[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 155 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7767-H7774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 3307, HEALTHY, HUNGER-FREE KIDS ACT
OF 2010
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1742 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1742
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 3307)
to reauthorize child nutrition programs, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule
XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 1742.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H. Res. 1742 provides a closed rule for consideration of S. 3307, the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The rule provides 1 hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
The rules waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. The rule provides
that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points
of order against provisions of the bill. Finally, the rule provides one
motion to recommit the bill with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, as many of my colleagues know, my
colleague from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has decided not to
seek reelection and move on to other endeavors in his home State of
Florida. I just want to publicly thank him for his friendship over the
years, and also thank him for his great service not only to the people
of Florida but to the people of this country. This may be the last rule
that we handle together, so I wanted to take this opportunity simply to
acknowledge his service and to thank him.
Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to pass a very good bill
that will improve the lives of our children. And I believe that we must
seize that opportunity.
I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Miller, Congresswoman
DeLauro, Congresswoman McCarthy, and others who have worked so hard on
this issue. And I want to say a special thank you to First Lady
Michelle Obama. She has been an incredible champion for our children,
particularly in the areas of nutrition and obesity.
{time} 1110
She has challenged us to live up to one of our highest moral
obligations--to make sure that the children of this Nation have the
nutritious food they need to grow, to thrive, and to succeed.
Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I chair both the House
Hunger Caucus and the Congressional Hunger Center, and I've said many
times that hunger is a political condition. We have the resources to
end hunger, particularly childhood hunger, and what we need is the
political will to make it happen.
President Obama has pledged to end childhood hunger in America by
2015. If we support that goal, then we must pass this bill. I hope that
the Members of this House, all of us, Democrats and Republicans, can
come together today to summon the political will necessary to move
forward on this issue.
There is not a single community in America that is hunger free. Talk
to any food bank. They will tell you that the demand has never been
greater, and far too many of the people who need help are children.
The child nutrition bill that we will take up today gives us a chance
to provide healthy meals to hundreds of thousands of children who need
them. It's also important to remember that hunger and obesity are two
sides of the same coin. The fact is that highly processed, empty
calorie foods are less expensive than fresh, nutritious foods. That's
why so many families are forced to make unhealthy choices. This bill
increases the reimbursement to schools for meals by 6 cents a meal, 6
cents, and that's the first increase in 30 years.
Too often, the only nutritious food our kids get is in a school
setting, and this bill also increases access to after-school programs.
And the bill helps communities to establish farm-to-school networks,
which are not just good for children, but they're also good for our
local farmers.
Now, it's no secret, Mr. Speaker, that I've had concerns with how
this bill is paid for, and I remind my colleagues that this bill is
fully paid for. The cuts to the SNAP, or food stamp, program don't make
a lot of sense to me. I don't believe we should be taking access to
food away from some people in order to provide it for others. But we
have been assured, repeatedly, by the President and the White House
that they will work with us to restore these cuts, and I look forward
to working with the administration and my colleagues to make sure that
the White House lives up to that commitment. Quite frankly, if I did
not believe that this commitment to restore SNAP funding was real, I
would have had a hard time voting for the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, this exact same piece of legislation, passed
unanimously in the Senate. Every single Member in the Senate, including
a Who's Who of the most conservative Republicans, voted for
reauthorizing our child nutrition programs. Unfortunately, from what I
heard in the Rules Committee last night, that probably won't happen
today in the House.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have no problem
expanding wasteful weapons systems. They have no problem expanding tax
cuts for millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street, but apparently,
some of them have a problem with expanding access to nutritious food
for our children.
They say it's an outrageous example of Big Government or that a high
school basketball team would be prohibited from having a bake sale.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. As the president of the national PTA has
said, ``The measure will effectively eliminate the constant presence of
junk food in school while allowing reasonable practices like periodic
PTA or other school group fundraisers, such as bake sales, and the sale
of hot dogs and sodas at after-school sporting events.''
An extra few million for a hedge fund manager who doesn't need it? No
problem, so my Republican friends say, but heaven forbid we spend
another 6 cents to make sure our kids have a more healthy school lunch.
Those may be their priorities, Mr. Speaker, but they're not mine, and
they're not the priorities of the people in my district.
Some of my friends on the other side will say that they want no
children in our country to go hungry. Fair enough. Here's their
opportunity to put their vote where their rhetoric is. Here's their
opportunity to demonstrate that their concern for the hungry in this
country is more than just lip service.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the politics here. It's pretty simple. If
the President's for it, my Republican friends are against it. But I
would ask them and I would plead with them to check those politics at
the door just this once. Please don't sacrifice an opportunity to
improve the lives of millions of our children on the altar of partisan
politics.
[[Page H7768]]
The need to act is clear. Our moral obligation is clear. Our children
are getting sicker and sicker and sicker. If kids don't have enough
nutritious food to eat they don't learn. We are wasting millions and
millions of dollars on health care for diseases like diabetes and heart
disease that are preventable with healthier diets.
Today, we could begin to turn that tide. Please join us in doing the
right thing. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume, and I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) for yielding me the time.
First, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I don't know if I will have the
privilege again of speaking on this floor while you're presiding, and I
want to thank you for your service and especially for your friendship.
And to Mr. McGovern, I thank him for his kind words. I said a few
days ago in some remarks here on the floor that this is a great honor
of being a Member of Congress of the United States I will never forget,
and for the rest of my days, I will feel that honor. And I thanked all
of my colleagues, those who have helped me during the years here and
the many battles that I've been involved in, and those who have opposed
me. And so I think it's appropriate to point to the example of the
graciousness demonstrated by Mr. McGovern. We've had very strong
debates on this floor, and yet, he demonstrated that graciousness once
again today. I thank him for his words, and as I did the other day, I
thank all of my colleagues, those who have agreed with me and those who
have opposed me, for the great honor of having been able to serve along
with them here in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing the issue of the effect of the
debt on the economic reality of the American people, and as a matter of
fact as this Congress starts reaching an end, I think it's appropriate
to bring forth the fact to remind our colleagues that this is going to
be, I believe, the first Congress where we have not seen even one open
rule. So we stand here today with another piece of legislation being
brought to the floor with no amendments allowed by the Rules Committee
and, in this case, a product from the Senate before us that has had
absolutely no input from Members of the House.
I think that all of us in this House, certainly an overwhelming
majority of the membership of the House, would support--I certainly
do--the continuation and reauthorization of reduced and free school
food programs. The bill before us unfortunately does not improve upon
the current situation in that regard.
{time} 1120
In fact, the bipartisan National Governors Association has outlined
several problems that they have with this underlying legislation, and I
was reading some hours ago their objections. Governors Ritter of
Colorado and Rell of Connecticut highlighted new certification and
monitoring mandates that will be forced on States by this legislation
in order for the States to be able to continue their important
participation in these programs.
Actually, I was disturbed to learn from the bipartisan National
Governors Association that the underlying legislation sets a federally
mandated minimum price that school districts must pay for meals. In the
past, if a school district negotiated lower food costs, that was
considered applying smart business practices by the school districts.
But no longer. With a mandatory minimum, school districts are now going
to have to pay more for their food programs, which of course will be
passed along to middle class families in the form of higher meal costs.
So I think, in reality, what we are seeing in this legislation is a
tax increase on working families. Unfortunately, a substitute that was
brought forth in the Rules Committee by the minority, by Ranking Member
Kline, which would have reauthorized these important programs, was not
allowed to be offered. That substitute amendment would have extended
and strengthened the existing important programs but would have avoided
the new mandates on States and communities.
There is another issue, Mr. Speaker, that I think is important to
bring out. In order to pay for the new programs in this legislation,
the congressional majority decided to use previously appropriated
funding intended for the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp funds were
provided under the so-called stimulus legislation, so it's as though
the majority is admitting that taxpayer dollars were incorrectly spent,
and they are now using those stimulus funds to pay for these programs.
The stimulus bill was not subject to the so-called PAYGO requirements
because the majority labeled it as ``emergency spending.'' Under the
rules of the House, emergency spending cannot be used as a PAYGO offset
for future spending because it was never originally offset. As a
result, the rule that we are debating must again waive the important
PAYGO requirements.
Now, I know it's difficult to follow. I was trying to understand it
in the Rules Committee last night. But the end result is that this bill
is paid for by funds that are borrowed by the Federal Government. So I
guess we could say that we are voting to provide our children with
nutritious school lunches which will be paid to foreign entities in the
future, with interest, foreign entities from which we are borrowing
funds, thus adding to our national debt and imposing new fees on
families.
By the way, we could have reauthorized these programs without adding
to our national debt and imposing new fees on families. Adding to our
national debt in that way and imposing new fees on families is not the
solution to improving the Nation's school meal programs at a time when,
obviously, many are struggling.
At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just respond to my colleague briefly by saying,
when he talks about borrowing, I can't help but be reminded of the fact
that my friends on the other side of the aisle have borrowed countless
billions of dollars to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and
billionaires. They have no problem with doing that. They have no
problem with borrowing money to pay for wars. That all goes onto our
credit card. They have no problem with that.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is improving the quality of
nutritious food that our kids will have access to. In doing so, we
accomplish a number of things.
One is we end up with healthier kids who, quite frankly, will grow up
to be healthier adults, which--guess what?--will cost less to our
public systems. We are ensuring when our kids get healthy meals that
they can learn better in school. I don't think there is any debate--
maybe there is on that side of the aisle--about the fact that there is
a tie between kids' ability to concentrate and learn and having
adequate food and having healthy food.
So I would say to my colleague Mr. Diaz-Balart, we are paying for it,
and I know we are paying for it because I don't like the offset. I
don't like the fact that the offset that the Senate gave us was in the
SNAP Program. I've been fighting that offset. That is a real offset and
it has real consequences. It is one of the reasons we are lobbying the
White House: to find an alternative offset.
But let's not diminish the fact that, by passing this bill, we are
actually saving this government countless billions, if not trillions,
of dollars down the road by making sure that our kids have access to
nutritious food in the school setting.
At this point, I yield 3 minutes to a valued member of the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and would like to
join him in expressing my great honor in having served with the
gentleman from Florida.
It is my hope that he and I have another opportunity to manage a rule
together. It is my expectation we will have the opportunity to manage
another rule together. But in the event that that doesn't happen, I
would like to express my warm wishes for his continued success in his
future. I very much look forward to seeing what the gentleman from
Florida will be involved with next, and I look forward to staying in
touch and in close contact for many years in the future.
[[Page H7769]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010. The passage of this bill, which would reauthorize the
Child Nutrition Act, is critical to our Nation's children--to their
health and well-being and to their academic success in school. Making
sure that our children get a world-class education can't be
accomplished if our children don't get the proper nutrition to make it
through the day and learn.
I have a background of involvement in public education, both as the
superintendent of a charter school I started as well as the chairman of
the Colorado State Board of Education. I have tasted and eaten many
school lunches. I have seen firsthand how the lack of access to
nutritious food prevents too many kids from reaching their full
potential--intellectually, academically, and physically.
Childhood hunger and poor nutrition are two of the greatest public
health challenges--and yes, education challenges--that face our
country. Nearly one-third of American children are overweight or obese,
and many of those who are overweight or obese also suffer from
malnutrition. This number has been on the rise nationally as well as in
my home State of Colorado.
This bill tackles both hunger and obesity by addressing access to
food and the nutritional quality of food, and I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of the House version of this bill. This bill
facilitates a coordinated approach across all levels of government, the
private sector, communities, school districts, and families to make
real positive change.
Specifically, this bill ensures up to 115,000 more eligible children
access to school meals through direct certification, reduces paperwork,
makes qualification easier, and creates savings for school districts.
It increases the lunch reimbursement rate by 6 cents per meal. That is
the first real increase in over 30 years. It requires updated Federal
nutritional standards for school meals, strengthens local school
wellness policies, and continues to provide schools with increased
resources and training to improve meal quality.
In particular, I am pleased that this bill will strengthen school
districts' wellness policies. These provisions, which I introduced in
the House in H.R. 5090, the Nutrition Education and Wellness in
Schools, or NEW Schools Act, were also supported by the White House
Task Force on Child Obesity report and included in the bill.
Our schools should be our first defense against childhood obesity and
unhealthy nutrition habits that stay with kids as they mature into
adults and even have an intergenerational effect across their lives.
While hunger affects people of all ages, it is particularly devastating
for children.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. POLIS. Overall, this is a very strong bill that makes the
necessary and responsible investments and that represents a critical
step in answering President Obama and First Lady Obama's call to end
childhood hunger. For the sake of the health and well-being of our
Nation's schoolchildren and our future, I urge my colleagues to support
the rule and to pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
{time} 1130
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield 3 minutes to my friend from New York (Mr. Lee), who is the author
of the proposal that we will be discussing subsequently, the YouCut
proposal.
Mr. LEE of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The American people are truly frustrated, and we saw that in the
November election. They are demanding that Congress start to do what
they were brought here for, and that is to get our fiscal house in
order.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced the STOP the Overprinting Act earlier this
year as a commonsense way to cut spending in Washington, and I
appreciate your support in selecting it as this week's YouCut winner.
When a Member of Congress today introduces or cosponsors a bill, we
receive five printed copies of the legislation, regardless of the
length. The best example I can show is the 2,000-plus page health care
bill that stands here. So, in essence, you would be getting 10,000
copies of paper in your office when, in fact, each office has it
readily accessible online--a waste of money. This bill was introduced
months ago, and we finally now have an opportunity to do something
about this needless spending that's going on.
When the bill was introduced, just on this bill alone, the Government
Printing Office had to print nearly a half million pieces of paper.
Again, that's just on one single piece of legislation. In this last
Congress, we've had more than 14,000 bills that were introduced--a lot
of unnecessary cost and waste when the American people keep scratching
their head as to what's going on in Washington. We have a very simple
way to save money. This week's YouCut vote will save $35 million over
the next 10 years.
The unfortunate thing about Washington is that unless that amount has
either a ``B'' or a ``T'' after it, bureaucrats are ignoring it. That
has got to stop, and that's why we saw such a huge change in the
November election.
Simply put, we've got the information online. Let's start doing what
the private sector has been doing for years--going paperless. This is a
very simple way to do it. We've got to start managing a budget and
doing what the private sector is doing and looking for every way that
we can start saving a dollar. Starting now, we truly can change that
attitude in Washington and start cutting wasteful spending by
supporting this YouCut bill.
Over the past several months, House Republicans have been stressing
this for some time, and we have proposed over $155 billion in savings
for taxpayers through this YouCut initiative. Despite the more than 2.5
million votes cast, Republicans--and those of you who have cast your
votes through YouCut--have been met with a lost resistance on the other
side. Hopefully, that will change.
Again, thank you for your vote and for your participation in cutting
Washington spending through this YouCut initiative.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca), who will focus on the important issue of child
nutrition.
Mr. BACA. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I thank the
gentleman from Florida and wish him the very best of luck in his
future. He has been a good friend and a terrific legislator, too, as
well here.
I rise in support of S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
Too many families are struggling to put food on the table. There are
40 million people going hungry in the United States right now. We
recently passed the SNAP program. We recently put stimulus money to
increase the SNAP program to provide food for many individuals. There
is 9.6 percent unemployment in the United States, 14 percent in my
district alone. These are individuals that are struggling to put food
on the table.
Can you imagine a child that does not have the ability to put food in
their stomach? One in four American children are currently at risk of
going hungry. You have to feel what a person who is actually going
hungry and doesn't know where their meal is coming from. And one in
three American children are either overweight or obese. When we talk
about it's going to cost the taxpayers money, no, it's actually going
to save the taxpayers money in the long run because it's costing us,
right now, $147 billion in what we are paying for obesity right now. It
would reduce our health costs in that area, reduce our costs overall.
As chair of the House Agriculture Committee on Nutrition, I chaired
hearings both in Washington and in California to explore ways to fight
childhood obesity and increase access to healthy food. Today's
legislation offers a step forward in addressing both child hunger and
obesity. This bill expands the after school and summer meals programs,
better connects eligible children with free meal benefits, improves and
expands the school breakfast programs, extends the WIC certification
period for children, and puts more fresh fruits and vegetables into our
schools.
We passed the No Child Left Behind. Well, can you imagine a child
going to school and having to pass a test?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
[[Page H7770]]
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. BACA. Many children have a difficult time passing a lot of these
tests because they're going hungry.
None of us are pleased with the cuts to the SNAP program made by this
bill, but I am committed to work with the administration and my
colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee to ensure that we fully
fund the SNAP program.
I urge my colleagues to stand up with our children and pass this
much-needed legislation. I ask you to support this.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, on Election Day, the American people sent a very clear
and unmistakable message--that it is time to reduce the size of
government and to cut spending. In fact, they have been demanding that
we take these steps for some time, but unfortunately the leadership in
this Congress has been unwilling to listen.
The Republicans in this House have heard the calls of the American
people and earlier this year began a YouCut program in which the
American people actually get to choose specific spending cuts that we
attempt to bring to the floor. We understand the need to change the
culture around here from one of spending to one of fiscal discipline,
cutting spending and ending the practice of piling a mountain of debt
onto future generations.
Today's YouCut looks to end the practice of wasteful spending by
eliminating the mandatory printing of all congressional bills and
resolutions by the Government Printing Office, potentially saving over
$35 million over the next 10 years. Certainly that is something that we
can all agree is a commonsense cut.
I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the
previous question so that we can have the opportunity to bring this
commonsense spending cut to the floor. If they do not intend to join us
in the effort to end the spending now, American taxpayers can rest
assured that our new Republican majority will bring this cut and many,
many others, Mr. Speaker, forward in the next Congress as we endeavor
to get America's fiscal house in order.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlewoman that
when they are in charge next year, I am happy to support her in
eliminating excessive paperwork. But I wish she and others would
understand the importance of what we are discussing here today, feeding
hungry kids, making sure that our children get nutritious meals at
schools. I mean, I've got to be honest with you. I think that's a hell
of a lot more important. The fact that, to some of my friends on the
other side of the aisle, this appears as if it's some sort of a trivial
issue tells me that they haven't been to food banks and they haven't
been in some of their schools talking to teachers and talking to the
people who oversee the food service program about the challenges that
so many school districts face in providing healthy meals to our kids.
We all talk about how we want to control health care costs. Let's
give our kids healthy food in school settings. That will do more to
control health care costs and ensure that kids will have a healthy
adulthood. You want to deal with the issue of better test scores?
Making sure kids have a good, nutritious meal in a school setting is
one of the ways to do that.
{time} 1140
That's an important issue. This is a big deal what we're talking
about here today. This is one of the most important pieces of
legislation that has come to this floor, and I would appreciate if my
friends on the other side of the aisle would join us in supporting this
underlying bill so we can get it on the President's desk at the end of
the day to get him to sign this so we can move forward in an area that
is of great importance.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who's been a champion on
this and so many issues dealing with food insecurity and hunger and
good nutrition.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. And I might just say to the prior
speaker on the other side of the aisle that the American people did not
vote to cut food for kids in our country. They voted to cut the tax
cuts that are provided to the corporate special interests in this
Nation, which the other side of the aisle seems to have no problem
with.
I rise today in support of this rule. The Hunger-Free Kids Act
represents a long overdue, a much-needed recommitment to the health and
to the well-being of our schoolchildren. We all know the double-edged
problems that millions of young people currently face.
Today's kids are threatened by both a growing obesity epidemic, and
far too many struggling families in this economy are facing gnawing
hunger. According to a recent report, one out of every four young
adults is too overweight to serve in our military. At the same time,
according to the Food Research Action Center, one out of every four
households with children experienced food hardship this year--meaning
they did not have the money to purchase the food their families needed.
Don't let people fool you with words like ``food hardship'' and
``food insecurity.'' It results in hunger. Kids in this Nation are
going to bed hungry every single night.
This bill marks a significant step forward against both fronts of
this dangerous pincer movement. By expanding access to and emphasizing
good nutrition for all schoolchildren, this bill will reduce hunger. It
will reduce obesity. The Hunger-Free Kids Act will add 115,000 new
students into the school meals program by using Medicaid data to
certify eligible kids. It will provide an additional 21 million meals a
year by reimbursing providers for after-school meals to low-income
children.
While expanding access to meal programs, this bill also works to
improve the nutritional quality of all of the food in our schools. It
sets national nutrition standards that will finally get all of the junk
food infiltrating our classrooms and our cafeterias out the door. And
for those schools who comply with these revised nutrition standards, it
provides the first real reimbursement rate increase--6 cents a meal.
And that is the largest increase we have seen in over 30 years.
This bill will also strengthen the farm-to-school networks so that
more healthy produce, local foods, even the foods that are grown in the
school gardens can find their way into the menus.
Our kids consume roughly 35 to 50 percent of their daily calories
during the school day. By passing this bill, we can help see they are
getting enough nutritious food to stay healthy, to grow, to learn, to
succeed.
Given the current economic climate, I know some will ask, How can we
afford this bill? I say how can we afford not to pass it? Leaving
millions of children hungry and malnourished in the name of budget-
cutting is penny wise, pound foolish, and is unconscionable--especially
from those who would now say let's provide the richest 2 percent of the
people in this Nation with a tax cut of over $100,000 a year. They're
eating well, they're eating high on the hog, and kids are going to bed
hungry every night in our Nation.
Countless studies have shown that kids with access to a nutritious
breakfast learn more and perform better in school. From the very
beginning, I have been working, and others have been working, to expand
access to Federal aid, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program--yes, the food stamp program--for eligible children. We want to
make sure that all of our kids have access to the nutrition that they
need for a healthy future.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. DeLAURO. Using the food stamp as an offset at a time when one in
five kids receives food stamp assistance moves us away from that goal.
Nevertheless, this legislation is a big step forward. I, for one, and
others have said we will continue to push to see that the SNAP funding
is restored; we will work with the White House to make sure those funds
are restored. I'm happy to see the Congress moving in the right
direction today and pledge to
[[Page H7771]]
fight to continue to have access to the resources that will allow us to
have all kids who are eligible for these resources have the
accessibility to gain these resources.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule. Nothing that we
do in this body is as important as ensuring that our children, our
grandchildren, and the next generation of Americans have the tools, the
opportunities and the nutrition that they need to thrive and to
succeed. Our kids deserve no less.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to
point out I think it's important to clarify that if our proposal today,
the YouCut proposal, to eliminate for the taxpayer unnecessary spending
on paperwork, if that's adopted it would not negate in any way
consideration of the underlying bill on the lunch programs.
At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from West
Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I applaud the
first lady, Michelle Obama, for her efforts in childhood obesity. I
hail from the State of West Virginia, which has probably some of the
highest percentages of childhood obesity; and I think the issue in the
underlying bill is tremendously important for our Nation and for the
future, as is the nutritional aspects of that.
And as the gentleman from Florida said, I'm going to talk on the
YouCut because I believe cutting spending and not passing on
generational debt to those same children is an important issue as well.
Over the last few months, millions of Americans have used YouCut as a
way to voice their concerns over the out-of-control spending in
Washington, and many have offered their own solutions on how the
government can be more efficient and more accountable. Unfortunately,
most of these have fallen on deaf ears as the Congress has voted
repeatedly not to try to rein in the spending of taxpayer dollars, and
we simply cannot continue down this path. Each week we have brought a
simple, yet effective way to cut spending before the House, and it has
failed every time.
So today I will support eliminating the requirement to print copies
of every single bill and resolution--imagine how many pages that is--
that's been introduced in Congress because all of these are already
available online.
I want to congratulate Mr. Lee of New York for bringing forth this
proposal. This will save millions of dollars over the next decade--a
small number in the grand scheme of things--but nevertheless a
significant start.
There is no question that cutting the deficit will require some tough
decisions on our part, but let's start out now on one which everyone
can agree, and I think this should be one of them.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When my friends talk about passing on to future generations debt, I
can't help but wonder where they were when President Bush passed these
tax cuts that added over a trillion dollars to our debt, totally unpaid
for, most of it going to millionaires and billionaires. And I want to
know where they are right now, they want to extend the tax cuts for
millionaires and billionaires and they still don't want to pay for it.
But somehow when it comes to debt and piling it on to future
generations, when it comes to tax cuts for very wealthy people, they're
silent. Where were they when President Bush at 2 o'clock in the
morning, they kept a roll call open for 3 hours and passed a Medicare
prescription drug bill that cost hundreds of billions of dollars that
was totally unpaid for. That cost a lot more than was advertised.
Totally silent.
Where are they when some of us are saying, we ought to pay for these
wars. If you want them, you ought to pay for them or end them. I'd
prefer to end them, but for those who want them you ought to pay for
them. They're silent.
When it comes to closing loopholes for big corporations that
routinely stick it to the American people, no, no, we can't do that.
Even though it might save money for taxpayers, we can put it toward
deficit reduction. No, no, no. Those are very wealthy special
interests. They want to protect them, whether it's Big Oil or big
pharmaceuticals or whatever, at any cost.
{time} 1150
So when I hear them talk about debt, I am reminded of the fact that
when President Clinton left office we had a surplus. They ran this
place and drove this economy into a ditch. And quite frankly, it's been
a nightmare trying to dig us out of this ditch.
And I give the President great credit for his courage in trying to
move this country forward in the area of health care, and today in the
area of trying to move this bill forward on child nutrition. So they
have no credibility when it comes to talking about reducing deficits or
debt.
And, in fact, as we speak, they are trying to figure out a way I
think probably to defeat this bill, to take the money that this bill
costs, the offsets for this bill, take that money and put it toward tax
cuts for rich people. I mean, that's what they want do.
So again, I would urge my colleagues to understand the importance of
what we are doing today. We are trying to make sure that our kids get
healthy food and nutritious food in school settings. We are trying to
pave the way for healthy futures for our kids. We want to make sure our
kids can learn better. This is important stuff that we are talking
about here today, and I would urge all my colleagues to support the
rule and to support the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I
believe it's fitting that those of us on this side of the aisle are
bringing forward another proposal, a YouCut proposal that's been voted
on and recommended to this House by a significant number of our
constituents. They continue to sound the alarm on government spending,
and we must, this Congress must finally listen.
To date, participants in Republican Whip Cantor's YouCut initiative
have voted to cut over $180 billion in spending. This week, those
participating have voted for a proposal by Congressman Lee of New York,
who we heard from before, to end the unnecessary printing of
congressional bills and resolutions.
I think it's appropriate that we finally acknowledge the existence of
the Internet, and that much unnecessary spending is taking place
through the printing of documents. That was appropriate and logical in
the past, but not after the development of many new technologies.
So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question
so we can have a vote on Congressman Lee's proposal. And again, I
remind my colleagues that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will
not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation that we have
been debating today.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the text of the amendment
and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends will do what they
always do. They will come up with some stunts to try to get us to delay
or to not pass this bill today. That's just what they do. And the fact
is that if we change this underlying bill in any way--and I would urge
my colleagues to be prepared for probably an uncomfortable or an ugly
motion to recommit later on in the debate. But if any of their
procedural stunts prevail, then we will end up not passing this bill--
the Senate will not consider an amended child nutrition bill; it ends
it right here and now--and that would be a tragedy.
I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stop the
politics just for a few minutes and do the right thing when it comes to
this child nutrition bill. This is a bill that will improve access for
our kids. This is a bill that increases the focus on nutrition quality
and on children's health. It is a
[[Page H7772]]
bill that will improve program management and program integrity. It is
fully paid for at no cost to the taxpayers.
And I would say to my colleagues on the Democratic side who are
concerned about the current offset, that we have a commitment from the
White House to fix that in a future vehicle so that the offset is not
the SNAP cuts. But the underlying bill here is a good bill, is a good
bill that will mean a world of difference for hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of our kids all throughout this country. Making sure that
hungry kids get at least one, hopefully more than one nutritious meal a
day in a school setting is something we all should be for. It should
not be the subject of partisan politics.
Making sure our kids get healthy, nutritious food and not junk in
school should be a priority of all of ours, Republican and Democrat
alike. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. I mean, the fact that we are
here today and there is some controversy around this bill tells me that
it's just politics as usual. My friends on the Republican side don't
like it because the President likes it. Well, you know what? That's
been the routine throughout the entire tenure of this President. But
for once, for once, just put the party politics aside and do what's
right.
I cochair the House Hunger Caucus and the Congressional Hunger
Center. Hunger is a problem in this country. There are tens of millions
of our citizens who are hungry. Seventeen million children in this
country, the United States of America, the richest country on this
planet, are hungry. It's a national disgrace. All of us in this
Congress should be ashamed of that fact, that we haven't been able to
help be part of the solution in a more significant way. This is one way
that we can be part of that solution.
I have a list of national organizations and State organizations, too
many to put in the Congressional Record, but it is significant. The
support across this country for this legislation is significant.
I want to thank the Speaker of the House and Chairman George Miller
and Rosa DeLauro and Carolyn McCarthy and Barbara Lee and so many
others who have been part of this legislation. I want to thank Senator
Blanche Lincoln, who was a champion of this legislation over in the
Senate.
But we must act today. We must do what's right for our kids, not for
our political party, but for our kids. So enough of the stunts. Let's
say ``no'' to all the stunts today. Let's say ``yes'' to this important
child nutrition reauthorization bill, ``yes'' to a healthier future for
our kids, ``yes'' to making sure they can better learn in school,
``yes'' to developing better and healthier habits that will last them a
lifetime. This is a good, this is an important bill. This is a big deal
today. This is a huge deal, and everybody should join and support the
final passage of the bill.
So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I
urge my colleagues not to fall for any motion to recommit stunts when
the bill is under consideration.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the program, YouCut
has offered the potential for Republicans and Democrats to join
together to begin tackling America's unsustainable fiscal situation.
That's why I was encouraged yesterday when President Obama embraced an
idea originally chosen by YouCut voters by declaring a freeze on all
non-military Federal employee salaries for the next two years.
This proposal was not an easy one for the President to make, nor was
it a pain-free vote for House Republicans when we offered it back in
May, as there are thousands of Federal employees who do important work
for our country. But make no mistake, no one said that getting America
back to opportunity, responsibility and success was going to be easy.
We have to make tough choices together if we want to get our economy
back to where it needs to be.
This week's YouCut proposal was developed by Chris Lee and would
eliminate the mandatory printing of bills introduced before Congress, a
practice that wasted nearly three million paper copies and
approximately $7 million taxpayer dollars during the 111th Congress
alone. With all of the digital technology that's available, surely
Congress can find a more efficient and fiscally responsible way to do
its business. Changing this body's printing practices would be a simple
and important step in the right direction. We must start injecting some
common sense into Washington, and this is a no-brainer.
As we look to the new Republican majority, YouCut will serve as an
important tool as we strive to transform the culture of spending in
Washington into one of savings. As we wrap up this Congress, Mr.
Speaker, I encourage our Democrat friends across the aisle to join us
in voting for this common sense spending reduction.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1742 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker shall, 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. 4640) to amend title 44, United States Code, to
eliminate the mandatory printing of bills and resolutions by
the Government Printing Office for the use of the House of
Representatives and Senate. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall he considered as read. 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. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of
rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 4640.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question
[[Page H7773]]
on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. 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 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 1742, if
ordered; adopting House Resolution 1741; and suspending the rules with
regard to House Concurrent Resolution 323; House Resolution 1735, if
ordered; and House Resolution 1430, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 180, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 587]
YEAS--232
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
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
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
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)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
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
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NAYS--180
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Alexander
Barrett (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Costello
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Fallin
Hastings (FL)
Hodes
Marchant
Markey (MA)
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Minnick
Myrick
Radanovich
Speier
Welch
Wu
{time} 1228
Mr. GERLACH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. 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. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 174, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 588]
YEAS--230
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
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
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
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
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
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)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
[[Page H7774]]
Roybal-Allard
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
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
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
Yarmuth
NAYS--174
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Tanner
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--29
Alexander
Barrett (SC)
Berkley
Bright
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Coffman (CO)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Fallin
Gohmert
Hastings (FL)
Hodes
Johnson, Sam
Lynch
Marchant
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Minnick
Myrick
Radanovich
Ruppersberger
Shadegg
Speier
Whitfield
Wu
{time} 1236
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.
Stated for:
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 589, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________