[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1593-H1597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3309, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION PROCESS REFORM ACT OF 2012
Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 595
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. 3309) to amend the Communications Act of 1934
to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the
procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission.
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 Energy and
Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
All points of order against the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments 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. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period from March
29, 2012, through April 16, 2012, as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
{time} 1310
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WEBSTER. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to my good friend and colleague 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. WEBSTER. Madam 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. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and
the underlying bill. House Resolution 595 provides for a structured
rule for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications
Commission Process Reform Act of 2012.
The rule makes 10 of the 11 amendments submitted to the committee in
order. Of these, eight are Democrat-sponsored amendments and two are
Republican-sponsored amendments.
As noted by the subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Eshoo, during the
Rules Committee meeting on this last night, H.R. 3309 has come to the
floor under regular order. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology held an oversight hearing and
subsequently a legislative hearing on Federal Communications Commission
process reform.
The subcommittee then circulated a discussion draft before holding an
open markup and favorably reporting the bill to the full committee on
November 16, 2011. On March 6, 2012, the full committee ordered the
bill favorably reported to the House.
In 2010, the communications and technology industry invested $66
billion to deploy broadband infrastructure, $3 billion more than in
2009. New products and services are innovated by this sector on an
almost daily basis. With the innovation come high-quality jobs and
marked improvements for every American's quality of life.
As a result, all efforts should be made to avoid stalling this
important economic engine. The FCC should strive to be the most open
and transparent agency in the Federal Government, and any intervention
into the marketplace should be the result of rigorous analysis
demonstrating the need for government regulation.
The Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act would change
the process the FCC must follow in issuing regulations and limit the
[[Page H1594]]
agency's ability to set conditions on transactions relating to
corporate mergers and acquisitions.
The legislation would require the FCC to be more transparent and
methodical in determining whether to intervene in the communications
marketplace in dealing with customers and regulated parties, and in
reviewing transactions.
Customers, small businesses, and outside-the-beltway stakeholders, in
particular, do not have the regulatory lawyers needed for rush review
of proceedings. The only way to get their input is to give them time to
provide feedback on well-delineated proposals.
Before it starts intervening, the FCC should make sure it has a full
understanding of the state of competition and current technologies. By
requiring the FCC to be more transparent, to find a market failure
before proposing regulations, and to conduct cost-benefit analyses
before adopting rules, H.R. 3309 helps promote jobs, investment, and
innovation in one of the few sectors still firing on all cylinders in
this economy.
In particular, the bill prohibits the FCC from coercing parties to
accept concessions, such as network neutrality obligations, as a
condition of approving their mergers. Such conditions are typically
unrelated to the specifics of the transaction and involve requirements
the FCC otherwise lacks the policy justification or legal authority to
impose. They also chill transactions that might otherwise advance the
economy, and impose unnecessary costs on businesses.
The bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace through a notice
of inquiry before proposing new rules that would increase costs for
customers and businesses; to establish the specific text of proposed
rules before their consideration so the public and industry know what
is being considered and have adequate information to provide input,
much as House leadership has adopted in the layover requirement for the
bills that we now hear on the floor; to identify a market failure or
customer harm and conduct a cost-effective analysis before adopting
economically significant rules that cost more than $100 million; to set
the shot clock and schedules for issuing decisions and to report to
Congress on how well it is abiding by them so the public and industry
know when issues will be resolved; and to create performance measures
to evaluate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a program that
costs more than $100 million.
These proposed process reforms are not radical, nor are they an
attempt to cripple the FCC, as some opponents of the legislation have
claimed. Instead, this legislation seeks to pull back the curtain on
bureaucratic regulation of a sector of our economy that has provided
high-tech innovation and investment, and the high-quality jobs that
come with it, despite the economic downturn.
So, once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from
Florida for yielding the time to me, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3309, the
Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act. There may be
beneficial provisions in the underlying legislation to make the FCC's
processes more transparent and more efficient.
I do suggest that the FCC has made great strides in this regard under
the leadership of Chairman Genachowski, and certainly more can be done.
But the fact remains that my friends on the other side of the aisle
have squandered important opportunities in this process to walk the
walk and talk the talk.
Now, last night an amendment was offered by my good friend and
colleague, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, to require FCC disclosure of
spending on political advertisements, which was opposed in committee
but made in order to go forward today.
Recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the Citizens United case,
have opened the door for unlimited spending by wealthy entities aiming
to influence the electoral process. These individuals, organizations,
and corporations have the financial resources to reach millions of
Americans through cable, broadcast television, the radio, and other
media.
Unfortunately, Americans do not yet have the right to know who is
paying for these efforts. Under current law, Americans have no way of
knowing whether an advertisement urging them to vote for a certain
candidate or support certain legislation is being done at the behest of
someone who stands to make a lot of money from that candidate or the
bill.
That's no way to run a country. That's no way to hold an election.
And that's no way to run a government.
Since Citizens United, our government is less like a democracy and
more like a mystery. I firmly support the Eshoo amendment and ask all
of our colleagues to do so. It aims to provide some clues by requiring
the disclosure of any individual or corporation that contributes
$10,000 or more for the purpose of airing political programming in an
election cycle.
{time} 1320
This amendment is modeled after the DISCLOSE Act, sponsored by my
friend and colleague, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, of which I am a
proud cosponsor. Both these measures educate voters by disclosing who
is donating money to influence the electoral process. It is as simple
as that: transparency, accountability, and democracy.
Yet some of my Republican colleague friends continue to be baffled as
to why the American people will want to know who is trying to influence
them. Last night in the Rules Committee, my good friend from Georgia
(Mr. Woodall) was indicating his motions regarding this; and I said to
him what I say to all of our colleagues and to all Americans, that the
day somebody shows up with $500, you would be interested to know, if
they are opposed to you, who they are.
So the question remains: Why do some Republicans oppose these efforts
now?
Madam Speaker, we know full well about some of the biases that some
Republicans have in favor of the wealthiest Americans. When they're not
trying to eviscerate social safety net programs--as I suggested in the
Rules Committee, and in 40 minutes we will be taking up the proposed
budget that does just that--to make room for tax cuts for the well off
in our society, it appears that Republicans are eager to allow the
richest Americans to hijack the electoral process. Because that is what
is about to happen, and it is and will be a hijacking.
When vast sums of money are used to influence the democratic process,
the voices of those who do not have such resources get drowned out.
When that influence is allowed to remain in the shadows, suddenly we
find that the wealthiest interests in this country are the ones driving
the bus, the train, the plane, and the rest of us do not know where the
stops are.
This amendment, along with the DISCLOSE Act and similar efforts, aims
to provide Americans with the basics of who is spending how much on
what. It does not impose any new obligations on broadcasters or
providers; it does not hold broadcasters or providers liable for
inaccurate information; and it does not take action with respect to
posting this information online. This is a simple disclosure
requirement. It benefits all Americans. It is good for our democracy.
Quite frankly, I think that a commendable thing occurs when many of
the amendments are made in order. In this particular instance, I'm
especially pleased that my colleagues made the Eshoo amendment in
order.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise to urge Members to vote against the previous question.
Now, why would we do that?
Because we need to invest in America's crumbling infrastructure, and
the Republicans are totally incapable of producing a transportation
bill.
Here's a little bit of review of history.
[[Page H1595]]
February 8, 2011, Chairman Mica: We will have a bill by August.
Then we skip forward a little bit, August, Chairman Mica: I will
agree to one additional highway program extension--meaning they didn't
get the bill done by August.
Then we fast-forward to November, Speaker Boehner: House to pass
highway bill this year.
That was, of course, November 2011. It's 2012. Now the Republicans
are saying they need another 90 days to get agreement in their own
caucus. They're never going to get agreement. There are 80 Members of
the Republican caucus who believe that there is no Federal interest--
get this--no Federal interest in the national transportation system. It
should devolve to the 50 States, back to the good ol' days when Kansas
built the turnpike and Oklahoma didn't, and the cars were launched off
the end of the turnpike into a farmer's field for another 5 years until
Kansas finally got around to it. Let's go back to those good old days.
They also say they don't want to create jobs. This won't create jobs,
the Speaker has said. Well, guess what? Transportation investment is
the best way to create made-in-America jobs: transit equipment made in
America, steel made in America, construction jobs by Americans for
Americans for our future. They can't get it done. No more 90-day
extensions or whatever they're dithering around now. They've got the
throttle on the floor and they're spinning doughnuts, but they've run
out of gas.
So it's time to act. What we need to do is defeat the previous
question, bring up the bipartisan, Senate-passed transportation bill,
which half of the Republican Senators--some of the members of the Flat
Earth Society even voted for. Bring that bill up here--we can get the
votes on this side of the aisle--and pass it and put Americans back to
work.
Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire if the gentleman from
Florida has any more speakers because I am prepared to close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I appreciate my colleague for asking. I was
hoping that Mr. Bishop from New York would be here, but in light of the
fact that he is not, I'm prepared to close.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If Mr.
Bishop does arrive, then perhaps I would use some of my time to yield
to him.
We all know that this legislation is never going to pass the Senate,
and so this exercise remains just that, an exercise.
Republicans claim to be in favor of reducing the size of government,
but this bill will require the FCC to hire 20 additional staff at a
cost of $26 million over 5 years just to handle all the additional work
created.
Rather than focus on stimulating the economy, funding infrastructure
investments, and improving our democracy, my friends on the other side
insist on devoting time and energy in a pursuit that is never going to
go beyond this Chamber.
Rather than support transparency and our democratic process, my
friends on the other side want to shield the best off in our society
and corporations from having to disclose their financial influence on
the political process. And rather than work with Democrats to craft
comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that can pass the House and
Senate, Republicans would rather see their partisan bills die than
allow a compromise measure to live. I would say that I'm appalled,
Madam Speaker, but this kind of thing seems to happen all the time
around here.
Madam 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 H.R. 14, the House companion to the
bipartisan Senate transportation bill and to discuss our proposal, but
before that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding, and I
apologize for my tardy arrival on the floor.
As Yogi Berra once said, it's deja vu all over again. Here we are a
week later and we still have not addressed the imminent expiration of
our highway programs.
As we witnessed with the implosion of H.R. 7 six weeks ago, we once
again saw last night the inevitable result of the Republican mantra: My
way or the highway. Last night, House Republicans were forced to remove
from floor consideration their short-term extension bill, in part
because they absolutely refused to reach out to their Democratic
colleagues to get anything done. Meanwhile, I have sponsored the Senate
bill, MAP 21--now called H.R. 14 here in the House--a bipartisan path
forward that makes meaningful reforms and provides certainty to States.
I'm proud to be offering this bipartisan legislation to refocus the
discussion on jobs and economic opportunities rather than the
Republican message this week of tearing down Medicare and protecting
the 1 percent at the expense of middle class families.
{time} 1330
As of today, House Republicans have yet to put forward a credible
highway reauthorization that puts Americans back to work. Their only
attempt, H.R. 7, which is the Boehner-Mica authorization, was called
the worst highway bill ever by United States Department of
Transportation Secretary LaHood, who is a former Republican Member of
this body. It was drafted in the dark of night without Democratic
input. It removed transit, the transit guarantee, from the highway
trust fund, and it couldn't attract a single Democratic vote nor even a
majority of Republican votes.
MAP 21 passed overwhelmingly in the Senate with a bipartisan
majority, a vote of 74 22, and it is fully paid for--something House
Republicans seem unable to come close to. MAP 21 pay-fors are less
controversial than the House Republican bill. The Senate has estimated
that MAP 21 will save 1.8 million jobs and will create up to 1 million
more jobs. During a weak economic recovery that's looking for a jump-
start, this is the kind of bill we need to be passing and passing as
quickly as we possibly can.
Is MAP 21 the silver bullet to our surface transportation needs? No,
but there is no silver bullet when it comes to our infrastructure
needs.
We all would prefer a 5-year bill, but we need to get a bill passed.
MAP 21, H.R. 14, is the path forward. I would urge my Republican
colleagues to bring that bill to the floor so that we can vote for it
in a bipartisan fashion and send it to the President.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
insert the text of my 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. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself the balance of my time, and will get back
to the issue at hand.
This is not necessarily a highway bill, but it does talk about a
highway, one which is much faster than the ones we drive on. It is hard
to imagine a world without a high-speed wireless Internet service. It
is hard to imagine staffers walking down the hallways without some sort
of wireless devices that they're communicating with others on, and
usually their hands are glued to them.
Communications and technology innovations over the past several years
have made us a more connected world. In some instances, the new global
connectedness has brought us even closer together, allowing us to share
in similarities and differences between our peers in distant cultures.
It has given us a chance to marvel at the world's best athletes on the
grandest stages, and in some cases it has exposed the atrocities of
war, intolerance, and disregard for human life. We want our innovations
to continue and our inventors to keep inventing. In the communications
and technology fields they have, and they continue to amaze us with new
breakthroughs every day.
This bill simply pulls back the curtain on the FCC, the agency
charged with regulating the communications sector. It asks them to
institute commonsense reforms to better keep the public informed on
their actions. It requires the Commission to rigorously
[[Page H1596]]
examine the marketplace before intervening; to give increased time for
public input and comment; and to increase transparency while approving
new rules and amendments. These process reforms are simply good
government, and they should be embraced in a nonpartisan fashion.
I ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this rule
and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 595 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. 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
of the text of the bill (H.R. 14) to reauthorize Federal-aid
highway and highway safety construction programs, 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. 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.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 3 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. WEBSTER. 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 595, if
ordered; suspension of the rules with regard to H.R. 3606; and
suspension of the rules with regard to H.R. 3298, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 182, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 130]
YEAS--236
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
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
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
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
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
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
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 (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 (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--182
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
[[Page H1597]]
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
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
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Akin
Engel
Flores
Jackson (IL)
Landry
Lewis (GA)
Mack
Marchant
Neal
Rangel
Watt
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
{time} 1401
Messrs. SCHRADER, SARBANES, SIRES, CHANDLER, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of
California, Messrs. BLUMENAUER, HONDA, and KEATING changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. POSEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 130, had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________