[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6437-6440]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1362, ACCOUNTABILITY IN CONTRACTING 
                                  ACT

  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 242

       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. 1362) to reform acquisition practices of the 
     Federal Government. 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 clauses 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour and 20 minutes, with one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed Services now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to 
     that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. 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 clauses 
     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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. 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. 1362 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to a time designated by the 
     Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Solis). The gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Castor) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 242.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 242 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, 
under a structured rule. The rule provides 80 minutes of general 
debate, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
  The rule provides that in lieu of the substitutes recommended by the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed 
Services, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A 
of the Rules Committee report shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment. All points of order except clauses 9 and 
10 of rule XXI are waived against the substitute, and the substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The rule makes in order the two amendments printed in part B of the 
Rules Committee report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report. The 
amendments are considered as read, are debatable for 10 minutes each, 
are not subject to amendment and are not divisible. All points of order 
against the amendments except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI are 
waived.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, this rule and the legislation before us today is the 
Accountability in Contracting Act. This new act will restore 
accountability in Federal contracting. It targets conflicts of interest 
that have become too prevalent over past years.
  During the first 100 hours of this new Congress, we charted a new 
direction in response to the American people's call for change and 
reform. We passed pay-as-you-go budgeting to require greater fiscal 
responsibility, we passed Medicare part D reform to require the 
executive branch to negotiate lower drug prices for our seniors and 
help the Federal bottom line, and we eliminated unnecessary tax 
subsidies for big oil companies that were making record profits while 
we paid record prices at the pump.
  But if you recall, Madam Speaker, the first item of business during 
the first 100 hours of this new Congress was ethics reform. After the 
scandals of the past years, our commitment to the American people is to 
fight for higher ethical standards in the United States Congress and 
for all of the Federal Government by severing the connection between 
lobbyists and legislation, by banning gifts and travel from lobbyists, 
and ending the abuses of privately funded travel.
  Today, the new Democratic Congress will continue our fight for ethics 
reform while we are still in the first 100 days through this rule and 
the Accountability in Contracting Act. This bill targets waste in 
Federal contracting, limits the use of no-bid contracts, minimizes 
sole-source contracts, and closes the revolving door between purchasing 
officers and private contractors. This bill addresses the past problems 
with wasteful and fraudulent contracts in Iraq, the Defense Department 
and in relation to Hurricane Katrina.
  Congressional hearings have already shown that an estimated $10 
billion in Iraq reconstruction funds was wasted as a result of 
overcharging, poor tracking and mismanagement by U.S. contractors, 
three times more than was estimated just last fall. Unfortunately, 
these accounts have abounded under the Bush administration. Defense 
auditors estimate that at least one out of six dollars spent in Iraq is 
suspect, including $2.7 billion in Halliburton contracts.
  Almost 19 post-Hurricane Katrina contracts worth a total of $8.75 
billion

[[Page 6438]]

have been plagued by waste, fraud and mismanagement; and only 30 
percent of the more than $10 billion in Katrina contracts were awarded 
with full and open competition. And when it comes down to the small 
contractors who are actually hauling away the rubble and debris, they 
were not getting paid properly. This bill will help stop these kinds of 
wasteful contracts that keep the real work from getting done, that keep 
our neighbors from recovering from a natural disaster, and that keep 
the real workers from getting paid.
  In my Tampa Bay area district, the Federal defense procurement 
revolving door has been the subject of Federal investigations in 
Federal district court proceedings in Tampa over the past several 
years. So it is vital we stand up for the folks we represent and demand 
their Federal tax dollars are spent correctly, especially when it comes 
to national security. That means having tough and fair oversight and a 
transparent system so there are no conflicts of interest.
  So I commend the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and 
the Chair, Mr. Waxman, for his diligent efforts. I also commend the 
House Armed Services Chair, Ike Skelton, and my fellow members of the 
Armed Services Committee for their work on this legislation. When we 
marked this bill up in the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, 
this effort won bipartisan and unanimous support. It deserves no less 
by the full House today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule 
and to the financially irresponsible underlying legislation. I also 
rise with great regret to report to the American people that for the 
third week in a row the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to 
the House floor that stacks the deck in favor of big labor bosses at 
someone else's expense.
  Madam Speaker, in just a few minutes I am going to ask that we submit 
this into the Congressional Record, but the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that this bill will cost a new $20 billion for 4 years after 
it is implemented. $20 billion. Yet we have just heard from the other 
side that this is responsible and the right way to do things. What do 
we expect? An additional $20 billion worth of spending. It is a real 
sad day, Madam Speaker.
  Two weeks ago, American workers were the main losers in the Democrat-
controlled House when the majority leadership forced through 
legislation that would provide for an unprecedented intimidation of 
employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process 
known as ``card check.''
  Last week, in another unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon to 
important water projects across this country, the Democrat leadership 
set its sights on one of their all-time favorite targets, the American 
taxpayer. Other losers that were targeted in that bargain included some 
other perhaps more surprising targets, including local communities, 
small and minority-owned businesses and, perhaps most of all, the 
environment.
  But I suppose that that is everything that the Democrat-controlled 
leadership says is good. Everything is a fair game when tilting the 
playing field in favor of labor bosses. That is what this new Democrat 
majority is about.
  Given this well-established track record, it should come as no 
surprise that today, once again, the Democrat majority has placed a 
bull's eye squarely on the American taxpayers' back on the floor of 
this people's House. The legislation that we are being asked to 
consider today represents the triumph of politics over policy by 
attempting to taint every government contractor with the high-profile 
transgressions that only a few have done.
  I do commend Chairman Waxman for his desire to provide proper and 
appropriate oversight for the use of government funds, and I do share 
his desire to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in government 
contracting. However, the approach that he has brought to the floor is 
far-reaching and intrusive, expensive; and it misses the mark. The 
problem is primarily one of enforcement, and this is where Congress 
should be focusing its efforts on behalf of the taxpayer.
  While these proposals may seem beneficial and look good on paper, in 
practice they add up restrictions upon restrictions simply for the sake 
of regulation. They would increase the cost and reduce government 
access to the solutions it needs, while increasing the burden on an 
already-overworked Federal contracting workforce.
  While I am concerned about fiscal responsibility as a Member of this 
body, I do not believe that adding layer upon layer of additional 
regulations is a way to save taxpayer money or to be responsible.
  Every day, private contractors provide the entire Federal Government 
with effective cost-saving solutions, and this legislation represents a 
large step backwards in giving these contractors the flexibility they 
need to provide these vital services. Rather than taking Chairman 
Waxman's approach and discouraging the vast majority of contractors 
that do not play by the rules from wanting to do business with the 
government, Congress should focus on dealing with those bad actors that 
have violated the public trust.

                              {time}  1030

  Right here on our Capitol campus, private contractors provide us with 
the services that we need to function on a daily basis. They include 
inspecting and delivering the mail, mowing the Capitol grounds, 
installing signs, repairing sinks, providing IT consulting and 
technology systems maintenance, and they do so at the lowest cost to 
taxpayers through competition.
  The Federal Government should not be competing with a vibrant private 
sector that can provide these services better, faster, and cheaper than 
we can do them ourselves. I find that a good rule of thumb that I have 
used for years is if you can open up the Yellow Pages and find 
professionals willing to do the same services listed, then the 
government should not try to perform these tasks on its own, because it 
will end up costing the taxpayers a great deal more money.
  Madam Speaker, I do understand that the Democrat Party wants to 
change this slowly and to stack the deck in favor of big labor bosses 
whose ranks have dwindled to 12 percent from a high of 35 percent in 
the 1950s. I understand that a very few contractors have behaved 
dishonorably and illegally, and for that they should reimburse the 
taxpayer and be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
  But I simply don't believe that limiting the Federal Government's 
flexibility to contract, especially in the case of an emergency, is the 
answer to this problem. Nor do I believe that this legislation that is 
a new private sector mandate and that the CBO estimates will cost 
taxpayers over $20 billion, 20 billion new dollars, should be 
considered reasonable or should be considered financially responsible. 
This is not the correct solution to this problem.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the CBO cost estimate for 
H.R. 1362.

              H.R. 1362--Accountability in Contracting Act

       Summary: H.R. 1362 would amend federal contracting rules. 
     Specifically the legislation would require federal agencies 
     to limit the length of noncompetitive contracts and limit the 
     use of solesource and cost-reimbursement contracts when 
     possible. H.R. 1362 also would authorize an increase in funds 
     used to pay for contract oversight, planning, and 
     administration equal to 1 percent of the value of an agency's 
     contracts. The legislation would require various reports to 
     the Congress on noncompetitive contracts and contractor 
     overcharges and amend employment restrictions on federal 
     procurement officials.
       CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1362 would cost $20 
     billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of 
     the necessary amounts to provide additional resources for 
     contract oversight, planning, and administration. That 
     estimate does not include any costs or savings that could 
     result from implementing the legislation's provisions 
     regarding the use of noncompetitive and cost-reimbursement 
     contracts. CBO has no basis for estimating any costs or 
     savings for those provisions. Enacting the bill could affect 
     revenues by increasing collections of civil penalties, but 
     CBO estimates that any

[[Page 6439]]

     increase in revenue collection would not be significant. 
     Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending.
       H.R. 1362 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
     in the Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act (UMRA) and would not 
     affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
       H.R. 1362 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined 
     in UMRA, on certain former federal officials that were 
     substantially involved in the awarding of contracts. CBO 
     expects that the direct cost of complying with the mandate 
     would fall well below the annual threshold for private-sector 
     mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for 
     inflation).
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary impact of H.R. 1362 is shown in the following 
     table. The cost of this legislation falls within all budget 
     functions that provide contract funding.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2008      2009      2010      2011      2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Estimated Authorization Level.................................     4,000     4,070     4,145     4,220     4,295
Estimated Outlays.............................................     3,440     3,900     4,090     4,165     4,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Basis of estimate: H.R. 1362 would amend federal 
     contracting rules and authorize the appropriation of 
     additional funds for contract oversight, planning, and 
     administration. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1362 
     would cost about $20 billion over the 2008-2012 period, 
     assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. For this 
     estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted before 
     the start of fiscal year 2008 and that spending will follow 
     historical patterns for contract oversight activity.


                   Spending Subject to Appropriation

       Contract Oversight. Section 203 would authorize the 
     appropriation of additional funds for contract oversight, 
     planning, and administration equivalent to 1 percent of the 
     value of contract awards. Those funds would be used for 
     hiring and training of acquisition workforce personnel, as 
     well as contract planning, administration, and oversight. 
     Based on information from the General Services 
     Administration, CBO estimates that federal government awards 
     contracts with a value of about $400 billion annually. Thus, 
     CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1362 would require 
     additional appropriations of about $4 billion annually (with 
     adjustments for inflation). As a result, we estimate a cost 
     of about $20 billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming 
     appropriation of the necessary amounts, and that the value of 
     federal contracts increases at the rate of anticipated 
     inflation.
       Federal Contracting Rules. H.R. 1362 would amend various 
     contracting rules regarding the use of noncompetitive, sole-
     source, and cost-reimbursement contracts by the federal 
     government. This would include restrictions on the contract 
     period for noncompetitive contracts and limiting the use of 
     sole-source and cost-reimbursement contracts.
       The provisions of the legislation that would impose 
     restrictions on the length of noncompetitive contracts and 
     limit the use of sole-source and cost-reimbursement contracts 
     could increase costs for contract administration, but could 
     also result in the use of other types of contract 
     procurements that may lower costs to the government. CBO has 
     no basis for estimating the net impact on the budget of those 
     provisions. The circumstances involving the use of cost-
     reimbursement and noncompetitive contracts by federal 
     agencies and the potential to use other types of contracts in 
     those situations is often unique. At this time, CBO does not 
     have sufficient information relating to the use of 
     noncompetitive and cost reimbursement contracts to determine 
     the magnitude of any cost or savings that could result from 
     implementing H.R. 1362.
       Other Provisions. The legislation also would require 
     federal agencies to report to the Congress on noncompetitive 
     and contractor overcharges. In addition, H.R. 1362 would 
     require reviews and reports by the Government Accountability 
     Office on the use of federal contracts. H.R. 1362 would amend 
     employment restrictions on federal procurement officials. 
     Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that 
     those provisions would increase federal administrative costs 
     by a few million dollars a year.


                                Revenues

       Enacting H.R. 1362 could affect federal revenues as a 
     result of new civil penalties for violations of procurement 
     employment restrictions. Collections of civil penalties are 
     recorded in the budget as revenues. CBO estimates, however, 
     that any change in revenues that would result from enacting 
     the bill would not be significant.
       Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
     H.R. 1362 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
     in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or 
     tribal governments.
       Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 1362 would 
     impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, on 
     certain former federal officials that were substantially 
     involved in government contracts awarded in excess of $10 
     million. The bill would expand an existing one-year 
     restriction that would prohibit those officials from 
     accepting compensation as an employee, officer, director, or 
     consultant from contractors receiving such awards. The 
     mandate would apply to those officials that leave government 
     service after March 31, 2007, but before the date of 
     enactment. The cost of the mandate would be the potential 
     loss of net income resulting from the restriction on those 
     former federal officials. Because the bill would limit the 
     restriction on compensation to apply to lines of business 
     directly related to the awarded contract, CBO expects the 
     direct cost of complying with the mandate would be minimal 
     and would fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA 
     ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation).
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; 
     Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
     Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
       Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this closed rule 
and the well-intended underlying legislation which quite simply misses 
the mark and will be a huge net cost to taxpayers.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, to correct the record, the cost that the 
gentleman from Texas referred to was in section 203 of the bill. That 
section was deleted in the Armed Services Committee markup and is not 
in the base text.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida, and 
I thank her for her leadership on this rule and to get this bill to the 
floor so we can begin the big task of restoring accountability and 
oversight in our Federal contracting system.
  I rise in support of the rule today and in support of H.R. 1362. I 
strongly believe we must restore the American people's faith in our 
government, and that is what this bill is about.
  This bill will help stop the abuses of the Federal contracting 
system, a system that has deservedly come under fire recently, and 
sadly, whether it is in Iraq, Walter Reed, or many other places.
  H.R. 1362 will increase transparency and accountability to help bring 
back the integrity to a system that has lost so much of the public's 
trust, and it is no wonder that we have lost so much of the public's 
trust when we have government auditors testifying that an estimated $10 
billion in reconstruction spending has been wasted as a result of 
overcharging, poor tracking, and mismanagement by U.S. contractors. But 
this is not only an issue about waste, abuse and fraud, it is about 
getting the job done right and ensuring we have the proper people in 
place to help those who need Federal Government services.
  Recent hearings brought to light an Army memorandum showing that the 
decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed was causing an 
exodus of ``highly skilled and experienced personnel.'' And as a 
result, the ``patient care mission are at a risk of mission failure,'' 
the memorandum continued.
  So not only do we need to end the waste and ensure taxpayer dollars 
are being used wisely, we need greater oversight and accountability on 
the contracting decisions that are being made in the first place. And 
we need to tell these contractors that if they are going to get a 
contract with the Federal Government, they must play by the rules and 
they must fulfill their responsibilities in an effective and efficient 
manner.
  Passing H.R. 1362 and the other bills that have been on the House 
floor this week are important steps in our effort to restore the faith 
in government that

[[Page 6440]]

has been lost by the American people. I understand that additional 
legislation regarding contractor oversight and accountability is in the 
pipeline, and I look forward to working with this new Congress and 
chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction on this most important 
issue.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, this is a costly bill. This is a bill that is an 
intrusion not only upon a system that works well, but it is also aiming 
at an unintended consequence, and that is it is not only going to be 
more expensive for the government to pay for those services that it 
wants to buy, but it is going to make it also more costly to the 
taxpayer in the amount of spending that takes place.
  We think there could be better ways that this could be accomplished. 
I ask all of my Members to oppose this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  From day one, this new Congress has been working to restore 
accountability in Washington, including adopting fiscally responsible 
pay-as-you-go budgeting and fighting for higher ethical standards in 
government.
  It is heartening to the American people, I know, that much of this 
has been done in a bipartisan way. And indeed, on this bill this 
morning, I anticipate that the House will follow the unanimous and 
bipartisan votes of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and 
the Armed Services Committee.
  As part of our ongoing effort to fight for fiscally responsible 
budgeting and higher ethical standards, this week I know, today, we 
will pass this legislation and this rule that changes the way that 
Congress and the Federal Government does business. It shines a bright 
light on how government operates. We will continue to answer the call 
of the American people for change and reform.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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. SESSIONS. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 190, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 154]

                               YEAS--223

     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)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     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
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     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
     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)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     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
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baird
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Clay
     Crowley
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dingell
     Fossella
     Gerlach
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Kanjorski
     Kind
     Miller, George
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Saxton
     Tanner
     Westmoreland
     Wexler

                              {time}  1105

  Messrs. BOOZMAN, NEUGEBAUER, PICKERING, BISHOP of Utah and 
ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________