[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6721-6728]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1227, GULF COAST HURRICANE HOUSING 
                          RECOVERY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 254 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 254

       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. 1227) to assist in the provision of affordable 
     housing to low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules. Each further 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 
     further amendments are waived except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1227 
     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. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. 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 254.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 254 provides 
for the consideration of H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing 
Recovery Act of 2007, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides 60 minutes of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Financial Services, and the rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
  The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the 
bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules 
Committee report, shall be considered as adopted.
  The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives 
all points of order to provisions of the bill, as amended.
  The rule makes in order seven 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 the time 
specified, are not subject to amendment and are not divisible. All 
points of order against the amendments except, again, those in clauses 
9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived.
  Finally, the rule does provide one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which makes in order 
nearly all of the amendments that were brought to the Rules Committee. 
Even though many on our side had concerns about the intent and effect 
of certain provisions in the amendments, the Rules Committee, with the 
recommendation of the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, voted 
to allow the House to debate the amendments and let the votes fall as 
they may.
  Besides the manager's amendment, the rule makes in order more 
Republican amendments, actually, than Democratic ones, four Republican 
and three Democratic amendments. The few amendments that were not made 
in order by the rule were either withdrawn, determined to be 
nongermane, or had already been voted on earlier by the House.
  The rule also provides extensive time for debate on each amendment so 
that the House can have a very vigorous discussion on each of them. 
Under this rule, each of the amendments is debatable for 20 minutes. 
Two of the amendments are debatable for an hour each.
  Chairman Frank came before our committee and testified that we should 
allow considerable time to debate each of these amendments on their 
merits and allow the views of all Members to be heard, even if that 
meant that we have to work late into the evening.

[[Page 6722]]

  The Rules Committee agreed with the chairman, and I am pleased to 
bring forth this very even-handed rule.
  Madam Speaker, as you know, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 
25, 2005, followed by Hurricane Rita on September 24 and Hurricane 
Wilma on October 24, 2005, causing extraordinarily heavy loss of life 
and dislocation of thousands of families. Hurricane Katrina alone 
devastated 90,000 square miles, made 770,000 people homeless and had a 
death toll of 1,464 in Louisiana alone.
  Just by comparison, in 1906 the earthquake and fire in San Francisco 
killed an estimated 500 to 3,000 people, resulted in about 250,000 
people homeless. The Galveston Island flood of 1900 killed as many as 
8,000 people, in the island and the city. The Chicago fire, the famous 
fire of 1871, burned an area of approximately 3 square miles and made 
100,000 people homeless.
  In the aftermath of the storms, Congress approved $16.7 billion for 
Community Development Block Grants, and that's the portion of Katrina 
aid that we are talking about here, to aid the affected areas with 
rebuilding efforts. Of that, roughly $1.2 billion has been spent. There 
has been a lot of bureaucratic mismanagement, frankly, in FEMA, 
resulting in the delay of aid approved to the people who need it.
  Tragically, many residents continue to be displaced, and the pace of 
home repair and reconstruction is much slower than had been hoped for. 
And tens of thousands of federally assisted evacuees from these 
hurricanes face impending deadlines later this year for continued 
eligibility for rental assistance. A great number of residents are 
still scattered around the country, many hundreds of thousands of miles 
from their homes.
  Madam Speaker, we are aware that FEMA didn't get its job done in the 
aftermath of the hurricane. We are here, in part, to try to put this 
back together and make certain that the aid people need is delivered. 
In part, this Congress now is responding to the needs of the folks in 
the gulf coast again.
  I am very pleased to support this rule and support the underlying 
bill because it does provide some overdue housing relief to displaced 
gulf coast residents. H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing 
Recovery Act of 2007, was passed out of the Financial Services 
Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 50-16. The bill is practical 
in speeding up the repair and rebuilding of homes and affordable rental 
housing to the displaced low-income victims to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita 
and Wilma.

                              {time}  1300

  Very specifically, the measure frees up for use $1.175 billion in 
funds that was previously made available to the State of Louisiana, but 
which has been held up by FEMA. Louisiana has proposed combining these 
funds with other Community Development Block Grant funds under its Road 
Home program for grants to homeowners, but FEMA won't approve use of 
the funds, thereby slowing down the program because of concerns about 
specific provisions of the Road Home program that provide incentives 
for homeowners to commit to return to the State of Louisiana and live.
  This bill would transfer such funds to CDBG grants in order to 
expedite the availability of those funds. The bill also has a number of 
provisions designed to address the shortfall in affordable housing for 
low-income families. And, as we all know, it was low-income families 
who bore the brunt of suffering as a result of these hurricanes. This 
measure would prevent public housing units in New Orleans from being 
demolished until the Federal Government has a plan to replace them and 
grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return to 
either their former neighborhood or one as close as possible.
  Faced with a looming September deadline for the cutoff of some 12,000 
families currently receiving Disaster Voucher Program assistance, H.R. 
1227 extends this deadline through at least the end of the year and 
authorizes replacement vouchers to affected families when the program 
terminates, and that would continue as long as the family is eligible 
for voucher assistance.
  Additionally, responding to numerous accounts of government waste in 
the gulf coast rebuilding process, H.R. 1227 includes a number of 
provisions to ensure effective oversight. Federal funds must be used 
efficiently, effectively, and legally. The bill requires the State of 
Louisiana to submit monthly reports on the progress of the Road Home 
program in making funds available to homeowners. The bill requires the 
Government Accountability Office to complete quarterly reports 
identifying any waste, fraud, and abuse in connection with the program. 
We have got to stay on top of this money. And the bill requires the GAO 
study to examine methods of improving the distribution of Federal 
housing funds to assist States with hurricane recovery efforts.
  Finally, the bill authorizes reimbursement of communities and 
landlords for monies lost through providing assistance to displaced 
individuals. A number of communities and private sector landlords 
throughout the country did play a critical role in providing housing 
assistance to evacuees in the aftermath of the hurricanes. This was 
crucial at a time when housing was in short supply and hundreds of 
thousands of families needed that assistance. We want to encourage such 
actions in future disasters to restore people's faith that the 
government can be a friend and an ally at a time of extraordinary need.
  Much of the gulf coast remains devastated. Residents continue to 
suffer from inadequate housing, health care, and other basic services. 
And, more than 1\1/2\ years after Hurricane Katrina struck, the 
situation in the gulf coast remains an emergency. We must act now to 
right some of the wrongs that have been done and not wait on the 
sidelines anymore. We urge that you support the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank the 
distinguished gentleman from Vermont, my friend Mr. Welch, for the 
time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  On August 24, 1992, I remember Hurricane Andrew, category 5 storm, 
devastated my community, with wind gusts of over 200 miles per hour. 
That storm caused over $26 billion of damage to south Florida. Entire 
communities were destroyed. Hurricane Andrew caused 43 deaths, 
destroyed over 125,000 homes, left approximately 180,000 people 
homeless, and wiped out approximately 80 percent of the area's farms. 
Until Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005, Hurricane Andrew 
was the costliest natural disaster in the United States' history.
  We in south Florida were very fortunate to receive generous 
assistance from fellow Americans in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. I 
know that assistance was essential for recovery, as it is for recovery 
in the gulf coast.
  As someone who experienced Hurricane Andrew firsthand, I have an idea 
of the trials that confront those who live through horrific storms. The 
road to recovery is long and difficult. It doesn't come easy. But 
communities must come together and put all of their efforts into 
rebuilding and meeting the needs of the residents. We cannot walk away 
from our obligations to our fellow Americans. And, just as we did after 
Andrew, together we must build, together we must recover, together we 
must be better and stronger than before.
  Immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, the 
Republican majority in this Congress committed over $100 billion to 
help the area confront the immediate aftermath of the storm and to deal 
with the recovery effort. Included in that were $16.7 billion, almost 
$17 billion for the Community Development Block Grant programs. States 
applied for those funds through the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. So far, HUD has approved under $11 billion of those funds 
to affected States.
  Madam Speaker, we all agree that those who wish to return to New 
Orleans or other devastated areas should be

[[Page 6723]]

able to do so. This is the position of Mr. Alphonso Jackson, the 
Housing and Urban Development Secretary, which he reiterated in August 
when he said during a visit to New Orleans, ``Every family who wants to 
come home should have the opportunity to come back.'' We should all do 
what we can to make certain that we rebuild, that we see communities 
rebuild and become even more robust and safer communities.
  The underlying legislation seeks to assist in the provision of 
affordable housing to low-income families affected by Hurricane 
Katrina. There is some concern, Madam Speaker, that the legislation 
goes beyond the scope of the bill's stated intent. For example, the 
legislation seeks to turn what is currently a temporary disaster 
voucher program into a permanent voucher, and to require HUD to provide 
tenant replacement vouchers for all public housing units not brought 
back on line, including those slated for demolition prior to the 
storms.
  The American people have demonstrated their resiliency before and 
will do so again. Obviously our prayers continue to go out to the 
victims and their families of these horrific natural disasters. The 
spirit of community, generosity, and goodwill across the country 
continues to give me confidence that Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
just as Florida did before, will recover from these tragedies stronger 
and better than before.
  I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee. He listened to the needs of Miami-Dade County with 
regard to how the distribution formula for HUD section 8, when it was 
changed in the CR that this Congress passed some weeks back. There was 
damage, damage cost, and the chairman is ameliorating and alleviating 
that damage, and we are grateful for that.
  Now, Mrs. Biggert, our colleague from Illinois, went before the Rules 
Committee with an amendment to hold harmless all of the public housing 
agents from the damage done by the change in the formula in the CR, to 
hold harmless all the agencies through this calendar year. I am sorry, 
I truly am, that the majority in the Rules Committee refused to make in 
order Mrs. Biggert's amendment, and that is one of the reasons why we 
are opposing the rule today.
  I think it is appropriate to point out that the majority is failing 
to live up to its commitment to run the House in an open and fair 
manner. The majority sent a notice to Members that they had until 
Monday at 10 a.m. to file amendments with the Rules Committee in order 
to be considered; however, the official committee report accompanying 
this bill was not filed until Friday, giving Members less than 1 
business day to review the report and file amendments for 
consideration, not to mention the fact that most Members were already 
in their districts or traveling back home on Friday.
  So I think it is fair to ask the question, how can the majority 
expect Members to review the actions of the Committee on Financial 
Services in a timely manner when they barely give them a chance to 
review the committee report?
  The majority also promised to provide more open rules. Yes, they have 
provided several open rules on noncontroversial bills. I think it is 
important to ask, what about on bills where both sides do not 
necessarily agree on all aspects of the legislation? Will the majority 
continue to block amendments from the minority? What will they do on 
the supplemental appropriations bill? We shall soon find out.
  I believe it is fair to say, if the majority is serious about their 
commitment to openness, they should allow for open rules on the 
underlying legislation and the supplemental appropriations bill which 
is coming forth soon. Members of the minority are concerned that this 
bill, as I stated before, turns a temporary disaster voucher program 
into a permanent one, and the concern that of the $110 billion 
appropriated by the 109th Congress, only a small portion has been 
distributed to those in need. In response to these concerns, they 
offered several thoughtful and germane amendments to the Rules 
Committee to address their concerns; however, the majority once again 
closed them out. I think that is unfortunate, and, again, that is why, 
Madam Speaker, we oppose this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, just in 
response to the comments by my friend from Florida, this pretty much is 
an open rule. The ones that weren't allowed were nongermane. And then 
there was one amendment that was not allowed because it was an 
amendment that was earlier offered and rejected by this House, and that 
was at the recommendation of the Chair of the Financial Services 
Committee, who had a very open process in the Financial Services 
Committee considering numerous amendments and then has pretty much 
invited any Member who wanted to submit an amendment to have an 
opportunity on the floor to do so or for consideration before the Rules 
Committee.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, I would yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, the chair of the Committee on Financial 
Services, Mr. Frank.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, no, it is not a fully open rule. It is a far more open 
rule than any that the majority allowed in the previous Congress on 
major legislation from the Financial Services Committee. I tell you 
that as a fact.
  First, the argument was made that people didn't have enough time to 
file amendments. This bill was voted out of committee on March 7. It is 
true that the actual report was delayed. It was delayed partly because 
staff on both sides held up the actual writing on the language, and we 
had a CBO scoring issue, and we were waiting for CBO. But the text of 
the bill was put forward publicly on March 7.
  In fact, there are a number of amendments offered here; most of them 
are from members of the committee, some are from nonmembers of the 
committee.
  So the notion that people didn't know until Friday what to put in the 
amendments on Monday is false. The fact is that this bill on March 7 
was voted out of committee. In fact, the text of the bill was set on 
March 6. What we did on March 7 was come back and complete roll call. 
But as of noon on March 7, people knew what would be in this bill. It 
was not a secret that we were marking it up; it was not a secret that 
it would be coming up today.
  So anybody who waited until Friday, who made the mistake, they have 
themselves to blame. In fact, we made a couple of accommodations. The 
gentleman from Georgia had an amendment which he filed which was 
misfiled, and his amendment as filed went to a section different than 
he wanted to affect.

                              {time}  1315

  Whether you realize that, we urged the Rules committee to allow him, 
after the deadline, to make an appropriate substitution. That was done 
so that his appropriate amendment is in order. To the extent that there 
was that technical glitch, we said, that's not right; let's allow the 
gentleman from Georgia's amendment to go forward, the one substantive 
to the bill.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) had an important amendment 
that was adopted in committee. CBO raised issues with it. We then asked 
the Rules Committee, after the deadline, to accommodate a change for 
Mr. Baker's amendment because we were accommodating the CBO scoring. So 
we did make two agreements after the deadline to accommodate these 
particular changes.
  But I want to stress again, Members knew on March 7 what was going to 
be in this bill. So I don't know why anybody would have waited until 
Friday to do the amendments. It was a fairly public controversial 
process that we had. We had a number of rollcalls in the committee.
  And I will say this: my view, I would have had a rule that was even 
more accommodating. But what this does is allow every amendment that 
the Parliamentarian's Office found to be germane to the bill and the 
substance of

[[Page 6724]]

this program to be in order. There is some debate over one amendment 
from the gentleman from Georgia involving a kind of generic language 
about offsets. And that was not allowed. I would have voted to allow 
it; but it was not allowed. We considered it in committee. It was voted 
on, debated, defeated.
  But every amendment that was offered and, again, the deadline for 
amendments was Monday. The bill had been voted out of committee on 
Wednesday, March 7. There was plenty of time for that bill to be looked 
at and for people to offer amendments. When I saw the amendments on 
Monday, I urged the Rules Committee to put in order everything that was 
germane. They have put in order a number of germane amendments with a 
lot of debate time.
  Now, I understand that there are Members who would like it to have 
included a few more things. But every single one of them voted for 
rules far more restrictive. So this bill, you know, I have always 
thought the question is, Is this a good rule? I have always thought the 
fount of all wisdom that we should be guided by was expounded by a 
philosopher named Henny Youngman, whom you, Madam Speaker, along with I 
certainly remember. And the wisdom was, asked, How is your wife, the 
answer was, Compared to what? And is this a good rule? Compared to 
what? Compared to every rule that affected the Committee on Financial 
Services during Republican leadership, it is a rule of great openness. 
Compared to an ideal of complete openness, not quite.
  So it is a far better rule than any Republicans ever brought forward 
with regard to openness. It is not as good as I would like, but it does 
allow into debate every amendment germane to the substance of this 
bill, particularly to this bill, in terms of these programs, a number 
of amendments that change it one way or the other: some that would 
expand it, some that would retract it. And I believe the House will 
have a chance to work its will on this issue.
  The only other thing I would say is this when we are talking about 
time: For people who haven't been remembering exactly, I do want to 
remind people, despite what you might think, it is not November of 
2005. We are now here in March of 2007. I say that because people who 
saw the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi and 
in Louisiana, to some extent in Texas, and who expected the Federal 
Government to respond, and looked at the things we are doing, which are 
called for by that dilemma that was created by the hurricanes, they 
would have assumed that their Federal Government would have done that 
within a couple of months after the hurricanes.
  Unfortunately, about an 18-month freeze elapsed because the now-
minority, then-majority, did not have the energy to deal with it. So we 
are doing a bill today that is 18 months overdue.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank you for allowing or supporting the inclusion of one of my 
amendments. But you would agree, I hope, that the reason that the 
section was misidentified in the initial submission to the Rules 
Committee is because the text of the bill that we are considering today 
wasn't available until Friday afternoon, and that section numbers 
indeed changed; is that not correct?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I do agree, but it was changed as of 
Friday, and so people could have looked at that on Friday and gotten it 
right. And I appreciate that. So, yeah, the section changed and as 
somebody even picked it up as of Friday, in the case of the gentleman 
from Louisiana, it was a different thing. We didn't get the CBO's 
scoring until too late, and then we had to work it out. The scoring 
came in. Part of the problem was CBO is very busy, and we passed the 
bill on March 7 and we didn't get their scoring until that Friday, and 
that was one of the reasons for the delay.
  I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would note that there are 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining for the gentleman from Vermont and 21 minutes 
remaining for the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend from 
Georgia.
  I think a fundamental part of the role of the opposition of the 
minority is to hold the majority accountable, not only to history, 
which our friend from Massachusetts is making reference to, but 
accountable with regard to the promises made by the majority.
  And so it was the majority that reiterated that they would bring an 
open process. And, for example, we are already seeing not only, we have 
seen in bill after bill after bill, the minority closed out. But also, 
for example, rules passed by the majority, for example, requiring 3 
days for people to view legislation before it comes to the floor, rules 
like that being waived.
  So let's see, for example, what is done on the supplemental 
appropriations bill. Are they going to waive the rule passed by the 
majority requiring 3 days? Are they going to waive it with regard to 
that legislation as well?
  And my friends on the other side of the aisle point out that, I think 
they said this is almost an open rule. It is not an open rule.
  Mrs. Biggert, I mentioned before, had an amendment to hold harmless 
the public housing agencies from the effects of the change in the 
formula in the middle of the fiscal year with regard to section 8. And 
her amendment was not made in order.
  So it is important to point that out. No, this is not an open rule 
nor an almost open rule nor a semi- or a pseudo-open rule. It is not an 
open rule.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, first, the Parliamentarian ruled 
that the gentlewoman from Illinois' amendment which we debated in 
committee was not germane because it went far beyond the hurricane. So 
that was the reason for that.
  The second thing is I want to concede one point to the gentleman. He 
has chided us because we have set ourselves too low a standard. We have 
set ourselves the standard of simply being better than they were last 
year. I acknowledge that is too low a bar. I think we have met it with 
ease, but I am inclined to do better. So I promise him, as far as I am 
concerned, I will try to have a higher standard.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I don't know 
exactly where the standard is in height. I will say that the promise 
was an open process, and that process does not exist, and that promise 
has not been kept. And in bill after bill after bill, the minority is 
closed out.
  Now, it is true that some open rules have been permitted on 
legislation that we would bring forth under suspension. Madam Speaker, 
when bills are noncontroversial, many times they are brought forth 
under a process called suspension of the rules when there is mostly 
unanimity or often unanimity or almost unanimity in this House. Yes. So 
in bills like that we have seen some open rules where the minority has 
been able to have the amendments that it wishes to be considered.
  But I just want to remind colleagues that may be listening to this 
debate, Madam Speaker, that when I point to Mrs. Biggert, it is not a 
theoretical, you know, height issue, whether so much height of a 
promise has been met. No. No. Mrs. Biggert is here and Mrs. Biggert is 
a colleague, and she went before the Rules Committee with an amendment 
that I thought was an important amendment and that she has worked hard 
on, and she was closed out.
  As a matter of fact, I would like to recognize, at this point, 
another colleague, and then I will recognize Mrs. Biggert. I yield 4 
minutes to my good friend, Dr. Price, who also had an amendment, a 
germane amendment, that he has worked on, that he has given thought and 
effort to and he

[[Page 6725]]

brought to the Rules Committee so that we here could consider it today. 
And he was closed out.
  So, again, not theory, not height, not almost closed, almost open. 
The gentleman from Georgia exists.
  I yield 4 minutes to Dr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
Florida for his passion for openness and honesty in our process, and I 
thank him for yielding me some time.
  I rise to oppose this rule for two specific reasons. One is because 
it is not an open rule. It is not an open rule. It is a violation of 
the assurances that we have been provided by the majority party. It is 
not an open rule. Having a little bit of an open rule is like being a 
little bit pregnant. It ain't possible. This is not an open rule. And I 
stand here with an amendment that was turned down by the Rules 
Committee. I stand here also opposing this because this rule takes 
fiscal sanity and it moves it into a room somewhere, a very dark room, 
and then locks the door and it throws away the key.
  I have in my hand, Madam Speaker, the report from the Rules Committee 
on what we are considering today. And it has the amendment that I had 
offered, commonly known as PAYGO, and it has the recorded vote. This is 
in the Rules Committee yesterday.
  And my amendment would have been very simple. It said: ``Would 
require any new spending authorized by this legislation to have a 
specific offset.'' Simple. And what happened on the vote? Mr. McGovern 
voted ``no.'' Mr. Hastings from Florida voted ``no.'' Mr. Welch voted 
``no.'' Mr. Arcuri voted ``no.'' Ms. Slaughter voted ``no.'' Ms. Matsui 
voted ``no.'' They voted against even considering, even considering 
financial responsibility. So I rise to oppose this rule.
  This new majority has promised a fair and open process; but, Madam 
Speaker, I am here to tell you that what we are living in now is the 
land of Orwellian democracy. Because they just say something, they 
think it is so. Once again, this majority has blocked a vote on 
applying pay-as-you-go principles to new spending.
  We have wonderful comments from leadership on the other side. Speaker 
Pelosi has said, on a previous rule, when the Republicans were in 
charge, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices 
silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the rule.'' And I support that sentiment. ``Because this is a 
restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote `no.' ''
  Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on a rule that came before the 
House, ``Mr. Speaker, once again this House majority is resorting to 
heavy-handed tactics that are designed to do one thing only, to achieve 
a pre-ordained result by shutting down a full and fair debate in this 
House.'' And that is precisely what the majority party is doing now.
  The new Chair of the Rules Committee said, ``If we want to foster 
democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to 
debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just 
appropriations bills. An open process should be the norm, not the 
exception.''
  Democrat Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel said, ``Let us have an up or down 
vote. Don't be scared. Don't hide behind some little rule. Come on out 
here. Put it on the table. Let us have a vote.''
  So I ask my friends on the majority side, what are you afraid of? The 
amendment said: ``Which would require any new spending authorized by 
this legislation to have a specific offset.''
  What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? That is real 
financial responsibility.
  My good friend from Massachusetts said that they were waiting on a 
CBO scoring. Well, then the bill does require funding. In fact, what 
the CBO has said, that it has a price tag of nearly $1.3 billion. Maybe 
money well spent, but I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that it is money 
that we ought to find in our current budget.
  So this hypocrisy of the majority party is stifling, absolutely 
stifling. They are not the most open and fair Congress in history; in 
fact, they are a far cry from it.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule based on fiscal 
responsibility and based on the hypocrisy of the majority party 
claiming to provide open rules, claiming to provide real and honest 
debate and running away from it once again.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, in response to my friend from 
Georgia, I would say two things. First, there are seven amendments that 
have been allowed. One of them included an amendment by the gentleman 
from Georgia that was not timely, but was accommodated by the Rules 
Committee. The amendment that was rejected is an amendment that has 
been rejected before.
  The second point that I think it is important to make is that we have 
a responsibility in this House to get work done.

                              {time}  1330

  And the rules are intended to help us do the work of the American 
people, not be a political wedge to make bogus arguments about process. 
And it is a disgrace, it is a disgrace, that going on 2 years after 
these hurricanes, there are people who are still homeless because we 
had a Federal Emergency Management Administration that was incompetent 
and reckless. It was headed by a person whose previous experience was 
as a judge of an Arabian horse contest, and that happened under the 
administration and the Congress that was led by Republicans.
  That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to this Congress. It is 
not acceptable to this party. It is not acceptable to this Congressman. 
It is not acceptable by a bipartisan vote of 52-16 of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  We have business to do because there are people who are still in 
emergency situations well over a year after devastating hurricanes. 
This legislation is about doing something now that should have been 
done 1\1/2\ years ago.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman Mr. Welch for his insightful leadership on this issue, and I 
thank the Financial Services Committee.
  And I ask the question of my colleagues, how many of them have 
encountered Hurricane Katrina survivors, as I have every day in my 
congressional district, or been back to the scene of the crime, if you 
will, along the Mississippi gulf or the Louisiana gulf and asked the 
question, how long?
  This legislation, which I believe the Rules Committee has been 
enormously fair in allowing amendments by both Republicans and 
Democrats, answers the immediacy of the concerns. One, being no 
housing. One of the amendments Mr. Green will be offering is raising 
the question of extending the benefits so that individuals who are 
trying to recoup themselves to get back home will have housing. How 
many have walked into apartments in Houston, Texas, and talked to 
Katrina survivors who held in their hand an eviction notice because 
their FEMA benefits were being cut off, while at the same time they 
were trying to access the Road Home Program, and they could not access 
those dollars?
  So this is answering real questions for real Americans, and it 
answers the failures of this administration, which never seemed to get 
it together and concern themselves enough with breaking, if you will, 
the entanglement of bureaucracy to ensure that these individuals will 
receive benefits.
  So one of the issues, Madam Speaker, as we both serve on the Homeland 
Security Committee, is to pre-prepare so we are in front of the natural 
disaster or man-made disaster. I look forward to legislation that 
establishes post
disaster housing, not trailers, so that individuals can be evacuated to 
real housing that is there in place to be able to be of help.
  This legislation moves the ball further down the road. It is long 
overdue. It is a good rule. It is a rule that I have not seen in my 
time here in the Congress under the other majority; so I am grateful 
that we are moving forward as we are.

[[Page 6726]]

  Let us vote for the rule. Let us vote for the underlying legislation. 
Let us help those who need our help, and let us help them now.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I 
yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert), who also had an amendment that was closed out, closed out by 
the majority in the Rules Committee.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, while I am grateful that this rule made in order one 
of my amendments to H.R. 1227, I rise today in opposition to this 
modified closed rule because my other amendment, a very important 
amendment, was not made in order.
  My second amendment would have struck section 302 of H.R. 1227 and 
inserted a new section at the end of the bill resetting the section 8 
funding formula to its pre-continuing resolution state. The amendment 
would require HUD to distribute section 8 funds to public housing 
authorities for the remainder of the 2007 calendar year as they were 
distributed before the enactment of the continuing resolution just last 
month.
  The section 8 funding formula change that was included in the CR was 
not well thought out. One doesn't need to look very far for evidence of 
this fact. Under the funding formula change that was included in the 
CR, all of the gulf coast PHAs lose funding, and the budget of the New 
Orleans PHA alone drops from $73 million to $3 million in 2007 and then 
permanently from there on.
  The bill before us today fixes this problem for the gulf coast and 
New Orleans PHAs, but not for the rest of the country. I guess they 
realized that they had made a mistake in that area, but let's just 
leave the other PHAs in trouble. Half of the PHAs in the country, then, 
over 1,200 public housing authorities in 29 States, remain in trouble.
  Because of the section 8 funding formula change in the CR, PHAs in 
half of our Nation's communities will not be able to serve many of our 
neediest citizens. Very soon HUD will issue a notice that informs PHAs 
that if they haven't spent their ``unspent balances'' by a date 
certain, they lose these funds. If a person is walking the streets with 
a voucher and hasn't found a place to rent, he or she loses the voucher 
because these ``unspent funds'' will be recaptured by HUD. It was wrong 
to change the funding formula midyear when PHAs had already set their 
budgets for this year.
  My amendment would have corrected this problem by telling HUD to 
distribute section 8 funds to PHAs for the remainder of 2007 calendar 
year as they were distributed to PHAs before the enactment of the CR.
  Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues on the Rules Committee voted 
against making my amendment in order and against restoring much-needed 
funds to many of the Nation's PHAs. And they did so with full knowledge 
that PHAs in their own congressional districts would benefit from my 
amendment.
  All three counties in my district lose funding under the formula 
change in this CR, but at least I attempted to do something about it 
and didn't consciously vote against fixing the problem.
  We also will continue to try to fix the problem caused by the section 
8 formula included in the CR. As ranking member on the Housing 
Subcommittee, I will continue to work with my Housing colleague 
Chairwoman Maxine Waters to craft a bipartisan section 8 reform bill in 
the Financial Services Committee, which is the appropriate place to 
address any changes to the funding formula, not in an appropriation 
bill such as the recently enacted CR.
  I recognize that the minority party may not be able to stop this rule 
from going forward, Madam Speaker, but I urge my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to seriously consider voting against this rule. 
While the bill prevents PHAs in the Gulf Stream from being harmed by 
the formula in the CR, this rule does nothing to help PHAs nationwide 
that are in the same predicament.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise to correct myself.
  The gentleman from Georgia asked me to acknowledge that his amendment 
was originally misfiled because of a change in the section that 
occurred last Friday. I acknowledged that, but incorrectly. In fact, 
the change happened during the markup. The section was renumbered 
during the markup. And the gentleman, of course, being a member of the 
committee, could have done that.
  I want to stress again no change was made in the text of that bill 
from March 7 until today; so anybody who wanted to offer amendments 
knew that on March 7.
  Secondly, as to the gentlewoman from Illinois, as I said, I guess I 
am coming here, Madam Speaker, confessing all day. I mean, I confess 
that I have not reached as high enough a standard as I should in 
parliamentary terms because I have taken simply being better than the 
Republicans as my standard, and I pledge to do better.
  Similarly, I guess I should be scolded for being lax on the rules. 
The gentlewoman from Illinois offered her amendment in committee. We 
did not raise a point of order against it in committee. Now, I do want 
to point out the parliamentarian for our committee is the 
parliamentarian that was the parliamentarian under my predecessor. That 
is one of the first things I did after the election was to call the 
parliamentarian, Mr. Duncan, a former member of the Parliamentarian's 
Office, who had been hired by my predecessor, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley), and asked him to stay on. I believe it should be totally 
nonpartisan, and I believe it has been. It was the Parliamentarian's 
Office that told the Rules Committee that the gentlewoman from 
Illinois' amendment was not germane.
  Now, I acknowledge my excessive tolerance. I have learned I am more 
tolerant of a lot of things than a lot of people here, and I accept 
that. I perhaps should have been more strict with regard to the 
committee. We had that debated, and the rule is generally that you do 
not take something that is narrowly applied and make it broader. There 
is language in this bill that applies to how vouchers are allocated 
where there was a hurricane. The gentlewoman wanted to change something 
that had been in the CR. She said it shouldn't have been in the CR. And 
I will say this: We will in our committee be revisiting that. We will 
have a voucher bill. That will come before our committee going forward. 
But I do want to make it clear in defense of the Rules Committee that 
where I allowed the amendment without getting a ruling on it, the Rules 
Committee, when they restricted the gentlewoman's amendment from being 
offered, were following the ruling of the parliamentarian that it was 
not germane.
  I will yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  When it was in committee, there was no point of order. And the 
amendment also contained New Orleans and the gulf coast.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. That was carved out by your side of the aisle, 
realizing that that was very important, leaving the other PHAs.
  When I went to the Rules Committee, I spent over an hour there, and 
the germaneness never came up.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
acknowledge that I did not raise a point of order. I acknowledge that I 
was very tolerant and did not make a point of order that apparently 
would have been sustained by the parliamentarian. But it was the 
parliamentarian who said that.
  I am sorry the woman spent over an hour in the Rules Committee. 
Sometimes that is fun; sometimes it is not, but that is part of the 
job. But the fact is that the decision to exclude her particular 
amendment was made on the

[[Page 6727]]

ruling of the parliamentarian that it was not germane.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  We are grateful for the tolerance in the gentleman's committee with 
regard to the amendment presented by Mrs. Biggert. The Rules Committee 
could have been equally tolerant. Let us be clear.
  In other words, the Rules Committee waives points of order, Madam 
Speaker, with regard to the whole bill; so, obviously, they could have 
waived a point of order with regard to the issue of germaneness for 
Mrs. Biggert. So the Rules Committee could have been amply tolerant. 
And that is one of the reasons, since the Rules Committee majority was 
not, with regard to our colleague who has put so much work into this 
issue to hold harmless the public housing agencies for the remainder of 
this year from the mistake made by the majority in the so-called 
continuing resolution, that we believe that she should have been able 
to make her point before all of the Members.
  Madam Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to my 
distinguished friend from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I have come down here this morning not to 
really speak about the process. It is to discuss with all my fellow 
Members something that I think we need to make a commitment to going 
forward.
  Hurricane Katrina was a terrible tragedy for the gulf coast. It was a 
terrible tragedy for New Orleans. In fact, it was the greatest tragedy 
that we have had as far as a natural disaster in the history of our 
country. As far as loss of property and loss of life, it is somewhere 
between five and six times greater than anything we had ever 
experienced before. When you talk property loss, uninsured property 
loss, because a lot of the flooding was in New Orleans where there was 
not flood insurance, or along the coast where they had wind insurance 
but not for the surge, the storm surge, the losses are even greater.
  But out of a tragedy, there ought to always be opportunities. And the 
opportunity that we have let slip by today, and, as I said, I am more 
concerned about the future, and I hope that the chairman of the full 
committee will work with me, is for us to go back and make sure that we 
do right by the people of New Orleans in public housing.

                              {time}  1345

  The New Orleans public housing was a failure. It was dysfunctional, 
and it had been so for 40 or 50 years.
  There is a philanthropist in Atlanta who has helped build a community 
in Atlanta called East Lake. It was the highest crime area in the State 
of Georgia. Today it is one of the safest precincts in the State of 
Georgia. He did it not by replacing one-on-one public housing units, as 
we are going to do in this bill. He did it by making a mixed community 
of renters, subsidized renters, owners and public housing units.
  In the State of New York, almost half of the prisoners in the State 
penitentiary in New York State come from public housing projects in 
seven ZIP codes in New York.
  We owe it to our citizens all over the United States, not just in New 
Orleans, to try to make a model, a vision in New Orleans, and correct 
what is a community of public housing where children actually hide in 
bathtubs and sleep in bathtubs at night because that is the only safe 
place to be. That ought not to be in America.
  We can change this. We know how to do it. Some of these HOPE VI 
projects are amazing. We didn't do this in this bill. We owe it to the 
American people to do it going forward.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I want to thank 
the gentleman and all who have participated in this debate for having 
done so. I think it has been a good debate.
  I simply want to reiterate that on such an important issue, I am 
sorry that we do not have a truly open rule, one that obviously would 
satisfy any definition of the word. Under an open rule, for example, 
Mrs. Biggert could have had her hold-harmless amendment discussed and 
debated by the full House, as well as Dr. Price and others who wanted 
to have their amendments debated and discussed.
  I would simply urge and request of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle that not only on noncontroversial bills should we have the 
ability for the minority to be heard, not only on noncontroversial 
bills or bills of consensus should there be open rules, but rather 
there should be open rules on other legislation, legislation where 
there will be genuine debate and even disagreement and discussion.
  Madam Speaker, having said that, having no other speakers, and 
reiterating our opposition to the rule, and looking forward to the 
debate on the underlying legislation, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my good friend from Florida.
  Once again, Madam Speaker, this is, we believe, a fair and open rule 
that provides consideration for a much-needed, bipartisan piece of 
legislation. The rule makes in order nearly every amendment brought to 
the Rules Committee, more Republican than Democratic amendments, and 
with considerable time to debate the merits of each amendment that will 
be presented.
  The underlying bill will provide increased flexibility for already 
allocated funds, provide new oversight for existing programs. It 
preserves public housing, assists evacuees with rental housing and 
provides support for landlords in local communities who assisted 
evacuees with housing.
  Don't forget the displaced victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and 
Wilma. That is really what this is all about. The Federal Government's 
response to the storms has been a national embarrassment, and it is 
just not acceptable. We have an obligation, all of us, to get our act 
together so that they can move on with their lives and put them back 
together.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 254 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on suspending the rules and agreeing to House Concurrent 
Resolution 42; suspending the rules and passing H.R. 759; and agreeing 
to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 190, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 160]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)

[[Page 6728]]


     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     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
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     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
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     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--15

     Bachus
     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Castor
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Gilchrest
     Graves
     Kanjorski
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Meehan
     Paul
     Pence
     Sessions
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1415

  Messrs. TERRY, SULLIVAN, JORDAN of Ohio and TOM DAVIS of Virginia 
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.

                          ____________________