[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 161 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8147-H8151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3082, FULL-YEAR
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011
Mr. McGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 111-675) on the resolution (H. Res. 1755) providing
for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3082)
making appropriations for military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1755 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1755
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
3082) making appropriations for military construction, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other
purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider
in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The
Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read.
The motion shall be debatable for one hour, with 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1500
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 1755.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1755 provides for consideration of
the Senate amendment to H.R. 3082. The rule makes in order a motion
offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee
that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3082 with the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
the resolution.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, with 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Appropriations and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the motion. Finally, the rule provides that the Senate
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the FY 2011 continuing
resolution legislation that will fund the Federal Government for the
remainder of fiscal year 2011. Additionally, this bill contains the
food safety bill, as passed by the Senate, with minor technical
corrections.
I am grateful to Mr. Obey and Mr. Dingell for their incredible
leadership. Both these measures need to be passed. I urge my colleagues
to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend, for yielding me such time as I
may consume today. And I want to thank the gentleman for the
considerations that he has given me personally and professionally over
the last year, and I would wish him the very best in this holiday
season.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely
closed rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation. Week after
week, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to bulldoze
their massive spending and overregulations bill to the floor of the
House with no Republican input and no regular order. As a matter of
fact, even today at least one Member of the Democratic Party showed up
with a darn good idea, and it was slam-dunked ``no'' on a party-line
basis. By the way, the Republicans voted for that good idea.
What was promised 4 years ago was that this House would be the most
open, honest, and ethical Congress, by our current Speaker Pelosi when
she took the gavel. But this has been the most closed, secretive, one-
sided, and flawed Congress, I believe, in history, matching the
previous Congress.
The American people asked for change, and I think they got far worse
in the election to elect this current Congress. They received a
Democrat Congress that didn't listen to the American people and a
Congress that acts on its own interests and not the interests of the
American people or the taxpayer. And that's why we suffer from such low
numbers of support by the American people.
Mr. Speaker, soon that, however, will change. But today it is more of
the same, and I am here to discuss the rule for the continuing
resolution, known
[[Page H8148]]
as a CR, for fiscal year 2011. It also includes the food safety bill
which has been attached to that CR. So it is not a clean bill. My
colleagues and I have not even had 24 hours to review the text of this
legislation. This legislation, once again, continues to overspend and
overregulate, a common theme over the last two Congresses. And we won't
even use regular order to establish the process.
The underlying legislation is a CR to keep the government running
through the rest of this fiscal year. The President has not signed one
appropriations bill into law for this fiscal year, and our friends, the
majority Democrats, have provided no budget. So this is their last-
ditch effort to provide funding to keep the government running. Over
the past 3 years, nondefense, nonhomeland security, and nonveterans
affairs discretionary spending has increased by a staggering 88
percent. In the meantime, the Nation's debt has risen to $13.5
trillion--and that means that there is an additional $4.5 billion in
deficit spending every single day. There have been back to back yearly
record deficits day after day after day. The unemployment rate has
risen--it is now at 9.5 percent--for 18 consecutive months. I might add
that it rose to 9.8 percent in the latest economic report.
This CR does nothing to reverse this trend and, instead, continues
the unsustainable high rate of spending passed by the Democrat
majority, aided by, supported, and abetted by the President of the
United States, our President, Barack Obama. This includes more spending
for Federal agencies that already had seen huge dollar increases with
the stimulus bill in 2009.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I have pledged to cut
nonsecurity spending back to the fiscal levels of 2008, which would
save the American taxpayers nearly $100 billion for what will end up
being the next year of spending. Mr. Speaker, I believe that any
responsible action by this House of Representatives should have been
and should be to avoid raising the debt limit by making tough decisions
today to avoid placing our children and our grandchildren in a further
diminished position.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people, as they look at their own
personal circumstances and as they look at the irresponsibility out of
Washington, unfortunately continue to see taxing, borrowing, and
spending as a national problem. And that has brought us nothing but the
results of higher unemployment, more debt, more bankruptcy, more homes
being lost, and more debt. Americans have called for this endless spree
to end and for an era of fiscal discipline. I think, once again, even
though we are after the election, that message continues to fall on
deaf ears again today.
This country needs leaders who are willing to make tough decisions,
fiscal decisions that will empower not only economic stability but also
bring back to the American people jobs, the opportunity for them to be
in a competitive marketplace and to understand that America must have
jobs if we are going to provide our children and grandchildren with the
future that they can believe in.
Once again, it is the Congress of the United States that continues to
lead the effort of us towards higher deficits, higher unemployment, and
higher problems for people back home. We disagree with that.
Mr. Speaker, as if the rampant spending wasn't enough, my colleagues,
once again on the other side of the aisle, had to add what I consider
to be an unfair and overregulated Senate food safety bill to the
underlying legislation. Republicans remain committed to legislation
that ensures the safety and security of America's food. However, this
legislation comes at a heavy toll on producers and does virtually
nothing to hold Federal bureaucrats accountable for their role in
preventing food-borne illnesses. Oh, I'm sure we are going to hear
about the number of people who get sick every year. We are going to
blame everything on food processors and that process when, in fact,
what we need to do is put rules and regulations in place that will
better people's lives, and to allow the Federal Government to
effectively work with consumers. That's not what this food safety bill
does.
The food safety measures in the underlying bill impose significant
regulatory and cost burdens on the food processing and food producing
system.
{time} 1510
It increases costs for food producers and, ultimately, consumers and
does not require the Federal Drug Administration to spend one
additional penny on the inspection of food for safety purposes.
The bill expands the FDA's authority to dictate on farm production
practices and performance standards. This means Congress is about to
give the FDA, who is already overworked and has limited resources and
even less expertise, the specific power to dictate to U.S. farmers how
best to farm. Our Nation's farmers do not need more Federal Government
bureaucrats who sit behind a desk in Washington telling them how to do
their job.
Additionally, this legislation institutes and expands registration
requirements for food processing facilities, which essentially amounts
to a Federal license to be in the food business. This would make it
unlawful to produce food without a registration license, allowing the
FDA to suspend a company's registration, once again a big Federal
empowered government in Washington, D.C., at the expense of jobs and
the price that consumers have to pay.
Like any Federal agency, the FDA makes mistakes, yet this bill does
nothing to ensure agriculture producers don't take massive financial
losses caused by the mistake of the FDA. For example, in 2008 when the
FDA mistakenly attributed an outbreak of salmonella to tomatoes, it
cost the industry $100 million.
Mr. Speaker, there is no way for us to legislate out of Washington,
and there is no way to ensure that the FDA will not make such mistakes
again in the future and wrongly implicate agriculture processing to
food-borne disease outbreaks that can once again cause severe economic
losses to the farmers and ranchers of America who cannot only not
afford them, but who produce the highest quality of safety products
anywhere in the world to American consumers. This is not going to be
addressed properly in this legislation. It is simply about empowering
Federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
In an article in The Wall Street Journal from December 2, 2010,
related to the food safety bill, it states that ``food-borne illnesses
have fallen by nearly one-third over the last decade, largely because
businesses have already every incentive to police themselves.'' Yet
this legislation gives the FDA new powers over the 2.2 million farms
and the 28,000 food producers in America.
In true fashion, my Democrat colleagues continue to push their own
agenda, overwhelming the American consumer. They have shut out
Republicans over the last 4 years, and they continue to shut out common
sense and the American people. Continuing on the path of reckless
government spending will only put the United States further in debt,
burdening future generations.
Mr. Speaker, we disagree with taxing, spending, and overregulating.
Overregulation that increases costs to consumers and food producers
will add just another fiscal restraint on families, not just in the
congressional district that I represent, but all across this country.
Congress must do a better job. We tax too much, we spend too much, we
regulate too much, and we listen too little in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I think you can count me in that I oppose this rule and
the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas,
I thank him for his views. We always appreciate hearing his unique
point of view. I thought that the election ended several weeks ago, but
apparently it hasn't.
But I would just like to say for the record that we are in a
difficult economy in large part because of the policies that were
pursued by my friends on the other side of the aisle. We are in this
debt that we are in now in large part because of tax cuts for mostly
wealthy people that were not paid for; they took Bill Clinton's surplus
and turned it into a deficit; a Medicare prescription drug bill that
was double, triple the cost that it was advertised to be, not paid for;
and two wars that are not paid for.
[[Page H8149]]
On top of that, when they were in charge, they let the financial
industries do whatever the heck they wanted to do. They did, and they
stuck it to the American people, and we are now trying to dig ourselves
out of this economy.
I am sorry the gentleman is not for safer food safety measures, but
let me just point out for the record that while the food supply in the
United States is one of the safest in the world, each year about 76
million illnesses occur, more than 300,000 persons are hospitalized,
and 5,000 die from food-borne illnesses.
An increasing portion of our food now comes from overseas, I am sad
to say. Our food safety system was designed 100 years ago and was
appropriate for a world in which most of our food was grown and
processed domestically. Meanwhile, the FDA has struggled in recent
years with outbreaks of food-borne illnesses and nationwide recalls of
contaminated food from both domestic and foreign sources.
The food safety bill that we will be voting on today modernizes our
food safety system to better prevent food-borne illness and respond to
outbreaks. I can't believe that a food safety bill designed to protect
the American people is somehow controversial, but everything that we
propose, everything that this President has proposed they are against,
so there is nothing new here.
Again, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I think the gentleman
from Massachusetts is right. Much of what this President does propose
and in these last two Congresses what they proposed, Republicans have
objected to them, and it is for a simple reason: We don't want to
support the things that don't work. We want to support the things that
will help the American people not only to have a better economy and to
take care of themselves, but we are not for growing the size of the
Federal Government that is in our lives now, a food safety bill that
will do what I believe is quite the reverse but will be expensive and
will come at the cost of consumers bettering their ability to have a
safe food chain.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Cheyenne, Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on the
continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, among other things, I object to the inclusion of Senate
language from S. 1510, the Food Safety Modernization Act.
Let me be perfectly clear: I believe our Nation has the safest food
supply in the world. What we have here is another expansion of Federal
power without benefit of thorough consideration. This is the stimulus
package, cap-and-trade, ObamaCare all over again.
Members of the House Agriculture Committee have stood ready and
willing to work on this legislation. Despite this, the present majority
leadership tried to pass this under suspension of the rules and lost.
Failing to learn the lesson of that vote, they then secured a closed
rule and essentially rammed it through the House.
Now, in the closing days of this Congress, the Senate has sent us
their version on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and included revenue
provisions that, under the Constitution, must originate in the House.
Faced with this dilemma, once again the present House leadership has
chosen to short-circuit the legislative process by sticking this
legislation on the continuing resolution.
This is the sort of nonsense that Americans rejected just a few weeks
ago. Why isn't the present majority leadership listening?
Now, for sure, we may have differences. However, I am confident that
an open and deliberative process would allow us to resolve these
differences. Unfortunately, the present leadership has chosen a path
that denies the minority the opportunity to participate. I am certain
this is not how they would like to be treated.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who follows the current events knows that our
food production system faces ongoing food safety challenges. I just
want to serve notice that I stand ready to work with my colleagues to
address those challenges. I must ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the rule so that we can address those issues in regular order.
{time} 1520
Mr. SESSIONS. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman,
Mr. Lucas, the gentleman who was selected today by the new Republican
majority this next Congress to be the Agriculture Committee chairman.
The gentleman, Mr. Lucas, spoke very clearly not only on behalf of
farmers and ranchers across this country, but really on behalf of a
group of people who are in the food chain of this country, who all the
way up through grocery stores and providers of content make sure that
the food safety lines of this country are properly taken care of.
There are so many food workers all across this country who have
established not only high standards as a result of their advocacy for
not just their job, but the greatest opportunity around the world for
us to make sure that consumers get the benefit of clean food, the
opportunity to know more about not only the caloric intake, but to make
sure that the value of our food is held for consumers at a proper
price.
The gentleman, Mr. Lucas, has noted a number of times on the floor
that this industry, the agricultural industry, and the supermarket
industry really have taken steps to ensure that their products are not
only safe and secure, but that consumers have an opportunity to
understand how to utilize those products when they receive those
products from a store, perhaps, or where they buy their products. And
this is part of that chain that I believe that this legislation just
misuses. And consumers, through their ability to use food, whether it's
refrigeration, whether it's in cooking procedures, whether it's mixing
these products, how they would hold these out certainly has a lot to do
with the food safety and the aspects that come as a result of that.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard me say it over and over, but the American
people I think expect something better and different. I must confess
that in the near future that what we will do when Republicans come to
the floor this next Congress starting January 5, we will take the
legislation and run it through committees. We will include feedback and
ideas from not just Republicans, but also the Democrats who want to be
a part of this process, who get up and come to this town to represent
their people, people who have elected them, people who have confidence
in the way we do things.
Taxing, spending, overregulating is not the way that this Congress
should run; and the American people feel that, unfortunately, so
plainly. Today all the way to the end, it is yet another example about
how the American people see because they hear firsthand about
overregulation, excessive spending, and continuation of more of the
same.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
underlying legislation, to vote ``no'' to stop the reckless fiscal
policies that not only Speaker Pelosi but the Democratic Party have
pursued over the last 4 years. Irresponsible not only in terms of the
fiduciary responsibility that they had to openly discuss with the
American people, the appropriations process, the budgeting process, but
perhaps more importantly, I believe what is the responsibility of this
body to work effectively as a purveyor of the taxpayer money in working
with the administration.
All we have done is send them a signal, you go spend all the money
you want, we will make it available to you, rather than an
understanding of the give and take of the expectations of performance
by the American people of where each of these dollars should be spent
and what we should expect back in return. I think it's always bad when
a blank check that's filled in is given to somebody without an
understanding of that. The United States Government should not allow
this. That will change.
A vote ``no'' is going to allow farmers and food producers also,
because this bill is together, it's going to take away their rights,
it's going to add more rules and regulations, it's going to add more
government interference, it's going to get in the way of what I believe
is a food safety issue.
[[Page H8150]]
It's time to end the idea of big government and big spending. We are
here on the floor again to make sure that the American people
understand this, that there is a group of people who will certainly see
things differently.
But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, we will show up with better
ideas. Get ready, hope is on the way.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman again for
his comments and congratulate him and his party for their election
victory. I look forward to voting for nothing but open rules next year.
I also just want to say that we need to pass this rule so we can pass
the continuing resolution, which is important, and to pass this food
safety bill.
And, again, I am baffled by the controversy. Anybody who has watched
the news over the last several years remembers tainted spinach, tainted
eggs, recall after recall after recall. The fact is that our food
safety system in this country needs to be strengthened and modernized.
Everybody knows that.
I began my presentation today by listing the thousands and thousands
and thousands of people who get sick each year from tainted food. And
my friends on the other side of the aisle stand up, and they are
standing with the special interests rather than with the consumer. And
I worry, quite frankly, about the direction of this Congress, because
they are heart and soul with the corporate special interests, and they
neglect time and time again the average consumer, the average worker.
And that is what this bill is about, to protect the consumer from
tainted food that we get from other countries. Why is this so
controversial? I don't know.
So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the
previous question and on the rule.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and
particularly the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
I want to thank Chairmen Dingell, Waxman and Pallone as well as the
leadership for making this important legislation a priority.
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act will provide the FDA with some
of the resources and authorities it needs to effectively monitor our
nation's food supply and prevent outbreaks of food borne illness.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I
have held 13 food safety hearings over the past four years examining
the failures of the FDA and the food industry to protect our nation's
food supply.
The findings of these investigations and related hearings highlighted
the need for the first major overhaul of our food safety law in 70
years! Among its key provisions, the bill would establish a national
food tracing system and provide the FDA with recall authority.
This food safety bill is not perfect but it is a dramatic improvement
over current law. I urge the next Congress to look closely at providing
the FDA a dedicated revenue stream for inspections, requiring country-
of-origin labeling and finally giving the FDA the subpoena power it so
badly needs.
Despite the lack of these provisions, this food safety bill is a good
bill and one that deserves to be passed by the Congress and signed into
law this year.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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 House Resolution 1755 will be followed by 5-minute votes
on motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 4501, by the yeas and nays; and
House Resolution 1746, de novo.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207,
nays 206, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 619]
YEAS--207
Ackerman
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Halvorson
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NAYS--206
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
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)
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watt
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Berry
Bilbray
Blunt
Buyer
Cohen
Davis (AL)
Delahunt
Ellsworth
Fallin
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Griffith
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Marchant
McMorris Rodgers
Mollohan
Radanovich
Rush
Tiahrt
Wu
{time} 1601
Messrs. BOEHNER, NADLER of New York, CONYERS, SCOTT of Virginia,
BOYD, THOMPSON of California, and WATT changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
[[Page H8151]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________