[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27482-27486]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2095, FEDERAL RAILROAD SAFETY 
                        IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 724 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 724

       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. 2095) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to prevent railroad fatalities, injuries, and hazardous 
     materials releases, to authorize the Federal Railroad Safety 
     Administration, 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 except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It

[[Page 27483]]

     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 
     Transportation and Infrastructure 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 
     except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 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 except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 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. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2095 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 724 provides a structured rule for consideration 
of H.R. 2095, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007. The 
resolution provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes 4 amendments in 
order. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
  As the debate in the Rules Committee demonstrated, Members on both 
sides of the aisle are focused on getting this bill to conference and 
onto the President's desk, and this rule reflects that consensus.
  I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Brown for their 
leadership in addressing rail safety issues. Attention and investment 
to the safety of our rail infrastructure and workers is needed.
  Congress last reauthorized the Federal Railroad Administration, also 
known as FRA, rail safety programs in 1994 and that authorization 
lapsed in 1998. In the time since Congress last took a comprehensive 
look at railroad safety, much has changed with our Nation's freight and 
passenger rail infrastructure. The amount of goods transported by rail 
has increased dramatically and more often our population is turning to 
rail as an alternative to getting into their cars. This is creating a 
greater demand on our rail infrastructure.
  The bill before us today, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act 
of 2007, would authorize our Federal rail safety programs at $1.2 
billion over 4 years. This bill makes important investments in our 
current rail safety programs and creates new grant programs for grade 
crossing safety and train control technology.
  Additionally, the importance of safety will be reflected in the 
renaming of the FRA to the Federal Railroad Safety Administration. This 
is significant because a new name would emphasize the Federal role in 
the safety of rail transportation.
  A fresh look at rail safety is long overdue. Over the next 20 years, 
the demand for freight and passenger rail is expected to grow and 
continue to play an important role in our economy and in our 
communities. Now is the time to make an investment in the safety of our 
rail infrastructure, as well as the training of the men and women who 
work on the rail lines. This way we can embrace the growth of our 
Nation's infrastructure and face it in a responsible way.
  For example, the Department of Transportation has estimated that the 
amount of freight moved on rail will increase by 50 percent from 1998 
to 2020. If you live in a community with a rail line, you are already 
experiencing this growth firsthand. In my district of Sacramento, there 
are two freight lines, and the largest railroad switching yard west of 
the Mississippi lies just outside of my district in Roseville. I 
understand how big a role freight lines play in a community. When 
something goes wrong with a freight line, the community knows about it 
immediately. Freight carried by these rail lines must be transported 
safely and securely, particularly when it travels through densely 
populated urban areas.
  As the freight rail industry continues to grow, it will need a well-
trained and safe workforce. Addressing safety and training issues now 
will benefit all our communities and our national economy in future 
years.

                              {time}  1500

  This bill makes that investment and nearly doubles the number of FRA 
inspectors from 440 to 800.
  Safety on our passenger rail lines is equally important. In fiscal 
year 2007, close to 26 million passengers chose to take trains. This is 
a 6.3 percent increase from the previous year. We can only expect these 
ridership numbers to increase as Americans seek travel alternatives in 
an attempt to turn away from congested highways and overstressed 
airlines.
  In northern California, the Capital Corridor line has shown 
incredible increases in ridership. In 1998, 544,000 passengers traveled 
on the Capital Corridor line. In 2007, the Capital Corridor ridership 
has almost tripled to almost 1.5 million passengers.
  In 2007, throughout the entire State of California, 5 million 
passengers rode on rail. Translated to vehicle miles, that is 500 
million miles, which, simply put, means half a billion vehicle miles 
not on our highways and thus saving gas, reducing congestion and not 
polluting our air.
  I say this because we need to protect and encourage this upward trend 
not only in California but across the Nation.
  To do this, it is important that we invest in safety at a 
proportional rate to our ridership growth and freight growth. Our 
citizens must continue to have confidence in our rail infrastructure.
  Finally, the demand on our rail infrastructure has outgrown our 
ability to keep our rail system safe. We must also ensure that our rail 
workers are getting the training they need, but also the rest between 
shifts.
  According to the FRA, 40 percent of all train accidents are the 
result of human factors, and 1 in 4 of those accidents results from 
fatigue. These accidents are preventable, and it's time that we address 
the problem.
  This bill makes the necessary changes to address employee fatigue. It 
increases the minimum rest period for employees from 8 to 10 hours and 
also phases in a limit of 10 hours of the amount of limbo time an 
employee can accrue each month.
  In closing, this bill addresses the critical issues of worker 
fatigue, timely and thorough inspections, as well as enforcement of 
safety regulations. In short, this bill reinstates rail safety as a top 
priority for our communities,

[[Page 27484]]

workforce, and the millions of people who ride our rail lines.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my 
friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Federal Railroad Administration was created by the Department of 
Transportation Act of 1966. The Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, 
is charged with overseeing the Federal rail safety program.
  As all of our colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, railroads crisscross 
every congressional district, and their safe operation is of national 
importance, especially since they play such an integral part in our 
national economy by transporting products and people to and from ports, 
and in the instance of products, from manufacturers, to suppliers, to 
the consumers.
  Since 1978, there's been a dramatic decline in the number of railway 
accidents. Last year, there were just over 2,800 such accidents, 
obviously too many, but a significant decline compared to the past. 
Obviously more can be done to reduce the number of accidents and save 
lives, and more should be done.
  FRA classifies the causes of train accidents into 5 categories: human 
factors, track and structures, equipment, signal and train control, and 
miscellaneous. Of those categories, human factors and track are 
responsible for the majority of train accidents. Last year, 2006, over 
70 percent of such accidents were caused by human factors or track 
defects.
  Most rail-related deaths are to pedestrians on rail lines, trying to 
cross obviously, and motorists colliding with trains at grade 
crossings. While there are nearly 1,000 rail-related deaths each year, 
about 20 to 30 rail employees unfortunately are killed while on duty 
each year.
  The underlying legislation being brought forward by this rule, the 
Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007, seeks to reduce the 
number of accidents caused by human fatigue by strengthening the hours 
of service law for signalmen and train crews. The legislation makes 
changes to what is known as limbo time, which is the wait period when 
locomotive crews wait for pickup after a day's run. Specifically, the 
bill phases down limbo time over 3 years, 40 to 30 to 10 hours per 
month. The bill also creates new exceptions to limbo time in the case 
of an accident, track obstruction, weather delays or natural disasters. 
It gives signal and train workers additional hours of rest, 10 hours in 
24, and mandatory days off, 1 in 7.
  The Department of Transportation estimates that by 2020 the amount of 
freight moved by rail, measured by weight, will increase by 
approximately 50 percent. Furthermore, many local governments are 
interested in establishing, or expanding, commuter rail operations, 
which often operate on the freight rail network. As a result, the 
number of train miles on the Nation's freight rail network will 
significantly increase in the coming years. If train accident rates do 
not improve, this will lead obviously to an increased number of 
accidents, injuries and fatalities and some of the gains of the past 
decade may be lost, and obviously we'd like to avoid that.
  I'd like to thank both Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for 
their bipartisan work on this legislation, especially on this issue of 
the limbo time. I think it goes to show that when people are willing to 
work together across the aisle to try to come up with compromises that 
good progress can be made.
  Now, unlike the bipartisan nature by which the Transportation 
Committee worked on this bill, the majority in the Rules Committee did 
not live up to that standard. Only four out of 10 amendments. There 
were 10 amendments proposed. A lot of time those amendments take a lot 
of work by Members, a lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of dedication, 
and only 4 out of the 10 amendments that Members brought to the Rules 
Committee were made in order, and of those, only one was an amendment 
by a Member of the Republican side of the aisle.
  During consideration of this rule, Mr. Speaker, the minority made 
several attempts to make Republican amendments in order, but in the 
Rules Committee, the majority blocked each amendment by a party-line 
vote, and I think that's unfortunate. It's quite a contrast to how the 
Transportation Committee worked and some other committees in this 
Congress.
  It's unfortunate, especially when we take into account the promises 
made by the majority that they would bring transparency and openness 
and fairness to the process. We see time and time and time again 
exactly the opposite. This is really sad.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of the gentleman from 
Florida if he has any more speakers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inform my 
friend that we do not.
  Ms. MATSUI. Okay. I'm prepared to close after he's finished.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much 
for your courtesy. I thank my good friend Ms. Matsui for hers as well.
  Again, with regard to the underlying legislation, it's important 
legislation. I think it's a good work product that's come forth from 
compromise, people reaching out from both sides of the aisle and 
working together. But the rule, unfortunately, is most unfair, as is 
typically the case with this new majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider 
a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and 
enforceability to the earmark rule.
  Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of 
jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill 
or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order 
lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last 
Congress.
  However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican 
majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not 
available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a 
question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee 
specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, 
they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks 
on the rule or on the bill.
  I'd like to direct our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that the 
House Parliamentarian, Mr. John Sullivan, recently sent to the Rules 
Chair, Ms. Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since 
January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his 
letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the 
Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all 
legislative proposition at all stages of the legislative process.''
  I will insert this letter in the Record at this point.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                Office of the Parliamentarian,

                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.
     Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
     Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of 
     October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on 
     how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have 
     advised the committee that language waiving all points of 
     order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI'' 
     should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules, 
     notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to 
     recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure 
     requirements of clause 9.
       In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order 
     against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause 
     9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that 
     waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the 
     rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI 
     does not comprehensively apply to all legislative 
     propositions at all stages of the legislative process.
       Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill 
     or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or 
     joint resolution, or

[[Page 27485]]

     in a so-called ``manager's amendment'' to a bill or joint 
     resolution. Other forms of amendment--whether they be floor 
     amendments during initial House consideration or later 
     amendments between the Houses--are not covered. (One might 
     surmise that those who developed the rule felt that proposals 
     to amend are naturally subject to immediate peer review, 
     though they harbored reservations about the so-called 
     ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one offered at the outset of 
     consideration for amendment by a member of a committee of 
     initial referral under the terms of a special rule.)
       The question of order on September 25 involved a special 
     rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment 
     between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It 
     had no application to the motion in the first instance. 
     Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special 
     rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). 
     The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule 
     providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered 
     as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same 
     rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no 
     application to the amendment in the first instance, the 
     special rule had no tendency to waive any application of 
     clause 9(a).
       The same would be true in the more common case of a 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text for the purpose of further amendment. 
     Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.
       In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding 
     officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a 
     particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule 
     XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability 
     of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure 
     requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object 
     of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the 
     question whether a special rule waives the application of 
     clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any 
     application.
       In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no 
     application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all 
     points of order except those arising under that rule--when 
     none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its 
     negative implication would be that such a point of order 
     might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all 
     points of order against provisions of an authorization bill 
     except those that can only arise in the case of a general 
     appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this 
     area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use 
     language that yields a misleading implication.
       I appreciate your consideration and trust that this 
     response is to be shared among all members of the committee. 
     Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John V. Sullivan.

  This amendment will restore the enforceability and accountability of 
the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to 
provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks 
before the House for a vote. I would urge all my colleagues to close 
this loophole by opposing the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida and yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Let me first say that the earmark rule is not waived in this rule 
despite the claims of my colleagues. I urge them to read lines 6 and 7, 
that the rule specifically excludes the earmark rule from the waiver. 
Any suggestion otherwise is simply untrue.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is important to our economy and the millions 
of Americans who travel on trains every year. This is the first time in 
well over a decade that Congress has taken a comprehensive look at our 
rail safety programs. During that time, the demand on our freight and 
passenger rail infrastructure has increased dramatically.
  This bill addresses the critical issues of worker fatigue, timely and 
thorough inspections, as well as enforcement of safety regulations.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 724 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
     enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        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 Democratic 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 Democratic 
     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 definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       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 Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 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 H. Res. 724, if ordered; and 
suspending the rules on H. Con. Res. 222.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 194, not voting 19, as follows:

[[Page 27486]]



                             [Roll No. 977]

                               YEAS--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Carson
     Culberson
     Hastert
     Hirono
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (GA)
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Moore (WI)
     Musgrave
     Olver
     Scott (GA)
     Tancredo
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1537

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 977, I voted electronically, 
but for some reason, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________