[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4985-4993]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 513, 527 REFORM ACT OF 2005

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 755 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 755

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 513) to amend the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when 
     organizations described in section 527 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, 
     and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on House Administration now printed in the 
     bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on House Administration; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale (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.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 755 provides 60 minutes of debate in 
the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on House Administration. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and 
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on House Administration, modified by the amendment 
printed in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H. Res. 755 and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act of 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working on the lobbying and 
ethics reform effort currently underway in the House. Having worked so 
closely with so many Members on both sides of the aisle, I am very 
confident that there is a shared goal to protect the integrity of 
Congress and to uphold the public trust by implementing bold reform.
  The Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act is moving, as 
Speaker Hastert directed, through regular order, and it is being 
considered by five different committees. One way or another, many of 
the provisions of the bill focus on outside sources of influence, which 
have rightly been the targets of good government reform for decades, 
and I am very proud that we have provided leadership in that effort 
over the years.
  As Members know very well, the current reform process has looked at 
everything from travel rules, to gift limits, to lobbying disclosure, a 
wide range of things. However, this entire good faith effort and the 
bipartisan effort that we are working on would come up woefully short 
if we did not address an area where outside influence in the form of 
unlimited contributions continues to play an enormous role. So

[[Page 4986]]

today we are considering H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act.
  Congress has tried to limit big money in campaigns for many, many 
years. In fact, I will tell you, I wrote my senior thesis in college on 
the issue of campaign finance reform on the 1974 act, which was the 
first big Campaign Reform Act implemented in the post-Watergate era.
  As colleagues who were here in 2002 will remember very well, we had a 
very spirited debate on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Among other 
goals that were put forward, this bill aimed to get rid of soft money. 
That was the goal that was stated by those who were champions of the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. They wanted to do everything possible 
to ban soft money contributions from political parties, getting it out 
of the political process altogether.
  Along with many of my colleagues, I expressed very strong 
reservations about banning soft money from parties. I voted against the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I was very concerned about it. I 
worried that by limiting contributions and dictating who could give how 
much to whom, that we would be violating the first amendment.
  I also seriously doubted that banning soft money from parties would 
effectively get that money out of the system itself. As many pointed 
out at the time, BCRA left an obvious and easy loophole to exploit 
because it did not, in fact, ban unlimited money from being raised and 
spent by political groups called 527s.
  And make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, 527s are political organizations. 
The purpose of 527s under the law is to influence elections. The 
Supreme Court has written that 527 groups ``by definition engage in 
partisan political activity.''
  527s were the natural recipients of the soft money that the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act denied to political parties expressly 
because they are defined by law as political organizations. In fact, 
many of these 527s were set up only after the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act passed just so they could be the recipients of the soft 
dollar contributions.
  Now, as our colleague, Mr. Linder, pointed out during that 2002 
debate on BCRA, he said, ``By eliminating the role of parties, 
corporations and labor unions could become increasingly reliant on 
loopholes, allowing them to spend funds from their general treasuries 
to influence elections.'' Mr. Linder went on to say, ``activities that 
would be undertaken without Federal regulation.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what has happened. Mr. Linder was 
absolutely right when he portended this. Nonetheless, supporters of 
BCRA promised that it would indeed get big money out of politics. That, 
as one colleague said during those debates, would ``end the influence, 
the undue influence of big money in the political process.''
  Where does this leave us today? For starters, the issue of free 
speech as it relates to limiting campaign donations is no longer a 
theoretical argument that many of us engaged in. Campaign limits are 
allowed, and BCRA is the law of the land, even though so many of us 
opposed it.
  So while many of us did oppose those limits in contributions, we 
realize that we are governed by laws. We regularly talk about the rule 
of law. We are not simply governed by our principles, but, in fact, we 
are governed by the laws, and now every Member's duty, regardless of 
how we voted on the 2002 act, is to ask ourselves, is the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act working as it was intended?
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the answer is a resounding no, it is not. Soft 
money still dominates the political landscape. A handful, a very small 
handful of wealthy people, still funnel money to organizations involved 
in campaigns. But now it is going to 527s instead of to political 
parties.
  Mr. Speaker, the money involved is enormous. In the 2003-2004 
election cycle, 527 committees raised $425 million, nearly half a 
billion dollars. That is $273 million more than before the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act was enacted. As predicted, the soft money that used 
to go to political parties found its home in the so-called 527s. In 
fact, the top 25 individual donors gave more than $146 million in 2004. 
As I said, it is a very small group of people, from my perspective, 
exercising their first amendment rights. But with limits that the court 
has upheld, I think we have no response other than to respond. Twenty-
five individuals, 25 individual donors, again, $146 million in 2004.
  During the current election cycle, Mr. Speaker, that trend has 
already continued, and we have already seen more than $58 million 
expended by the 527s.
  Now, we are not talking about a leaky roof here where just a little 
soft money is dripping into the system. We are talking about half the 
roof missing, and money is literally pouring in to this political 
system.
  Since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act failed to take soft money 
out of politics, as even the bill's original authors concede, it is our 
duty to correct a flaw in the 2002 law. After all, if we are going to 
have Federal regulation of campaign finance, it better be fair, it 
better be consistent and it better be effective.
  H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act, restores balance and fairness to the 
system by making 527s register with Federal Election Commission and by 
subjecting them to the same Federal campaign finance laws as political 
parties, political committees and other political organizations. They 
would be allowed to raise a maximum of $25,000 per year for their non-
Federal accounts and $5,000 for their Federal accounts.
  Under this bill, 527s will still be able to engage in their political 
activities, such as Get Out the Vote and voter registration drives. 
They will just be subject to the hard dollar requirements for their 
spending. For instance, they will be required to spend only hard money 
for ads that refer to Federal candidates, and at least 50 percent hard 
money for ads that refer to a political party.
  Mr. Speaker, I have offered an amendment to H.R. 513 that removes the 
limit on the amounts parties can spend in coordination with their own 
candidates. This was a bipartisan effort that was put together. Parties 
and their candidates should be free to work together to promote the 
issues they believe in and the arguments that they support. This change 
will increase transparency in campaign spending by allowing them to 
work together, rather than continuing the charade that the two entities 
don't know each other. There is no danger of corruption when a 
political party supports its own candidate.
  527 reform has the backing of Democracy 21, Campaign Legal Center, 
the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not revolutionary; it is common sense. We 
are simply closing an enormous loophole by extending existing Federal 
campaign laws to 527s.
  Opponents of this legislation claim that soft money now going to 527s 
would simply be funneled to other groups, such as the 501(c)s, yet 
there is a huge difference under the Tax Code and in real life between 
527s and the 501(c) groups, namely, 527s are organized for political 
purposes. They exist for the purpose of influencing campaigns. 501(c)s 
are not established for that purpose. In fact, as a matter of Federal 
law, 501(c)s are not allowed to engage in political activity as their 
primary mission.
  If, as opponents contend, soft money is funneled to 501(c)s and if 
politics becomes their major purpose, they will be in violation of the 
law.

                              {time}  1515

  I will add, if it becomes clear that further reforms are needed, 
Congress will act. Just as we are taking action now to tighten the 
existing law, we will be ready to act again. We all know, we have said 
it time and time again, reform is an ongoing process, and we are very 
proud to lead the effort for reform.
  As long as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act remains the law of the 
land, we must ensure that its provisions are applied fairly to all 
groups

[[Page 4987]]

engaged in political campaigns. Now, some opponents of H.R. 513 also 
argue that subjecting 527s to campaign finance regulations limits free 
speech. I have to ask, where was this first amendment devotion during 
the 2002 debate? When I and others were making the point in 2002 that 
free speech would be violated, supporters of BCRA were awfully quiet on 
that issue.
  Regardless of how one feels about that issue, the United States 
Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that limiting political 
donations is constitutional. Most recently, they did it when they 
upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in McConnell v. FEC. So 
critics of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the very same people who predicted 
the demise of our democracy if soft money was allowed to flow to 
parties, now seem to have no trouble opposing a bill that allows soft 
money to flow to the 527s.
  Just to be clear, some Members on the other side of the aisle want 
the very groups that spent more than $320 million on behalf of their 
candidates and policies in 2004 to be the only ones that can influence 
elections without dollar limits.
  To be consistent, opponents of this bill would have to also oppose 
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ban on soft money going to parties. 
You cannot just pick and choose who is worthy of soft money. If it is 
bad, if it corrupts the system, if it silences the average voter, if it 
allows the wealthy to buy influence, all things that they argued in 
2002, then it is not who receives soft money that is the issue; soft 
money itself is the issue.
  Are my friends on the other side of the aisle saying they made a 
mistake in 2002? Have they reversed their position? Do they now support 
the utilization of so-called soft money? Do they wish to repeal the 
soft money provisions that were included in the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act? I suspect not.
  I would urge my colleagues to be consistent with their past positions 
on campaign finance reform and oppose any dual system for free speech 
where one group has more protections than another.
  Mr. Speaker, as with our entire reform effort, we are simply seeking 
to attain the proverbial level playing field, to make rules fair, to 
make them effective, and to make sure that they are enforced. We have 
an opportunity to patch a hole in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 
that would go a long way toward getting big money out of campaigns, as 
The Washington Post editorialized just this morning, to close the 
biggest remaining loophole in the campaign finance system. This is 
something that supporters in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 
believed strongly in in 2002. They have a chance to reaffirm their 
support today with this up or down vote on this simple issue. And for 
Members like myself who opposed BCRA back in 2002, we can support H.R. 
513 because the legal challenges to the original reforms have been 
settled, and the shortcomings that we predicted have in fact come to 
pass.
  Mr. Speaker, altogether, this should result in a strong bipartisan 
vote for transparency, disclosure, accountability, and reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, my very 
good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule, 
which blocks every single Member in this body from offering an 
amendment to the 527 Reform Act of 2006. This bill would amend the 
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and require, among other things, 
certain political organizations involved in Federal election activities 
to register with the Federal Election Commission.
  Yesterday, during the Rules Committee hearing, the majority on the 
committee reported out a closed rule. In doing so, this limited any 
opportunity for the House to fully vet this important issue. If 
Congress is the place for true deliberation of all points of view, then 
I ask, why are the Republicans so hasty to ramrod this bill through 
without opportunities to amend? Surely the majority realizes that 
abolishing spending limits is a move that intentionally pushes aside 
the interests of women, minorities, and other voters who may not be a 
part of the Republican base and therefore apparently are not worthy of 
regard. Or is it simply a maneuver to deny us serious debate about 
viable alternatives, such as one from Massachusetts offered by 
Representative Tierney? Representative Tierney's amendment, had it been 
made in order, would have completely eliminated the ability of 
industries and interest groups to unduly influence elections. His idea? 
The full public financing of elections. This proposal, which 
Republicans have blocked from consideration, is the only one that I 
have heard to date that completely protects the integrity of our 
elections and public policymaking process.
  I am equally disappointed that my very good friends, Representatives 
Wynn and Pence, were denied an opportunity to offer their bipartisan 
proposal before the House. Let us force candidates to get themselves 
elected based on the merits of their argument rather than the depth of 
their campaign accounts, which have been padded heavily by the richest 
of U.S. industries.
  One can only imagine what the Medicare bill would have looked like if 
the pharmaceutical industry hadn't contributed the hundreds of millions 
in campaign contributions to the President and Republican candidates. 
What about the energy bill, reeking with billion dollar tax breaks for 
energy companies? What would that bill have looked like if it weren't 
for campaign contributions to Members of Congress?
  If we want to get serious about corruption in Congress, then we have 
to get serious about corruption in our elections. For those in America, 
myself included, who believe that outside influences have too much 
control in the political process, I say take them out of the process. 
Make it illegal for them to write campaign checks and support publicly 
financed congressional elections.
  Seats in this and the other body are for sale to the highest bidder. 
But the majority of the American people do not have enough money to buy 
them.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have us to believe 
that this legislation, among other things, protects the integrity of 
campaign finance because it brings 527s out of secrecy. This is a false 
claim that could not be further from the truth.
  My good friend, Representative Dreier, cited Common Cause. I guess it 
is about time for me to cite a former colleague of his and mine, Pat 
Toomey, the president of the Club for Growth; or John Berthoud, the 
president of the National Taxpayers' Union; or David Keene, the 
chairman of the American Conservative Union; or Grover Norquist, the 
president of Americans for Tax Reform. All of these peoples are opposed 
to this measure.
  It is kind of interesting to me in Congress how up gets to be down 
and down gets to be up. But 527s are far from the clandestine 
operations that some may want us to believe. 527s do not operate behind 
closed doors. If you think they do, ask John Kerry. Their work combines 
social awareness, advocacy, and political activities that provide 
everyone with tools for political knowledge.
  Receipts and expenditures from 527s must be publicly disclosed and 
made available. In fact, 527s are already required by law to register 
with and report to the Internal Revenue Service. Their name is actually 
derived from the section of the United States Tax Code that regulates 
their financial activities. I think that we would all agree that it is 
difficult to have much more oversight than the Internal Revenue 
Service.
  The administration and their friends in the Republican majority also 
intend for this new legislation to simultaneously stamp out free 
speech, voter outreach and the free flowing exchange of ideas. 
Unfettered political speech, be it at issues in the mail, by phone, on 
TV, on the radio, and especially over

[[Page 4988]]

the Internet, is the basis for why our Founding Fathers fought so hard 
to make it a part of the very first amendment in our Constitution.
  These are the tools Americans use to make informed decisions on the 
political issues before them. These are the activities that register 
people to vote, bring them to the polls, and engage them in necessary 
debate.
  We should take heed from those who are only now establishing free and 
fair elections in some parts of the world. They found out the hard way 
that once freedom of speech eroded, it began a slippery slope that soon 
crushed their liberties as well as their governments.
  Any time the majority wants to get serious regarding campaign finance 
and the influence of campaign dollars in the House, Democrats stand 
ready to have that discussion. And I am having a hard time 
understanding if way out there in America that people really do know 
the difference between soft money and hard money. In the meantime, I 
urge my colleagues for the sake of free speech and for the sake of a 
campaign process in which we all believe to oppose this closed rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very able member of the Rules Committee and a 
great champion and understander of the issue of campaign finance and 
campaigns in general.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the 
527 Reform Act. This legislation will strengthen our political parties 
while subjecting 527s to the same regulations as other actors under our 
campaign finance system.
  One of the most important provisions in this bill is the elimination 
of the limit on expenditures coordinated between party committees and 
candidates. That limit as it currently exists is unquestionably one of 
the worst features of our campaign finance system. It creates a 
needless barrier between parties and their candidates. The first step 
towards a better, cleaner campaign reform system that places candidates 
in control of their own campaigns is repealing of that provision as 
this bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, political parties, other than perhaps the candidates 
themselves, are the most accountable actors in our campaign finance 
system. They have to answer to their members, to their donors, to the 
media, and most importantly of all, to the voters. Their activities are 
disclosed and well documented. National parties in particular seldom 
violate either the letter or the spirit of the law. They are 
responsible participants in the political process, unlike many 527s.
  Additionally, parties serve a very useful role in our political 
process. One essential thing they have historically done is to 
rechannel factions of narrow special interests into broader, more 
public-spirited coalitions. Although not foreseen by our Founders, it 
is impossible to imagine the success of our democracy without the vital 
role parties have played.
  As Clinton Rossiter, the scholar of American politics, once put it, 
No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, and no 
politics without parties.
  Past efforts at reforming the campaign finance system often have had 
the unintended consequence of weakening political parties. The 
understandable desire of citizens to influence the outcome of elections 
does not go away with campaign restrictions.

                              {time}  1530

  Instead, the money they contribute sometimes flows from candidates 
and parties to unaccountable actors like 527s. This bill will help 
impede that process.
  In 2004, after the passage of the McCain-Feingold bill, there was 
more money in politics than ever before, with just 25 wealthy 
individuals accounting for $146 million raised by 527 groups to 
influence that year's elections. That is not removing big money from 
politics. That is the manipulation of the political process by a 
wealthy elite.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word to those who spoke so eloquently in 
favor of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. If that 
law was not intended to limit the influence of money from unaccountable 
actors like 527s, then what was its purpose? And yet, many who voted 
for the McCain-Feingold bill will today vote against reforming 527s. 
That is, to put it politely, inconsistent.
  Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a fine American, many of the opponents of 
527 reform are effectively saying: ``I voted for campaign finance 
reform before I voted against it.'' Today, the supporters of the 
McCain-Feingold bill have an opportunity to pass real reform in a 
bipartisan way. McCain-Feingold supporters can choose between the 
principles they profess to hold or they can vote for what many believe 
is to their own short-term, partisan political advantage. And if they 
vote for the latter, after previously claiming to vote for the former, 
they will set off a political finance ``arms race'' that will flood the 
American political system with tens of millions of dollars from a few 
fabulously wealthy individuals.
  That is an outcome we should all seek to oppose.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished 
Democratic whip, my very good friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  At a time when this Congress is embroiled in the most serious scandal 
in a generation, when a culture of corruption has swept over this body 
with no sign the Ethics Committee is addressing it, this body should be 
devoting the precious few days it has here to reforming its own culture 
and practices.
  Today, the Republicans are doing what they so often do. They are 
trying to gag their opponents and further empower their supporters. 
They again abuse their legislative power to assault their adversaries. 
This is not reform. It is retaliation.
  It is ironic that so many of the Republican leadership in opposing 
campaign finance reform argued so strenuously against campaign 
expenditure limits but now advocate limitations, not because of 
principle but because of political power and the abuse of that power.
  The Republican leadership has chosen to take on political 
organizations in a cynical attempt to appear serious about reform and 
divert attention from its own ethical failures.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem confronting our polity is not independent 
groups whose political activities are legal and are disclosed regularly 
to either the IRS or the FEC. We know who spends this money. The public 
can make a judgment.
  Rather, it is the degree to which the Republican leadership has 
sacrificed the public interest, good public policy, and its own ethical 
conduct in order to amass, consolidate and perpetuate power through 
unseemly and unethical alliances with special interests like Jack 
Abramoff.
  If this body were serious about reform, we would be debating the best 
way to eliminate the culture of corruption, not restrict the first 
amendment rights of political organizations.
  Now, the previous speaker mentioned campaign finance reform. Let me 
quote some debate during the course of that consideration of that bill. 
The gentleman who brings this bill to the floor today, Mr. Dreier, I 
always like to quote Mr. Dreier because they are such different points 
of view that are reflected; you can almost get the whole spectrum of 
thought.
  ``Mr. Dreier: So we have these attempts being made by some to impose 
extraordinary, onerous regulations on the American people, jeopardizing 
their opportunity to come together and pursue their political interests 
that they have, that a shared group has; and I believe that is wrong,'' 
says Mr. Dreier. ``I believe it is wrong,'' Mr. Dreier said on February 
13, 2002, ``to impose those kinds of regulations.''
  We then had a vote on campaign finance reform by the same folks who

[[Page 4989]]

are offering this bill to reform, and Mr. Hastert voted ``no,'' Mr. 
Boehner voted ``no,'' Mr. Blunt voted ``no,'' Mr. DeLay voted ``no,'' 
and, yes, my friend and my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) voted 
``no.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, very, very briefly, not to get into the 
issue of the dueling quotes, but let me quote from 1998 in the debate 
on this issue from my friend Mr. Hoyer, who loves to carry in his 
pocket Dreier quotes. I do not regularly carry this one, but this was 
just provided to me.
  In the Congressional Record on June 19, 1998, my friend said, ``In my 
view, genuine reform must purge from Federal elections unregulated soft 
money which has become so pervasive. The issue ads, which are so 
clearly intended to influence elections, must be covered.'' That was 
the statement made.
  Let me say also, I completely stand by exactly what I said in that 
2002 debate and I stand by that vote as my colleagues stand by that 
vote.
  If the gentleman had heard my opening statement, I refer to the fact 
that we were not supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. We 
were concerned about first amendment rights. We still are concerned 
about first amendment rights, but across the street, the United States 
Supreme Court upheld BCRA when they chose in McConnell v. FEC----
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if you will yield 
yourself some time, I will be glad to have some debate with you.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to have a debate with you but you need to 
yield some of the time.
  Mr. DREIER. I think the gentleman still has time.
  Mr. HOYER. I still have time, thank you very much.
  Mr. DeLay said in another quote, ``Those who want to regulate through 
government the participation in the political process, I respect them 
trying to do that; I disagree with it.'' That is the way he voted, as 
you have pointed out. ``We ought to let the voters decide through 
instant disclosure to be able to tell and see while people are 
collecting their money and spending it to decide.'' In other words, 
disclosure. These are disclosed.
  My view is, in light of the fact they are disclosed, you will vote 
``no'' on this bill. My obvious supposition is you are not going to do 
that.
  Today, this bill is about politics. You have changed your principle, 
in my opinion. You have changed your point of view. That is why you are 
voting differently than you did on campaign finance reform.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I respond by 
saying, we stand by our commitment to first amendment rights. We stand 
by our position of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, but that 
is the law of the land. We live with it today. We are simply trying to 
implement exactly what you said on June 19, 1998, when you said there 
should be even-handed regulation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what the gentleman has 
just said, he stands by what he said but he is going to adopt what I 
said to support this legislation. As usual, we have somewhat of an 
Alice in Wonderland approach.
  This bill is about politics. This bill is about getting opponents 
that they presumed who have outraised them in the last election, but 
until the last election they did not want regulation. Why? Because 
their premise was they would raise more money, but when they found out 
that their opponents who disagreed with their failed policies for this 
country were communicating with the American public, then they said, 
oh, my goodness, we have to do something about that. They had this 
included in lobbying legislation, which we need to reform, as I have 
said, but guess what, they have taken it out, for political reasons, 
not for principle, I tell my friend from Massachusetts, not for 
principle, but for political reasons to try to undermine their 
opponents.
  Today, we are missing an opportunity to look inward and expose ugly 
truths about the devolution of the legislative process from the one 
that the Framers had in mind when they created Article I of the 
Constitution.
  I challenge the other side to explain to me why, 15 months into the 
109th Congress, nothing, nothing has been done by this House to come to 
terms with the culture of corruption.
  I challenge the other side to explain how H.R. 513 will increase the 
public's faith that elected representatives are addressing and adhering 
to the strictest ethical code and will pay an appropriate price if they 
veer from it.
  I would suggest that today's debate underscores the extent to which a 
party that came to power 12 years ago, promising a bold new direction, 
has become insensitive to the issues that really matter in our Nation 
in 2006.
  This bill is about politics. This bill is about a fear of losing 
power. This bill is about trying to undermine the voice of opposition 
in this country. This bill results from a fear that those who are 
opposing policies bad for the United States, bad for our people, bad 
for our families, undermining the security here at home and around the 
world will somehow be communicated correctly to the American people.
  It was not until the last election, not until then, did those 176 
people who on principle said we should not constrain this speech, this 
constitutional right that we have, and testified before the House 
Administration Committee, including Speaker Gingrich at one point in 
time, and said that it was disclosure that was the issue, not 
constraint. It was not until the last election that that opinion was 
changed, that this bill came to the floor to undermine and gag those 
who oppose the policies being pursued.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I might 
consume to respond to some of the arguments of my friend Mr. Hoyer.
  First of all, let me make it very clear, our position has not changed 
one iota from what it was. We still believe in transparency and 
disclosure. We stand by the testimony that was provided before the 
House Administration, our concern, our opposition to the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act. So the gentleman is wrong in concluding that we 
somehow have changed.
  What we are saying with this legislation is that we should not in any 
way allow loopholes to exist. All we are trying to do is close a 
loophole which addresses the concern that my colleague raised when he 
talked about the need to get unregulated soft money out of the process. 
We know that every single one of us in our individual campaigns and 
political parties is forced to comply with the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act, and yet we have seen $425 million, almost a half a billion 
dollars, expended in unregulated ways, providing an opportunity for 
them to influence Federal elections.
  That is a complete contravention of the goal of campaign reform, and 
that has been argued by the people who were the greatest proponents of 
campaign reform, Democracy 21, Common Cause, a wide range of groups, 
which worked closely and tried to implement the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act.
  On this issue of our having taken no action, on this very day, the 
House Rules Committee has actually been scheduled in the last hour to 
be marking up our bill H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability 
Transparency Act. The Judiciary Committee today marked it up. As the 
gentleman knows, we at the very early part of this year passed 
legislation designed to get at the access that registered lobbyists had 
to the House floor.

                              {time}  1545

  So we have taken action, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are 
continuing to focus attention on reform and our quest for the 
proverbial level playing field.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from 
Michigan, a former Secretary of State, Mrs. Miller.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise to support the rule and to support the underlying 
bill.

[[Page 4990]]

  Mr. Speaker, it was just 4 years ago that the Congress passed a 
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, and the purpose of that 
legislation was to ``eliminate'' hundreds of millions of dollars of 
unregulated soft money and the influence that wealthy donors had on the 
electoral process. However, the 2004 election cycle clearly 
demonstrated that BCRA was unable to deliver on what it promised.
  In fact, the great irony of all of this is that while soft money to 
political parties was eliminated, wealthy donors found a new avenue to 
fund their candidates and to have more influence than they had ever had 
under the old rules. In 2004, we saw George Soros and Peter Lewis 
inject more than $20 million each, each of them injecting more than $20 
million into the election process. So, so much for eliminating soft 
money.
  Overall, federally focused 527s raised and spent over $550 million. 
Now, by contrast, George W. Bush and John Kerry combined to spend $655 
million on their entire Presidential campaigns. The numbers are 
strikingly similar. The only difference is the Presidential candidates 
had to file with and abide by the rules of the FEC. The 527s did not.
  The Presidential campaigns were accountable to the voters. The 527s 
were not. And instead of the political parties providing key support 
for their candidates, 527s began to act as surrogate political parties. 
Essentially what happened here is the political parties were 
outsourced. Political parties were outsourced. The 527s ran TV ads, 
they operated Web sites, they ran phone banks, they mobilized the get-
out-the-vote efforts, all with money not regulated by the FEC.
  In fact, the 527s proved so significant that MoveOn.org actually sent 
an e-mail to all of their supporters after the 2004 election and said 
this about the Democratic Party. This is what MoveOn.org said: ``Now 
it's our party. We bought it. We own it, and we're going to take it 
back.'' So, so much for eliminating the big dollars and big money.
  Often I hear my Democratic colleagues complaining about the Swift 
Boat Veterans For Truth, another 527. Well, today, my Democratic 
colleagues have an opportunity to strike back. All of this activity was 
conducted with less oversight than when the political parties were able 
to accept soft money. And it is abundantly clear that something must be 
done. We need to do something to level the playing field that has 
shifted in favor of the unaccountable 527s. Right now, we have numerous 
groups operating under the cover of shadows, moving money back and 
forth in hopes of convincing voters to support a particular candidate.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to my service in this House, I had the great honor 
and privilege of serving for 8 years as Michigan Secretary of State, 
and I was responsible for enforcing the campaign finance act in my 
State and increasing voter participation. My administration was very 
honored with the highest grade in the entire Nation by the NAACP for 
being on the forefront of campaign reform. We were honored with the 
Digital Sunshine Award for our program to provide voters with more 
information on who was trying to influence the outcome of the election 
process.
  So I have had some experience with this issue, and I believe 
transparency is always the key. It is always the critical element.
  I do believe that if we do not act now, the nauseating ugliness, 
negativity and hyperpartisanship that we saw in 2004 will only 
intensify in 2006 and 2008. We must protect our democratic electoral 
process and keep those who seek to influence our votes accountable. I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to 
tell both sides of the remaining amount of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). The gentleman from 
Florida has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining and Mr. Dreier has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, (Mr. 
Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, although I 
have been listening to the debate. This will be an amusing, if not 
interesting, debate as those who supported campaign finance reform are 
opposed to 527 reform, and those who opposed campaign finance are for 
campaign finance reform. I guess everyone is changing around their 
positions, so we should have a very good time. Actually, I want to 
compliment the chairman of the Rules Committee. At least the debate is 
only going to last an hour, so it won't be too tough on all of us.
  Just for the record, this is basically a legal issue. 527s are 
political committees that are designed to influence an election, either 
the election or defeat of a candidate. The legal basis for regulation 
by the FEC comes from the reform act that was passed not in 2000 but 
after Watergate. That is where the legal basis is to regulate 527s.
  The Federal Election Commission decided not to regulate 527s, hence 
there was a lawsuit that was filed in Federal District Court in 
Washington. There was a decision by Judge Sullivan recently in that 
case basically saying that the FEC did not have justification to not 
promulgate rules and regulations with regard to 527s. So regardless of 
what happens here today, ultimately, I think the court is clearly going 
to instruct the FEC to promulgate rules and regulations relevant to 
527s.
  In any event, I think we should have an open debate on this and 
discuss the merits of 527s and campaign finance reform. I am 
particularly troubled that this rule also allows the repeal of 
coordinated contribution limits, or a vote on coordinated contribution 
limits. I believe a repeal of coordinated spending limits may make it 
easier for wealthier individuals to use donations to the political 
parties in order to evade campaign finance laws. I also think we should 
have had an open debate on this and been allowed to offer other 
amendments that would strike this controversial provision.
  Furthermore, there are a number of Democrat amendments that had been 
offered in the Rules Committee. Rahm Emanuel, who has been active on 
this, had two amendments related to this debate but, unfortunately, 
those amendments were ruled out of order.
  In any event, for this reason I believe that the rule should be 
defeated. But, Mr. Speaker, I really look forward to this interesting, 
if not amusing, debate we are about to have on 527s.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again exactly how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mr. Dreier, you have 4\1/2\ minutes, and I 
believe the gentleman from Florida has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers 
at this time and I am prepared to go forward.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to Mr. Shays, who 
wanted to respond and then you can close your debate and we will do the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Connecticut, the 
great champion of campaign finance reform (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is 
nothing funny about this debate. Nothing funny at all.
  The vast majority of my colleagues to my right voted for campaign 
finance reform. The vast majority of my colleagues to my left voted 
against it. The difference is my colleagues to the right, once it 
passed, looked for loopholes behind the law; and my colleagues here, my 
Republican colleagues who voted against the law said we will abide by 
it.
  The problem is there is one loophole and the loophole is 527s. When 
we passed the law, we banned corporate money, union dues money and 
unlimited sums from individuals. We enforced the 1907 law, the 1947 
law, and the 1974 law. That is what we did, we enforced it. But the FEC 
refuses to

[[Page 4991]]

abide by the law as it relates to this one issue, 527s. We want to 
close the loophole.
  Now, the reason is, if we are going to have the law, it better work. 
So my own Republican colleagues have been very consistent. They opposed 
the law. But if you are going to have the law, it should be consistent 
and work. And my colleagues, with all due respect, are being 
extraordinarily inconsistent. You voted for the law and now you want 
loopholes to it and you do not want to fix the loopholes. That is an 
outrage, and I plead with you to remember your rhetoric when you spoke. 
When you spoke, you supported the law. Now abide by it and make sure 
the loopholes are taken care of.
  My colleague, Mr. Meehan, is right. We will win in court. The court 
has said that the 527s are primarily a campaign expense, and therefore 
need to abide by the law. So eventually, someday, I think they will be 
forced to write a rule to do what this bill does, but we are taking 
care of it now.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Apparently my good friend, and he is my good friend, from Connecticut 
was not mindful that there were 100 Members of the House of 
Representatives who wrote to the FEC asking that the McConnell v. FEC 
decision be upheld.
  But I don't want to get bogged down in all of these legal mores. The 
simple fact of the matter is that if we intend to do something that 
would make a difference, we could all support public financing. I 
challenge any of you to tell me that that would not cure the problems 
that we continue to talk about.
  I also would urge my friend from Connecticut, who argues about 
loopholes, to ask the chairman what I say about laws that we pass here. 
You show me a law and I will show you a loophole. I have been involved 
in politics as long as anybody in this room, and for the 41 years that 
I have been involved, we have continued to reform campaign finance by 
calling it campaign finance reform. Every time we reform it, the 
Republicans or the Democrats, the majority or the minority, somebody 
comes up with a way to get around the law.
  So make this one, if you will, Mr. Chairman, and be mindful of all of 
the people that have spoken with reference to the myth that I think 
that you perpetuate. One of the biggest myths, the National Review 
says, is that this bill would level the playing field. That is language 
you used earlier, Mr. Chairman, ending the ability of the wealthy to 
fund propaganda. This is completely false, according to the National 
Review. Wealthy individuals would still be free to say whatever they 
want, whenever they want. The proposal would end only the ability of 
individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak 
out on issues.
  The simple fact is when you cite to the law, my recollection is you 
didn't say anything at all about Buckley v. Valeo, which simply said in 
its holding that money is speech, and that is ultimately what winds up 
happening here.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, so I can amend the rule to provide that immediately after the 
House adopts this rule, if it does, it will bring H.R. 4682, the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006 to the House floor for 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials 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, before we go reforming campaign 
finance laws and telling those on the outside what they can and cannot 
do, I think we need to fix up our own house. H.R. 4682 is a 
comprehensive reform package introduced by Leader Pelosi that is 
designed to clean up this Congress and show the American people we are 
serious about our roles as legislators and that we put the people we 
represent first.
  This bill does many things. It curbs the abuses of power by stopping 
the practice of keeping votes open to twist arms and lobbying Members 
on the floor of the House. It shuts down the K Street Project by making 
it a criminal offense and violation of the House rules to take or 
withhold official action or threaten to do so with the intent to 
influence private employment decisions. It ends the practice of adding 
special interest provisions to conference reports in the dead of night 
and behind closed doors. It imposes strict and enforceable new 
disclosure requirements on lobbyists. It curbs abuses of power and it 
blocks cronyism and corrupt contracting practices that endanger our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world.
  It is important for Members to know that defeating the previous 
question will not, I repeat, will not, block the underlying bill. H.R. 
513 will still be considered by the House. But by voting ``no'' on the 
previous question, we will be able to consider the Honest Leadership 
and Open Government Act under a completely open rule that gives all 
Members of this body the opportunity to be heard on this matter.
  I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just say that my friend is correct in saying we should look at 
loopholes and do everything we can to close them. The Republican Party 
is the party of reform. We are very proud of the fact that we have been 
and continue to be the party of reform.
  This is a loophole that needs to be closed so we can get to the kind 
of fairness that Mr. Shays, the great champion of campaign finance 
reform, talked about. He and I still disagree to this moment about the 
issue itself. I believe these kind of limits undermine first amendment 
rights, but the Supreme Court has upheld the Campaign Reform Act, and I 
believe if you look at the great champions of campaign reform, Common 
Cause, Democracy 21, and a wide range of other groups, they are 
strongly supportive of this measure. I believe we should support this.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier:
       On page 2, line 6, strike ``printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution'' and insert 
     ``numbered 1 for printing in the Congressional Record 
     pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII''.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 755, the Rule Providing for Consideration 
                  of H.R. 513, 527 Reform Act of 2005

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, 
     the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 4682) to provide more rigorous requirements with 
     respect to disclosure and enforcement of ethics and lobbying 
     laws and regulations, 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 chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
     The bill 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.
       Sec. 3. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution of 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.''
                                  ____


        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

[[Page 4992]]

     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.''
       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 to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and 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, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the 
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution will be 
followed by 5-minute votes, if ordered, on amending the resolution and 
adopting the resolution, as amended (or not).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 198, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Evans
     Hoekstra
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Schakowsky
     Tanner
     Watson

                              {time}  1626

  Ms. BERKLEY and Messrs. ROTHMAN, KUCINICH and CROWLEY changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HUNTER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.

[[Page 4993]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 199, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               AYES--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Evans
     Hoekstra
     Pitts
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Schakowsky
     Tanner
     Watson

                              {time}  1635

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________