[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29842-29850]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3043, 
  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time 
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on House Resolution 794.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 794 provides for consideration of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report 
and against its consideration. The conference report also includes the 
House and Senate compromise on the Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations Act.
  The rule includes 2 additional provisions. The first provides that 
only the majority leader or his designee can move to proceed to 
consider H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 
Implementation Act. It addresses a procedural motion under the trade 
act and is often adopted by the House, including three times during the 
last Congress alone. The second ensures that in the event that the 
Senate on a point of order strips out the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs provisions from this conference report, that the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education portion of the report 
will not be further delayed and, instead, sent immediately to the 
President for his signature.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the 
underlying conference report. Of all the conference reports which 
Congress will consider, the vote on this one will be the most telling. 
It will be the most telling because Members will have an opportunity 
tonight to take an up-or-down vote on the needs of our children and 
Congress's commitment to America's veterans. Members are either for 
$5.1 billion in mandatory increased funding for veterans military 
benefits or they are not. They either support $1.1 billion in increased 
funding for Pell Grants or they don't. We are either for restoring the 
President's $287 million cut in job-training programs for the 
unemployed or we are not.
  Do you support $530 million in increased funding for VA hospitals and 
other medical facilities, or do you oppose the funding increase? What 
about Head Start? The conference report includes $154 million in 
increases in funding for this critical early childhood education 
program. Low-income energy assistance programs? There's a $250 million 
increase in funding for these programs, which ensure that millions of 
Americans are warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
  How about the National Institutes of Health? The conference report 
increases funding for this vital agency by $1.1 billion so that America 
will continue to be the global leader in medical research and 
technology. Or Ryan White AIDS programs? There's an $85 million 
increase for them. I am especially appreciative of this increase 
because of the continued epidemic that HIV/AIDS poses throughout south 
Florida and particularly in the district that I am privileged to 
represent. All of these priorities and many more are funded in the 
underlying conference report on which Members will have an opportunity 
to cast a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' vote if this rule is approved.
  Democrats promised, Madam Speaker, that we would govern differently 
than the previous majority, that our legislation would reflect not the 
ideological views of a few, but the priorities of the many. Moreover, 
we vowed to work in a bipartisan fashion. This is exactly what we did 
with this conference report, as indicated by the numerous Republican 
Senators spanning the ideological spectrum who signed the conference 
report.
  Finally, we promised earmark reform, and that is what is done in this 
report. After Republicans spent 12 years increasing the number of 
earmarks to more than 14,000, Democrats cut the number of earmarks 
nearly in half in this conference report. Perhaps most importantly, we 
have made available for public viewing earmark disclosure statements, 
and any new earmarks placed in this conference report are clearly 
marked and in full accordance not only with the letter of the law but 
also its spirit. I am proud that we kept our promise for transparency 
and reform.
  Madam Speaker, the importance of this conference report transcends 
partisan politics to address the disparities that exist in the 
competition to meet our human needs. The programs in the underlying 
legislation prioritize the livelihood of citizens from all walks of 
life and helps those individuals live at

[[Page 29843]]

a standard that should be expected in the greatest Nation on Earth.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
conference report.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and namesake, the 
gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. 
Sadly, the Democrat leaders today are not taking care of the business 
of this country. They've failed to get their work done because, in my 
view, they would rather play political games than do the job that 
Congress and all of us are elected to do.
  The new fiscal year, Madam Speaker, began 37 days ago, on October 1. 
Yet not one of the annual funding bills to fund the Federal Government 
has been signed into law. You have to go back 20 years to find a record 
this bad.
  This rule would provide for the consideration of 2 separate 
appropriation bills that have been combined together by the Democrat 
leaders. The Veterans funding bill and funding for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Education have been forced together in this 
conference report. These bills have nothing in common, or I should say 
the only thing they have in common is the fact that they are 
appropriation bills.
  They do have one very, very important difference, the difference 
being callously exploited by the Democrat leaders. The difference is, 
Madam Speaker, the Veterans funding bill has the votes to pass this 
Congress and be signed into law, while the Labor, Health and Education 
spending bill will be vetoed because it increases spending by $10 
billion over the President's request.
  Democrat leaders are using the veterans to try and force through 
their plan of higher spending. Veterans benefits and veterans health 
care should not be held hostage. More than 400 of the 435 House Members 
and over 90 of 100 Senators voted for the veterans spending bill. Yet, 
Democrat leaders have blocked passage of this bill to be sent to the 
President since September. For 2 months they have kept the veterans 
waiting.
  Madam Speaker, the Democrat leaders know full well this combined 
spending bill won't be signed into law, but they have chosen to waste 
our time by having the Congress vote on it anyway. The American people 
have had enough of this Congress not completing its work and not being 
serious about the business of this country. The Democrat leaders, in my 
view, need to stop posturing, stop the game-playing and get serious 
about doing its job in Congress.
  Our veterans, Madam Speaker, have already carried a heavy burden for 
our country. They shouldn't be used by the new majority to carry the 
burden of passing this agenda of higher spending.

                              {time}  2000

  Separate these 2 bills. Let Congress pass a clean funding bill for 
our veterans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule that provides for the 
consideration of a combined conference report destined to be vetoed and 
sustained.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) from the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and for his diligent and fair leadership on the Rules 
Committee. Let me also thank Chairman Obey for this bill and for your 
tireless efforts in crafting this legislation.
  Our spending priorities do reflect our values as a country, and 
during this week, which some of you heard last night, this is National 
Bible Week. I think it is very important as we debate this bill to 
remember some of the statements and speeches that were made last night 
with regard to caring for the least of these.
  I am pleased we were able to fund critical programs under the 
Department of Health and Human Services, programs like nurses education 
and the Ryan White CARE Act and the Minority AIDS Initiative. I look 
forward to working with our colleagues to try to increase funding for 
all of our AIDS initiatives in the coming year.
  I also want to thank the committee for funding critical education 
programs. What are we saying to the American people when we pass 
legislation that funds education, like the 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers, TRIO, GEAR UP, Upward Bound, and programs that 
strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-
serving universities. We are saying these are our priorities. These are 
the programs that we care about and want to see implemented which 
invest in our children's future.
  Madam Speaker, much has been said and reported about the President's 
veto threat. What does this senseless veto threat say to the American 
people? It says that the President's priority is funding an occupation 
in Iraq as opposed to investing in the future of our country.
  We are now spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. For the price of 1 
month of our occupation in Iraq, we could be paying for 1.5 million 
children to go to Head Start for a whole year. We could hire 200,000 
new school teachers for a year, and we could even insure 7 million of 
the 8.7 million children living in this country that do not have health 
care insurance for a whole year.
  This is a fundamental question where we should spend our priorities. 
We actually could continue to spend our tax dollars on a war without 
end, or we could use our tax dollars to spend on our children, our 
schools, our communities and on our veterans who have valiantly 
sacrificed so much. They deserve an ``aye'' vote on this rule and the 
underlying conference report.
  Let's remember this is National Bible Week and let us do what the 
Scriptures would dictate on this bill and support the rule and the bill 
for the least of these.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a valuable member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from 
Washington.
  Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida says that this new Democratic 
majority was determined to govern differently than previous majorities. 
He has succeeded in this regard, Madam Speaker: This is the latest the 
Congress has gone without sending a single appropriation bill to the 
President for his signature since 1987. I don't think that is what the 
Democratic majority had in mind when they said they would govern 
differently, but they have certainly done so.
  So I rise to express my opposition to the rule and to the conference 
report that will serve no purpose other than to delay funding for 
veterans, for our troops and for their families.
  The conference report before us includes both the Labor-HHS Education 
appropriation bill and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriation bill. The President stands ready to sign the MilCon-VA 
bill into law. He could have done so already and made funding available 
for key veterans health and benefit programs and much-needed military 
construction projects.
  But the majority has chosen to link that bill with a bloated Labor-
HHS, Education bill, a measure which the President will veto. So this 
exercise today amounts to a waste of time and sends the wrong message 
to veterans and military personnel. Instead of honoring these men and 
women for their sacrifices and providing assistance to them today on 
the eve of Veterans Day, we are short-changing our veterans in the 
interest of political gamesmanship.
  The majority's strategy was to couple these bills with the 
expectation that many Members of Congress would not have the political 
will to oppose funding for veterans even temporarily. We should not use 
our veterans as pawns and we should not insult their intelligence. Give 
our Nation's heroes more credit than that. Our veterans can see through 
this ruse. So can the

[[Page 29844]]

American people, and they should be rightly outraged by it.
  I have in my hand a statement taken from the Web page of the American 
Legion, our Nation's largest veterans organization. The American Legion 
says, ``Here we are again, the start of a new fiscal year and Congress 
still has not passed the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.'' The American Legion goes on to 
ask the question: ``So what is the problem?'' And their answer is 
accurate: ``Politics.''
  The American Legion goes on to denounce Congress' plans to hold VA 
funding hostage.
  Another veterans organization, VetsForFreedom.org identifies this 
process for what it is: ``A cynical attempt to use veterans as a 
political shield for further wasteful government spending.'' 
VetsforFreedom goes on to say they call on Congress to pass clean bills 
for the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense as 
quickly as possible.
  Madam Speaker, we should be moving this legislation under regular 
order. It is true that Congresses in the past have used omnibus bills, 
but always as a last resort after first trying to follow regular 
established procedure. In this instance, the Democratic leadership did 
not even attempt to follow regular order. Instead, their first attempt 
to bring these conference reports to the floor amounts to an 
unprecedented departure from established procedure.
  I very much regret the decision of the majority to link these 2 
bills. The House passed its version of the MilCon bill in June by a 
vote of 409-2. The Senate passed its bill on September 6, 2 months ago, 
with a vote of 92-1 in favor of the bill. For 8 weeks, Chairman Edwards 
and I stood ready to conference these bills. We could have brought a 
bill to the floor weeks ago that would have passed overwhelmingly and 
been signed into law by the President.
  Instead, after waiting 8 weeks, when we were finally given the green 
light to move forward with a conference, the members of our 
subcommittee were not appointed as conferees as is normally the case. 
The majority decided that the Labor-HHS conferees, most of whom did not 
attend MilCon-VA hearings or participate in our bill's creation, would 
be involved in deliberations on VA-specific provisions.
  Mr. Edwards and I, as chairman and ranking member, have worked along 
with our Senate counterparts and our staffs to craft a compromise 
between the two versions of the MilCon-VA bill. The compromise before 
the House includes funding for numerous military construction projects 
that are vital to support the working environment and quality of life 
of our soldiers and their families.
  We have included funding for base realignment and closure. We have 
included funding for initiatives to restation 70,000 troops and their 
families to Europe and Korea; projects necessary for increasing the 
active duty Army by 65,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000; relocation 
of Marines from Okinawa to Japan; consolidating U.S. forces in South 
Korea; establishing enduring bases in Afghanistan and Djibouti; 
barracks and family housing projects; new medical facilities; and 
needed support facilities for our Guard and Reserve. And all of this on 
a bipartisan basis.
  I was especially pleased to join Chairman Edwards in a very important 
quality of life initiative, funding much-needed child development 
centers.
  With regard to the VA portions of the bill, the department is 
receiving the largest increase in the department's history, an increase 
of $4.8 billion over fiscal year 2007. This increase even exceeds the 
independent budget request submitted by the various veterans service 
organizations. The bulk of this increase is going to boost medical 
services at VA hospitals and clinics. In fiscal year 2008, it is 
estimated that the VA will treat 5.8 million patients, including 
263,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
  The conferees have produced a bipartisan conference report. It is a 
good work product. It continues the long-standing tradition of support 
and commitment for the men and women and their families who are serving 
our country and those who have served our country in the past.
  It is unfortunate that these worthy projects are now joined with a 
bill that includes $10 billion in excessive spending on domestic 
programs.
  Included in the Labor-HHS portion of the bill is a new duplicative 
program for the CDC for comprehensive sex education; a new grant-making 
initiative at the Department of Education targeting the creation of 
full-service community schools.
  The only office at the Department of Labor the majority has seen fit 
to cut is the one responsible for union oversight. Apparently union 
accountability is unimportant to the majority, so they cut the labor 
management standards budget by 20 percent.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I mention these things to point out 
that there are legitimate differences surrounding the Labor-HHS bill. 
There are good reasons the President will veto Labor-HHS. But there are 
no good reasons for this bill to be linked with MilCon-VA. Vital 
funding for the VA and infrastructure for our troops could be in the 
pipeline within a matter of days, but the majority will simply not 
allow that. Instead, we are sacrificing veterans for the sake of a 
cheap, cheap political stunt. Our Nation's veterans deserve better. The 
American people deserve better.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the conference report.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, sometimes I think I am living 
here in la-la land. These people were in charge of the House; they were 
in charge of the Senate, and they were in charge of the White House. 
And they left us 11 appropriation measures that Mr. Obey and his 
committee have had to deal with in trying to clean up their mess.
  I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the chairman of Military Construction and the 
VA Subcommittee.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, there is a clear difference between the 
Republican leadership's approach to veterans and the new Democratic 
Congress' leadership.
  In the old Congress led by Republicans for 12 years, the Republican 
leadership fired the Republican chairman of the VA Committee in the 
House. Why? Because he put the interest of veterans above political 
loyalty, partisan loyalty, to the leadership that didn't want to fund 
our veterans adequately.
  What is the difference? In the new Democratic Congress, Speaker 
Pelosi and our leadership have said that supporting veterans, honoring 
those who have honored us with their service in uniform, will be the 
highest of priorities in this Congress, and that is exactly what we 
have done and that is exactly what we are doing here tonight.
  Let me respond to some of the comments of my Republican colleagues. 
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) said for 2 months 
Democrats have kept veterans waiting. I don't know where my colleague 
has been, but that is the last thing we have done. Perhaps my colleague 
would remember that the first thing we did was pass a continuing 
resolution for veterans funding for 2007 because the previously led 
Republican Congress last year failed completely to ever pass a VA-
Military Construction appropriations bill.
  In that bill, we increased veterans discretionary health care 
spending by $3.4 billion. But that wasn't enough, we did more.
  In the Iraq war supplemental bill, we didn't keep veterans waiting; 
we worked hard to add an additional $1.8 billion to veterans 
discretionary spending. So $3.4 billion and $1.8 billion, that adds up 
to a $5.2 billion increase in VA discretionary and health care funding 
this year alone before this bill comes to the floor. That is a larger 
increase than any Republican House-led conference has ever reported 
under Republican leadership.

                              {time}  2015

  Now, some would say saying one thing and doing another is hypocrisy. 
Others might call it a double standard. I will be polite and respectful 
tonight.

[[Page 29845]]

I'm going to call it politically convenient memory.
  Our Republican colleagues are chastising us about being one month 
late in passing a VA appropriation bill, although they ignored the $5.2 
billion we've already added for our veterans. They seem to forget, you 
know when the last time was under their leadership we passed a VA 
appropriation bill on time? Anybody remember? It was a long time ago. 
1996. That was the last time, under Republican leadership, in this 
House we passed a VA appropriation bill on time.
  Politically convenient memory. They're chastising us for being 1 
month late this year? Seems that they forget, Madam Speaker, that in 
2006 they didn't pass a bill at all.
  They say we should separate the two bills, VA from Labor-HHS. Another 
problem of politically convenient memory loss. Out of the last 5 years, 
Madam Speaker, only once, only once under Republican leadership did 
they pass the VA appropriations bill as a freestanding bill. Saying one 
thing, doing another.
  What Democrats are doing with this bill and what we've done this year 
is to work with our veterans service organizations to pass the largest 
increase in VA health care funding in the history of the veterans 
administration. That's a record we can be proud of and we can remember.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as 
much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member on the 
Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I listened to the very distinguished 
chairman of the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee, I've got to say that I was somewhat saddened 
at this constant finger-pointing: the Republicans did this in 1996 and 
we didn't know how to run the place and we didn't provide the funding 
that was necessary for veterans and all of this sort of stuff and we 
were late in doing these things.
  The fascinating thing about this is that there's this brilliant 
document that came forward during last fall's campaign, and it was 
unveiled by the new Speaker of the House. It was called ``A New 
Direction for America.'' And in it, it talked about this new spirit of 
openness, the fact that we would have transparency and disclosure and 
accountability, the likes of which we had not seen in a long time, if 
ever.
  Madam Speaker, I will tell you that we all know that we've gotten the 
exact opposite of that. I unveiled a few weeks ago, along with my 
colleagues Mr. Hastings, Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Sessions, an outline 
of what has happened in this year.
  Well, this process that we're dealing with at this very moment is an 
example of the kind of arrogance that we have seen in trying to utilize 
veterans as a political pawn.
  Now, the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker), quoted the veterans publication in which they said very 
clearly, we can do something that will ensure that the resources 
necessary for our Nation's veterans are there. We can pass in a 
bipartisan way a military quality of life appropriations conference 
report. We can get it through both Houses of Congress, and we can get 
it to the President of the United States. And then we will have, albeit 
late, we will have been able to get the funding that is necessary.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I don't believe that there are Members of this 
institution who actually want to deprive our Nation's courageous 
veterans from having access to the quality health care and the other 
items that they need to have to address their concerns. I don't believe 
that anybody sincerely wants to do that.
  But I will tell you this, we know full well that there has been game-
playing in this process. In fact, all one needs to do is look at the 
rule. We know that rule XVIII in the Senate basically says that you 
cannot link up two appropriation bills. It's a scope violation, and it 
can't be done.
  Madam Speaker, on October 31, 44 Members of the United States Senate 
signed a letter, and I'd like to include this letter in the Record at 
this point.


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 31, 2007.
     Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Majority Leader Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid: We write this 
     letter to request that federal funding for our nation's 
     troops and veterans not be further delayed and held hostage 
     for partisan purposes. Congress must promptly complete its 
     work on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Military Construction-
     Veterans Affairs (MilCon-VA) and Defense appropriations 
     bills, and they should be sent to the President's desk as 
     freestanding measures by Veterans Day.
       It has been nearly two months since both Houses passed 
     their respective FY 2008 MilCon-VA appropriations bills, and 
     nearly one month has gone by since both chambers approved 
     their FY 2008 Defense appropriations bills. Plenty of time 
     has passed for these measures to go through conference and 
     get signed into law. Yet to date, this Congress has still not 
     sent a single appropriations bill to the President--a failure 
     of accomplishment that has not happened in decades. 
     Meanwhile, our brave soldiers are defending us overseas, 
     taking the fight to the terrorists, and keeping our nation 
     safe. Veterans continue waiting for increased funding, which 
     the President already has signaled that he would approve and 
     will lead to improved medical care and other benefits.
       Swift action on the MilCon-VA and Defense appropriations 
     bills is not only fitting with Veterans Day coming in less 
     than two weeks, but it also is one of our highest 
     responsibilities as lawmakers. Our soldiers and veterans 
     already have done so much for our country. The Democratic 
     Congressional Leadership should not now cynically use them to 
     shoulder a bloated ``minibus'' funding bill up Pennsylvania 
     Avenue and wrest billions in excessive spending. Leading 
     veterans groups have expressed strong concerns about such an 
     approach. For months, the President has said that he would 
     oppose it.
       Our troops and veterans cannot afford unnecessary delay, 
     and they rightfully expect Congress to put their interests 
     ahead of politics. It therefore is irresponsible to attach VA 
     and military funding measures onto a domestic spending bill 
     which we know will get vetoed. Instead, we urge you to work 
     with us in a bipartisan manner so we can quickly advance 
     freestanding MilCon-VA and Defense appropriations bills for 
     the President's signature.

  It was addressed to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, and in 
it they said that they were not going to stand for this attempt to play 
politics, partisan politics, with funding for our Nation's veterans.
  And so we all know what is going to happen if this measure passes out 
of this House. The Senate has the ability and 44 Members have signed 
this letter saying that they are going to, in fact, raise a point of 
order to prevent it from proceeding.
  Now, it was 2 months ago today, Madam Speaker, 2 months ago today 
that the Senate passed this appropriation bill; and, unfortunately, the 
attempt to get the resources necessary for our veterans is, in fact, 
being denied. I think that it is absolutely reprehensible that we would 
use them to try and pass a bill that we know the President of the 
United States has said he's going to veto.
  So I suspect that just as we went through this debate on the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program measure, there will be some that 
say Republicans are voting against providing resources for our Nation's 
veterans, and it's the power of the majority here in the House. They 
can fashion things in such a way that that, in fact, can be described. 
They can characterize the vote that way.
  The veterans of this country aren't going to buy it. The American 
people aren't going to buy it. They know that games are being played 
with this very important funding measure.
  Madam Speaker, it is essential that we defeat this rule, make sure 
that we get a clean appropriation bill for our veterans to the 
President's desk just as expeditiously as possible.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's awfully difficult to 
listen to lectures from people who left 11 appropriations measures on 
the table before the Democrats achieved the majority.
  I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and

[[Page 29846]]

I'm going to speak not to what was, but what is today and what should 
be in the future.
  I rise today in strong support of this conference agreement and the 
rule, especially the agreement's increased funding for both the NIH and 
the veterans health care system.
  I have seen firsthand the amazing advancements in research that are 
brought about through NIH funding. The University of Iowa's per capita 
NIH research productivity is ranked sixth among public universities in 
this Nation. Their important work benefits both Iowa and the Nation.
  Unfortunately, over the past 5 years funding for the NIH has fallen 
behind biomedical inflation, and we all suffer from these setbacks as 
advancements in treatment and cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's 
and many other diseases are jeopardized. That's why I strongly support 
the increased funding for the NIH and other health care programs in 
this conference report today.
  In recent years, important veterans health care funding has also 
fallen behind. I could not be more proud that this conference report 
also includes the single largest increase in veterans funding in the 
VA's 77-year history.
  By providing $37.2 billion for VA hospitals and clinics, we will 
ensure that the VA has the resources and oversight necessary to ensure 
that veterans receive excellent health care, rehabilitation services, 
and system-wide support. This funding will also provide research into 
the treatment of traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress 
disorder, two devastating conditions that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans 
face all too frequently and will into the future.
  I strongly believe that bold action such as this conference report is 
necessary to address our Nation's and our veterans' health care needs. 
Today, we are taking an important step forward. We are telling America 
that we have our priorities right, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule and the conference report.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I was 
very sorry that my friend from Fort Lauderdale wouldn't yield to me, 
and I would be happy to yield to him in a moment as I respond to the 
statement that he made just when I completed mine.
  He said that I was responsible for leaving 11 appropriations bills on 
the floor. He said that he got a lecture.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  What I said was it was difficult to have lectures from people who 
left 11 appropriations measures. I did not refer to you.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, I had just completed my statement, Madam Speaker, 
and the gentleman said getting lectures from people, and I'd given a 5- 
or 6-minute statement. So I don't know, maybe it was an exaggeration 
for me to infer that the gentleman was referring to what I said when, 
in fact, I had served on the Rules Committee in a leadership position 
in the past several Congresses. So maybe I was wrong in interpreting 
that he was referring to my statement.
  But, Madam Speaker, let me say this: we know that the House of 
Representatives did, in fact, pass out those appropriations bills. We 
worked in a bipartisan way to make that happen. We had a friendly 
exchange with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations in which we characterized the Senate as the enemy and 
the other party as merely the opposition.
  The fact of the matter is we've had a real challenge in dealing with 
the Senate. We know that as we look at this measure we, in past 
Congresses, have, in fact, been successful at passing measures out of 
the House of Representatives.
  And I will say again that my friend referred to these lectures when, 
in fact, I began my remarks by pointing to the fact that we were 
promised a new day, and the fact is we're getting much, much worse. 
We're getting much worse than the behavior and the performance that my 
friend complained about of the past.
  So, Madam Speaker, I've got to say that playing politics with our 
Nation's veterans is exactly what we're going through right now, and I 
think it's a very sad commentary. And I am gratified, I'm very 
gratified, that our Nation's veterans organizations are recognizing 
exactly what's happening, and I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Talk about a big day, a big day is the day 
that veterans get an additional $7 billion and don't have to stand in 
VA lines for months in order to receive their benefits.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the 
Rules Committee.
  If a gentle breeze were to come into this room and dispel the fog of 
rhetoric that we've been listening to, we'd understand and return to 
the basic proposition that's quite simple, and that is, the budget of 
the United States Congress reflects the priorities of the United States 
Congress.
  And what will be debated and the substance before the House is 
whether on the Labor-HHS budget we will appropriate and spend 2 percent 
more than was recommended by the President of the United States. What 
will be debated and decided by this House of Representatives is whether 
we will approve and spend 4 percent more for military construction in 
overdue services to our veterans. It comes to you from Chairs of 
subcommittees who are operating under the tight restrictions of pay-as-
you-go budgeting that has been adopted by this new Congress after it 
had been abandoned by the previous Congresses.
  So what do the American people have to judge us by what we do? It's 
this: first, we will pay for everything on a pay-as-you-go basis; 
second, when the President says that we're spending more than he 
recommended on Labor-HHS and for our veterans, we plead guilty. We're 
paying for it, but we're doing it because we believe it's overdue and 
it's right.
  Think about the lack of investment that has occurred as a result of 
the clear priorities of the administration approved by previous 
Congresses: all Iraq all of the time and impoverishing our domestic 
programs, even as Americans are struggling to make ends meet.
  The Labor-HHS budget does a couple of things that are very 
straightforward. It makes a fundamental commitment in the National 
Institutes of Health. It increases LIHEAP funding, Low Income Heating 
Assistance Program. Is it needed? Oil is at $93 a gallon on a barrel.
  And on the veterans budget, this Congress has made a fundamental 
decision, and it's very simple again. The cost of the war must include 
the cost of caring for the warrior.

                              {time}  2030

  Yes, it's true, this VA budget is the highest increase that we have 
had in the history of the VA. Why? It's because it is absolutely 
necessary to meet the obligation we have to the men and women in 
uniform.
  We will have an opportunity to vote yes or no. We will have an 
opportunity to state explicitly and be judged by the American people as 
to what our priorities are, and the priorities we have are to begin to 
renew our commitment to our veterans and to renew our commitment to 
basic science and investment in the people of this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, how much time on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  My friend from Vermont raised an issue on the issue of combining 
these bills and suggesting that they are paid for. If the pay-for that 
they are talking about is what was reflected in the

[[Page 29847]]

budget document, then that will result over time in the largest tax 
increase on American citizens in the history of this country. If it is 
not the largest, it is the second largest.
  We will reserve the debate on that, because we are talking about 
appropriation process tonight, but we will reserve that debate for 
later on this week when there will be a tax extender bill coming to the 
floor. We can more fully debate how these pay-fors work.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California, a member of the Appropriations Committee, 
Mr. Farr.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in 
strong support of the underlying bills. I can't believe what I am 
hearing here tonight, that people are talking about this being a 
bloated bill, that it's a bill that games are being played. They talk 
about how much we love the veterans side of it, but we don't like the 
Health and Human Services side.
  Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot have a veteran without having a 
family, without having a home.
  This bill puts more money into the areas where the President cuts it. 
In an area where the oil is going to $100 a barrel, they oppose this 
bill because we give more money to LIHEAP for elderly people and people 
who have low incomes to heat their homes in this winter that is coming.
  They cut the budget for special ed, the President cut. We put it back 
in. We put in money for autism. We put in money for people for 
research, for strokes, for cancer, for Parkinson's Disease. These 
things are related to veterans.
  You can't stand a veteran alone. A veteran has a family. If that 
veteran's family needs some help, by God, it's the government's 
responsibility to provide for that good public education and that great 
institute of health. That's in this bill, education, health, labor, the 
essence of America, essential to having good veterans.
  Vote for the rule and for the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I was compelled to come to the 
well of the House here because I have listened very carefully to how we 
are sacrificing our troops for political stunts. We have been told that 
this bill, somehow, is unclean. I would submit that our troops have 
fought for an American quality of life that is reflected in this bill.
  As has been indicated, the National Institutes of Health is funded, 
Centers for Disease Control, substance abuse and mental health, Ryan 
White AIDS Programs, low-income heating energy programs, Healthy Start, 
Head Start, the Community Services Block Grant program, the Social 
Services Block Grant program, Child Care and Development Block Grant, 
all of these unclean programs like foster care and adoption assistance, 
the TRIO program, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, reading 
programs, school reform programs, programs that help our disabled and 
physically handicapped students, English language acquisition programs, 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Supplemental Educational Opportunity 
Grants, Perkins Loans, Pell Grants.
  I would submit to you that those Marines and the Army, our soldiers 
are out there fighting for precisely these kinds of programs. This is a 
brilliant, brilliant joining of priorities.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
Chet Edwards from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, some of my Republican colleagues now say 
this bill is about politics.
  Let me respond, not with my words, let me respond using the words of 
the Disabled American Veterans, the DAV, in their press release issued 
today. The Disabled American Veterans, DAV, is commending lawmakers for 
approving a conference report that will provide the largest increase in 
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in its history.
  DAV now calls on Congress and the administration to support this 
important legislation and to enact it by Veterans Day. David Gorman, 
the Washington D.C. Headquarters executive director of DAV went on to 
say, and I quote, ``This increase in veterans health care and other 
programs is especially welcome news at a time when our Nation is at 
war.''
  My Republican colleagues said we promised a new day under Democratic 
leadership. We have done that. We did promise a new day for veterans. 
After years of veterans health care and other programs struggling just 
to try to come close to keeping up with inflation, we have authored the 
largest increase in VA discretionary budget funding and health care 
funding in history.
  The most important step we took in that journey and in that new 
direction was on March 29 of this year. We passed the 2008 budget 
resolution which authorized that largest increase in history for 
veterans health care and other benefits programs.
  Unfortunately, not 1 Republican, not 1 Republican in this House voted 
for that historic budget resolution that is now doing so much for our 
Nation's veterans.
  The same Republicans who railed tonight about our being 30 days late 
seem to fail to point out we have already increased veterans health 
care and other funding levels by $5.2 billion. A lot better record. It 
is certainly a new direction compared to last year, and the same 
colleagues who are complaining tonight didn't pass the veterans bill.
  One last point, Republican colleagues are saying, because the 
President threatened to veto this bill that includes such great 
funding, important funding for our veterans, we ought to stop in our 
tracks. If I had done that as chairman of the VA Military Construction 
Subcommittee several months ago, our veterans would have lost $3.7 
billion, because at that time, and as late as August 27, the same 
administration wanted to veto this bill, said they didn't need a dime 
more than the President asked for. That would have taken $3.7 billion 
out of VA health care, VA benefits, adding new VA caseworkers. We are 
in a new direction. That direction is good for our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The distinguished gentleman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Texas, made precisely my point, and he made the point that we have been 
saying on this side. He made the point that my friend from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker) said. He talked about the benefits of the veterans funding 
bill.
  Mr. Wicker spent a great deal of time as ranking member saying how he 
worked hand in hand in a bipartisan basis, and all we are saying is 
that we know that bill has the votes to pass the Congress and be signed 
into law. I thank the gentleman for making the point, because that's 
the point we are making.
  All we are saying is by linking these two bills together, you are 
going to prolong it because it's going to be vetoed. I will be offering 
later on a motion to defeat the previous question so we can separate 
that. I hope the gentleman will vote with us because now we can pass 
this bill that he extolled in such a very good way.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Mississippi (Mr. 
Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, my friend from Texas, with whom I have 
worked closely and for whom I have the greatest regard, mentions 
proudly and properly this, the largest increase in veterans spending in 
history.
  I have to say that it does come on top of record spending increases 
for veterans over the past 12 years. So, I take a second place to no 
one in my support and in defending our stewardship of the Veterans 
Administration over the past 12 years.
  My friend quoted the DAV organization. I am sure they support this 
bill. I

[[Page 29848]]

am also sure, just like the American Legion and the Vets for Freedom, 
that they don't want it delayed as this process will do, and that's why 
I urge a defeat of the previous question and of the rule.
  My friend says that not one Republican Member voted for the budget 
resolution. The budget resolution provided great funding for the 
veterans, but it also included the largest tax increase in the history 
of this country, and that's why Republicans voted against the budget 
resolution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I have to say that I am disappointed, as I mentioned and others have 
mentioned, that the Democrat leadership refuses to let the House 
consider the veterans spending bill, funding bill, separate from 
funding from the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education.
  This rule provides for the consideration of one conference report 
that combines two separate spending bills that will be vetoed by the 
President, and that veto will be sustained. I believe Members of this 
House should have an opportunity to vote separately on these two 
distinct measures.
  Therefore, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that I can amend the rule and allow a separate 
vote on each of the spending measures.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can separate this issue and 
vote ``no'' on the rule if we do not prevail on our previous question 
so that the Congress can pass a clean funding bill for our veterans.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  What we have heard from members of the minority regarding their 
opposition to American priorities is nothing new. After all, it was 
their manufactured obstructionism in this body and the other that 
delayed this bill and has continued to delay the remaining 
appropriations bills from being signed into law.
  Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle announced that 
they would oppose this conference report long before it was ever 
written. The President, using his misdirected, ill-conceived and 
ideologically driven policies as justification, has been threatening to 
veto this bill for literally months.
  Shame on them. Shame on them for refusing to support the malnourished 
and the sick. Shame on them for voting against providing energy 
assistance or for low-income families. Shame on them for voting against 
making it more affordable for kids to attend college and obtain an 
early childhood education. Shame on them for not supporting increased 
funding for military housing.
  Shame on them for passing measures and not funding them. Shame on 
them for opposing increased funding for veterans health care. Shame on 
them for voting to send our troops into harm's way but refusing to take 
care of them and their families when they got home. There is no smoke 
and mirrors here; there is no required reading between the lines and 
nuancing. This is a vote about priorities. Today's vote on this 
conference report will be the most telling of them all.
  I ask my colleagues and vigorously urge them to support this rule and 
the underlying conference report.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, the bill under consideration today 
represents the core of what the American people send us here to do. It 
invests in children's health and encourages our young people to serve 
their communities. It helps people train for the workplace and provides 
funding for crucial education programs. It represents the best of what 
government by the people can do.
  That is why I am pleased to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation, Madam Speaker. I am particularly encouraged by the 
investments it makes in children's health and in national service.
  Today's appropriations package fully funds the National Children's 
Study. This Study is a perfect example of the kinds of long-term health 
initiatives that the government is perfectly positioned to lead.
  It will examine 100,000 children from before birth to age 21. The 
data generated by the Children's Study will help us develop cures for 
diseases like autism, asthma, childhood obesity, and diabetes.
  The Children's Study is the first of its kind, Madam Speaker. But we 
do not have to wait decades for the Study to change lives. In just a 
few short years, it will begin generating useful data on premature 
birth, common birth defects, and prenatal links to autism.
  I am pleased that today's appropriations package invests so wisely in 
the National Children's Study, and I urge all my colleagues to support 
it as a result.
  Madam Speaker, the conferees also recognized the importance of our 
National Service Programs. Over the last few years, service members 
have provided humanitarian and educational assistance to the victims of 
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. More recently, they have offered 
their services to help calm the wildfires that have devastated my home 
State of California.
  I am pleased that the conferees appropriated high funding levels to 
help sustain and grow our service programs. National Civilian Community 
Corps received over $24 million in funding. Currently, there are only 
three of these campuses in our Nation, and I am glad that this funding 
will help build two new campuses.
  I am also pleased to see that the other important programs--like 
Learn and Serve America, Volunteers in Service to America and 
AmeriCorps State and National programs--all received high levels of 
funding. These National Service Programs are essential to the health of 
our communities and Nation.
  Madam Speaker, today's legislation is about making our priorities 
clear. Protecting children's health and encouraging national service 
are not choices we have as Members of Congress. They are 
responsibilities. I am pleased that today's legislation fulfills our 
collective responsibilities as representatives of the people.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 794

                 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of section 1, insert ``It shall be in order for 
     a separate vote to be had upon demand on that portion of the 
     conference report consisting of Division B.''.
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page 29849]]

     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.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time and 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam 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, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of 
the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 183, not voting 31, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1047]

                               YEAS--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     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
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     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 (GA)
     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
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--183

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     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
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Baird
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Carson
     Chandler
     Cubin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fossella
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     LaHood
     McCrery
     McNulty
     Oberstar
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pryce (OH)
     Rogers (MI)
     Tancredo
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (OH)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2108

  Mr. TIAHRT and Mr. CHABOT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 182, not voting 34, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1048]

                               YEAS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     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
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare

[[Page 29850]]


     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     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
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--182

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     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
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Baird
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Carson
     Chandler
     Cubin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fossella
     Giffords
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     LaHood
     McCrery
     McNulty
     Oberstar
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pryce (OH)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rush
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (OH)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2115

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

                          ____________________