[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H475-H482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 359, ELIMINATING TAXPAYER FINANCING 
                       OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 54 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 54

       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. 359) to reduce Federal spending and the 
     deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential 
     election campaigns and party conventions. 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 among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a 
     period not to exceed five hours. The bill shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill 
     are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
     those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and 
     except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each 
     amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who 
     caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 54 provides for a modified 
open rule for consideration of H.R. 359, which is a bill to reduce 
Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of 
Presidential election campaigns and party conventions.
  Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to stand before you in a House 
dominated by new a Republican majority focused on changing the 
direction from the failed liberal policies that have dominated 
Washington for the past 4 years. Although there remains some obstacles 
to realizing the full breadth of a Republican agenda so desperately 
needed to pull our economy out of the doldrums, it is indeed a new day.
  This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 359, legislation 
authored by my friend, Mr. Cole, that I have cosponsored as it 
represents a small step towards a brighter future for our country. 
Instead of considering legislation providing perpetual spending 
increases as the solution for all that ails us, in a departure from 
Washington groupthink, H.R. 359 would actually reduce Federal spending, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Although this concept may be foreign to many liberals and many 
Washington Beltway insiders, it's what the Americans expect out of the 
new Republican majority they recently sent to represent them here in 
the people's House. Instead, H.R. 359, which CBO estimates would save 
$617 million over 10 years, eliminates an expensive Federal program 
that wastes taxpayer money funding Presidential campaigns and national 
party conventions.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the proposed rule to H.R. 359 to terminate 
the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the ability for taxpayers 
to designate $3 of their Federal tax liability for financing of 
Presidential election campaign.
  This week, Republicans have engaged in what amounts to a shifty 
attack on a program that successfully limited the influence of 
corporations and special interests in our Presidential campaigns, 
tilting the playing field further in favor of multimillionaires who 
can, and often do, spend their own money.
  Just as poll taxes and literacy tests prevented poor people and 
minorities from voting, eliminating this program will place those 
without the multimillion-dollar political clout yet another step away 
from having their day in a Presidential race.

                              {time}  1020

  This program allows every taxpaying American to voluntarily check a 
box--and I think I should reiterate here the individual ``opts in'' to 
this program--on their 1040 to put $3 in the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund. A married couple has the option of $6 if filing jointly.
  Checking the ``yes'' box does not increase the amount of taxes an 
individual owes, nor does it decrease any refund to which he or she is 
entitled.
  In establishing the checkoff program, Congress left the single most 
important decision to the taxpayer. The taxpayer, not the House 
Republican leadership, decides whether he or she wants $3 of their 
taxes to be used for the Presidential funding program. The choice is 
theirs to voluntarily check ``yes'' or ``no.'' And I might add, during 
our hearing in the Rules Committee yesterday, several of us, including 
some of my Republican colleagues, indicated that they had at one time 
or another participated in this program. And yet now they want to 
eliminate it. Yes, this program does need improvement, but it is far 
from ineffective or obsolete.
  Since the fund's inception in 1976, every Presidential candidate 
before 2008 has used the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in the 
general election,

[[Page H476]]

and Republicans' own 2008 Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, 
used it to fund his election.
  During the 2008 election cycle, nearly $17 million of public funds 
were spent for the Republican convention, and an equivalent amount for 
Democrats; $84 million to Republicans for general election grants; and 
a total of $18 million for primary matching funds for parties' 
candidate nominations.
  House Republican leaders have promised to bring reform and 
accountability to Congress, and I quote from the Republican Pledge to 
America: ``We are fighting to bring much-needed sunlight to the 
process.'' Is this the kind of reform and sunlight that you pledge to 
the American people?
  YouCut gives Americans a choice? Really? A Web site where you only 
have the opportunity to vote ``yes'' for cutting--that is, either you 
support the Republican agenda, or we do not care what you think. A Web 
site where saying ``yes'' to meaningful programs, such as the National 
Endowment For the Arts, Legal Services Corporation, the Community 
Development Program, and a fund that was created specifically to 
empower Presidential candidates to participate in the political system 
regardless of their socioeconomic status or their relationship with 
special interest influence, is not welcome.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again: A more fitting name 
for the ``YouCut'' program would be ``CutYou'' because it hurts 
everyday Americans while doing little to cut the Federal deficit.
  Simply put, YouCut undercuts our democracy. The summary's headline 
for the legislation we are considering today is: End the Presidential 
Election Fund--Savings of $520 million over 10 years.
  The biased paragraph goes on to say: ``In short, it provides taxpayer 
subsidies to political candidates and parties.'' Not only are the 
summaries provided on YouCut inaccurate, they are written to elicit a 
specific response.
  We know that use of the fund has declined in recent years. President 
Obama was the first candidate since the fund's inception to opt out of 
the public financing in the general election, and other candidates have 
opted out of public financing in primary elections. If candidates from 
major parties continue to decline public financing, then the savings 
from eliminating the fund could and likely will be substantially lower.
  Confusing YouCut voters with one-sided jargon and eliminating 
programs like the Presidential Election Campaign Fund are not the 
answers; fixing the public financing system and paying attention to 
what the American people really want are the answers.
  What Republicans fail to mention is that the YouCut program is 
inherently selective, and therefore biased. Neither online nor cell 
phone voters are able to vote to save a program rather than cut it. 
Furthermore, the YouCut program conveniently targets only those who 
have Internet access and cell phones, which disproportionately leaves 
out a lot of the poor and elderly. The last time I checked, an 
undisclosed number of votes on a partisan Web site does not constitute 
the will of the American people.
  Republicans seem to think that this online gimmick is an effective 
substitute for good governance. Now, the Republicans have promised over 
and over again that the 112th Congress would be a new wave of 
accountability and transparency. And yet this, like every other major 
bill that has been considered thus far, is lacking in both. The 
Republican leadership has held no hearings or markups, failed to 
consider alternatives, and crafted a bill so narrow that very few 
amendments can even be considered germane.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates rather than repairs the 
Presidential public financing system, which is, in my judgment, 
irresponsible and will move our Nation in the wrong direction. I 
suggest that the next campaign more than likely on either side, 
Republican or Democrat, will cost as much as $1 billion each.
  The House Republican leadership has touted that they are going to 
change the permissive culture of Congress. Today's consideration of 
this legislation is evidence that the only thing House Republicans want 
to do is glorify the permissive culture of their own party.
  I urge my colleagues to instead focus on repairing the system and 
maintain the focus on increasing the roles of average citizens in our 
Presidential election process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chair of the 
Rules Committee.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation 
to my good friend from Grandfather Community for doing her typically 
wonderful job of managing the rule. I also want to say to my friend 
from Fort Lauderdale that I appreciate his thoughtful remarks. I am 
somewhat dumbfounded, though, that for the first time since April 8, 
2008--it has been 4 years, April 4, 2008, it was a beach bill that was 
being considered here--we had a modified open rule. We now are going to 
allow Members of this House to engage in a free-flowing debate. Our 
Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Polis, came up to me last night right 
before the State of the Union message saying that he was looking 
forward to offering an amendment that he told me he submitted for the 
Record last night. So we are going to, for the first time in a long 
time, allow for free-flowing debate. So I can understand why my friend 
might want to oppose the underlying legislation. I disagree with him, 
but I can't understand why in the world they would conceive of opposing 
for the first time since April 8, 2008, having the kind of free-flowing 
debate that both Democrats and Republicans and the American people 
deserve to see their representatives have in this institution.
  And what is this legislation all about? This legislation is all about 
job creation and economic growth. Job creation and economic growth. And 
one might say, when you are talking about the Presidential checkoff, 
how is that about job creation and economic growth?
  Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Last night the President time and 
time again talked about the importance of creating jobs. And as I said 
during my 1-minute presentation here, the President made it very clear 
that we need to make sure that we live within our means. Now, what is 
it that living within our means will do?

                              {time}  1030

  We need to send a message to those potential job creators out there 
that the United States Government is getting its fiscal house in order 
so that there can be a level of confidence for those businesses to 
create jobs. Right now, when you look at the fact that we have this $14 
trillion debt, when you look at the fact that we have deficits as far 
as the eye can see, it's not sending a very positive signal for those 
people who want to create jobs.
  So you ask, Why is it we're taking on a new program like this? Well, 
the new estimate has it from $520 million to $617 million. This is 
based on the new estimates.
  Now, is it a small amount of money? Of course it's a small amount of 
money.
  Why is this chosen? Well, I think that there is a reason. It's the 
fact that it has failed.
  President Obama chose to cast aside and not utilize this system when 
he was running for President, and John McCain did use it, as my friend 
from Fort Lauderdale said in the Rules Committee yesterday. We've 
already had the President of the United States announce that his plan 
is to raise $1 billion for his reelection campaign. That would lead me 
to conclude that President Obama, assuming he runs for reelection, is 
not planning to use this fund.
  Let's also look at the fact that, since 1980, when it was in effect, 
28.7 percent of the American people utilized that checkoff; and today, 
about 7.3 percent--or something like that--of the American people are 
using that checkoff system that is there.
  Now, I listened to the remarks of my friend from Fort Lauderdale in 
which he said that the notion of getting rid of this would allow 
corporations to be involved in a much greater way, and he implied that 
there would be all kinds of corruption.

[[Page H477]]

  No one--no one, Mr. Speaker--is advocating that we go back to the way 
the campaign finance law was before 1974 and Watergate. I mean, it was 
a horrible, horrible time. Disclosure and accountability are very 
important, and we have in place today, under the Federal election law, 
limitations that exist. No corporate contributions are allowed to be 
made to Federal advocates. No corporate contributions are allowed to be 
made to Federal candidates.
  There is the notion of somehow claiming that, by saving $617 million, 
the idea of taking that amount of money off the table and allowing 
people to voluntarily support the candidates of their choice is somehow 
going to encourage greater corporate contributions. It's against the 
law. This does nothing to change that, and I think that it's a very 
specious argument to propound something other than the case here.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say again we are going to have a rigorous debate 
on this, and Members are going to have an opportunity to participate. 
If Members do want to oppose the underlying legislation, I think they 
should be welcomed to do that, but I still find it very hard to believe 
that for the first time in the history of our Republic, now approaching 
222 years this spring, we saw an entire Congress have not a single bill 
considered under an open amendment process; and while this is not an 
open rule--and I'm not claiming it's an open rule--it is a modified 
open rule that does allow for the kind of free-flowing debate that we 
haven't seen in a long period of time.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with Ms. Foxx in 
support of this rule. Then let's have the free-flowing debate and 
allow, as Speaker Boehner regularly says, the House to work its will. 
Then we'll have a vote, and people can vote however they'd like at the 
end of the debate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, that free-flowing debate consists of six preprinted 
amendments. Five of those amendments are not in order. So we're going 
to have a free-flowing debate on six matters that are offered; and if 
what he just said is going to give the American public the impression 
that we're having a free-flowing debate, then I must have missed 
something.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just say that, obviously, this is a very positive 
step in the direction for allowing for that debate. If we had 100 
amendments filed that were germane, we'd have the outside time limit 
and an opportunity for a debate to take place on those amendments.
  So, again, any Member had the chance--Democrat or Republican alike--
to file amendments last night so that we could consider them on the 
House floor, and I think it's a great thing.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reclaim my time merely to point out that I 
don't consider five matters that are not in order and one that's going 
to be ultimately debated to be a free-flowing debate.
  We'll get there. Perhaps we'll get there after we listen to my good 
friend, the former chair of this committee and the distinguished 
ranking member from New York.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  You know, it's rather ironic that we are having this debate today, 
because it is almost exactly 1 year from the day the Supreme Court 
decided the Citizens United case. That decision opened the floodgates 
for anonymous special interests and corporations to dump unlimited 
amounts of cash into our political system. Predictably, the result of 
this awful judgment was to set loose a torrent of secret money to 
influence the midterm elections this past November.
  Now my Republican colleagues propose to further erode whatever 
protections our government has left against a state of ``democracy for 
the highest bidder'' by attempting to undo our system of Presidential 
public financing.
  Let's remember where this system came from. It was a direct response 
to the Wild West--unregulated, freewheeling campaigns that led up to 
the Watergate scandal. The atmosphere of that time was described by 
campaign finance expert Fred Wertheimer as so bad that contributors to 
Richard Nixon's reelection campaign were ``literally flying into 
Washington with satchels of cash.'' Hidden, unregulated, private money 
ruled.
  In response to that, Congress acted as much as it could to clean up 
that system, and we have done fairly well with that.
  Our democracy will not be able to afford a return to that corruption, 
but that is what we start today with this bill. This bill will result 
in even more corporate and special interest money in our campaigns than 
we have today--and that's really saying something. We don't even know 
how much money comes in from foreign money.
  The Presidential Election Campaign Fund is the one place in our 
Federal electoral system where we take some of the pressure off of 
candidates who otherwise have to raise bushels of private money. For 
the life of me, I can't see how this bill does anything other than add 
insult to the injury of the terrible Citizens United decision last 
year. This bill will also take away from American taxpayers the freedom 
to choose to support good government, to choose to support the public 
financing of campaigns.
  Republicans cite the low participation rate as a reason to scrap the 
entire program. I don't see the sense of that argument. The amount of 
money that goes into the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is 
directly proportional to how many people check the box on the tax form. 
Apparently, there is enough support for the program for American 
taxpayers to designate a projected $617 million, since that's the 
number being thrown around here today, to be saved over the next 10 
years. That sounds to me like enough support to keep the program 
around. Now, that is certainly not to say that this current system is 
perfect. It has not really been changed since the seventies. On the 
contrary, our current system is one in dire need of reform.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. As the Washington Post said yesterday in an editorial 
opposing this bill: We have a great need to rehab it. Let's fix it. 
Don't junk it.
  I wholeheartedly agree.
  I'd like to see an honest attempt to reform our campaign finance 
system to provide for openness, transparency and good government. I 
hope that the other side will join me in supporting such an effort. 
There are already two bills introduced last Congress and being 
circulated now that will do just that. The House's very own campaign 
finance policy expert, Mr. Price of North Carolina, introduced a bill 
last year, H.R. 6061, the Presidential Funding Act of 2010, which would 
strengthen and expand the system the Republicans want to dismantle, to 
bring the system into line with the reality of today's campaigns and 
boost participation rates.
  Also, H.R. 5175 in the last Congress, the DISCLOSE Act, which this 
House passed last year. The DISCLOSE Act would make sure we know where 
the money flooding our campaigns is coming from.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' 
on the rule, and ``no'' on the bill. Instead of this anti-small-d-
democratic bill the Republicans have brought to the floor without any 
public input, without any committee hearings and markups, let's debate 
a serious plan to improve our campaign finance system and strengthen 
our democracy.

                              {time}  1040

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to our colleagues 
across the aisle who are complaining about some of the proposed 
amendments being declared not germane that it is not the Republicans 
who decide whether amendments are germane or not germane; it is the 
Parliamentarian's office that decides that. They can do the same thing 
to our amendments as well as to the Democrats' amendments.
  I now yield such time as he may consume to my colleague on the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I could not get over here to the floor fast 
enough when I saw this rule come up for debate, and I rise in strong 
support of this rule today and in strong support of the underlying 
legislation.

[[Page H478]]

  I am pleased to be joined on this day after the State of the Union 
not just by my colleagues but with so many young people in the gallery 
today, because that is exactly what this debate is about.
  We've heard much talk on the floor of this House over the past week 
about the upcoming CBO baseline report. Well, if it arrived in your 
email boxes this morning like it did mine, you saw that CBO's most 
recent score predicts a $6.9 trillion, 10-year operating deficit. 
That's not the $14 trillion in debt that these young people are going 
to have to pay back, it's the actual operating deficit, the additional 
debt that we're going to add over the next 10 years. This proposal 
today is one small step towards attacking that operating deficit.
  Now we're talking about big numbers here today. Somewhere between 
$500 million and $600 million will be saved with the elimination of 
this proposal. But folks, $6.9 trillion is where we have to go over the 
next 10 years. So if you think that this underlying proposal, the 
public financing proposal, has some merit, I look forward to debating 
that when the time comes, when we get our operating deficit under 
control. But we don't just need to pass this provision today; we need 
to pass this provision and 10,000 more just like it to get to a 
balanced budget.
  Now, I want you to think about that. All of the discussion, all of 
the gnashing of teeth, the handwringing about eliminating this 
provision today, folks, this is just the beginning. This proposal and 
10,000 more just like it are what we need to pass in this House. The 
question isn't why are we bringing up this proposal today; the question 
is why don't we have three or four or five more just like it.
  I look forward to joining with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to talk about those provisions, talk about those spending items 
in our budget that we can get rid of. But folks, I am absolutely 
certain, as the YouCut site pointed out when America voted, that public 
financing is one of the top 10,000 things that we can get rid of. We 
don't have to decide today whether this is number one of the 10,000 
most wasteful programs in government or number 10,000 of the 10,000 
most wasteful programs in government; we only have to decide if it's 
somewhere on that spectrum. I tell you that it is, and I rise in strong 
support of this rule.
  The second reason I had to rush over here to the floor is I'm brand 
new. I've been in this House less than 1 month, and I'm down here 
speaking on a rule that offers an open amendment process.
  Now, if anybody has been watching the House floor, as I have, over 
the past 2 years, you might wonder what an open amendment process is, 
and you would be right to wonder because you've never seen one. I may 
be a freshman in this body, but folks who came 2 years before me, the 
sophomores in this body, they don't have any more experience in this 
process than I do, because this is the first open amendment process 
that we've seen on the floor of the House. Why are we seeing it? 
Because it's the right thing to do for the institution.
  Speaker Boehner has made a point of saying the House is going to work 
its will. I come from a very conservative district in the northeastern 
suburbs of Atlanta. And I tell you, when the House works its will, 
we're not always going to get what we want in the northeastern suburbs 
of Atlanta, because the House sits kind of here in the middle, and I'm 
a little further over here on the right-hand side of the spectrum. But 
in order for this Congress to work, in order for this House to work, in 
order to restore the dignity of this House, we have to allow the House 
to work its will.
  I am just so pleased, in my very first month in Congress, that we not 
only have seen very narrowly focused pieces of legislation come to the 
floor, but we're seeing them come to the floor under an open amendment 
process.
  And let me just say one thing about that open amendment process, 
particularly for folks, again, who haven't seen one before, folks who 
are in the gallery or watching on TV who have not seen an open 
amendment process before. Just because it's open doesn't mean you can 
do whatever you want to do on the House floor. We're talking about the 
public financing of elections today. So if you have an amendment that's 
going to change the way we finance education, that amendment is not 
going to be germane. If you have an amendment about what you want to do 
with the health care system, that amendment is not going to be germane.
  When you bring narrowly crafted pieces of legislation to the floor, 
the amendments that are germane are narrowly crafted amendments. And 
folks, I love that. For too long we have had 2,000-page bills, 1,000-
page bills that folks can't read and can't understand and that can't be 
amended. And I am so pleased today to be standing here in strong 
support of my colleague from North Carolina's resolution. I will be 
voting in favor of the rule, and I will be voting in favor of the 
underlying legislation.
  I thank the gentlelady for the time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair and not to occupants of the gallery.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my 
good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for allowing me to 
speak on the rule.
  I rise in opposition today to the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, first it was repealing patients' rights; then it was a 
budget resolution with no budget. Every one of us in this Chamber was 
elected to Congress with a goal of creating jobs and growing our 
economy, yet there hasn't been any talk about that.
  Today, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor another 
piece of political posturing that takes us away from that goal of 
creating jobs for millions of Americans and establishing economic 
stability and growth. Rather than wasting time bringing these bills to 
the floor, we should be working to develop innovative, bipartisan 
solutions that will create jobs, reduce the deficit, and put our 
economy back on track.
  We can all agree that our campaign finance system is broken. In every 
election, more and more dollars are spent by wealthy corporations and 
special interests on campaigns, inflicting great damage on the American 
people's trust in government. I know a lot of my friends wanted to turn 
the television off by the end of the last campaign. But ending the 
Presidential Campaign Fund would only further breach that trust.
  Recent polls have found that the public overwhelmingly believes that 
money buys elections--by 5 to 1 in some polls. And it's no surprise, 
because election spending has gone up fourfold between the 2006 and 
2010 congressional elections. With a voluntary $3 individual 
contribution, the Presidential Campaign Fund is a modest part of the 
answer to the Nation's campaign finance needs, not the problem. It is a 
way to include the people's voice in our government by honoring small 
donations and helping restore the people's faith in democracy.
  Nearly all Presidential candidates from both parties over the past 35 
years have used this fund as a way to reduce the emphasis on 
fundraising and special interests. Our democracy in its current form 
would cease to exist if only the rich and powerful could influence 
public officials.
  I ask you today, when the middle class is suffering and job creation 
is our number one goal, why do we continue to talk about giving more 
power to big money contributors for Presidential campaigns? After the 
Supreme Court's terrible decision on Citizens United, we need the exact 
opposite of this bill--true, reasonable campaign finance reform. That's 
how democracy is restored and people are empowered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. POLIS. The people's House should not be spending its time cutting 
off the connection of the people of this country to the White House. 
Yes, our Presidential campaign finance system is broken. It needs to be 
repaired, not eliminated, so we can have a fair way of electing our 
leaders.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague from 
Colorado,

[[Page H479]]

this is not cutting off access of our citizens to the White House. Our 
citizens have voted in lots of different ways to express their opinions 
in this country in the last year or so. In November, they voted to 
replace our spendthrift colleagues on the other side of the aisle with 
people on our side of the aisle who want to cut government spending. 
They voted on this program by reducing their involvement in this 
program to a very small number. If they wanted this program, they could 
have continued to participate in it. They participated in the YouCut 
program, which singled out this program as something that needed to be 
cut.
  We are listening to the American people, Mr. Speaker--we are doing 
that in many different ways; this is one of the ways--because they've 
told us at least in three different ways that they want a different 
kind of working going on in Washington, D.C. They don't want a lot of 
spending; they want us to cut back spending. And they've told us this 
on this program three different ways. So I would like to point that 
out.
  Mr. Speaker, according to Congressional Quarterly, nearly $139 
million in public funds were spent during the 2008 election cycle, 
including $17 million each for the Democratic and Republican 
conventions, $84 million to Republicans for general elections grants, 
and a total of $18 million for primary matching funds for candidates 
for the nominations of Democrats, Republicans, and other parties.

                              {time}  1050

  As is the case with so many other actions, the Federal Government has 
no business funding political campaigns, particularly while the 
troubled economy demands fiscal restraint. And let me point out that 
the way the Federal Government gets its money is, again, by taxing the 
American people or, in this case, by using funds that the people have 
said that it could be used for.
  The proposal embodied by H.R. 359 first received attention as a 
result of then-Republican Minority Whip Cantor's initiative dubbed 
``YouCut.'' Majority Leader Cantor is continuing this innovative effort 
which encourages public participation in our wonderful American 
democracy.
  The Web site, located at majorityleader.gov/YouCut, for the first 
time enables Americans to make their voices heard by voting weekly on 
various proposals to shrink, rather than grow, Federal spending. As I 
said in my earlier remarks, this is one of the ways the American people 
can tell us what they think.
  According to the official YouCut Web site, ``The Presidential 
Election Campaign Fund provides Federal tax dollars in the form of 
matching funds to candidates in Presidential primaries provided the 
candidates qualify and agree to abide by certain spending and 
contribution limits. It provides grants to qualifying Presidential 
candidates in general elections, if they agree not to accept other 
contributions. The program also provides grants to sponsor national 
party conventions.
  ``In short, it provides taxpayer subsidies to political candidates 
and parties. Since 2000, some major candidates have chosen to forgo 
public financing. While some have argued that providing even more 
taxpayer funding for this program might entice more candidates to 
participate, eliminating the program altogether . . . would require 
candidates and political parties to rely on private donations rather 
than tax dollars. The amount of funding for the public financing system 
is determined by checkoffs on income tax returns, and taxpayer 
participation via the checkoffs has declined,'' Mr. Speaker, ``from 
28.7 percent in 1980 to 7.3 percent in 2009.'' And that's the end of 
the quote from the Web site.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, the American people are telling us how they feel 
about this program because they're not using the checkoff.
  As the program grows increasingly less popular, its purpose is 
accordingly muddled. For example, while on the campaign trail, then-
candidate Barack Obama, who portrayed himself as a longtime supporter 
of public financing, ultimately broke his pledge to participate in the 
presidential public financing system. If public financing isn't good 
enough for such a vehement supporter, why should taxpayers finance 
partisan political campaigns?
  That's why I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, my good friend, 
Gerry Connolly.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend.
  Mr. Speaker, we just heard a reference to YouCut and that this was 
one of the most popular cuts suggested by people on this Republican 
blog. Well, Mr. Speaker, 10 million Americans want to participate in 
public financing of Presidential campaigns. And I would dare say that 
dwarfs anything we've heard from YouCut. So if we're going to get in 
the business of what the American people want and how they've expressed 
themselves, 10 million voices are in threat of being silenced today by 
this rule and the underlying legislation.
  The idea that we're going to save money and solve the deficit by 
eliminating public financing in presidential campaigns is fallacious. 
But I will give the other side credit: It is intellectually honest. 
When you have a Supreme Court ruling like Citizens United that fosters 
anonymous financing of campaigns, no wonder you want to delete public 
financing of campaigns.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my friend of longstanding, the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I don't like to reference the Republican 
chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, because he did leave the 
floor. But he made a couple of statements that I have to comment on.
  First of all, he said that this Republican initiative is about 
creating jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. 
I've watched as the Republicans have been in the majority now for about 
3 or 4 weeks, and they're not doing anything to create jobs. And this 
certainly doesn't create jobs.
  And then Mr. Dreier said that there can be no corporate contributions 
under the current law. Well, the Citizens United case clearly says that 
there are unlimited corporate contributions, and that's the problem. 
Rather than having public financing of campaigns--which this 
legislation would eliminate--we're going to have more and more 
corporations just spending millions and millions of dollars to finance 
campaigns. And that's what this is all about.
  This is the Republicans basically catering to special interests and 
the large corporations who will spend unlimited amounts of corporate 
money on campaigns, and not having in this case a public financing 
component through voluntary largely small donations.
  Now, I have to say this is a system that we have now that's been in 
place since Watergate. It was a reform that Democrats and Republicans 
used, a reform of a very bad system that the Watergate scandal showed 
was not the way we should go. And I agree that the system needs to be 
updated, but it should be changed to meet the needs of today's 
elections that are costing more, and more primaries, and the focus 
should be on small donations, not getting rid of small donations.
  But what we see instead is the Republican majority eliminating the 
system altogether and making Presidential campaigns more susceptible to 
what I call outside influence.
  We saw the effect of the Citizens United case in the past election, 
where corporations and special interests poured money to sway the 
elections in their favor. With disclosure requirements almost 
nonexistent, we have no way of knowing whether foreign corporations or 
entities were contributing to the elections. And we have to question 
whose side the new Republican House majority is on.
  Unfortunately, it appears that this is just another attempt by the 
Republicans to support their special interest friends and big 
corporations who have an unfair and undue influence on our electoral 
process.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the American people are 
buying these tired arguments that our colleagues across the aisle are 
using

[[Page H480]]

about us wanting to be the tools of corporate interest. That is not the 
issue here.
  The issue here is that the public has said in at least three 
different ways, as I said before, that this program is not worth 
continuing.
  My colleague from Virginia said that we're denying 10 million 
Americans the opportunity to participate in donating to campaigns. That 
isn't true. Individuals can donate to any campaign they want to. So 
these American people who are now doing the checkoff can easily write a 
$3 check to the candidates of their choice. We're not stopping that in 
any way whatsoever.
  What we are doing is saying we don't need to be supporting political 
conventions, primarily, and candidates. They're perfectly capable of 
raising the money directly from the American people. And what we are 
doing, though, is saying that $617 million is real money. Our 
colleagues across the aisle don't think $617 million will put a dent in 
our deficit? That shows you how far away from the American people they 
are. They don't think of $617 million as significant.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people think that $617 million is 
significant. They want us to cut spending wherever we can, and this is 
a program that has long ago outlived its usefulness.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am one of those 
people among the 10 million that did do the checkoff of $3 for 
publicly-financed Presidential campaigns and to support the national 
parties' conventions. I feel very strongly that my $3 now is directed 
in a way that I did not wish that it should be directed.
  I do urge my friend from North Carolina to understand that at least 
one Member on this side clearly understands that $617 million is a 
whole whale of a lot of money. To some of us, $617 or $67 is a whole 
lot of money. That said, what is balanced here is whether or not we 
should try in this institution to eliminate the kind of corruption that 
comes by virtue of a flood of dollars going into campaigns.
  To correct my colleague from California--and I wish he were here; I 
would yield to him to respond--when he cites the fact that no corporate 
dollars can be contributed to the respective candidates who are on the 
ballot, he is absolutely correct. That is the law. But under the aegis 
of the Citizens United decision, corporations and individuals can 
contribute anonymously to any campaign. And we saw evidence of that on 
both sides.
  Now, I have seen every iteration of reform during the last 50 years 
in the United States of America. Some of it was good and some of it 
didn't achieve its mark. This particular measure had some limitations 
and at the very same time did permit people like Eugene McCarthy, Jimmy 
Carter, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Sr., 
just to mention a few, and more recently my good friend Dr. Ron Paul--
it gave them an opportunity to put forward their ideas. And the 
argument that they can go out there and raise the kind of money that 
would allow for that to happen I think is specious at best.
  For most candidates, public funding from the Presidential election 
campaign fund has been the source of sorely needed funds at crucial 
points in Presidential races. To make matters worse, as has been 
pointed out by Ms. Slaughter and myself and others, the legislation we 
are considering today is a repeat of the disastrous Citizens United 
decision, which on January 21, 2010, unleashed massive corporate 
influence-buying expenditures in our national elections. In the face of 
the first anniversary of Citizens United, we know for a fact how 
essential it is to repair the Presidential public financing system and 
provide Presidential candidates with a viable alternative for financing 
their elections, as opposed to having to depend on influence-seeking 
big donors, lobbyists, bundlers, and corporate spenders. We cannot 
eliminate the corruption of our political system when we are 
eliminating a program that was created to try to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote for this legislation is a vote for big 
corporations and big private money to fund the election of their 
desired candidates. The Presidential public financing system needs 
repairs, but eliminating a program that works, that is voluntary, and 
that gives a voice to the American people is not the answer.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House 
adopts this rule it will bring up the DISCLOSE Act, with the same text 
as H.R. 5175 from the 111th Congress, as it passed the House on June 
24, 2010. This Republican proposal to eliminate voluntary public 
financing for Presidential elections is, in my view, a step in the 
wrong direction.
  When Presidential campaigns stop receiving this clean money, they'll 
have to go after private contributions instead. That's going to mean 
more time spent talking to special interests and the powerful and less 
time spent talking with the voters and communities and groups that have 
good ideas and real problems to discuss but don't have multi-million 
dollars to donate to a campaign.
  Is that really what we want for our constituents? I am confident that 
the answer is a resounding ``no.'' Make no mistake, this will affect 
the quality of our campaigns and it will affect our democratic process.
  We should be considering real campaign finance reform like the 
DISCLOSE Act. That bill would establish disclosure requirements for 
election-related spending by corporations, unions, and other 
organizations. And I might add, Mr. Speaker, it was a measure, as 
offered in the previous Congress, that did go through regular order, 
did have substantial committee hearings, and was presented to the Rules 
Committee, as opposed to this measure that has had absolutely no 
hearings and just comes here direct to the floor under the rubric of a 
modified open rule. And it would require, this DISCLOSE measure, any 
person or organization making so-called ``independent expenditures'' 
over $10,000 to disclose them within 24 hours. That's what we need 
after Citizens United, not politicians spending more time and energy to 
raise big money.
  The DISCLOSE Act would put a check on donations by Federal 
contractors and prohibit contributions and expenditures by foreign-
controlled domestic corporations. And among its other provisions, for 
example, is a prohibition on recipients of TARP funds from making 
contributions or expenditures.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass real 
campaign finance reform today.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 54 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon 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 a bill consisting 
     only of the text of H.R. 5175 of the 111th Congress as passed 
     by the House. 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 chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on House Administration. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. 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.

[[Page H481]]

       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        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 Republican 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 Republican 
     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 Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous 
question, rule, and underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 178, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               YEAS--234

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--178

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Black
     Broun (GA)
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Emerson
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Larson (CT)
     Mica
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Young (AK)

[[Page H482]]



                              {time}  1131

  Messrs. HOLT, GEORGE MILLER of California, and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 22, I was detained in 
committee. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 22, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 22 on H.R. 54, the 
button did not record my ``no'' vote as the gavel fell.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________