[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10510-10522]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5658, DUNCAN HUNTER 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1218 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1218

       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 further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 5658) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes. No 
     further general debate shall be in order.
       Sec. 2. (a) 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 recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except 
     those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
       (b) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment 
     to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report (except as specified in section 4 of this resolution), 
     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.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their designees, 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. The original proponent of an amendment included in 
     such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     out of the order printed, but not sooner than 30 minutes 
     after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a 
     designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 5.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 6.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 5658 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.
       Sec. 7.  In the engrossment of H.R. 5658, the Clerk shall--
        (a) add the text of H.R. 6048, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 5658;
       (b) conform the title of H.R. 5658 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of H.R. 6048;
       (c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (d) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       Sec. 8.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of Thursday, May 22, 2008, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating 
     to any measure pertaining to agricultural programs.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 1218.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1218 provides for the further 
consideration of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, under a structured rule, 
without further general debate.
  The rule makes in order 58 amendments submitted to the Rules 
Committee for consideration under this rule. The rule waives all points 
of order against the amendments printed in the committee report and 
amendments en bloc except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
XXI. The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. The rule also provides

[[Page 10511]]

that in the engrossment of H.R. 5658, the text of H.R. 6048, as passed 
by the House, shall be added at the end of H.R. 5658.
  Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend 
the rules through the legislative day of Thursday, May 22, 2008, 
relating to any measure pertaining to agricultural programs.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to finish consideration 
of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009. General debate on this measure concluded last night. 
This two-part process has been used over the years to ensure that the 
Rules Committee has ample time to consider amendments submitted to the 
committee. This year, 121 amendments were submitted for consideration.
  As my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said on the floor yesterday, 
the defense authorization bill is one of the most comprehensive and 
important pieces of legislation this House considers each year.
  I salute the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, 
and Ranking Member Hunter for their hard work and cooperative effort in 
bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. Their bill passed the 
Armed Services Committee by a vote of 61-0, a testament to their 
bipartisan efforts and desire to ensure our Armed Forces have all the 
tools they need to maintain our national security and to provide our 
servicemembers in harm's way with the best gear and force protection 
possible.
  America has the finest military in the world, Mr. Speaker. 
Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policies in Iraq have depleted 
our great military, put a tremendous strain on our troops, and dropped 
the Army's readiness to unprecedented levels.
  H.R. 5658 takes us in a new direction. It will help restore our 
Nation's military readiness and protect our troops in harm's way. This 
bill supports our troops and their families by giving the military a 
pay raise larger than was requested by the President and prohibiting 
TRICARE fee increases. It focuses on the war in Afghanistan. It also 
includes Iraq policy provisions that ban permanent bases in Iraq and 
require the Iraqi Government to pay its fair share of reconstruction 
costs.
  In the spirit of maintaining the committee agreement and the 
overwhelming bipartisan support for this bill and to further ensure 
that our military is fully prepared and our troops get the benefits 
they deserve, the Rules Committee has made in order 58 amendments for 
consideration on the floor today. These are amendments that the Rules 
Committee and the Armed Services Committee determined would not disrupt 
the bill's carefully negotiated content and warranted further 
consideration.
  In addition, this rule also allows the Speaker to bring up under 
suspension of the rules any measure pertaining to agricultural 
programs.
  As we all know and we heard on the floor yesterday, an unintentional 
clerical error occurred prior to the enrollment of the farm bill. As a 
result, the President did not receive the full bill. The distinguished 
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, has been working to remedy this situation 
so the President may receive the full bill for his consideration.
  As a result, if a resolution is reached, and I do not know the status 
of the negotiations between Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Boehner, the resulting 
end product will be brought to the floor without further delay so that 
we may complete nearly 2 years of effort and deliver once and for all 
on the promises we made long ago to America's farmers and ranchers.
  In the meantime I must remind our colleagues that the current farm 
bill extension is set to expire unless we act today. Whether a 
resolution is reached in the coming days or how we resolve this 
clerical error, we must, Mr. Speaker, extend the current farm bill and 
this rule will simply allow that to occur.

                              {time}  1030

  Much will be made of this rule by my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, but I will remind them that any farm bill measure that may come 
before the House today will come up under suspension of the rules. That 
means that two-thirds of the House must support any suspension bill in 
order for it to pass the House. That further means that there will be 
no political gamesmanship and we must have a strong bipartisan vote in 
order to pass any bill that reaches the floor.
  The farm bill conference report has overwhelming bipartisan support. 
It passed this House with 318 votes. It passed the Senate with 81 
votes. It represents the tireless effort of many Members, including 
myself, and is far too important to fail, Mr. Speaker, especially in 
light of what was an unintended clerical error.
  This rule ensures swift passage of a bipartisan defense bill and a 
remedy to our already passed bipartisan farm bill, and I demand that my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle support the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
and colleague from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two primary purposes to the rule that is 
before the House today. One purpose, legitimate, though unfair, 
relating to the defense authorization bill. The other purpose, a 
unilateral, partisan abuse of power by the liberal leaders of the 
House.
  The first purpose. This rule provides for consideration of 58 
amendments to the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009. Of the 58 amendments that this rule makes in order, 
42 are Democrat amendments. Just 14 Republican amendments were allowed. 
Two of those amendments have bipartisan support.
  The Rules Committee has blocked two-thirds of the amendments 
submitted by members of the Republican Party. Reasonable, responsible 
amendments that raise legitimate national defense issues relating to 
the security of American troops and the American people are not being 
permitted to be debated on the House floor.
  The defense authorization bill was approved by a unanimous bipartisan 
support, Mr. Speaker, of the Armed Services Committee. But that does 
not mean that that bill is perfect. Indeed, amendments to the bill were 
filed with the Rules Committee by both Democrats and Republican members 
of the Armed Services Committee. These members, who had worked in a 
bipartisan way in committee and who wanted to have their ideas for 
improving the defense authorization bill considered by the House, were 
denied that opportunity, and among those amendments that were blocked 
by the Rules Committee is the ranking Republican member of the Armed 
Services Committee, for whom this bill is named.
  At the same time we are applauding those committee members for their 
bipartisan work, the Rules Committee steps in and shuts down what has 
been an open, cooperative process by blocking so many Republican 
amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, the House should recognize that when a committee works 
in an open and honest manner to produce a truly bipartisan bill, we 
should recognize that, especially because it has become a rarity in 
this Congress.
  Despite the promises made by the Democrat leaders to run the most 
open and honest House in history, they have made it a matter of routine 
to close down debate, take away the ability of every Representative to 
offer amendments on the House floor, to defy rules, and to ignore over 
200 years of legislative precedents. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this House has 
never seen anything the likes of what the Democrat leaders did last 
night with the vote to override the President's veto of the farm bill.
  Despite having full knowledge that the bill that the Speaker of the 
House certified with her signature and sent to the President was not 
the exact same bill that passed both the House and the Senate, Democrat 
leaders deliberately acted to have this House vote on overriding the 
President's veto. The bill that the Speaker sent to the President 
completely omitted title III of the farm bill. This is the entire trade 
section that runs several dozen pages.

[[Page 10512]]

  It has been asserted that deletion of this title from the farm bill 
that the Speaker sent to the President was simply a mistake, an 
oversight, or a technical error. That may very well be. That may very 
well be, Mr. Speaker. Yet Democrat leaders deliberately acted yesterday 
to have the House vote to override a Presidential veto on a bill that 
the House had never, ever passed. They took this action in direct 
contradiction to the simple procedures established in article I, 
section 7 of the United States Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I have often spoken to 
elementary and high school students about my job as a Congressman and 
how Congress works. The most fundamental lesson I always convey is how 
a bill becomes law in this Congress. It's very simple. The House and 
the Senate must pass the exact same bill. It must be exact. No comma 
difference. When they do that, the bill is sent to the President to be 
signed into law or vetoed and returned to the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this did not happen with the farm bill. The bill passed 
by both the House and the Senate was not the bill that the Speaker of 
the House signed and sent to the President.
  Mr. Speaker, last week I stood right here on the House floor and 
stated that while I believed that the farm bill was far from perfect, I 
would vote for the bill because of the positive provisions it included 
for specialty crop growers in my congressional district.
  In my speech to the House and in my communications with my 
constituents, I specifically cited parts of the farm bill that helped 
convince me to vote to pass it. In particular, I spoke about the Market 
Access Program in reference to technical trade assistance for specialty 
crops, both of which help to break down unfair trade barriers and open 
new markets for farmers overseas. Both of these programs are part of 
title III of the farm bill which passed the House and Senate but was 
not sent to the President.
  Mr. Speaker, the farm bill I voted for, and the very reasons I voted 
for it, was not the bill that the House voted to override yesterday.
  Democrat leaders of this Congress acted in an unconstitutional way in 
voting to override the veto vote yesterday. That the leaders acted 
unconstitutionally is not a matter of my personal opinion, it is a 
matter that has been ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court. In 
a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Stevens in the 1998 line-item 
veto case, Clinton v. The City of New York, the court concluded, and I 
quote:
  ``The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became 
Public Law 105-33 after three procedural steps were taken. One, a bill 
containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of 
the House of Representatives. Two, the Senate approved precisely the 
same text. Three, that text was signed into law by the President. The 
Constitution explicitly requires that each of these three steps be 
taken before a bill may `become a law.' Article 1, section 7. If one 
paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three 
stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted.''
  Mr. Speaker, last night it wasn't until Republicans objected that the 
Democrat majority took any action to speak on the floor and inform the 
House of what had occurred by the omission of title III of the bill. 
The Democrat majority then responded, as they have for the past 16 
months, by choosing the path of unilateral, partisan action over 
working in a bipartisan way. Keep in mind, this farm bill passed by 
over 300 votes in a bipartisan way.
  As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, there are two parts to 
this rule. The first makes in order amendments to the defense 
authorization bill. The second provides blanket authority for any bill 
relating to agricultural programs to be considered under suspension of 
the House rules.
  The inclusion of this blanket authority to suspend House rules and 
consider bills was not even discussed with Republicans. I say that with 
the knowledge I have as I speak here today, right now, at 10:39 a.m.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim that this is 
simply an effort to fix the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the 
farm bill and I support getting it enacted into law. But this isn't 
just about a fix or finding the most convenient or face-saving way to 
act on the farm bill. It's about following the Constitution and holding 
Democrat leaders accountable for their deliberate actions yesterday, 
Mr. Speaker.
  They knew the bill they put to an override vote yesterday had never 
passed the House in the version that it was presented to us for the 
override, but they did it anyway. The House should not gloss over an 
incident of this magnitude with such serious constitutional violations.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I would just like to say to my friend and the gentleman 
from Washington State that his claim that it was never brought before 
the House is simply not the facts. I was on the floor. I heard Mr. 
Peterson announce to the floor that in fact there had been an error 
yesterday during the debate for the override. In fact, Mr. Peterson 
said that he had been discussing with Mr. Goodlatte the situation and 
how to remedy it. In fact, Mr. Hoyer acknowledged it on the floor.
  There has been no glossing over this. Mr. Hoyer readily acknowledged 
on the floor last night that there was a clerical error about this. 
Certainly we are concerned about how to remedy this. That is why we are 
bringing this rule to the floor. We are also concerned that the farm 
bill expires. We have brought a resolution to the floor that allows for 
a bipartisan compromise that would fix that situation.
  We are trying to solve problems here today. We are trying to do right 
by our military, we are trying to do right by our farmers, and we are 
doing it in a manner that would require, with regard to the farmers, at 
least, a two-thirds vote of this House to resolve the problem.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we are doing everything possible 
to remedy this situation, and we are doing it in a bipartisan manner.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee, a leader in 
the farm bill debate, and a great friend.
  Ms. MATSUI. I want to thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Bill. I want to thank Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for the way they worked together to 
craft the balanced bill before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the men and women who serve and 
defend our country. One of these heroes lives in my home town of 
Sacramento, Sergeant Jeremiah Anderson. Sergeant Anderson is a 
decorated soldier who served as an armored crewman for more than 4 
years. He is an American hero.
  But a provision in current law has kept him from receiving the full 
scope of Army College Fund benefits he earned and deserves. At least 40 
other veterans around the country have had the same thing happen to 
them. The military's educational benefits are a crucial part of the 
promise we make to our soldiers. We vow to repay their service by 
providing them with opportunities to further their education. These 
education benefits help our soldiers reintegrate into their communities 
when they return from overseas, and in return, our communities benefit 
from their invaluable contributions, both in the military and here at 
home.
  We must deliver on what we promise, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues 
to support the defense authorization bill for the good of our military 
families and for the safety of our Nation in the future.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the 
gentleman from California, I just want to make this point, and this is 
a very, very important point. Yesterday, prior to taking up the veto 
override of the farm bill, the Democrat leaders knew

[[Page 10513]]

that title III was out of the bill. Therefore, it was not a bill that 
had passed either House. Therefore, the ultimate rule of this land, the 
Constitution, was violated.
  It was at that point, Mr. Speaker, that there should have been 
discussions on how to remedy this in a way, but there was no 
discussions on that, at least with the leaders on our side. Yet we went 
ahead with the action of overriding a veto, overriding a bill that the 
House had not passed.
  That is what the facts were yesterday, and it was not brought to the 
full House's attention until the leaders on our side stood up after the 
vote to ask what the procedures were for clarification. Had we known 
that ahead of time, we probably could have gone through regular order 
and got this resolved in such a way that would have been acceptable to 
all sides.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
namesake of the bill that we are debating later on, the Duncan Hunter 
Defense Authorization Act of 2009. The gentleman from California served 
as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He has been somebody that 
I have looked up to in my years in Congress. He probably, if not the 
most knowledgable person in this House on military affairs, he is 
certainly one of the most.
  I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my great friend from 
Washington for his kind remarks, and also thank the Rules Committee and 
the gentleman from California for his work on this bill too.
  We have had a great opening session on the Armed Services bill. Our 
chairman, Mr. Skelton, who brought this bill up and brought it through 
the committee with a unanimous vote, I think is to be greatly 
commended. But let me register my objection to the Rules Committee's 
determination that one of the amendments that I had offered was not 
made in order, and that is the amendment that goes to the so-called 
tanker deal.
  Let me just explain to my colleagues that this tanker deal involves 
hundreds of thousands of American jobs. The Air Force has determined 
that the European competitor has won the tanker contest. This buy could 
ultimately be in excess of some $30 billion, so there are enormous 
numbers of American jobs at stake.
  As we went through the markup process, the Members on both sides 
indicated that they didn't want to try to pass something that would in 
some way prejudice the GAO protest which is being undertaken right now. 
But let me tell you as a guy who has looked at the industrial base and 
the fact that big pieces of our industrial base are moving offshore at 
a rapid rate, at some point that is going to affect our ability to 
defend this country.
  This is a huge deal. It is a huge transfer of high-paying aerospace 
jobs, basically a massive economic stimulus package for Europe. Even 
with the 58 percent of the tanker work that is stated by the European 
company will be built in the United States, that still is 42 percent of 
the work that will not be built in the United States, and that is 
compared to the American company, which does about an 85-15 split.
  Now Cap Weinberger talked about this formula that he used, that for 
every $1 billion you create of defense spending, you create 30,000 
jobs. That means that the number of jobs at stake here, the difference 
between going with the European competitor or the American competitor, 
is well over 100,000 American high-paying aerospace jobs.
  All my amendment said was this: It said that no matter who won, 85 
percent of the work had to be done in the United States. That is 
important to keep our industrial base intact. For those folks that like 
the European competitor and the American company that was marrying up 
with it, that is Northrop Grumman, a great company that would be 
building the European aircraft, that would have been good for them, 
because they would then, instead of having 58 percent of the work done 
in the United States, they would have had, if my amendment had been 
offered and passed, that would have allowed them to get 85 percent of 
the work done in the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. HUNTER. That would have meant jobs for the American workers, and 
it would have meant that we kept a lot of that talent pool, that 
industrial base capability, in the United States. This would have been 
a huge win for American workers and it would not have prejudiced the 
present GAO protest that is underway right now.
  So I am disappointed that this amendment was not allowed, and I hope 
at some point down the line the Democrat leadership will allow us to 
put this amendment up, which will help American workers, help the 
industrial base, and help to secure the defense of the United States.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments we just heard 
from our distinguished former chairman of the committee, while a lot of 
us have sympathy for the amendment that the gentleman put forward, it 
is my understanding that no defense contractor currently can meet the 
requirements of that 85 percent. So that is an issue that is bigger 
than just simply this bill. It probably needs to be dealt with in the 
Armed Services Committee so they can decide the proper course of 
action, and it was not ruled in order for that reason.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record. This bill has had a long 
and tortuous path, and now, unfortunately, is the victim of an 
unintended clerical error, and I just need to set the record straight 
about what happened here.
  I notified Mr. Goodlatte, who I worked on this bill with on a 
bipartisan basis, as soon as I found him after I found out about this. 
We also talked to Mr. Blunt before the vote. So we had discussions on a 
bipartisan basis.
  This error, apparently what happened here is that there was a 
procedure that used to be in place where people would initial each page 
after they had done the enrollment on the parchment, but that was 
eliminated apparently 10 years ago when the Republicans were in charge, 
for whatever reason. So a mistake was made on both ends of Pennsylvania 
Avenue. The White House vetoed a bill that was missing this title. We 
sent a bill down there that was missing this title. So that was the 
reality of what happened. I notified everybody before the override 
immediately about what the situation was. So that is what happened.
  Now, the way we came to the conclusion to move ahead with this was 
discussions with the Parliamentarian and others that this in fact was a 
bill that was vetoed that was passed in the identical form in both the 
House and the Senate. We had passed all 14 of those titles in the House 
that were vetoed. They passed them in the Senate in identical form. It 
was vetoed by the White House.
  There is a case from 1892, Field v. Clark, that was the exact same 
similar situation. It is very clear that they do not look beyond the 
parchment when they look at this veto. So the decision to move ahead 
was made on a bipartisan basis between Mr. Goodlatte and me.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me just say my friend has just indicated that there was 
discussion that took place with the ranking minority member and the 
Republican Whip before the vote took place. The concern that we have on 
this issue is the fact that we even moved ahead with consideration when 
there was protest raised by our leadership staff saying that we have a 
problem here, it needs to be addressed. I didn't even know that this 
was taking place until

[[Page 10514]]

 we were well into debate on the attempt to override the President's 
veto.
  So that is a concern we have raised. We acknowledge that mistakes are 
made. We know that happens. It has happened under both parties in the 
past. But to proceed when there has been concern raised by the minority 
staff is another matter.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Reclaiming my time, we made a decision at 
the time that we thought was appropriate, and that is that we had the 
14 titles. They were passed in the same way between the House and the 
Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. The idea at the time was that we would ask 
unanimous consent to move title III after the veto override so we could 
marry the bill back up. There was objection raised on that regard. So 
what we are doing now is a process to try to fix this. This is a 
clerical error. This is not anything that anybody has tried to cover 
up. I made this clear to everybody at the beginning of the process.
  Looking at this the next day, I think we made the right decision, 
because clearly the Senate is going to override the veto and the 14 
titles that are overridden will become the law of the land. This is 
backed up by Field v. Clark.
  We have still got the issue to deal with on the trade title. We have 
a process set up to get that resolved. It is not a partisan issue. We 
are just trying to get this fixed.
  So you can disagree with the decision we made, and if you have a 
problem with it, I will take the blame. But at the time, we talked to 
the Parliamentarian, we discussed it among ourselves, and we decided 
this is the way to proceed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules 
Committee (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I am happy to continue 
engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that, again, we all acknowledge 
that mistakes are made. But this is a bill that has enjoyed bipartisan 
support. I am not going to give all my arguments. I have given them 
during debate on the bill. I voted against the bill, but I am not 
standing here trying to block it from becoming public law. We saw there 
were only 108 of us yesterday that voted to sustain the President's 
veto, so that much is there.
  But the fact is that is not the bill that we voted on in this 
institution before, and with this concern that has come to the 
forefront, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that since our Republican 
leadership staff indicated to members of the majority that we should 
not proceed until we resolve this matter, and as we discussed yesterday 
in our colloquy with the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, the 
notion of all of a sudden taking part of one bill, having it signed or 
vetoed, and that bill not all being included as one, it has created a 
tremendous confusion and a potential constitutional quagmire.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. It is not a constitutional quagmire. I 
don't know why people bring this up, because it was clear in this 1892 
court case what the situation is. The thing is, we initially asked, if 
I could explain, if it was possible to re-enroll the bill and send it 
back to the President in the way that it should have been done in the 
first place. We were told that could not be done.
  The problem that we have is not so much a problem in the House, but a 
problem in the Senate, that there is no way that you could get this 
bill redone without re-passing the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I simply want to say that the concern 
that we have was the rush to proceed with that veto override vote last 
night, when in fact from what I infer from what the distinguished 
chairman has just said, Mr. Speaker, that obviously the bill should be 
together. We should in fact move ahead, for all intents and purposes, 
from scratch on this so that we can follow, as Mr. Hastings up in the 
Rules Committee last night explained when we talk to school groups, how 
a bill becomes the law.
  This is not the way it is done. This is not the way it was envisaged 
by the Framers of our Constitution. And, as I said last night in the 
Rules Committee, we have Members looking at article I, section 7 of the 
U.S. Constitution, which does raise this.
  All we are saying is we acknowledge mistakes were made. We don't 
believe there was any intent here, until we proceeded after, and, again 
this is a bipartisan bill, after there was concern raised from our 
minority leadership staff members.
  So that is why I believe that the decision was an incorrect one. And 
the notion of our now including in this Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization bill in the rule to allow that bill to come up a 
provision that allows us to proceed with this kind of debate is just 
plain wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 16\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Washington has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to 
respond to Mr. Dreier's remarks.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Again, one of the reasons that we were 
moving was because the extension of the current law expires Friday and 
we were trying to make sure we got the work done so that we could 
finally get this bill passed into law, after all the time that we have 
been working on this.

                              {time}  1100

  If people think that I made the wrong decision here, I will take 
responsibility for it. But I talked to minority members. There were 
some on the other side that agreed with the process that we were 
setting forward. I apologize.
  There is nobody that has spent more time working on this bill. I 
personally looked over everything that has been in this bill. I guess 
the one mistake I made was that I didn't personally read the enrolled 
copy of this bill and actually check each page of it before it was sent 
to the White House. I guess I should have done that.
  A procedure was eliminated that used to be there under the 
Republicans. I think that procedure is now going to be reinstated after 
this experience. Really, this is just an error. And now we have to fix 
this.
  So what we are doing with this rule is allowing us to pass the whole 
bill again, send it over to the Senate. We are also going to pass a 
bill that just has title III in it, send that to the Senate, so that we 
give the Senate all of the options that they need so that we can get 
this expedited and fixed as soon as possible. That is what we are 
trying to do here.
  I apologize if some people's feelings were hurt, but we were doing 
the best we could.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  It has nothing to do with feelings being hurt on this issue. My 
feelings aren't hurt at all over this issue. My concern happens to be 
the U.S. Constitution. I know that raising the term ``the 
Constitution'' is something that my friend might not like. And I 
congratulate him on his work product on this bill through the process 
and all. I know he has worked very hard. My feelings aren't hurt. I am 
just saying that we believe that things need to be done correctly, 
under the Constitution.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Reclaiming my time. This was done 
correctly. The 14 titles that were overridden yesterday were passed in 
an identical manner between the House and the Senate. They were vetoed 
by the President in that manner. The bill, once the Senate overrides, 
will become law. This is clarified in Field v. Clark

[[Page 10515]]

in 1892, a similar situation. This is information that we knew before 
we proceeded, and we believe we proceeded correctly under the 
circumstances. Had we had unanimous consent, we wouldn't be here today. 
We would have had this resolved by now.
  I just would hope the gentleman would help us move past all of this 
and in good faith let us finally get this farm bill accomplished.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on this 
very unique rule, which I assume covers parts of at least two or three 
bills. I would like to talk about one section of it, which is the 
Department of Defense portion.
  I would also like to first congratulate Chairman Skelton and the two 
subcommittee chairmen with whom I work, Abercrombie and Ortiz, for 
producing a bipartisan bill. They have given the image that I think 
could be used on other committees that if the leadership of the 
committee wants to come up with a bipartisan bill, it is easily 
possible to do that. They have done that in this particular committee. 
They have been fair in their leadership, their staffs have been very 
helpful, they have produced a good bill.
  I also want to thank Representative Boren of Oklahoma, who has taken 
the issue upon which I wish to address very quickly, and continues to 
move that forward in an attempt to be a bipartisan way.
  Unfortunately, the amendment made in order under his name on this 
particular issue has very vague language in there and, I am afraid, 
only codifies the existing problem as opposed to trying to find a 
solution to it.
  The problem exists in that a different committee with very little 
understanding and no jurisdiction over military affairs has passed 
legislation which has caused a massive problem for the military of this 
particular country.
  A CEO of one of the major airlines has said that for every penny of 
unexpected cost in fuel, it costs them $1 million of unexpected costs 
for their overall product. The military has the same problem of fuel 
costs. In 2001, we spent $2 billion a year for fuel. This year, it may 
go anywhere between $12 billion to $13 billion a year for fuel. And 
three-fourths of our oil reserves in this Nation are with countries 
that are at least hostile or potentially hostile to this country.
  Realizing that fact, the military has tried to make some provisions 
for the future. We have enough oil shale and coal in this country to 
provide for the needs of the military. There is 1 trillion barrels 
locked in my State. Decades ago, the Department of Defense recognized 
this and established certain of those sections as part of the Naval Oil 
Reserve, a reserve that is untapped which we could go in today and use 
in defense of this country, except for section 526 of the energy bill 
that was already passed, which cuts the knees out from under the 
military and its efforts.
  One of the things I think they did not realize when they passed this 
bill was that coal----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 30 additional 
seconds.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Coal and oil shale have greater Btus, which 
simply means that, for the same amount of fuel, our fighters, our 
Humvees, our trucks could go farther or we could do what we are doing 
now with less energy consumption that we need.
  The military has attempted to make sure we have a process with 
alternative fuels to make sure that we have security for the future. 
526 stops that. The Rules Committee could have waived the issues of 
sequential referral and allowed us to discuss that on the floor, but 
instead they limited and restricted the debate, so that we will not 
have a full debate on this important issue that is about the security 
of the military of this country.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, a gentleman who worked tirelessly on the farm 
bill and who has worked tirelessly on behalf of defense matters, my 
good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend and colleague from California for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of this rule, the fiscal 
year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, which this year is appropriately 
named after the distinguished Republican ranking member, Mr. Hunter.
  I commend Chairman Skelton and the entire House Armed Services 
Committee for their ability to work in a strong bipartisan fashion to 
produce a defense authorization bill that will enhance our Nation's 
security by providing our troops with superior equipment, and improve 
the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families by 
providing a 3.9 percent pay raise for all servicemembers, and require 
the administration to provide the American people with more 
transparency and accountability regarding the funding of the war in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  When it comes down to it, maintaining a strong national defense and 
providing for our troops should never be a partisan issue. We can 
disagree regarding specific provisions and proposals on occasion, but 
the fact remains that the American people want bipartisan solutions 
from Republicans and Democrats. That moves our Nation forward, and that 
is exactly what this rule and the underlying defense authorization will 
do.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to urge my colleagues to 
resist the temptation to point fingers and be partisan on this issue 
with the farm bill. We need to work in a bipartisan way, because this 
is what is important to America's farmers, and very, very important to 
America. By passing this rule and the defense authorization bill today, 
we can prove to the American people that bipartisanship still exists 
inside the walls of Congress.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of 
the Rules Committee and now a member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We just 
heard from the gentleman from Utah in regard to section 526 of the 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Democratic Energy 
Act.
  Section 526, as the gentleman described, puts handcuffs on our 
Federal Government, particularly the Department of Defense, in regard 
to the ability to get other sources of fuel. 380,000 barrels of refined 
products per year are used by the Department of Defense, mainly by the 
United States Air Force, Mr. Speaker. And the cost of that fuel from 
2003 to 2007 has gone from $5 billion to $12 billion a year. It is 
anticipated that in this current year it will go up another $9 billion. 
This amendment that the gentleman was speaking of that I submitted to 
the Rules Committee last night offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling), the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), and the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), making this a bipartisan 
amendment, and of course myself, to just simply strike that section 526 
so we can allow the Federal Government, in particular the Department of 
Defense, to utilize things like coal liquefaction or shale products, 
tar sand, that can convert to energy and let us utilize that fuel and 
cut down this cost to our Department of Defense.
  I mean, we needed an opportunity, clearly, Mr. Speaker, to be able to 
debate that amendment on this floor. I think that overwhelmingly the 
majority on a bipartisan basis would support striking that amendment. 
We are in a crisis, and everybody knows it, in what we are paying for. 
It is not just individuals, but of course the whole Department of 
Defense. And this goes to being able to purchase jet fuel.
  That is why I am opposed to this rule. That amendment should indeed, 
Mr. Speaker, have been made in order.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman

[[Page 10516]]

from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this rule. I suggest further, if we were 
all adults on this floor, everybody would say this rule, outside of the 
ambit of what amendments are made in order on the defense bill, is an 
appropriate rule. It is an appropriate rule to respond to a mistake 
that was made.
  As the gentleman from California observed earlier in debate, mistakes 
are made. Unlike the previous instance some years ago, which were 
discussed on this floor of the deficit reduction bill where the 
minority was not notified, the assertion the minority was not notified 
was absolutely inaccurate, and Mr. Goodlatte would say that. In point 
of fact what happened was Mr. Peterson learned of it, talked to Mr. 
Goodlatte about it, then discussed it with me, and they decided jointly 
and bipartisanly to proceed.
  Unlike the Deficit Reduction Act, the first thing that Mr. Peterson 
said in arguing for the override of the President's veto was, there is 
a problem here. He wanted all the Members to know what the problem was. 
There was not a Member on the floor who didn't know what the problem 
was.
  When they voted, a majority of the minority party voted to override 
the President's veto because they believed the policy proposed in that 
bill is a good one. The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for 
that bill, and 316 out of 435 of us--there weren't 435 of us; there 
were 11 absentees. So 316 out of about 424 voted for this bill.
  This bill, unfortunately, included fourteen-fifteenths of the bill we 
passed, and really a larger proportion of that because in terms of 
pages it was probably 95 percent, 98 percent of the bill.
  Now, a mistake was made. It was not a venal mistake. It was not a 
conscious mistake. And the mistake was made, as everybody ought to 
know, by the Clerk of the Congress and OMB, and they both made the same 
mistake. And the mistake they made was reading from the printed copy as 
opposed to the parchment copy. OMB didn't read from the parchment copy, 
we didn't read from the parchment copy, because the belief was a 
decision made 10 years ago by the Deputy Clerk not to proofread the 
parchment because changing the parchment was too expensive, but to read 
from the printed copy which then, if found in error, could be corrected 
and reprinted and then programmed for the parchment to be printed from 
that. And both our side--our side, the Congress--and the OMB made the 
same mistake. They assumed, as normally is the case, that the parchment 
reflected exactly what the conference printed report said.
  Unfortunately, in this instance it did not. We still don't have a 
full explanation of how that happened. But obviously, notwithstanding 
the fact that parchment indicates that title III in the table of 
contents is included, when you go to page 169, the end of title II, and 
you turn the page to 170, you go to title IV. Now, one would have 
thought it would have been a pretty simple proofreading job if you read 
the parchment. Unfortunately, the print document which was used by OMB 
and the Congress to proof did in fact include title III.
  Okay. So we made a mistake. The administration made a mistake, we 
made a mistake, the bill was not whole.
  This is, my friends, not an unusual situation. In an 1892 case, which 
was relied upon in the budget case as well, the Court clearly said: 
Whatever the facts are internally to the House of Representatives, what 
the President signs is the statute, is the law.
  The Supreme Court says clearly, therefore, that what the President 
sent us back and the veto overridden is in fact what the court has 
found is the law. Now, unfortunately, it doesn't include title III. We 
want to pass title III.
  This bill took some 15 months, 18 months of deliberation. The farm 
bill expires tonight or tomorrow, Friday. So we can either do another 
extension, which is possible, or we can pass what was overwhelmingly 
passed in the Senate, overwhelmingly passed in the House of 
Representatives, and, as I said on the floor last night, was passed in 
exactly the same form without title III as was passed in both Houses. 
There were no changes. No alterations. That was not the case in the 
deficit bill that was referred to by Mr. Boehner yesterday.

                              {time}  1115

  In fact, a very substantial difference was made in the bill without 
notice to the Democrats, a $2 billion change, I might add, changing 
from 36 months to 13 months the implications of the reimbursement of 
Medicare for implements.
  Now, that is all to say that this is not without precedent, number 
one. There are a number of cases that hold that what we did yesterday 
was exactly appropriate, and that law is not subject to question. 
Everything is subject to question, but not valid question or winning 
question.
  So what have we done?
  First of all, I discussed it with the Parliamentarian. I had not done 
so when we had the colloquy with Mr. Boehner. I then discussed it with 
the chairman. The chairman discussed it throughout the next few hours 
with Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Harkin and others.
  I discussed it with Mr. Reid to figure out, a mistake has been made, 
how do we correct that, in fairness to everybody, on a bill, that, by 
the way, the Deficit Reduction Act was passed by a two-vote margin in 
the House, and in the United States Senate was passed because of the 
Vice President's vote. And we were not informed, so we were somewhat 
concerned about the $2 billion mistake that had been made.
  In this case, that is not the issue at all, and it's a bill that was, 
in a bipartisan basis, passed by a majority of the Republicans and 
overwhelming majority of Democrats.
  So what solution did we come up with? Resending the bill that, under 
the Supreme Court's edict is, in fact, law if it is overridden in the 
Senate, so that fourteen-fifteenths of what is the Congress's intent 
will be accomplished.
  The rule then says, but in an abundance of caution, we'll also 
provide for the passage of the entire bill and send it over to the 
Senate, as has been passed overwhelmingly in both Houses.
  In addition to that, we said, the bill does not include title III 
that is going to be in the veto message that's sent to the Senate.
  I know for the public, this is pretty esoteric, and they don't really 
care. What they care is the substance.
  But the point that I'm trying to make is, we are trying to correct a 
mistake and serve the agricultural community, serve those millions of 
people who are relying on the nutritional aid, serving those people who 
are relying on the conservation assistance throughout this country, to 
have this bill, after 18 months almost of consideration, serious 
bipartisan working and overwhelming bipartisan votes in both Houses, 
enacted into law.
  But we are also providing separately for the passage of title III. In 
other words, we're doing title III twice, once as the full bill so we 
can repass the full bill. If the Senate decides, as I hope it will, to 
pass that again, then we will not only have passed fourteen-fifteenths, 
we will have passed fifteen-fifteenths in another bill, and they will 
be reconciled and they will be consistent with the law and with the 
will of this body representing the American people.
  Now at about 7 p.m. last night, those of you who heard the colloquy, 
I indicated to Mr. Boehner we ought to talk about this. I went by Mr. 
Boehner's office to explain to him what I thought the solution to this 
problem was and discuss it with him. He was not at his office. I left a 
message and my phone number at 7 o'clock last night. I have not yet 
received a response to that visit.
  I went to his office to suggest that, pursuant to my representation 
on the floor, we discuss that. I have not yet received a phone call.
  I did talk to Mr. Blunt last night. I've talked to Mr. Blunt this 
morning. I frankly am offended, I will tell you, by the 
mischaracterization of what we are doing here by the representatives of 
the minority leader's office.

[[Page 10517]]

  There are no games being played here. There was a mistake made. And 
if we were adults and nonpartisan and wanted to deal with this in a 
responsible way, I suggest we would have agreed on this proposal.
  Now, unfortunately, we didn't get to an agreement. I don't allege 
that anybody on your side has agreed to this. But to suggest that it 
hasn't been discussed, informed, and I called as soon as I came in this 
morning, the leadership on your side, to explain exactly this 
procedure.
  Now you can disagree with the farm bill or not disagree with the farm 
bill. I understand that additional games are going to be played, as it 
was my perception last week were played. On Thursday, 131 or 132 of you 
decided, notwithstanding the fact that I am sure you are for funding 
the troops in Iraq, you voted ``present.'' That was your decision.
  It's my understanding now that perhaps you're being urged, some of 
you who are for this bill, to deny the two-thirds on the suspension of 
a bill that has gotten essentially three-quarters of this House and 80 
percent of the United States Senate supporting it.
  Ladies and gentlemen, at some point in time the American public 
expects us to act as adults, not simply as partisan protagonists, to 
conduct business, notwithstanding the fact because we are humans, and 
those who work for us are humans and are under great stress. They have 
to work around the clock. They work 15-hour days, sometimes longer 
days. And we expect them to act without ever making a mistake. That is 
unreasonable. And when they make mistakes, and when we make mistakes, 
it is appropriate for us respond in a way that will correct those 
mistakes and, at the same time, carry out the policies that are 
overwhelmingly supported by this body.
  My friends on both sides of the aisle, I would hope that we could do 
that. I regret that the minority leader has not called me back. I 
regret that he has not sat down and, with me, had the opportunity to 
discuss this. I had a discussion with him before the vote last night. 
It was a very calm, reasonable discussion, Mr. Lawrence and I, outside 
the middle door. We knew there was a problem. We knew we had to solve 
it. I think this does, in fact, solve it from the standpoint of 
adopting the policy overwhelmingly supported by this Congress of 
assuring that title III is addressed, and assuring us of the 
opportunity to make sure that it's not subject even to any lawsuit 
question by, again, passing the entire bill supported by, as I said, 
over 75 percent of the Congress of the United States.
  I understand there may be questions about which amendment was allowed 
in order to the defense bill and which wasn't, so on that case, you may 
vote differently on the rule. But on the addressing of the mistake that 
was inadvertently made, and I stress again, by the Congress and by the 
Office of Management and Budget, same mistake apparently was made, that 
we can correct this as adults treating one another in a way that each 
of us would want to be treated to act so that we adopt policies that 
are supported by this Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend, Mr. Blunt, if he 
wants time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, I thank my friend for yielding. And certainly we do 
have a disagreement here on how to move forward. I tend to agree with 
the idea that the only way to rectify this and not have future court 
challenges is to send a bill to President that there's no question 
about. Let's go through that process and get it done.
  I would say that the lecture on adult behavior from my very good 
friend, the majority leader, and he and I both know we are good 
friends; we're going to be friends when we leave here with this 
discussion today, is I don't know that that's very helpful.
  The standards of the House on trying to help people through mistakes 
did not just begin yesterday. And I, personally, the Republican leaders 
generally, were challenged over and over again on anything that could 
potentially be a way to challenge our integrity, our goodwill on the 
issue that you just brought up of the Deficit Reduction Act.
  Let me tell you the big difference in that and this. The big 
difference in that and this is that at least this Republican leader had 
no idea until we were at the bill signing ceremony that there was a 
problem because it all happened in the Senate.
  I'm just saying what I knew, Mr. Hoyer. I had no idea. My guess is 
that nobody else did either or they wouldn't have scheduled a bill 
signing ceremony where 100 people were sitting in the East Room waiting 
for 30 minutes beyond the time it was supposed to start because the 
White House was deciding how to deal with this particular problem. And 
they did decide how to deal with it, and they may very well have looked 
at the case that you looked at, the 1892 case, because the Court 
eventually looked at that. The Parliamentarian may have given advice at 
that time on that case. It may have been the same advice you're getting 
now.
  But the big difference in then and now was that the President signed 
the bill. And I don't really know how the House would have started that 
process again. It wasn't something that back at the House that we had 
some options to deal with.
  That's why I'm supportive of the option that would give the President 
the bill we intended to give him. I'm not supportive of sitting here 
all day and being told that that's not an adult point of view.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. It's your time, and if you'd give me back time, I'd yield 
to you right now.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank you. I hope I didn't imply that. What I said, what 
I meant to say, if I misspoke, not that the--we, first of all agree 
and, as I've said, we're going to do what you suggest in an abundance 
of caution to assure us, ourselves, and I would hope that we would all, 
or least those who are for the farm bill would vote for it, the entire 
bill will be put on suspension. In light of the fact we had 75 percent 
of this House support that bill, that would be more than enough to pass 
it on suspension. We're going to do that in an abundance of caution.
  In addition, we're going to do title III separately so the Senate can 
have that option as well, so if on the veto override they do fourteen-
fifteenths of the bill, they can do the one-fifteenth, that is, title 
III at the same time so they would contemporaneously move forward.
  When I refer to, and if I offended the gentleman, adult behavior, 
this is not a political problem. It is a procedural problem that we 
need to cure, and we've been working to cure it. You and I have had 
discussions about it, very positive discussions about it over the last 
12 hours. And I would hope that we could proceed on that basis.
  And I yield back some time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, I thank my friend for yielding back. You know, it's 
possible, for instance, on dividing this bill up, that I could have 
been for the farm bill, which I was, at great criticism from my 
colleagues and some editorial writers in the country. I was for the 
farm bill 6 years ago. I live in a district where the farm bill 
matters.
  It's very possible that I'm not all that excited about the soft wood 
lumber provision in title III. I would just suggest to my friend, I 
might vote against title III and be doing that because I have real 
opportunities to do that since we divided this up, which was part of my 
case yesterday as to why a partial bill sent to the President doesn't 
mean that the entire House was in favor of the bill in its division 
rather than its totality. I hate to start down that line where that 
happens.
  I would also say that I read from the Clerk of the House today that 
somehow this is a problem because of a Republican procedure, change in 
procedure 10 years ago. 10 years ago. And again, instead of the 
majority saying it's a mistake, which I'm willing to accept, the 
majority has to say, well, it's really something foisted upon us by the 
Republicans a decade ago.
  Amazingly, we dealt with those same procedures for a decade, and on 
our side of the building, I'm not aware of any problems created by 
that. Certainly the problem we've talked about

[[Page 10518]]

was a Senate side of the building problem, and I think we all know 
that. But, again, you know, looking back 10 years.
  Now, if you want to change the procedures, apparently Republicans 
changed them 10 years ago, lived with those for 10 years or more. If 
you want to change the procedures to have a greater protection of the 
process, I think that's fine.
  But to have to reach back 10 years and say this was a mistake created 
by the Republicans, there's only so long that we can take blame for 
everything on anything that happens on the House floor.
  This is a procedural problem. I'm not sure it's the first one. We 
haven't really sent that many bills to the White House that were either 
substantive or controversial, in my view, in this Congress. But I'm not 
opposed to that.
  But, you know, again, looking back 10 years and saying this is really 
a problem the Republicans created a decade ago does not move us toward 
acting like adults on the floor of the House.
  I hope we can solve this problem. I hope I can be part of that 
solution. Frankly, I don't think dividing up the bill is part of that 
solution, and I think it subjects the whole process to court cases. And 
you might win again on the 1892 case.
  But the difference in this and the last case, the most recent case, 
is that the House has the bill back under its control, as opposed to a 
bill signed by the President, exactly like the 1892 case was, where the 
President signed the bill and then the courts say, well, the President 
signed a bill that the House and Senate purported was the finally 
passed bill, and so it's the law.
  Well, the President didn't sign this bill, and so we have a great 
opportunity to do something to ensure that we don't spend all kinds of 
time and effort in court proving that a 1892 standard would still be 
the case in 2008 or 2009.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm sure we're going to have a 
vigorous debate today.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman for his 
comments.
  I simply rise to say that this rule accomplishes exactly, in my 
opinion, what the minority whip wants to accomplish. It provides for 
the full passage of this bill under suspension, which the gentleman was 
for when it passed before, which I was for, and I will vote for. And 
that suspension accomplishes exactly that objective, so that any defect 
caused by the mistake will be cured.
  Secondly, it's not blame. I, frankly, think the decision that was 
made 10 years ago was a rational decision. The decision was not to use 
the parchment copy as a copy to mark on to correct. There was no 
criticism there. It was simply that's when the decision was made. I 
think it, frankly, was a good decision.
  The problem was, neither OMB nor ourselves used the parchment copy. 
We used the printed copy. The printed copy did, in fact, have title III 
in there. And obviously both the President and ourselves thought that 
the bill that was signed was the full bill. It ended up not being so, 
so we're going to correct that. I think we're correcting it properly.
  I would urge all Members to vote for the rule, vote for the full 
bill, the farm bill which, as I said, got over 75 percent of the House 
and over 80 percent the Senate. Vote for title III so that, frankly, 
that can be passed more quickly by the Senate under its rules, and the 
leader has already indicated he will move forward on that.
  If you have a disagreement, you won't vote for that. I understand 
that. And I think we will, therefore, cure the issue at hand.
  I congratulate the Rules Committee for adopting this rule. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the rule, and if we do so, we will adopt a farm 
bill that I think will be good for the country. I think we will enact a 
farm bill which will be unimpeachable in either aspect, and I think we 
will have done what the American people expect us to do.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. It's kind of a mouthful to hear this is a bipartisan bill 
when 42 amendments go to Democrats and 14 go to Republicans. That's one 
Republican amendment for every three Democratic amendments. But it's a 
bipartisan bill?
  It's kind of amazing for me to hear Democrats who talk about the war 
and talk about the need for Iraqis to start to cover their own 
expenses, and then they don't allow an amendment that says, when we 
train their security, we pay. The Iraqis don't have to pay the bill. In 
this legislation if we use our $1 billion that's in the section 
provided the Iraqis don't have to pay us back. Our amendment would 
treat it as a loan.
  This amendment is not being allowed on the floor today. Why not? Why 
not have a debate about whether the Iraqis should have to pay for their 
own expenditures, for their own security, when they have amassed over 
$40 billion in a separate fund that they're not spending, and they have 
over $15 billion in their checking account which continues to grow each 
and every day.
  Why wasn't our amendment allowed? There's a simple reason. It would 
have passed.
  What a fraud to say you want Iraqis to pay, and you won't even allow 
an amendment to be offered on the floor of the House that would require 
them to pay.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no reason not to have this debate. There is no 
reason not to educate ourselves about the dollars that the Iraqis have 
that they're not spending. This is not a bipartisan debate. This is a 
partisan debate.

                              {time}  1130

  Anything to deal with Iraq, if you have Republicans who wanted to be 
part of the solution, you say, No way. It's just going to be our way or 
the highway.
  I oppose this rule. It is a fraud to say it's bipartisan.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from 
Maryland for giving us an incredibly articulate, accurate, and 
statesmanlike presentation.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. For the purpose of a unanimous consent, I 
yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROWN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Scripture states in Ephesians 5:6-
7, ``Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these 
things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore, 
do not be partakers with them.''
  I want to talk about the truth. The fight against earmarks is a fight 
against abusing the legislative process to fund non-constitutional, 
Member pet projects--that usually lack any federal purpose--with the 
American taxpayer's money. Not all earmarks are bad, but the process 
has become so corrupted that it has led to blatant abuse--bridges to 
nowhere, teapot museums, tropical rainforests, wine centers in 
California, and other highly questionable items. In the past few years, 
literally thousands of earmarks have frequently been added in the dead 
of night, without any oversight, without hearings, without 
transparency, and without accountability.
  I signed a pledge this year not to seek earmarks until this process 
has been cleaned up, for which I have been attacked on all sides. 
Nevertheless, I will not partake in a corrupt process. It must be 
reformed, and I for one am willing to lead that fight. It is a fight 
that will determine if our children have a better standard of living 
than we do, or a worse standard of living.
  This bill has made the process more difficult to weed out the pork, 
instead of easier to eliminate real abuse of taxpayers' dollars. It 
makes it difficult to regulate because it expands the definition of an 
earmark to include prudent, relevant changes within the normal 
committee structure. I believe that the Chairman is well intentioned, 
but we all know where the road of good intentions leads to . . . to 
ruin and destruction. The Chairman's definition of an earmark is overly 
broad and misleading. The Armed Services Committee is the appropriate 
committee to oversee and modify military programs and to make 
adjustments when needed. Mr. Franks for example, offered an amendment 
in committee to restore $6 million to the Joint Tactical Ground System 
Pre-Planned Product Improvement effort and offered an offset from a 
program that could not use it yet. The Commanding General of U.S. Army 
Space Missile Defense Command/Army

[[Page 10519]]

Forces Strategic Command sent a letter calling attention to the risks 
caused by under-funding this upgrade. The Armed Services Committee is 
the appropriate place to address this issue. The Committee exercised 
proper oversight, and the amendment was offered during the committee 
mark-up. Are we now calling this an earmark? Can Members of the Armed 
Services Committee no longer exercise oversight? Where else would we 
legislate, if it is not on the authorization bill?
  We've cut our military into muscle and bone, and yet we're asking 
more now of them than ever. Threats to America are real and rapidly 
growing. Countries like China, North Korea, Iran, and others could 
potentially challenge us, and yet we're underfunding programs like 
missile defense, we're not replacing our aging aircraft as quickly as 
we should, and when Members of the Armed Services Committee offer 
amendments to strengthen our national security, to strengthen our 
defense, now . . . for the first time, we are treating amendments 
offered in the normal committee mark-up process as if they are pork 
projects for Members. Are badly needed aircraft and ships--that have 
gone through the committee process--now to be treated in the same 
manner as pork projects tucked into bills during the middle of the 
night? We're diluting the entire meaning of the word earmark . . . and 
we're making this broken earmarking process even worse.
  I would like to be able to offer an amendment today, that would give 
the President the authority to take some of these earmarks . . . some 
that are not needed as badly as are life-protecting and lifesaving 
equipment needed immediately to save lives of our troops in Iraq . . . 
I would like to let the President use the unnecessary earmarks for that 
purpose, but I can't offer my amendment. I cannot offer my amendment 
now for fear that it would potentially strip vital equipment--F-22s, C-
17s, LPDs, and other legitimate, reviewed, debated items out of the 
bill that are now deemed earmarks. I urge my colleagues to reconsider; 
this is not the path to transparency and accountability.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, we just heard the gentleman, the majority 
leader, say the public expects us to act as adults, not as partisan 
protagonists. That, I certainly hope, is the case. And let me draw 
attention not to the farm bill portion of the rule but to the defense 
authorization portion of this rule.
  As Members of this body know, over the last couple of years I have 
brought more than 100 amendments to the floor to strike particular 
earmarks. Not once, not once on one bill did I target just Democrat 
earmarks or Republican earmarks. Earmarking is a bipartisan problem. We 
have a former Member of this body in jail today because we didn't do 
proper vetting and oversight on earmarks that came through the 
committee process or just through the appropriations process and then 
sailed through the floor. That same thing is happening today.
  There are more than 500 earmarks in this bill. I'm told that Members 
of the minority party weren't even given the list during the markup. So 
there was never any opportunity to challenge those earmarks or to even 
find out what they are. Now we get the list, and when I submit 
amendments to be offered to strike the particular earmarks, I'm given 
one. I offered four: two Democrat earmarks, two Republican earmarks. 
And the only earmark amendment made in order was one challenging one 
Republican earmark.
  Now, we just heard that the public expects us to act as adults, not 
as partisan protagonists. I spoke to the majority leader this morning. 
I asked him to please rectify this problem. I asked him to please just 
make in order one of the Democratic earmarks. He said he would work at 
it.
  I know this isn't the proper forum. We can't ask for unanimous 
consent. This is for debate only. But if we really want to act as 
adults and not partisan protagonists, then we can't treat this earmark 
debate as a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It's our problem.
  And I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule unless it's corrected.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, in reference to the gentleman from Arizona, 
I would certainly like to say he's certainly been bipartisan in his 
offering of striking of earmarks. He's offered them in the past on both 
sides, and I will acknowledge that the gentleman has talked to the 
majority leader and it will be under discussion.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Franks.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have told ourselves time and time again, the first 
purpose of this body is to help this government defend its citizens 
against external national security threats. I believe that the most 
dangerous threat to peace on the planet today is the danger of Iran 
gaining nuclear capabilities. Yet the majority of this Congress has 
prevented us from even voting on a military contingency plan to prevent 
Iran from gaining this deadly capability.
  Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Iran is moving inexorably toward the 
capability to have nuclear weapons. If they gain those weapons, we will 
see proliferation across the world, and I am convinced that terrorists 
will gain this deadly technology. If one such weapon is detonated in 
the United States of America, it will change our concept of freedom 
forever.
  Mr. Speaker, there should be an opportunity for this body to vote to 
make it clear that if Iran continues to pursue that, that the military 
option is on the table. There are only two reasons, in my judgment, 
ultimately that Iran will not pursue this capability: that is a 
military intervention, or the conviction on the part of Iranian leaders 
that that will indeed take place if they do not desist from this effort 
to gain nuclear capability.
  Mr. Speaker, the highway of history is littered with the consequences 
of strategic ambiguity. And this is a danger here today. We tell Iran 
that it is our policy that they will not gain nuclear capability, and 
yet we do nothing to make it clear to them that the military option is 
on the table if they proceed.
  The best chance for us to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear 
capability and at once to prevent war with Iran is to make sure that 
they know that we will not avoid the military option if it becomes 
necessary. It is the best hope of doing both of those things, Mr. 
Speaker. We must proceed to do everything in every way, diplomatically 
and otherwise, to prevent this, but we must not take the military 
option off the table.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the gentleman 
from Washington if he has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have numerous people that would like to 
speak, but I haven't got the time for that. If the gentleman would 
entertain an extension of time on both sides, I would be more than 
happy to allow my Members to speak. But I'm constrained for time.
  So if the gentleman would allow me unanimous consent for some more, I 
would do that. But I will leave it up to the gentleman.
  I am the last speaker under the regular time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I cannot entertain a motion on unanimous 
consent to extend. We've been debating this for longer than the 
allotted period of time already.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I woke up today and heard on the news that oil is $137 a 
barrel on the worldwide market, and I think it's time for the House to 
debate ideas. I know there are a number of ideas in this House on 
lowering the cost of gasoline specifically.
  So I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous 
question so that this House can finally consider solutions to rising 
energy costs. When

[[Page 10520]]

the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the 
rule, not rewrite the entire rule. But that section would say it shall 
be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the proponent 
asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national 
average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can now really have a 
dialogue on the rising price of energy in this country. I believe it's 
strongly the responsibility of the elected leaders of the people to 
take this issue up, and we will have this opportunity by defeating the 
previous question.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I will let the numbers speak for 
themselves.
  The bipartisan defense bill passed through the committee by a vote of 
61-0. Fifty-eight amendments were made in order in the spirit of 
maintaining that bipartisan vote. The bipartisanship that was exhibited 
on the farm bill and the farm bill vote was 318 ayes, and 81 in the 
Senate voted ``aye.''
  However you look at it, the facts remain that these overwhelmingly 
bipartisan measures deserve and demand our strongest support. I 
encourage the House to vote in the affirmative.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1218 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution. add the following:
       Sec. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the operation of the previous question, it 
     shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which 
     the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of 
     lowering the national average price per gallon of regular 
     unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For 
     purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a 
     statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 
     by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration 
     shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adopting House Resolution 1218, if ordered; and suspending the rules 
and adopting House Resolution 986.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 192, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 350]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     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
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     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
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt

[[Page 10521]]


     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     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)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     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
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     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
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Andrews
     Carter
     Castor
     Crenshaw
     Fossella
     Gillibrand
     Hinojosa
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Paul
     Rush
     Walden (OR)
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1209

  Messrs. McKEON and TURNER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 350, On Ordering the 
Previous Question, Providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, the 
Department of Defense Authorization, 2009, I was unavoidably absent due 
to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 197, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 351]

                               YEAS--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     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
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--197

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     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)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     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
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Andrews
     Blumenauer
     Carter
     Castor
     Crenshaw
     Fossella
     Gillibrand
     Hinojosa
     Kennedy
     Paul
     Rush
     Walden (OR)
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1218

  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.

[[Page 10522]]

  Stated against:
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 351, On Agreeing to the 
Resolution H. Res. 1218, Providing for consideration of H.R. 5658, the 
Department of Defense Authorization, 2009, I as unavoidably absent due 
to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''

                          ____________________