[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19677-19687]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1130
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3326, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 685 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 685

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes.   The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.   The 
     bill shall be considered as read through page 147, line 4.   
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.   
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, except as provided 
     in section 2, no amendment shall be in order except: (1) the 
     amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution, which may be offered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question; (2) not to exceed eight of the amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules if 
     offered by Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee, 
     which may be offered only in the order printed in the report, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent; (3) an en bloc amendment, if offered by Rep. 
     Flake of Arizona or his designee, consisting of all of the 
     amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules, which shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question; and (4) not to exceed 
     two of the amendments printed in part C of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Campbell of 
     California or his designee, which may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent.   All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. In the case of sundry amendments 
     reported from the Committee, the question of their adoption 
     shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the 
     question. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After disposition of the amendments specified in 
     the first section of this resolution, the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
     designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill 
     for the purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the 
     proponent.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 3326, the Chair may 
     reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
     under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 685 
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act.
  The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of 
the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 
426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden the under the rule and the 
gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. After that debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that there are unfunded mandates 
in this bill. There probably are, but that isn't the reason I raise a 
point of order. I raise it because it's about the only opportunity 
those of us in the minority have to talk about this process. It has 
been extremely restrictive.
  The rule reported for the Defense bill marks the 12th time during the 
appropriation season that the majority has shut down what has 
traditionally been an open process. It isn't coincidental that the 
Defense appropriations bill is being considered last and we'll have 
just about a day to consider it. In recent years, this bill has been 
rife with earmarks going to for-profit companies, and the measure 
before us today is no different.

[[Page 19678]]

  There are 1,102 earmarks stuffed into this bill, and nearly 550 of 
them, worth at least $1.3 billion, are going to private, for-profit 
companies. The corrupting nature of this practice, which the President 
himself has publicly noted, has been, itself, evident with the PMA 
scandal that has centered around campaign contributions and earmarks.
  It is for this reason and this reason alone that I chose to offer 552 
amendments to the Rules Committee, each one targeting an earmark that 
the sponsors listed on their Web site as going to a for-profit company.
  These amendments have been derided as an abuse of the process. I 
would like to address this criticism, which I think is wholly unfair. 
It's unfair because the Office of Legislative Counsel is not in any way 
inconvenienced by the drafting of these amendments.
  My staff wrote them and wrote them individually. My amendments were 
delivered to the Rules Committee on Friday of last week, well in 
advance of a 3 p.m. Monday deadline, giving the staff of the Rules 
Committee more than enough time to process these amendments 
accordingly. In fact, I'm told that the Rules Committee closed up shop 
around 8 p.m. on Friday night. The Rules Committee met yesterday, and 
the 12th rule of this appropriations process was passed, which 
restricted amendments again. That meeting lasted just 1 hour.
  One hour the Rules Committee met and, in 1 hour, dealt, apparently, 
with more than 600 amendments that were submitted. That is almost 
equivalent to the Appropriations Committee meeting for 18 minutes to 
pass this bill out of committee, a bill with more than 1,000 earmarks, 
more than 500 earmarks that are no-bid contracts to private companies, 
passed by the Appropriations Committee in 18 minutes.
  Now, the majority talks a lot about making sure that we do this all 
in a timely process. I would suggest there is something to being a bit 
more thorough. You cannot vet more than 1,000 earmarks, more than 550 
of which are no-bid contracts to private companies, in 18 minutes. And 
you can't restrict it in this way coming to the floor and expect this 
to be a thorough process. It is a quick process. Maybe the trains are 
running on time, but we're not doing our job here.
  The flawed process by which the Rules Committee reported this rule 
does not appear to have been delayed or inconvenienced in any way by 
the submission of these amendments. Referring to these amendment 
submissions as an abuse of the process is farfetched considering the 
severe restrictions the Rules Committee has placed on our ability to 
offer amendments to appropriations bills. This is a process, again, 
that has been traditionally open.
  Excluding the Defense bill, more than 800 amendments were submitted 
to the Rules Committee for the 10 appropriations bills the House has 
already considered this summer. At the start of the process, the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, ``There are a limited 
number of hours between now and the time we recess. If we want to get 
our work done, we have to limit the debate time that we spend on these 
bills.''
  The majority leader echoed this sentiment as an explanation for 
clamping down on the appropriations process: ``So I tell my friend that 
the reason for rising was to give us the opportunity to go to the Rules 
Committee and provide for, as I said, time constraints in which we can 
effectively complete this bill.''
  This has been the excuse that's been used so far, an excuse to only 
make in order 18 percent of the amendments submitted for appropriations 
bills we've seen so far.
  I realize amongst my colleagues I have been the most fortunate. I 
have been permitted to offer more than 40 amendments, 26 percent of all 
the amendments ruled in order, in total, for these bills. I suppose I 
should be grateful for any crumbs that fall from the Appropriations 
Committee or the Rules Committee.
  But my amendments were ruled in order at the expense of other perhaps 
more substantive amendments in many ways as a way for the majority to 
deflect blame for a virtually closed process and to prevent their 
Members from making tough votes on some of the other amendments that 
were submitted.
  When I was on the House floor with a couple of bills, time and time 
again, in fact, 16 times, I asked for unanimous consent to substitute 
some of my colleagues' amendments for my own. We already had the time 
constraints for the bill, so the notion that we had to make the trains 
run on time, we had to get this debate done was not the point. But I 
was rejected 16 times in a row, not because the amendments offered by 
my colleagues weren't germane. They were. They simply weren't ruled in 
order by the majority because they didn't want to face those 
amendments.
  And if we're going to talk about abuse of process, there it is. It's 
not offering 550 amendments because we are doing more than 550 no-bid 
contracts to private companies. That's not where the abuse lies. The 
abuse lies in the majority's saying we are only going to entertain 
those amendments that we know we can beat or that we want to entertain 
or that are entertaining, apparently, not the ones that may be 
difficult for us.
  Now, when Republicans were in the majority, I have often said that we 
did a few things that we shouldn't have. Holding a vote open for 3 
hours wasn't a good thing. But I have never seen any of the abuse of 
the process like this. No matter how the Republicans, when they were in 
power, didn't want to see amendments, like some of mine, they allowed 
them. We spent, I think, 3 days on the Interior appropriations bill 
because Members kept coming forward offering amendments that our own 
majority did not want to see, but they knew that they shouldn't shut 
down this process, which has been traditionally open.
  But the new majority has decided to completely close it and did not 
have one appropriation bill this year come to the floor under an open 
rule. In particular, when some will make the argument that, well, hey, 
back in the 1970s there were occasions when these appropriation bills 
were not brought to the floor under an open rule, the situation we have 
today is a situation in which bills are brought to the floor that have 
been stuffed to the gills with earmarks like this bill that we're 
considering today. More than 1,000 earmarks, more than 500 of which are 
no-bid contracts to private companies for which the Appropriations 
Committee took a paltry 18 minutes to vet and to send on to the House 
floor, and then we're told, ah, but you can only offer eight of the 552 
amendments you submitted. Only eight of them. You can choose them, but 
only eight, because we don't have time to vet any more at that time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we've been here 
before. This very same point of order has been raised against nearly 
every appropriations bill, and each time it's used to discuss something 
other than its intended purpose, which is supposed to be about unfunded 
mandates. Once again, it's about delaying consideration of this bill 
and, ultimately, stopping it altogether.
  I hope my colleagues will again vote ``yes'' so we can consider this 
legislation on its merits and fund the important defense needs of our 
Nation and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the 
bill are welcomed to vote against this bill on final passage. We must 
consider this rule and we must pass this legislation today to continue 
to fund the defense and protection of our country.

                              {time}  1145

  I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 9 minutes remaining.

[[Page 19679]]


  Mr. FLAKE. It was said again that I'm just trying to delay this 
process. If I were trying to delay this process, I could stand up here 
with a privileged resolution and read every one of the amendments that 
I wasn't allowed into the Record. It would take hours to do that.
  I'm not trying to delay this process unnecessarily. This isn't a 
dilatory tactic. It's just about the only way we can stand and actually 
register objection to this closed process. I suppose I could, and this 
would be chilling reading, read the transcript of yesterday's court 
trial of an individual who, I believe, is pleading guilty in some 
fashion, a contractor who received earmarks and passed them on to other 
contractors who weren't doing any work at all. That was under a 
previous Defense bill that wasn't vetted, as it should have been, that 
came to the floor probably last year under a closed process; no 
amendments could have been offered.
  And so here we have investigations, particularly with the PMA 
scandal, swirling around this institution because we aren't doing our 
work. We aren't vetting these bills. I wish that the Appropriations 
Committee would, but they're not. And then when you come to the floor 
and say, we'd like to challenge a few of these earmarks, you say, you 
can challenge eight of them; 8 of the more than 550 no-bid contracts to 
private companies. You can only question eight of them. That's all we 
have time for because we have to pass this bill today for some reason.
  The fiscal year doesn't run out until the end of September. This is 
not a bill that has to be passed today or tomorrow. We can spend the 
time that we need, or we should have taken time earlier this year 
instead of doing suspension bills or last Friday, instead of passing a 
wild horse welfare act or whatever we did.
  The appropriations bills are the most important work this Congress 
does. And to say that we have to move through them quickly so nobody 
sees what we're doing, so nobody sees that we're doing no-bid contracts 
for private companies is simply wrong. That is the abuse of power in 
this institution, not bringing 553 amendments to the floor.
  With that, I urge opposition to the rule and yield back my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would encourage my colleague from Arizona to stick around, assuming 
that this motion passes, for the discussion of the rule. He will find 
in the proposed rule there is the opportunity that we will be giving 
the House of Representatives as a whole to vote on a block of 
amendments that the gentleman has identified, as well as several 
individual ones that the gentleman has identified.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider, so 
that we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California, my colleague on 
the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier. All time yielded during consideration 
of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 685.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 685 provides for consideration of H.R. 3326, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, under a structured 
rule. I'd like to thank Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Lewis, Chairman 
Murtha and Ranking Member Young for their tireless and bipartisan work 
on this important bill to fund the defense needs of our Nation. Their 
job is not easy. The needs of this country are endless, our security 
challenges are daunting. Threats to our security are numerous and 
always changing. And the resources that we can devote to these problems 
are precious and limited, as our Nation faces a severe recession.
  So each year we must prioritize, re-evaluate and invest in strategies 
that will keep our country and our people safe. We will invest in the 
equipment that will protect our troops and in programs that will care 
for the men and women who defend us, who serve our country so bravely 
and capably every day.
  H.R. 3326 fulfills these responsibilities by providing first-class 
equipment for our troops that are in harm's way, by increasing fiscal 
responsibility and oversight within the Department of Defense, and by 
investing in adequate health care and increased compensation for our 
soldiers and their families.
  To help protect our troops, the bill provides increased funding for 
the mine-resistant ambush protective vehicle fund and the procurement 
of new Humvees and new heavy and medium tactical vehicles to meet the 
needs of our military. The bill also invests in weapons systems that 
meet our current and future needs, instead of plunging money into 
weapons systems that do not meet timelines, budgets or realistic 
threats or are based on threats that are antiquated that we no longer 
face.
  We need to transform our military to make sure that we can keep the 
American people safe. We cannot fulfill our responsibilities to the 
troops, to taxpayers, or to the Nation if we can't meet our fiscal 
responsibilities.
  H.R. 3326 reduces advisory and assistant service contracts by saving 
$51 million while providing $5.11 billion for Department of Defense 
personnel to perform DOD functions. The bill also provides funding for 
the Inspector General to increase oversight over the acquisition and 
contracting process to ensure the taxpayers' funds are spent wisely. By 
reducing funds for wasteful weapons and bloated contracts, we can 
provide better care and a better quality of life for the men and women 
of the Armed Forces and their families.
  H.R. 3326 increases pay for all servicemembers by 3.4 percent, and 
fully funds the requested end-strength levels for active Reserve and 
selected Reserve personnel. The bill continues efforts to end the 
practice of stop-loss, so difficult for the families of our troops who 
are deployed overseas, and includes $8.33 million to pay servicemembers 
$500 for every month of involuntary service.
  The bill provides $29.9 billion for top-of-the-line medical care, 
including $500 million for traumatic brain injuries and psychological 
health and increased funding for the wounded, ill and injured warrior 
programs. We can make no greater investment than in the health and 
welfare of those who have sacrificed and given so much to protect our 
freedoms.
  It's also important to keep in mind that for every soldier who is 
dutifully serving on the battlefield, in Iraq or Afghanistan, sailing 
on a ship in the Pacific of the Atlantic or stationed on a military 
base in Germany, Japan or elsewhere, there is also a military family in 
our neighborhoods, in our districts, in our cities, and those families 
too are serving our country. To honor their commitment to this country, 
and to acknowledge their sacrifice, this year has been called the Year 
of the Military Family, and this bill adds substance to those words and 
that title.
  H.R. 3326 includes over $472 million for family advocacy programs and 
fully funds the Family Support and Yellow Ribbon programs. The bill 
also includes $20 million for the Army National Guard Family Assistance 
Centers and Reintegration programs. I strongly believe that this bill 
is a positive step forward in the way that Congress prioritizes our 
military spending and provides for the men and women who serve our 
Nation and their families.
  I support H.R. 3326 and House Resolution 685.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

[[Page 19680]]


  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very 
distinguished Rules Committee colleague for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes. I was just thinking as I was sitting here listening to his 
very thoughtful remarks. And he is a diligent and hardworking new 
member of the committee. He's now, this month completed 6 months, 
halfway through the first session of the 111th Congress. And my friend 
on the Rules Committee has, along with 70-some-odd other Members, not 
once, not once seen something that, when I'd been here 6 months I'd 
seen on countless occasions, and that is an open rule, an open 
amendment process.
  And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope very much that my friend on 
the Rules Committee, the other new members of the Rules Committee, and 
the Members of this institution and, most importantly, the American 
people, will, sometime in the 111th Congress, have the opportunity to 
see an open debate under the 5-minute rule in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, last week we marked a very significant anniversary in 
this institution. It was the formal consideration of James Madison's 
proposal to amend the Constitution to add a Bill of Rights. That 
debate, Mr. Speaker, began 220 years ago, just this last week. It was 
July 21 of 1789 that the House of Representatives began the process of 
debating whether or not to proceed with the Bill of Rights. In that 
first summer of the very first Congress, Congressman Madison proposed 
his amendments, which were considered by the House Rules Committee, and 
then moved to the House floor for a 10-day debate.
  And I underscore that again, Mr. Speaker, the debate that took place 
on the floor of the House of Representatives lasted 10 days for 
consideration of the Bill of Rights. Now, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that 
that took place that summer and it was very, very instructive. It was 
instructive, the debate that we saw 220 years ago this summer, not just 
for its substance, but in many ways for the nature of that debate that 
was managed by Congressman Madison who, incidentally, represented the 
seat that is now held by our distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor.
  Throughout the course of that debate, summer of 1789, it was very 
clear that Mr. Madison had great respect for the views of the Members 
who disagreed with him. He had a great deal of respect for those with 
whom he vigorously disagreed. He argued with civility, comity, and 
respect. He never impugned his adversaries' motives. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, he not only didn't impugn his adversaries' motives, he 
actually defended them himself during debate. He passionately sought 
consensus on the fundamental issues and placed it above his own 
ambivalence that existed on lesser concerns.
  And it was ambivalence, because, if you recall your history, Mr. 
Speaker, he was not, at the outset, a believer in the necessity for a 
Bill of Rights. He urged his colleagues to act on, and I quote from a 
June 1789 speech when he actually introduced the Bill of Rights, what 
he called the principles of amity and moderation to proceed with 
caution, but that ultimately they must act resolutely to satisfy the 
public mind. Again, Congressman Madison's words.
  He clearly did not believe that decisive action and a full, open 
debate were mutually exclusive. He believed that clearly that ultimate 
decision would be a better one with a full, rigorous, and open debate. 
He saw them as being fully intertwined, that elevating the debate above 
reproach would give this body the moral authority to act decisively and 
appropriately as a truly representative body, which it has been.
  I believe in this Madisonian model, Mr. Speaker, very, very 
fervently. I believe in that model of intellectually rigorous, open, 
and civil debate. So it's with great dismay that I have seen the tenor 
of our debate deteriorate and the legislative process grow even more 
closed in recent years. The closing down of the traditionally open 
appropriations process has, for me, personally, been the most troubling 
thing to observe.

                              {time}  1200

  We have the very serious responsibility of spending the taxpayers' 
hard-earned money. That responsibility deserves a completely open and 
transparent process. Unfortunately, this year, for the first time in 
the 220-year history, we have had a restrictive appropriations process 
from the beginning to what today is now the end. As was pointed out by 
Mr. Flake earlier, this is the last of the now 12 appropriations bills. 
Today, we consider that final appropriations bill under the exact same, 
restrictive process with which we've considered every single 
appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as we mark this 220th anniversary of that very 
historic debate on the Bill of Rights, we, unfortunately, are making 
history of our own. It's not history of which we can be very proud. 
It's not history that will judge this institution kindly. Today, we 
mark the final death knell for the open process with which we have 
historically handled our constitutionally mandated power of the purse.
  The abandonment of this tradition began just over a month ago, on 
June 17, when the Democratic majority announced at the very outset of 
the process that it would not be granting the customary open rule for 
spending bills. Since that day, June 17, we have been on a steady march 
toward an ever more restrictive process, barring the full transparency 
that the taxpayers deserve and prohibiting the full participation of 
rank-and-file members of both parties.
  I will say that we regularly hear that this is characterized as 
Republicans complaining or whining. We are fighting for the rights of 
Democrats and Republicans. The reason is the Democrats and Republicans 
represent the American people, and it's the American people who are 
being undermined by this very unfortunate process.
  With today's consideration of our final appropriations bill, the full 
pivot to what I am describing as the ``new normal'' becomes complete. 
Having cast aside one of our longest-held traditions, we now have a 
process where the chairman of the Appropriations Committee alone is the 
sole arbiter of what spending amendments may be offered, who can speak 
on them and for how long. They have done this in the name of 
expediency, citing a strict schedule that must be adhered to.
  If they were only concerned with time limits, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. 
Flake pointed out earlier, why didn't they simply impose an overall 
time limit debate on each bill? If it simply were this schedule that 
Mr. Obey has repeatedly held up, just put an outside time limit on the 
debate. I would not have been a proponent of that, but it certainly 
would have been preferable to this kind of restriction imposed on the 
American people by way of preventing their Democratic and Republican 
Members of the House from being able to offer their amendments.
  A popular justification has been to claim that the process took too 
long back in 2007, so it had to be controlled from the beginning this 
time, but that argument completely overlooks the fact that 2007 was a 
very unique year. It was the transition year from a Republican majority 
to a Democratic majority here in the House. One of the hallmarks of 
transition years is a lengthier appropriations process, and yet the new 
Republican minority took less floor time in 2007, almost 26 hours less, 
than the new Democratic majority did back in 1995. Again, let me 
underscore that.
  When we heard that the 2007 appropriations process was so out of 
hand, we needed to realize that, in its being a transition year, there 
were actually fewer amendments that were proposed by Members of the new 
minority. That had been the case when Democrats were in the minority 
back in 1995. When we compare these 2 years, it is very clear that, 
while there was an increase in time spent on our spending bills in 
2007, it was very modest to what the Democrats engaged in when they 
entered into the minority, as I said, following the 1994 election.
  The Democratic majority's excuses just don't stand up to scrutiny. 
The real motivation, Mr. Speaker, for this

[[Page 19681]]

restrictive process has been to cherry-pick amendments and to shield 
their profligate spending practices from any real transparency or 
accountability. It's very obvious.
  I and my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee--Messrs. Diaz-
Balart and Sessions and Ms. Foxx--have just completed, through a great 
deal of effort by members of the Rules Committee staff, this report 
entitled ``Opportunities Lost: The End of the Appropriations Process.'' 
I'm glad that my friend on the other side of the aisle has it, and I 
look forward to his comments and thoughts on it, as well as I do of 
those of our other colleagues. I encourage anyone who is interested in 
this to read it. I have this report which we're just issuing today, Mr. 
Speaker. In the not too distant future--I hope later today or 
tomorrow--we will actually have this report available online for our 
colleagues who would want to gain access to it. They just need to go to 
rules-republicans.house.gov, and a copy of this report will be made 
available.
  The greater irony, Mr. Speaker, of all of this is that the Democratic 
majority campaigned on the need for full, open and transparent debate. 
That was the plank of the platform back when the majority was won and, 
in fact, in the last election as well. I think it's extraordinarily 
ironic, while we heard this argument made about a ``culture of 
corruption''--those are the terms that Ms. Pelosi used repeatedly--that 
we just had the gentleman from Arizona offer over 500 amendments to 
deal with this challenge. I mean there are former Members of this 
institution who are in jail today because of abuse of the earmark 
process. Yet those who campaigned on this issue of ending the culture 
of corruption are denying an opportunity for a full vetting of the 
amendments that have been proposed by our friend Mr. Flake.
  Regardless of what you think on a particular issue, it would seem 
that denying him the opportunity to offer these amendments, of which he 
only has an opportunity to offer 8 amendments out of the 500 that he 
filed--and he can only pick very few of those--is, to me, really 
playing the role of exacerbating what Ms. Pelosi described as the 
culture of corruption rather than working to bring it to an end.
  I will say that, as we proceed here--and we've gone for 2\1/2\ years. 
It actually has been exactly 2 years since we've had an open rule 
considered here in the House of Representatives. I've got to say, as to 
the notion of saying that we were going to have, as the American people 
were promised, a full, open, rigorous, transparent debate, they were 
empty words. They were clearly empty words. They have taken us 
precisely in the opposite direction, Mr. Speaker, culminating in this 
dubious honor of being the first majority in the 220-year history of 
the United States of America to shut down the appropriations process 
from start to finish.
  Now, I believe it's no accident that this abandonment of open debate 
on our appropriations bills has coincided with the most excessive 
spending in our Nation's history. It's no coincidence that our deficit 
has exceeded the $1 trillion mark just halfway through the year at the 
same time that the Democratic majority has shut out meaningful debate 
on their spending practices. Looking back over the better part of the 
last two decades, as this detailed report of ours shows, it's clear 
just how much damage has been done to our deliberative imperative as an 
institution under this new majority.
  Mr. Speaker, this resorting to restrictive debate is made even 
starker when we look back to exactly where we began 220 years ago this 
summer with that great debate launched by the author, the Father of the 
U.S. Constitution, James Madison, when he decided to proceed with the 
Bill of Rights. If James Madison were around today, he would be 
absolutely horrified. In fact, I think this is the closing line that we 
have in this report.
  It reads, ``This summer marks the 220th anniversary of the 
introduction of the Bill of Rights by James Madison in the First 
Congress. It is a good thing that he is no longer alive to see what the 
House has become. If he were, he would wonder where we went wrong.''
  Mr. Speaker, I want us to have an opportunity to engage in rigorous, 
open, civil debate. Unfortunately, we are denied that opportunity under 
this restrictive rule, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. 
This is our last opportunity in this appropriations process. We can 
prove wrong the statement that I just made that we've had a closed 
process from start to finish if we can reject this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this report. I look 
forward to reading it, to discussing it and, hopefully, to imposing 
some best practices for future processes.
  I would point out that there are, of course, distinctions in the type 
of work that we do here; between the critical, philosophical, 
democratic bases of our country and the discussion and debate around 
the Bill of Rights, and the work of the House that we need to conduct 
in a bipartisan way.
  The gentleman will recall that, yesterday, Ranking Member Young and 
Chairman Murtha appeared before our Rules Committee and discussed how 
there was a strong bipartisan consensus on the bill. In fact, I believe 
that Ranking Member Young indicated that the bill would look 
substantially the same regardless of which party were in the majority, 
which shows the dedication of both parties in our country to protect 
our people.
  I have to admit that, as somebody who was against the Iraq War and as 
somebody who is very skeptical of our ongoing operations of Afghanistan 
and, indeed, as to what our exit strategy is, it was actually 
disconcerting to me that the bill would look the same with regard to 
whichever party were in the majority. I would like to address some of 
the issues relating to the exit strategy in Afghanistan and where we 
see that going.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the vice chairman of 
the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the 
fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill, which the House will take 
up shortly. With the passage of this bill, we will have completed all 
of our appropriations bills, and we will have successfully overcome 
Republican obstructionism and attempts to undermine the legislative 
process. So I think this is good news for the people of the country 
that we are actually getting our work done, which is something that 
they were not able to do very successfully.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3326, by and large, is a good bill. It provides 
support for our military families, and it provides our troops with the 
funding and the equipment they need to successfully perform their 
duties and to carry out their assigned missions.
  I want to congratulate Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for 
their bipartisan work on this bill, but, Mr. Speaker, I do not support 
this bill without significant reservations.
  I believe that this Congress has not yet come to grips with what our 
policy is in Afghanistan. This House recently passed an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill that provides billions and billions of 
dollars for the war in Afghanistan, a measure that I opposed, but I 
believed then, as I do now, that it is a mistake to spend billions and 
billions of dollars more for a war that has no clearly defined mission.
  My concern deepened when I recently read reports that indicated that 
General McChrystal believes we will have to expand our forces and, 
thereby, expand our mission in Afghanistan, meaning more money and more 
troops right now just to get the job started. I still have this sinking 
feeling in the pit of my stomach that we're getting sucked into 
something where the mission and goals are vague and where it is unclear 
how it will end.
  Mr. Speaker, that's why we need an exit strategy. We need a clear 
definition of when this policy comes to an end and when our troops can 
come home, not a date certain but an explanation as to when the 
military part of this operation comes to a close. I remain skeptical 
about our policy in Afghanistan. I think this administration

[[Page 19682]]

needs to provide Congress, this Nation and our military families with 
more clarity on this issue. If they don't, I believe Congress needs to 
demand it.
  Like all of my colleagues, I have had many conversations with the men 
and women who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan--sometimes when they are 
about to deploy, sometimes when they have just come home, sometimes 
when they come to my district office, and often because we just run 
into one another at a coffee shop, at a diner, at a community center or 
on the street. I believe that we owe them a great deal for their 
service. We owe them the respect of looking them in the eye and of 
telling them that we know exactly what we are doing when we vote for 
money and missions that will send them directly into harm's way--
someplace from where they may not return safe and sound to their 
families and to their loved ones.

                              {time}  1215

  I'm not asking for a protest vote on this bill. On this day, I intend 
to support the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on this day I intend to support the bill, 
but I raise these concerns because I firmly believe they need and 
deserve more discussion and more debate. Congress has been too quiet on 
the issue of Afghanistan, and that needs to change.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  I would like to say in response again to my hardworking Rules 
Committee colleague, Mr. Polis, who earlier was talking about the great 
hearing that we had upstairs with the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, he was talking about 
the fact that Mr. Young had indicated that this bill would look very 
similar if he had been in the top position as chairman--which he's been 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and now, of course, serves with great 
distinction as the ranking minority member.
  But I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that this does not in any way mean 
that because the Appropriations Committee members continue to work 
together that we should deny the rest of the American people who don't 
have representatives, like the gentleman from Colorado and I, who serve 
on the Appropriations Committee the opportunity to participate in this 
process which was always the case when Mr. Young was chairman, with a 
very, very brief exception when there was a bipartisan consensus and 
concern back in 1997, I guess. I don't think he was chairman in 1997 on 
that one occasion. But I've got to say, I suspect, under his 
chairmanship, we always had an open amendment process here on the House 
floor.
  And I would yield to my good friend from Indian Shores, the 
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee and former chairman of 
the subcommittee and the full committee, Mr. Young. I would like to 
engage in a colloquy with him.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. It's a good bill. And both spokesmen from the 
Rules Committee are correct. We did testify that this bill was written, 
created with tremendous bipartisan support, bipartisan cooperation, and 
it's basically the same bill that we would have presented if I were 
chairman still to this day.
  But the point that Mr. Dreier makes is this: When we were the 
majority, we brought this bill to the floor under an open rule. We 
allowed all of the Members, not just the members of the subcommittee, 
not just the members of the Appropriations Committee, but we allowed 
all of the Members, as long as the amendment was germane--we did have 
to meet the germaneness issues, but we allowed Members to offer 
whatever amendments they felt that they should offer and to have the 
debate.
  So I'm a strong supporter of this bill because it's a good package. 
It provides for adequate training. It provides for adequate equipment 
to perform the mission, and it provides force protection information 
and equipment to protect the soldiers while they're fighting. So it's a 
good bill.
  We think that the rest of the Members should have an opportunity to 
be involved in the debate. This is a great, great national security 
issue.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution 
and having served as many years--how many years has my friend served in 
the House?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Thirty-nine.
  Mr. DREIER. So nearly four decades in this House. And, Mr. Speaker, 
during those four decades of very distinguished service, Mr. Young has 
been in the minority and the majority and virtually always had an open 
amendment process. And he understood very well, as the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, that to deny Members the opportunity to 
participate in this is just plain wrong.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on the rule.
  This is serious business, one of the most important bills that we 
will be examining.
  I wanted to call attention to two items that I had hoped to be able 
to be debating here on the floor dealing with restoring the 
environmental restoration funding for the Army, Navy, Air Force and 
defensewide accounts for fiscal year 2009 levels to increase the much 
overlooked, formerly-used defense sites by $49 million.
  Environmental restoration, formerly used defense sites, are areas 
that simply get overlooked. The committee, in its wisdom, accepted 
levels that were recommended by the administration, but that doesn't 
make them right. We are in a situation now where we are looking at not 
just decades, but far into the future to be able to clean up the toxic 
legacy of unexploded ordnances and military toxics.
  I am concerned that we are going to be losing money in the long run. 
It is my intention to work diligently with the committee in conference 
to see if we can make the adjustments, if we can work with the 
administration that they make this a higher priority because every 
State in the Union is burdened with this toxic legacy of unexploded 
ordnances and environmentally dangerous items. The military wants to 
clean it up. We need to give them the resources to do so.
  I have been listening to the colloquy here about process with my good 
friends on both sides of the aisle. I am hopeful that we will be able 
in the months ahead to be able to roll up our sleeves and work 
together. There is never really a good time to fix this, but I hope 
that we will be able to return to a more regular order in the next 
cycle. I will look forward to working with friends on both sides of the 
aisle to make sure that this is smooth, everybody has their voice, and 
that we are working to respect one another.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I listened to things yesterday that were deeply 
disturbing on the floor of the House as, ironically, I was in the 
Chair, and I heard things that I thought were, frankly, over the line. 
But I understand frustrations build on both sides.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman be happy to yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to finish.
  Mr. DREIER. I would like to yield my friend an additional minute, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. With due respect, I would like to finish my thought 
and then I will yield to you on your time.
  Mr. DREIER. I just yielded you a minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. What I wanted to say was that I am hopeful that we 
can sort of take a little air out of the balloon.

[[Page 19683]]

  One of the first things I did when I came here right after the 
government shutdown in a special election was to be part of an effort 
to have----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman a 
minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  It was a part of an effort where we had sort of a bipartisan civility 
caucus where we had conferences and we worked to try and lower the 
temperature here. I don't think it's something that's going to happen 
today or tomorrow, but I want to say that I am hopeful that we can pull 
out of this nosedive that we're hearing with some of the heated 
rhetoric on some of the health care issues.
  I heard the gentleman talk about open rules as it relates to 
appropriations. I think it's part of a great big package. I think we 
all need to be working together to cooperate on this. And it's 
something that I care deeply about and look forward, after we get out 
of here and get back home, to be grounded at home, as we come back in 
the fall, that there are things that we can work on to make progress.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me simply say that what has led us to this point has been, for 
the first time in the 220-year history of the United States of America, 
the shutting down of the appropriations process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I would yield to myself 30 seconds.
  I will say to my friend, if I could engage in a colloquy with my 
friend, I will say to him that very, very clearly the argument that he 
has just propounded about the desire to get back on track with an 
open--I assume the gentleman meant an open amendment process, which is 
what we have had for 220 years. I will say it is my hope we will do 
that. But frankly, today is our last opportunity if we in fact have all 
12--as has been the case--all 12 of the appropriations rules closed 
down as this has been.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Does the gentleman want a colloquy?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I understand the gentleman's frustration, but I sat 
on the other side and listened and had things that our people----
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, let me say, Mr. 
Speaker, as I reclaim my time and say the following:
  My friend, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Blumenauer, 
has never sat on the side as a member of the minority having been 
denied the opportunity that he has just said that he has denied today 
in the appropriations process because never before has he or any Member 
of this institution have all of the appropriations rules handled under 
a closed process such as this.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very, 
very hardworking colleague from Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen) the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise in opposition to the rule but in support of the underlying 
Defense appropriations bill.
  There is nothing more important than the safety and security of our 
Nation and our people. This underlying bill will provide our troops--
volunteers--the resources and tools they need that will allow them to 
continue their heroic work to protect us and our interests around the 
world. Even though I oppose this restrictive rule--and it's a 
restrictive rule--I will support the bill. But I wish we could have 
found some way to meet and improve on the President's request for the 
Department of Defense.
  This bill falls $3.5 billion short of even President Obama's treading 
water budget. The world did not become a safer place in January. The 
signs are everywhere. North Korea is threatening conventional and 
nuclear war. Russia is becoming more belligerent. China is rapidly 
expanding its naval forces, cybercapabilities, and its space ambitions. 
Iran is working overtime on missile and nuclear capabilities, and yes, 
there are disturbing signs occurring in Africa, horrendous acts of 
violence in the name of religion. And yet we're cutting missile 
defense, halting the Army's modernization program, known as the Future 
Combat Systems, and refiguring it, and failing to provide enough money 
for more Navy ships and fifth-generation Air Force fighters.
  This treading water approach to national security is very 
shortsighted. Mr. Speaker, I support reform of our military acquisition 
process. I support Secretary Gates' program to reexamine our national 
security priorities in light of new irregular challenges and the 
threats that are proliferating well beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.
  But I'm worried about our apparent obsession with this war-ism. Yes, 
we must focus our attention and resources and energy on Iraq and 
Afghanistan, but I urge my colleagues to make sure that we make enough 
investments today to ensure that we will be prepared to defend our 
interests against all threats in the years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, our Defense Subcommittee once again has been a model for 
bipartisan compromise and cooperation in the interest of national 
security. I want to thank Mr. Murtha and my ranking member, Mr. Young, 
who spoke earlier, for their hard work and that of staff.
  But I urge defeat of this restrictive rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure, with regard to the 
excellent colloquy between my colleague from California and colleague 
from Oregon, I share the concerns addressed by my colleague from 
Oregon. And again, that was not a call with regard to this particular 
rule on this particular bill, but it is a discussion of process, which 
is a healthy discussion.
  I look forward to reading the report that was put together by our 
colleagues in the Rules Committee. We are all in agreement that we 
should work to improve the process together. We want a process that we 
can all stand before the American people and say that this was a good 
process, a constructive process, one that values expediency, 
participation, input; and I feel that we can build upon the best 
practices and precedents of the past to work together with our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to have improved processes in 
future years.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, a 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Dicks.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
  I want to congratulate Chairman Murtha and Mr. Young, who has been 
our chairmen in the past, for the excellent work they have done in 
crafting this Defense Appropriations bill.
  I have been on this committee for 31 years, and I am Vice Chairman, 
and I think we have a great staff that works collaboratively on this 
bill.

                              {time}  1230

  In discussing this process issue, I think the one thing that we do 
want the American people to understand is that in every one of our 12 
subcommittees, the ranking member, the Republican, and the Democratic 
chairman are working together very effectively. They are involved in 
the entire process. I feel that this is an indication that there is a 
bipartisan collaboration on these bills.
  At the full committee, there is no limit on amendments. The minority 
was able to offer as many amendments as they wished on each of these 
twelve bills.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield for just one brief second? I am 
happy to yield additional time.
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, if you will yield me an additional minute.

[[Page 19684]]


  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DREIER. I would just like to say to my friend I think he makes a 
great point, Mr. Speaker, about the working together of subcommittee 
chairmen and ranking members.
  We have been regularly arguing, and I know my friend understands very 
well in his distinguished leadership position that on the floor when we 
have an open amendment process, the subcommittee chairman and the 
ranking member, not anyone in the leadership, worked this out on the 
floor, just as they have in committee. And it was my hope that we were 
going to be able to do that through this appropriations process.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. DICKS. We got through these 12 bills, and what I am saying here 
today is the American people want us to get our work done.
  Now, when you are faced with the reality of the minority offering 600 
amendments--600 amendments--that would take us days to go through 600 
amendments, we have got other issues that have to be dealt with.
  I am not going to yield at this point until I finish.
  The first year that I was chairman of the Interior and Environment 
Appropriations Subcommittee, we went back and looked at it. The year 
before, when we were in the minority, it took about 8 hours to finish 
the bill, to go through the entire bill. The first year we were in the 
majority, it was 22 hours, and there was no limit to the amount of 
amendments that could be offered.
  So I think we had to do this. This was the responsible thing to do, 
was to limit the number of amendments, let the people like Mr. Flake, 
Mr. Campbell, who want to pick out some of the earmarks that they are 
against, let them have their moment to address those issues and deal 
with any other major substantive matters. But in order to get our work 
done, we could not let this thing be open-ended when one side just 
wants to abuse the process, unfortunately.
  Now, if we could have gotten an agreement, and I am told our 
leadership went over and met with Mr. Boehner, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Obey and 
Mr. Lewis and tried to work out something. The way you would work this 
out--and the gentleman from California and I are good friends and we 
worked together on many important trade issues over the years and I 
have great respect for him--well, the way to work this thing out is for 
the two sides to get together before we go to the floor and limit the 
number of amendments, limit the number of amendments, and then have a 
unanimous consent agreement, if both sides can control their Members.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point?
  Mr. DICKS. I will yield on that point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield one additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would further yield, let me just say 
that I disagree, with all due respect to my friend, about this notion 
of doing it before the process has even begun. Let me go back to where 
we were.
  Mr. DICKS. But there is a lack of trust here, because if we can't get 
an agreement which the leadership on both sides embrace, then there is 
no reason, not to restrict the number of amendments, because there is 
an element within the gentleman's party that wants to offer unlimited 
amendments.
  Mr. DREIER. As happened in 1997, we can go upstairs in the Rules 
Committee if we have recalcitrant Members on either side of the aisle 
and we can shut down the process, and there would not be the kind of 
resistance, if we had at least tried the open amendment process.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. DICKS. Again, all I am saying is we got our work done. All 12 of 
these bills will have been enacted before the August recess. This 
hasn't happened in years. I wish that we could have had an open 
process, but when the minority is talking about 600 amendments, on the 
defense bill there is no choice but to limit the number of amendments. 
We had to limit it in order to get our work done.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my Rules 
Committee colleague if he has any further speakers.
  Mr. POLIS. Not at this point, no.
  Mr. DREIER. Is the gentleman then prepared to close if I were to 
close?
  Mr. POLIS. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Let me just say that it is very sad that we are at this point now, 
the completion of the appropriations process. My friend just referred 
to the term as we talked about best practices and working together, 
``precedents.'' Well, the sad thing, with the 12th appropriation bill, 
if we pass this rule, we have set the precedent for the entire 
appropriations process. All 12 appropriations bills have been 
considered under restrictive rule, if we in fact proceed with this.
  In fact, I have just been given an amendment to this rule, Mr. 
Speaker, that will even shut the process down even further, denying 
Members an opportunity to divide the question on the very few 
amendments that have been made in order.
  So, this notion that we somehow have this outside time limit, and my 
very good friend from Seattle, Mr. Dicks, with whom I have been 
privileged to work on a wide range of issues in the past, talked about 
the fact that all these amendments have been filed, in 1995 when my 
colleagues on the other side went into the minority, there was an 
additional 26 hours, 26 additional hours spent on the debate on the 
appropriations bills than was the case when my party went into the 
minority in 2007.
  So this notion that somehow all of these amendments would be offered 
is just plain wrong. Why? Because if you are going to close down the 
process or have a modified open rule, the notion of having every 
amendment possible considered is the only option that we have.
  Mr. Speaker, I am standing here in the name of my Oregon colleague, 
Mr. Blumenauer. He had two amendments that he sought to have made in 
order. If we had had an open amendment process, my colleague, Mr. 
Blumenauer, with whom I was able to engage in this colloquy a little, 
would have had his amendments made in order.
  He talked about the tension being high. Well, the tension is high, 
Mr. Speaker, and it is not just around the issue of health care. It is 
around the fact that 220 years ago this very summer, James Madison, a 
member of the House Rules Committee, moved at the encouragement of his 
constituents the Bill of Rights with 10 days of debate through the 
House of Representatives. And through the 220-year history of the 
United States of America, Democrats and Republicans alike, representing 
what now is about 650,000 to 700,000 Americans, have had the right to 
stand up on the House floor and offer germane amendments to 
appropriations bill.
  I use the term ``sacrosanct'' to describe the appropriations process 
on the House floor. I never believed, and I have not been here as long 
as the 39 years of my good friend, Mr. Young, but I never believed, Mr. 
Speaker, that I would see us get to the point where Republicans and 
Democrats alike would be shut out of the process, which is exactly what 
has happened here.
  In ``A New Direction for America'' that was penned by Ms. Pelosi when 
they were seeking the majority, they had a very, very interesting line. 
It said: ``Democrats believe that America needs and Americans deserve a 
new direction that provides opportunity for all.''
  ``Opportunity for all'' is what they said was going to be the 
hallmark. Apparently it is opportunity for all, except for rank-and-
file Members of the United States House of Representatives, because the 
elected Representatives of both parties are being denied an opportunity 
to put forward their great ideas.
  And since we have crossed this $1 trillion spending mark for the 
deficit

[[Page 19685]]

in the first 6 months, and it is projected to go to $1.8 trillion by 
the end of this year, it is obvious that this process has been used to 
cherry-pick amendments and deny Democrats and Republicans who would 
like to engage in fiscally responsible policies from being able to do 
that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move to defeat the previous question; 
and if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to 
the rule providing for the traditional open rule for appropriations 
bills, again giving us this one last opportunity to do that, and we 
will have the opportunity to return to our traditions, to honor the 
vision of the Framers of our Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, 
along with the explanatory material, be placed in the Record 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question, and if by chance the previous question does prevail, 
to oppose this rule so we can get back to the Madisonian vision of 
representative democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California's time has 
expired.
  The gentleman from Colorado has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Murtha and 
Ranking Member Young for their and their staff's hard work on bringing 
this bill to the floor, as well as for offering an amendment to strike 
the funding for continued procurement of F-22 aircraft.
  I particularly would like to thank President Obama and Secretary 
Gates for their leadership on this important issue, for targeting the 
elimination of unnecessary weapons systems and aircraft. It is not in 
the American people's best interests to pay Lockheed Martin $369 
million of taxpayer money to add dozens of aircraft when we already 
have a fully functioning fleet of 187 F-22s currently operated by the 
Armed Forces.
  This victory is an important first step in eliminating cold war-era 
weapons systems and questioning the relevance of aircraft and security 
systems that are an inadequate defense against the 21st-century 
national security threats we face and an important step in moving 
towards balancing the budget and fiscal responsibility.
  I also strongly support provisions in the legislation that prohibit 
the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, require 
the Secretary of Defense to provide goals and a timeline for 
withdrawing our troops from Iraq, and restate the United States 
commitment to prohibiting torture of detainees currently held in U.S. 
custody.
  This is just the beginning of President Obama's efforts to bring our 
troops home safely, and I look forward to the time when stop-loss and 
troop surges are a thing of the past.
  Although I strongly support withdrawing our troops from both Iraq and 
Afghanistan as soon as possible, until we do so I believe it is crucial 
to provide support to our servicemen and servicewomen in harm's way and 
those returning home to their families.
  This legislation also provides $29.9 billion to guarantee that our 
troops have the best medical care made available to them. Included in 
the Defense appropriation is over $2 billion for funding of medical 
research and developing treatment for diseases, including breast cancer 
research, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer and spinal cord injuries, 
research for applications that have much wider applications outside of 
defense.
  The Defense appropriation also funds important technology research, 
providing funding for research that keeps the United States on the cusp 
of innovation for important civilian applications. Funding for this 
legislation will advance lithium ion battery technology, energy storage 
that is a linchpin of making renewable energy like wind and solar 
viable and cost-effective.
  Installing photovoltaic panels on military installations saves our 
military money and ensures that no matter where in the world our troops 
stand in harm's way, they can quickly access the infrastructure of the 
modern world. This technology also has the effect of reducing costs for 
Americans to use these technologies in their homes by driving scale.
  This legislation also funds a robust, small business innovation 
program. Small businesses receive capital to develop technologies to 
keep our country safe, while providing high-wage employment and 
bolstering local economies.
  These innovations also have direct civilian applications. Many of the 
technologies we enjoy in our daily lives, like global positioning 
systems to microwave ovens, we often take for granted; but they have 
been developed and researched as part of a DOD effort.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides critical funding for our national 
defense, as well as funding for civilian activities. Among these 
activities are those in support of small business and workforce 
development.
  In Colorado, many small businesses rely on the SBIR program of the 
Department of Defense, such as TechX, which provides critical software 
innovations to the Department of Defense while providing high-paying 
jobs to my constituents.
  This bill also provides funds for programs such as the Center for 
Space Entrepreneurship, a program that is a collaboration between the 
educational institutions, the Colorado Office of Economic Development, 
and the leadership efforts of our Lieutenant Governor, Barbara O'Brien. 
This program incubates aerospace industry's small businesses. It also 
helps individuals transition into careers in this industry.
  Among their most important work is the outreach they do in schools to 
ensure that the next generation has an interest in and the skills to 
ensure that our Nation remains a world leader in space industry.
  The satellites and spacecraft developed and manufactured by 
Colorado's thriving aerospace industry are not only of tremendous 
economic benefit to our State, which is one of several reasons we have 
an unemployment rate below the national average; but also this 
equipment keeps our Nation safe, and many of the satellites provide 
civilian applications, such as the DISH television, GPS service for our 
cars, and reception for our cellular phones.
  While H.R. 3326 provides top-of-the-line equipment and technologies 
for our troops, these dollars would be hollow without the bravery, 
dedication, and skill of the men and women who serve us every day in 
our Armed Forces.

                              {time}  1245

  Their service wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the support, 
dedication and sacrifice of military families that receive support from 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an amendment to the rule. 
I want to briefly explain the amendment. This amendment will add to the 
rule a technical provision that's included as boilerplate language in 
virtually all of our rules for both appropriating and authorizing 
legislation but was inadvertently dropped from this rule. This language 
simply protects amendments from a division of the question.
  I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, the rule and the 
previous question.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Polis:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 5. The amendments specified in the first section of 
     this resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole.''

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

[[Page 19686]]



                        Amendment to H. Res. 685

                  Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

       Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert 
     the following:
       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, 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.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and 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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if 
ordered, on the amendment and on the resolution and, under clause 8 of 
rule XX, on suspending the rules and passing S. 1513.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245, 
nays 176, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 654]

                               YEAS--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--176

     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter

[[Page 19687]]


     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Aderholt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bright
     Davis (AL)
     Gerlach
     Lance
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meeks (NY)
     Rogers (AL)
     Towns
     Walz

                              {time}  1309

  Messrs. COFFMAN of Colorado, BRADY of Texas, MITCHELL and KRATOVIL 
and Mrs. BONO MACK changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HOEKSTRA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 654, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. 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 241, 
nays 185, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 655]

                               YEAS--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barrett (SC)
     Bonner
     Gerlach
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pence
     Towns
     Walz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1318

  Mr. BOEHNER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________