[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 91 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4476-H4480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2219, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 320 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 320
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. 2219) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. 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 Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a
recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. (a)(1) During the 112th Congress, it shall not be
in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriation
bill proposing both a decrease in an appropriation designated
pursuant to section 301 of House Concurrent Resolution 34 and
an increase in an appropriation not so designated, or vice
versa.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an amendment between
the Houses.
(b) With respect to H.R. 2219, subsection (a) shall apply
only in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. 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
Mr. NUGENT. 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
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 320 and
the underlying legislation, H.R. 2219, which appropriates funds for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012.
The rule is a truly open rule, one which provides for ample debate on
the bill and gives Members of both the minority and the majority the
opportunity to participate in debates. Any Member can submit an
amendment to H.R. 2219 as long as it's germane, in keeping with the
rules of the House.
As a member of the Rules Committee, I'm proud of the transparency,
the openness, and the free-flowing debate that we've seen thus far in
the 112th Congress, especially in the appropriations process. One way
we can show our commitment to the change we promised the American
people is by supporting open rules like this one. The underlying bill
keeps our promise to bring an end to wasteful pet projects. In keeping
with the House earmark ban, H.R. 2219 doesn't contain a single earmark.
Now, as a father of three sons all currently serving in the United
States Army, this bill is of special importance to me. It's important
to the Blue Star moms and dads whose kids have answered the call of
duty and are serving their country in uniform. But this legislation
isn't just important to the moms and dads and husbands and wives of the
loved ones serving overseas. This legislation is important to all
Americans. This appropriations bill ensures that the men and women in
our Armed Forces are equipped with the tools and the resources they
need to get the job done. It's a bill that ensures we can continue to
go to bed at night and be safe and sound in our homes, knowing our
troops are protecting our Nation and our way of life.
Mr. Speaker, I had the honor and privilege of visiting Iraq and
Afghanistan and Pakistan during the last constituent work week. While
there, I got to meet many military leaders, our allies, but, most
importantly, our troops on the ground. I saw with my own eyes the
equipment they're working with and the environment that they're working
in. I saw what they had and heard about what they needed to get their
jobs done. And this legislation is vital to giving our men and women in
uniform the resources they need to perform their mission and, more
importantly, to get them home safely.
Mr. Speaker, while I support our troops no matter where the President
sends them, I also believe we need to focus on the wars we're already
fighting. To that end, I'm sorry there aren't restrictions on using
these funds in Libya. I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks
for not appropriating for further hostilities in that country. We can't
stretch our resources so thin that we ultimately end up tying the hands
of our troops.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to discuss the
rule's commitment to budgetary transparency. The budget resolution
adopted earlier this year included specifically delineated funds for
operations related to the global war on terror. This fund is capped at
$126 billion. The intent of the budget language was to preserve these
funds specifically for the war on terror and to ensure that the money
wasn't diverted for unrelated programs.
Previous majorities have used similar constructs for the exact same
purpose. Additionally, in previous Congresses, the Budget Committee
chairman was prepared to advise the Chair that in terms of spending
levels, it is impermissible to use funding for the global war on terror
to offset increases in spending elsewhere in this bill. The same is
true this Congress. Section 2 of the rule codifies the budget
resolution's intent and the past practices of this House. The rule
prohibits funding for the global war on terror from being used to pay
for operations of any other kind. This provides transparency and
accountability as to exactly how much money is being spent on the
global war on terror, rather than counting the funds as an off-budget
emergency spending program.
With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and
to vote ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2219, the Defense Department Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2012, represents $530 billion in regular discretionary
spending, $8.9 billion below the President's request, but $17 billion
above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
Before going further into my remarks, I would like to thank my friend
and fellow Floridian for yielding time to me, and I extend a personal
thanks to him and his family, and particularly his three sons that are
serving in the Army. I don't have three sons, but I had three uncles
who served in the Army in another era, in the Second World War. And as
I was proud of them, I am also proud of Mr. Nugent's sons and the many
families and servicemen and -women in our military.
From pay raises for military operations, this legislation offers a
basically reasonable and comprehensive approach to our Nation's defense
activities.
{time} 1240
Yet I'm deeply concerned by really the staggering amounts of money
this country continues to devote to the military. At a time of fiscal
austerity when the majority is slashing tens of billions of dollars
from essential social programs, it's, in my view, absurd that we
continue to exempt the Department
[[Page H4477]]
of Defense from the same scrutiny that we apply to our domestic
programs. For all of the rhetoric that I have heard through the years
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about runaway
spending, the fact of the matter is that Republicans actually increased
spending in this bill. While they insist that more families must go
hungry, fewer students need to go to college, fewer firefighters and
teachers need to work in our cities, and fewer jobs need to be created,
the Republican majority believes that $649 billion still isn't quite
enough.
The United States accounts for 43 percent of all military spending on
Earth. We already outspend Russia and China, the next biggest spenders,
by a factor of six. We tell teachers they can't get classroom supplies,
but we don't tell admirals that they can't have more submarines. We
tell mayors that they can't have more cops, but we don't tell generals
that they can't have more ballistic missiles. And we tell Americans
that they can't get their roads fixed or their levies strengthened, but
here we are funding a next generation of nuclear weapons, not to
mention that we already have enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody
on Earth 25 times over.
Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that our priorities are askew and
our spending on defense is unsustainable. Let me give you an example:
The Republican majority recently cut one-third, or proposed cutting
one-third of the budget--almost $500 million--from the Food for Peace
program. Over the course of almost 50 years, this program has delivered
lifesaving food supplies to over 3 billion people. As John F. Kennedy
correctly noted when he was running for President, ``food is peace.''
Yet these cuts mean that millions of people in vulnerable and
underdeveloped regions of the world will not receive food aid from the
United States.
The Arab Spring uprisings that arose in Tunisia were largely because
of the concerns for food, and that is true elsewhere in the Middle East
and North Africa. And this particular year should be a reminder that
conflict erupts when people go without their most basic needs,
including food.
At the same time when people see that the food they receive is coming
from the United States--and I've had the good fortune of visiting
around the world, having served over a period of time, 8 years over a
period of 10 years on the Intelligence Committee here in Congress and
having served previous to that on the Foreign Affairs Committee and now
serving on the Committee for Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have
had an opportunity to see firsthand in Germany countless amounts of
food stamped with ``USA'' on them, and I've seen them in camps, and I
suffer with the people now in southern Sudan. My colleague, Donald
Payne, and a former colleague, Harry Johnston from West Palm Beach,
were together at a refugee camp in Nemili and previous to that in
Mombasa, Kenya. I've seen our food aid around the world reduce the kind
of anti-American extremism that often festers in these regions and
manifests itself into conflicts that we wind up having to go and fight
about.
So the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that food aid is actually critical to
our national security. And the spending that we do to preempt or
prevent conflicts means the less money that we have to spend later
fighting them.
We're doing a disservice to our servicemen and -women by cutting
programs that reduce the risk of war while adding billions to programs
that create ever-more powerful methods to wage war. At the same time,
we need to recognize that the increasing amounts we spend on the
military means the less money we have here at home to address our
pressing domestic concerns.
All of us heard the President of the United States last night speak
to this issue, that while it may appear and might readily be perceived
as nation building that we are doing in some countries, it is time for
us, as the President said, to begin domestic building.
When I went to Iraq a few years ago, they showed us the remains of a
water treatment plant. We spent 14 million U.S. dollars building that
plant, and just as soon as it was finished, somebody came and blew it
up. Mr. Speaker, I see us building water treatment plants in Basra and
in Baghdad, in Kandahar and Kabul. But I don't see us building much-
needed water treatment plants in the cities of the Glades that I
represent--Belle Glade, Pahokee, and Clewiston--as well as others,
Deerfield Beach, and Miramar, my hometown, I've had requests for water
treatment matters, as well as Riviera Beach. Every year cities and
counties in the congressional district that I'm privileged to serve
come begging and asking for money to support infrastructure projects
that no one is likely to blow up, and yet we don't fund them.
I don't say that we shouldn't help the Iraqi or the Afghan people
develop their country, but I do say that we ought to be mindful that in
our own country we have bridges collapsing, dams breaking, levies
failing, roads crumbling, and water utilities leaking away. We simply
cannot justify to the American people our willingness to spend tens of
billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan while neglecting those same
efforts here at home.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this measure contains several billion dollars
in aid to Pakistan. As I have said before, you can't readily say the
word ``Afghanistan'' without also saying the word ``Pakistan.'' To the
extent that we are involved in Afghanistan, we also are involved in
Pakistan. But we send billions of dollars to Pakistan only to see large
sums of that money being used against American interests, funding the
very same extremist groups that we are trying to eliminate.
A recent article in the New Yorker magazine noted that the Pakistani
military submits expense claims every month to the United States
Embassy in Islamabad. No receipts are provided and none are even
requested. We're sending money out the door into one of the most
conflict-ridden regions of the world without so much as an
understanding of where that money is going, what exactly it is being
used for, who in Pakistan is giving it to whom, and why someone is
receiving it. We know that the Pakistani military and intelligence
community support some of the extremist groups that are engaged against
United States interests and which have committed acts of terrorism
against civilians.
So again, Mr. Speaker, I come around to the point that we spend
absolutely too much money on military and defense matters that we do
not give half the same attention to debating as we do about cutting
nutrition support, as is proposed for women, infants and children or
financial aid to college students.
{time} 1250
When Belle Glade, Florida, in the congressional district that I
serve, comes looking for less than $1 million to fix their
infrastructure and provide jobs for their local residents, the
Republican majority has a whole long list of reasons of why we can't
afford it. And yet, before us today, I see $5 billion for two
submarines, $2 billion for one destroyer, and $6 billion for 32 fighter
jets.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that our level of defense spending is on an
unsustainable course. And at a time when we are demanding that the
American people do more with much, much less, we also have to make
choices and set priorities when it comes to our Nation's military
spending.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings). I agree with a lot of what he said.
We talk about Pakistan, and I just came from there. We talk about the
threat that the Taliban that are hiding in Pakistan pose to our troops
in Afghanistan, and we talk about that every day. We talk about the
inaction of the Pakistani military and the ISI in particularly rooting
out those that are killing more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than
anything else.
I would like to see more direct involvement as relates to Pakistan
and their military on accountability issues that Mr. Hastings brought
up, about the ability for us to make sure that if they're going to be
allies in this fight against terrorism and particularly against the
Taliban, that they truly are.
But in regards to this bill, the underlying legislation, this is $9
billion less than what the President of the United States requested for
military DOD allocations this year, for 2012, $9 billion
[[Page H4478]]
less than the President's request. And some of it is to restock our
National Guard and Reserve units that have been decimated over the
years in regards to fighting wars in two different countries. It's
about giving our troops a pay raise. It's about taking care of their
medical needs and research in regards to providing medical care for
those that are in the military. And guess what? That also then bleeds
out into the civilian world in regards to those applications that are
developed in the military.
It is about our core mission. The Constitution is clear about our
core mission in regards to national defense. It talks specifically
about this Nation and what this responsibility is of this Congress in
regards to national defense.
I said earlier what does trouble me is that, in this, our chairman
did a great job of not putting funding in to fund any more incursions
into Libya, but it doesn't restrict it right now. And there's going to
be discussion on Libya coming up later today.
But I've got to give credit to the chairman of the committee, of the
subcommittee, in regards to appropriations that they really have
crafted a piece of legislation that has bipartisan support in that
committee. There's bipartisan support across the board in regards to
where we need to go in regards to keeping this Nation safe against
threats, known and unknown, in the future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to
yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis), an icon in this Nation and a passionate person on the subject
at hand.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the American
people have grown weary of war. War destroys the dreams, the hopes, the
aspirations, and the longings of a people.
A wise man once said, ``Every gun that is made, every warship
launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not
clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending
the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, hopes of its
children.''
These are not the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. These are not
the words of Gandhi. These are the words of a five-star General,
President Dwight Eisenhower.
We have spent billions of dollars. Thousands of our sons and
daughters have been left dead on the battlefield and scarred by the
brutality of war. I'm glad that the President is bringing 10,000
soldiers home from Afghanistan, but we must do more to end this war and
start investing in our future.
We cannot continue to fund this war while we tell our seniors there
is no money for Medicare. We cannot fund war and tell our children and
young mothers that we won't pay for food stamps. We cannot pay for war
while our bridges and our roads are crumbling.
We cannot afford to make bombs and guns. We must use our resources to
solve the problems of humankind, to build and not to tear down, to
reconcile and not to divide, to love and not to hate, to heal and not
to kill.
If we want to create a beloved community, create a beloved world, a
world that is at peace with itself, if that is our goal, our way must
be love, peace, and nonviolence, skilled diplomacy not military might.
We must lay down the tools and instruments of war and violence. Stop
paying for war. Believe in the power of peace and end this war.
Mr. NUGENT. I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Nugent. Again, I appreciate
your complimentary remarks regarding mine, and I compliment you with
regard to yours. I don't think we have a single bit of daylight between
us when it comes to the support of the men and women that are in the
military.
I do quarrel with, across the 14th Street bridge, the amount of money
that we spend at the Pentagon. I have personally seen generals serving
generals. And somewhere along the line, that just does not add up to
frugality.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us provides a comprehensive
accounting of our Nation's military activities and includes much
deserved pay raises for our troops, critical funding for health
programs, and disease research.
Let's make it very clear. The only thing that we could afford was a
less than 2 percent raise for our troops. And I personally, and I
believe Chairman Young of the subcommittee and the distinguished
Floridian who has served on this committee for a protracted period of
time and has no peer when it comes to support of the military--he did
have one peer that I know extremely well, and he does as well, and
that's Ike Skelton, who was not reelected.
{time} 1300
We miss Ike and the extraordinary service that he put forward on
behalf of this country, first as a soldier and then as a
Congressperson.
We can come up with the necessary expenditures to keep our military
well-equipped, well-trained, and superior to any other force, but at
the same time we need to devote greater attention to the use of these
precious resources. I wish that the Republican majority would have
devoted as much concern for the non-defense portion of our budget as
they do to the vast level of spending contained in this measure. We
need to appreciate that spending money on conflict prevention, as my
friend Mr. Lewis pointed out, is far, far cheaper in the long run than
spending money on conflict engagement.
We cut social services programs here at home and around the world at
our own peril. For when people lack food, lack resources, lack dignity,
lack a future and lack hope, their nations will much more easily
succumb to the kind of extremism, violence, and instability that we are
spending billions fighting.
I have no quarrel with providing the necessary funding to support our
servicemen and -women or to carry out their missions. Our Nation needs
a lean and powerful and effective military. And we owe a debt of
gratitude--as has been expressed and likely will be continuously
throughout this appropriations process--to the members of the military
and their families for the sacrifices they make and the devotion to
duty they demonstrate. When they are sent on difficult missions
overseas, it's our duty to see that they have our full and complete
support.
But we also have great needs in this country, and we cannot continue
to slash funding for essential programs here at home in favor of ever-
increasing funding for wars abroad. We cannot continue spending money
overseas that will go to waste when water treatment plants get blown
up. We can't continue funding dubious efforts in regions where our
money trickles down to the very extremists it is supposed to be
defeating. And we cannot keep increasing our military budget year after
year while devastating essential programs are left by the wayside here
at home.
I do have one concern about this rule, and that is the new section
that was added to this rule at the last minute that set forth
restrictions on the amendment process.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well.
I know that since I've come to the House, I've gotten up here and
talked time and time again about our government's core mission. There
is no doubt there is nothing more central to the purpose of government
than to provide for our Nation's defenses. It's in the Preamble of the
Constitution: Provide for the common defense. It's in the oath we took
when we were sworn into office to defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
H.R. 2219 fulfills our constitutional duty to provide for our
Nation's defense. Additionally, H. Res. 320 ensures that we will review
this legislation completely in an open and transparent manner that all
American people deserve to see.
Mr. Speaker, 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.
[[Page H4479]]
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247,
nays 168, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 479]
YEAS--247
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
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
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--168
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Ackerman
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Garamendi
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Hirono
Holden
Hurt
Larson (CT)
McDermott
Napolitano
Rangel
Stivers
Waters
Woolsey
{time} 1334
Messrs. WATT and GENE GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. GOHMERT, ROYCE and KINGSTON changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 479, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable
to record my vote for rollcall No. 479. Had I been present I would have
voted: rollcall No. 479: ``No''--On Ordering the Previous Question.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained
and missed rollcall vote 479. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on
rollcall vote 479.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 479 in order to attend my grandson's
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Motion
on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 320--the Rule for H.R.
2219--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251,
noes 173, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 480]
AYES--251
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
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
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
[[Page H4480]]
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--173
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Holden
Hurt
Napolitano
Rangel
Stivers
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1351
Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, when rollcall vote 480 was called, I
registered my vote as ``aye'' and then proceeded to an Intelligence
briefing. When I returned to the floor, it was my intention to vote
``no'' on the next amendment and I registered my vote as such.
Unfortunately, due to a staffing error, it was still the same rollcall
vote 480, and my ``aye'' was mistakenly changed to ``no.'' To be clear,
I do support the rule providing for consideration of the FY2012
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
Stated against:
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was absent
during rollcall vote No. 480 in order to attend my grandson's
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res.
320--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2219--Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2012.
____________________