, and your leadership on this subject as well.
As a result, new industries will provide good jobs for our workers,
markets for American products will expand, we will reassert our
leadership throughout the world and give future generations a better
chance to realize the American Dream. It's about jobs, jobs, jobs,
jobs.
Simply put, this legislation supports our efforts to keep America
number one, following President Kennedy's lead to keep America first
and following the call of President Obama at his inauguration for
swift, bold action now to do just that. The COMPETES Act will keep our
Nation on the path that we promised, to double the funding for the
scientific research over 10 years, create jobs with innovation
technology loan guarantees for small- and medium-sized manufacturers
and enhanced manufacturing extension partnerships--these MEPs are a
very valuable tool for job creation, promote regional innovation
clusters--this is new--that strengthen regional economies and expand
scientific collaboration, and invest in high-risk/high-reward research
through ARPA-E--again, this is a major initiative of Mr. Gordon--
helping ensure American energy independence.
Since we know that innovation begins in the classroom, I want to
commend Mr. Miller for yielding to Chairman Gordon because we didn't
want this bill held up by one jurisdiction or another of committee, and
Mr. Gordon has carried that principle that innovation begins in the
classroom, and we have those considerations in the bill. This bill will
help raise up the next generation of entrepreneurs by improving
science, math, technology and engineering education at all levels. It
will also train young people to think in an entrepreneurial way and
will secure a central role for women and minorities in these fields.
As we go forward with this innovation--we had the industrial
revolution, we had the technological revolution, and now we have this
revolution--we want to do so in a way that brings everyone into the
fullest participation in the new prosperity of America and will
strengthen and diversify our workforce as, again, we create jobs, jobs,
jobs, and jobs.
In this Congress, in addition to jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, which is a
four-letter word we use all the time, there are four words that
describe our agenda. They are: science, science, science and science.
Science to provide health care for all Americans. And in our health
care bill that we passed and in the Recovery Act of last year, we have
major investments in science and technology to make America healthier;
science to keep America number one in innovation. In the new
technologies to protect the environment and the rest, we have to be
competitive. Science and technology will take us there; science to keep
our air clean and our water clean for our children and the safety of
the environment in which they live; and science to promote our national
security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and to advance the
technologies to keep us preeminent in terms of our country's defense.
This bill comes down to good-paying jobs for Americans, strong
American leadership in the global economy and long-term growth for
America's workers and families. It does so in a way that doesn't just
put people back to work as we are trying to address the need for more
jobs. It puts them back to work in better jobs. It puts more people to
work, some who have been unemployed no matter how well educated they
are or how economically deprived their areas have been. Some of this is
really ground floor, ground floor. We're bringing women, minorities,
people from urban areas and rural areas, again, people with a wide
range of educational backgrounds but with a prospect for great success.
So with this, we are not just solidifying the disparities in our
economy. We are opening up avenues for, again,
[[Page H3354]]
everyone to participate in the prosperity for our country.
With that, Madam Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to make a very
strong bipartisan vote for jobs, for science, and to keep America
number one by voting for the COMPETES Act.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong
support of the rule on the COMPETES Act, and I will speak later on the
bill itself.
But I rise to pay tribute to Muftiah McCartin. Muftiah is a good
friend of mine, so I want you to take this as a totally subjective
analysis. I don't pretend to be objective. I think Muftiah McCartin is
one of the most able people with whom I have worked during the 30 years
I have been here. Muftiah came here when she was just a child 35 years
ago and has served this institution extraordinarily well during that
period of time. She served the Parliamentarians that I have served with
myself, Bill Brown and Charlie Johnson and John Sullivan, and she did
so with extraordinary skill.
Our Parliamentarian's Office, for those who have the opportunity to
watch us, are the truest nonpartisan, bipartisan people that we have in
this institution, who give both sides advice and counsel as to how to
conform to the rules and how to conduct business in the most
appropriate fashion. Muftiah McCartin was a giant in that service. She
cares deeply about this institution and all its Members, not from a
partisan sense but from an institutional sense. She has served the
American people extraordinarily well, and what an example of success
she is.
She came here shortly after high school, working here, and went to
night school to get her undergraduate degree and completed her law
degree in night school. She showed the same tenacity that warranted the
private sector wanting her to come and be with them. Her service to
this institution cannot be calculated in any kind of numbers of years
served. Her service to this institution is measured by the commitment
she made to each and every one of us and to this institution.
Perhaps Terry, her husband, and her four children--her three girls
and Luke--will have more time now with Muftiah because she was with us
around the clock sometimes. When I first came here, we didn't have a
rule that said you have to end at 12 o'clock. When I first came here in
the early eighties, as Mr. Rangel will recall and Muftiah I know will
recall, we sometimes went until 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in
the morning. They went home quickly and then came right back here to
open the session at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock, and of course they had to
be here an hour or so earlier than that.
Muftiah, we cannot possibly--if I took an hour, which I could take
with my 1 minute as majority leader--but if I took that hour or if I
took multiple hours, I could not express the depths of our gratitude to
you or the respect we have for the professionalism that you have
demonstrated in the performance of your duties and the extraordinary
affection we have for you as our friend, as our colleague. And we wish
you the very, very best of success in the years ahead. God bless you,
and thank you.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend,
Mr. Perlmutter, for his courtesy and for his management on the majority
side of this rule.
While reiterating that I am so pleased that Members on both sides of
the aisle have joined to commend and wish the best to Muftiah McCartin,
with regard to the legislation that we are bringing to the floor with
this rule, I would say, Mr. Speaker, while not minimizing its
importance because I think it's obviously dealing with a very important
set of subjects that enjoy bipartisan support in this Congress, I would
bring to the attention once again of all Members what we saw last week
with legislation on--I believe it was a $6 billion tax credit to
allow--I remember it was a credit for home refurbishings, brought to
the floor by my good friend Mr. Welch. And I noticed at that time a--I
think it was a change in attitude.
I was impressed. I was certainly impacted by what I perceived as a
change in the Congress on what normally I think would have faced little
opposition. Certainly it would have been expected that that legislation
would have faced little opposition. We saw--what I saw, what I
perceived was a ground swell of concern on the spending. You know,
refurbishing one's home and encouraging citizens to refurbish their
homes to keep them energy efficient, you know, that's not something
that in itself would have opposition. It was the spending that touched
a nerve because of the moment we're living. And so with the legislation
that we bring to the floor today that is being increased from the basic
spending by about $20 billion, I certainly would not be surprised if we
see a similar nerve being touched. That doesn't mean that the subject
is not of great importance.
{time} 1400
Science, education, keeping the U.S. leading edge, cutting edge in so
many ways, that is obviously something that has enjoyed bipartisan
support, and it should. But I think the majority is failing to sense
that moment that the Nation at large and the Congress now is finally
manifesting or reacting to. There is concern about the path we are on
with regard to spending.
Having said that, I again thank Mr. Perlmutter for his courtesy and
management of this rule, as well as thanking all who have participated
in this debate today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his courtesy in
how he debates these bills, debates the rules; I just appreciate that.
But he and I differ very much on the passage of this rule. This rule
and this bill should be passed.
In listening to some of my friends on the Republican side of the
aisle who are wanting to draw back, wanting to draw down at a time when
America must really move forward, must look to its long-term future and
towards its prosperity and its ability to compete in the world, this is
the rule and this is the bill that moves us forward, with its
investments in science and technology and math and engineering. Those
are very key things.
It reminds me of those who would have asked Abraham Lincoln to stop
building the dome and rebuilding this Capitol during the Civil War
because of its costs and the country should look towards the Civil War
and worry about that. Legitimate concerns, but President Lincoln said:
No, this country is going to succeed. Its long-term prosperity is going
to occur, and I am going to keep moving forward with the construction
of the dome of the Capitol. I'm not going to back off.
We in this country, Americans, look forward. We are a forward-looking
people. We believe in our future, and there is no place like continuing
to build our abilities in science, technology, math, and engineering.
That is the place where we have to start putting our investments. It is
jobs today, and it is long-term investment in the prosperity and
success of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on agreeing to House Resolution 1344 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on suspending the rules with regard to H.R. 5014 and House
Concurrent Resolution 268.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 177, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 259]
YEAS--243
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
[[Page H3355]]
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--177
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Barrett (SC)
Carney
Cole
Davis (AL)
Hoekstra
Jackson Lee (TX)
Meeks (NY)
Rangel
Souder
Wamp
{time} 1431
Messrs. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California and PETRI changed their 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.
____________________