[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26131-26138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2996, 
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 876 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 876

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2996) making appropriations for the Department of 
     the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes. The conference report shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against the conference report and against 
     its consideration are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the conference report to its 
     adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate; and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable.

                              {time}  1030

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 876.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 876 provides for 
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2996, the 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2010. The resolution waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration. The 
resolution provides that the conference report shall be considered as 
read. Finally, the resolution provides that the previous question shall 
be considered as ordered without intervening motion, except for 1 hour 
of debate and one motion to recommit, if applicable.
  This conference report makes available the necessary resources for 
the Federal Government to protect our Nation's precious natural 
resources. It also provides to ensure clean and safe drinking water, to 
perform critical restoration work, and help Native American communities 
meet their needs.
  It will help communities and public lands by focusing on five 
priority

[[Page 26132]]

areas: Water infrastructure and environmental protection; fire fighting 
and fuels reduction on Federal land; bolstering our public land 
management agencies; protecting public lands through the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund; and helping the most vulnerable Native American 
populations. Together, these priorities and their attendant policies 
provide for effective Federal stewardship of our environmental and 
cultural treasures while also improving the lives of all Americans who 
depend on these resources for their health and well-being.
  Madam Speaker, it's worth noting some of the critical investments 
that the underlying legislation makes in essential programs and 
agencies.
  The Environmental Protection Agency receives over $10 billion to 
restore and protect the quality of our Nation's air, water and land, 
including over $3.5 billion to help nearly 1,500 communities improve 
their drinking water and wastewater systems. Improving our Nation's 
water quality will have a direct and positive impact on overall public 
health, making this funding crucial to the bettering of the lives of 
all Americans. The EPA is also provided with increased funding to 
protect important bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes, San 
Francisco Bay, and the Chesapeake Bay, as well as significant funding 
to clean up dangerous toxic waste sites around the country.
  Important climate change programs are also funded in this 
legislation, including money to implement the Energy Independence and 
Security Act, which will help the United States produce 36 billion 
gallons of renewable fuel by 2022, reducing our dependence on fossil 
fuels. Thousands of communities and millions of individual consumers 
will be able to receive assistance from the EPA to lower their 
emissions and adopt green technologies.
  Native American and Native Alaskan programs receive hundreds of 
millions in increased funding from previous years, with an emphasis on 
supporting both federally and tribally operated health care programs, 
as well as bolstering law enforcement, education, and economic 
development programs throughout the country.
  Recognizing the need for a dedicated, steady and predictable funding 
stream for wildfire suppression and firefighting activities, this 
legislation includes the Federal Land Assistance, Management and 
Enhancement Act of 2009. In light of recent increases in the length, 
severity and exponential cost of wildfire seasons, the FLAME Act 
includes a number of budgetary reforms to ensure that government 
agencies and local communities will have the necessary resources to 
handle large and complex fire events.
  It is also worth noting that this legislation funds the Smithsonian 
to the appropriate level of support for the world's largest museum and 
research complex right here in our Nation's Capital. Here in 
Washington, we see the fruits of these efforts every day up and down 
the National Mall, as do our constituents when they visit us, and I am 
particularly pleased with the inclusion of $20 million for planning and 
design of the new National Museum of African American History and 
Culture, which will be built on the Mall.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation also includes the continuing 
resolution to fund government operations through December 18. Although 
we completed our appropriations work during the summer, this resolution 
is needed to allow our good friends in the other body, the Senate, more 
time to complete their work.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to address this report's provisions 
regarding Guantanamo Bay. I spoke on this matter when I managed the 
rule for the conference report on Homeland Security Appropriations 2 
weeks ago. This body seems fit to include language on Guantanamo Bay in 
every appropriations measure that comes before us. I appreciate that 
many of our colleagues have objections to the various aspects involved 
in closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo, which President 
Obama has promised to do by January of 2010. But as I have maintained 
before, the problem is the policy, not the place.
  The debate over Guantanamo, in my opinion, is missing the larger 
picture, and that is the need to reform our entire detainment policy. 
Without a system of justice to deal with suspected terrorists wherever 
they are held, we are left with a broken system that has tarnished our 
image abroad and is used as a recruitment tool by al Qaeda and other 
groups which threaten our security. We need to deny them that image of 
America.
  We need a judicial process that accomplishes three things: one, 
protects our national security by holding and prosecuting those who 
have committed crimes or who pose a threat to our country; two, upholds 
international standards of human rights by ensuring decent treatment 
and access to basic rights and resources; and three, strengthens our 
Nation's image as a country that upholds the rule of law. We must not 
resort to arbitrary justice, even while under threat. There is no 
reason why these three things cannot be accomplished, nor is there a 
reason to believe that American courts cannot deal judiciously with 
individuals suspected of criminal wrongdoing or acts of terrorism.
  The appropriations season has so far brought forth a number of bills, 
almost all with language relating to Guantanamo. At some point, we're 
going to need to move beyond legislating this matter into 
appropriations bills and, instead, establish new policies and 
guidelines to bring our national security needs in line with our 
historic national values. This matter cannot be left only to the 
executive branch or the judiciary. Congress makes laws.
  We have to put aside political posturing and ``gotcha'' on Guantanamo 
Bay and ``not in my backyard'' and, instead, work together to reform a 
broken system. To that end, I am pleased to have introduced H.R. 3728, 
the Detainment Reform Act, which I believe will move us forward on this 
matter. I urge my colleagues in this body to support this effort. And I 
might add, I have no pride of authorship. What I am talking about is 
trying to get past where we are in this ``not in my backyard'' and deal 
with the needed policy that will deal with people who will do harm to 
this country, whether they're in Guantanamo or Bagram or Leavenworth or 
wherever they may be held.
  Ultimately, Madam Speaker, the conference report before us today 
provides the necessary funding to carry on our Nation's critical 
environmental protection efforts to ensure that all Americans will have 
access to clean water and safe communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin by extending my appreciation to my friend from Fort 
Lauderdale and thank him for his very thoughtful and powerful statement 
that he has just delivered to us.
  Madam Speaker, for the second time this fall, we're considering a 
continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government operating as the 
Democratic majority fails to complete action on Federal spending for 
the new fiscal year. Continuing resolutions are not new. Congress has 
frequently, under both political parties, taken the action of having a 
continuing resolution to avert a government shutdown while the 
difficult appropriations process is finalized.
  What makes this particular series of continuing resolutions so 
significant--and I say again, we're on the second one so far--is that 
it exposes this year's unprecedented--and I underscore unprecedented--
closed appropriations process for what it really is. It's an utterly 
hollow excuse, a hollow excuse because never before in the history of 
the Republic have we had the appropriations process shut down, as has 
been the case through this past summer.
  Time and again, the Democratic leadership told us during the summer 
that they had no choice but to shut down the debate on the spending 
appropriations process because they had a schedule to keep. In fact, 
they very solemnly spoke of the inviolable September 30, end of the 
fiscal year, and that we had to have the appropriations

[[Page 26133]]

work completed by that September 30 date. There simply was no time for 
us to debate appropriations bills, no time for accountability or for 
the kind of scrutiny that has gone on under both political parties 
throughout the appropriations process. They were on a timetable and 
they just had to stick to it, regardless of the precedents and 
traditions that would be abandoned. In fact, Madam Speaker, as we all 
know, they were abandoned.
  So what did the expediency bring about? Well, they completed one-
twelfth of their appropriations work by that hard, fast, inviolable 
September 30 deadline. It's worth pointing out that the single 
appropriations bill that they managed to get done on time was, what? 
Congress' own funding bill.
  The bill that funds the Congress was the only appropriations bill 
that's been completed. Not national security, not the very, very 
important issues, not the important issues that are addressed in this 
bill, I will acknowledge.
  In fact, I thank my good friends Messrs. Dicks and Simpson. We had a 
lengthy discussion upstairs in the Rules Committee yesterday on the 
importance of the FLAME Act. Especially as a Representative from the 
Los Angeles area, we have gone through the worst fire in the history of 
Los Angeles County, the Station Fire, the loss of two firefighters, Ted 
Hall and Arnie Quinones, whom we continue to honor in southern 
California, and we've had other fires since the Station Fire. So the 
FLAME Act is a very important part of this measure, and I appreciate 
that.
  We could have done this bill before we did Congress' own spending 
bill. So having taken care of their own funding needs, Madam Speaker, 
the Democratic majority turned to the rest of the country's priorities, 
and they gave themselves another month to finish the work.

                              {time}  1045

  Now the new deadline is rapidly approaching. Over the last month, we 
have inched forward, and we've completed three more appropriations 
bills. With the first extension about to expire, this Congress has now 
completed one-third of its appropriations duty--our constitutional 
responsibility. Remember, again, we had that inviolable September 30, 
end of the fiscal year, deadline we had to meet, and here we sit, 
approaching the 1st of November, and we've completed one-third of our 
appropriations work.
  The underlying conference report that Mr. Dicks and Mr. Simpson are 
bringing forward here actually grants another extension. It's an 
extension to take us all the way to December 18. Now, despite the 
Democratic majority's penchant for making excuses, there are really no 
plausible excuses left.
  Madam Speaker, I know that often the finger is pointed down this 
hallway to the other side of the Capitol, to our colleagues there. 
There are 60 votes that the Democratic majority has over there. We have 
the White House, as we all know, in the control of Democrats and a huge 
majority here in the House of Representatives. The majority is so 
ironclad that even their supporters are complaining about their lack of 
progress and empty excuses. We are hearing that from supporters of the 
Democratic majority.
  In fact, the former staff member who was a Democratic strategist, 
David Sirota, told Congress Daily last week: Democrats decried their 
lack of 60 votes in the Senate as a campaign tactic between 2006 and 
2008 as the reason why they couldn't get anything done.
  Again, the fact that they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate was the 
reason that nothing could get accomplished and that things couldn't get 
done.
  Well, Mr. Sirota, the Democratic strategist, goes on to say they got 
the 60 votes. He says: Mathematically, there are no excuses left. There 
are no excuses left.
  Those are the words of the Democratic strategist, Mr. Sirota. Yet, 
Madam Speaker, here we are passing another continuing resolution 
because the Democratic supermajority still can't get the work done.
  Again, these extensions are far from unprecedented. I know the 
continuing resolutions have taken place again under both political 
parties. What is unprecedented is the fact that an open debate of the 
Federal budget was completely abandoned for a deadline that has proven 
to be utterly meaningless.
  We all have to knowledge, Democrats and Republicans alike, that that 
September 30 deadline was utterly meaningless, and we were told 
constantly, having that calendar held up before us in the Rules 
Committee and here on the House floor, that it was absolutely essential 
that we meet that September 30 deadline. It was nothing more than a 
pretense for shutting out amendments for both Democrats and 
Republicans.
  That's why, Madam Speaker, I argue that this is not a partisan 
statement because there were just as many, if not more, Democrats who 
were denied an opportunity to amend appropriations bills as 
Republicans. Rank-and-file Members of both parties were completely shut 
out and were refused the opportunity to freely offer their amendments 
to have a debate and to have an up-or-down vote.
  That kind of open process had been the custom, as I say, for 220 
years. An open amendment process is something that we all, again, under 
both political parties, were used to. Unfortunately, those days are now 
behind us. For what reason? So that we can end up right where we always 
are--passing a string of continuing resolutions.
  The need for scrutiny of the majority's spending practices became 
clearer than ever with the announcement of the $1.4 trillion deficit. 
Even the continuing resolution that we're considering today includes a 
number of last-minute additions that further diminish the 
accountability of Federal spending.
  For example, there is a provision that extends funding for 
organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are the very 
organizations that very heavily contributed to our current economic 
crisis, and those are extended until the end of next year. This is a 
very curious provision. The continuing resolution, itself, only goes, 
as I said, Madam Speaker, to December 18; yet this controversial 
funding provision is extended until after next year's election. It's 
very, very curious.
  Another provision in the underlying measure provides a bailout for 
local housing authorities that intentionally issued vouchers that they 
could not afford. These agencies clearly believed that they could act 
with impunity because the Democratic majority would just bail them out. 
Clearly, Madam Speaker, they were right.
  It is these kinds of practices that have driven up our deficit to 
unmanageable proportions and have destroyed public trust in this 
institution, and they are precisely why we need an open appropriations 
process. The American people want us to meet our priorities, but they 
also want us to rein in spending. Unfortunately, closing down that 
appropriations process denied Members the opportunity to scrutinize and 
then to, we hope, put together the votes to rein in spending.
  The American people, Madam Speaker, have been deprived of their voice 
in this process, and they were promised timely action. Unfortunately, 
it just has not happened. With today's consideration of yet another 
continuing resolution, it's painfully clear that the American people 
have gotten neither the quick action that they were promised nor the 
accountability that they deserve.
  So, again, I will say that there are items within the Interior 
Appropriations conference report that I support. I am concerned about 
the 17 percent spending increase that is there; but in light of the 
issue that I've raised and the fact that we've had an appropriations 
process that has been shut down for the first time in the history of 
our Republic, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
rule and to vote ``no'' on the previous question as well.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, before yielding to my good 
friend, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Mr. Dicks, I want to 
make a couple of points segueing off of my colleague's comments, those 
of my

[[Page 26134]]

good friend Mr. Dreier regarding the continuing resolution.
  He and I have been in this back-and-forth process for a very long 
time. One thing I know that my good friend knows is that the continuing 
resolution is necessary to keep the government operating until we're 
able to complete the appropriations process. It must be passed this 
week and including it in the Interior conference report is just the 
most expedient way to get it to the President's desk. It will merely 
ensure that government programs remain funded through December 18 while 
we move quickly to fulfill our congressional responsibilities to 
provide funding for the rest of the fiscal year.
  In the meantime, the continuing resolution in this conference report 
is basically a clean CR with the addition of several vital programs to 
ensure that people do not lose their housing, so that people have 
mortgage origination, so that the market remains stable, and so that 
small businesses are able to get loans in this period of economic 
turmoil.
  One of the most important responsibilities of Congress is to keep the 
government running efficiently and effectively. Even under the best of 
circumstances--and I've seen it now for coming up on 19 years--and with 
cooperation on both sides of the aisle, the annual appropriations 
process is a cumbersome and time-consuming process that must be 
completed with a relatively short lifetime.
  Now, while I agree with my colleague from San Dimas--he's not on the 
floor. He is, but he's busy--his staff will tell him that we have, as 
he put it, a supermajority in the Democratic Party. We have the White 
House; we have the House of Representatives; and we have 60 votes, 
ostensibly, in the United States Senate. That is a good thing but I was 
here when the Republicans had the exact same thing and had control of 
both Houses. What they did not have was the 60 votes.
  Now, what I want to make clear here for the American people so that 
we can get past this discussion, talking about 60 votes is not what is 
needed. You really don't need but 50 because the Vice President 
probably would vote with his party. Some would advocate that we do this 
measure this way because 67 percent, it seems, of the American public 
want us to move on the health care provision.
  All things considered, what my colleague knows and what all of us in 
the House of Representatives know at every level is that the Senate is 
the other body, and each one of those Senators is an entity unto him- 
or herself. I refer to them as junior Presidents. They have enormous 
power. They have enormous independence, and it does not matter what 
party they're in when they are about the business of legislating what 
they want done. That's why the process has slowed down, not because of 
a majority. It has been slowed down forever, since I've been here--all 
of that time--for the reason that there is the other body that has 
their rules, their regulations, arcane though they may be, which make 
it difficult for us to do our business.
  The House can pass stuff. The Senate has difficulty getting 
agreements to get to the numbers that are necessary to get past 
filibusters and the numbers to get the different things that each 
Senator wants for herself or himself in the measure.
  Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume 
to my good friend, to one who has no peer in this body on the 
understanding of the Interior, the chairman of the Interior 
Subcommittee, Mr. Dicks from the State of Washington
  Mr. DICKS. First of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Florida for his extraordinary summary of this legislation. I have been 
on this subcommittee for 33 years. It's the only subcommittee that I've 
been on and for which I've served throughout my entire career in the 
House, and I want him to know that we have not forgotten the great 
State of Florida in this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, we have funded major restoration projects. One is the 
Great Lakes, where the President requested $475 million. There's $475 
million in this bill for Great Lakes restoration. One of the other 
major projects is the Everglades. We're working hard to restore the 
Everglades--I think this is a national treasure--the Sea of Grass--and 
all of those wildlife species in Florida which need to be protected. 
There is the Chesapeake Bay restoration. The administration has put a 
new EPA official in charge there. They're taking more dramatic steps in 
the Great Lakes. Also, for the first time, we're recognizing that there 
are some great national treasures on the west coast--Puget Sound and 
Hood Canal where I come from. The Pacific Ocean has difficulties and 
problems related to ocean acidification and climate change, and it has 
other difficulties due to dissolved oxygen. We have a major restoration 
project going for Puget Sound. The San Francisco Bay is also another 
national asset that we need to protect.
  So all of these major environmental concerns, these five major 
restoration initiatives, are critical in our bill.
  I also want to tell my colleagues that I've served on this committee 
for 33 years. I served on this committee with Congressman Yates from 
Illinois. I believe this is the best Interior Appropriations bill we've 
ever passed.
  Now, I know my good friend from California mentioned the fact that 
there was a 17 percent increase this year in this bill. Let me explain 
why that was necessary.
  First of all, between 2001 and 2008, the Interior Appropriations 
bill--this was, by the way, during the previous administration--was cut 
by 16 percent. So, when you add 17 percent, it's a 1 percent increase. 
That's not very much. When you divide that over 9 years, it's just a 
fraction.
  The other thing I'd point out is that the EPA budget over that same 
time frame of 2001-2008 was cut by 29 percent. This is the most 
important environmental agency we have, and their budget had been 
drastically cut. There was a cut of the Forest Service, if you take 
fire out, of 35 percent.

                              {time}  1100

  This appropriations bill had been hammered, and funding for our 
Native Americans had been particularly hard hit. So I felt this was a 
restoration budget by the Obama administration. This is their first 
budget on Interior, and I think it was justified in every sense of the 
word.
  Let me go through some of the major items which are so important to 
the American people.
  First of all, the Environmental Protection Agency: $10.3 billion, 
$2.7 billion above 2009, to restore and protect the quality of our 
Nation's air, water and land.
  I want to mention the clean water and wastewater treatment plants, 
the so-called revolving funds. We had $3.6 billion to help nearly 1,500 
communities improve their drinking water and wastewater systems, an 
increase of $2 billion above 2009.
  EPA estimates, listen to this, a $662 billion construction backlog by 
2019 for clean and safe drinking water infrastructure. Between our 
clean water and safe water infrastructure, if you took that and all of 
our highway projects, you would have well over $1 trillion in backlog. 
So infrastructure in America needs to be fixed. This $662 billion 
figure came from Christine Todd Whitman, the first EPA Administrator 
during the Bush administration. So this is a number that I don't think 
anyone can challenge.
  Now, on this important infrastructure money, $2.1 billion is for the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund to fund local sewer improvements and 
help communities meet the goals of the Clean Water Act.
  $1.38 billion for the Local Water State Revolving Fund to protect 
public health by improving drinking water systems. It has been proven 
that one of the most important steps in protecting the health of the 
American people and people around the world is having safe drinking 
water. This is a 99.9 percent issue with the American people. They care 
about safe drinking water, and this revolving fund gives money back to 
the States and the States then loan it out.
  $157 million for direct grants to States for clean drinking water. 
That

[[Page 26135]]

is way too low. I am talking with Mr. Oberstar about this. We need to 
have more grant money to help rural communities, local communities, who 
can't afford to borrow the money. Now, we put a provision in this bill 
this year that 30 percent of it can be forgiven. That has never been in 
there until the stimulus package came through. This is critical to 
rural areas throughout the country so that it can be more of a grant 
program.
  I talked to my good friend, Bill Ruckelshaus, a good Republican from 
Indiana, twice former Administrator of EPA. He also stood up during the 
Saturday night massacre and refused to fire Archibald Cox, to his great 
credit. He is now living in Washington State. He reminds me that during 
the Nixon administration, we had $4 billion to $5 billion in grant 
money to go out to the local communities on an 80-20 basis. Now, think 
about that. That was in the 1970s, $4 billion to $5 billion. That has 
been taken away, and now we have just a tiny amount of grants and 
everything else is loans. If we are going to really do something about 
this infrastructure issue, we have got to deal with that.
  I mentioned the great bodies of water. That is something I am very 
proud of, especially the effort on Puget Sound.
  Hazardous waste and toxic site cleanup, $1.5 billion, $25 million 
above 2009, to clean up dangerous toxic waste sites around the Nation.
  Climate change, one of the most important issues of our time, $385 
million, $155 million above 2009, for programs that address global 
climate change.
  We have all heard about the Energy Star program, and now we have a 
program that we helped create for local communities to have their own 
climate change program; $17 million to continue development of a 
greenhouse gas registry, the first step in controlling greenhouse 
gases; $55 million for the Interior Department's on-the-ground 
monitoring and adaptation to climate change impact in national parks, 
national wildlife refuges, and other public lands.
  There is no question in my mind that climate change is occurring. We 
have had hearings and we brought in the Federal agencies, including 
people from Florida, who are very concerned about the impact of global 
warming. Global warming could be devastating to the Everglades and to 
the State of Florida. If the seas rise, because they have so many low 
level areas there, they would be adversely affected. So this is a 
serious issue that has to be confronted.
  We also created a National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center 
at the U.S. Geological Survey, and we are working together with the 
administration on that issue.
  Most importantly, our trust responsibility for Native Americans and 
Alaska Native programs, $6.7 billion, $705.7 million above 2009 and $91 
million above the request, for programs to support and improve health 
care, education, public safety, and human services for Native Americans 
and Alaskan Natives throughout our Nation.
  On the Indian Health Service, a program that has been underfunded for 
many, many years, $4.1 billion, $17.8 million above the request and 
$471.3 million above 2009, to support both Federal and tribally 
operated national health care programs and facilities.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs, $2.6 billion--$2.3 million above 2009 
and $82 million above the request--for education, law enforcement, and 
economic development programs that will strengthen native communities.
  I brought back the hearing where we allow the Native Americans to 
come in and testify, which was ended under the previous regime. We put 
that back in place so we can hear of the concerns out there.
  There are very serious problems in Indian country, none more serious 
than the law enforcement difficulties there, including the fact that 
Native American women are more often the victims of rape and other 
violent crimes and there is only a 1-year penalty under our Federal 
court system. This is intolerable. We have to change this, and this is 
something we are working on.
  I know this is something my friend from California is concerned 
about, $3.5 billion for efforts to prevent and fight wildfires at the 
Forest Service and the Department of Interior. We know the people of 
California have suffered some terrible fires out there, and I know that 
Mr. Dreier and Mr. Lewis have been very concerned about that. There is 
$1.855 billion for wildfire suppression, $526 million above 2009.
  We got the FLAME Act created. We actually did the work in our 
conference committee with the Senate. We think this is a great FLAME 
Act that will give us extra money when we overrun our accounts. This is 
so important, because in the past money would be taken from the Forest 
Service accounts, from the Interior accounts, and they would never get 
that money paid back, in most instances. So this FLAME Act will give us 
a second account to help when we have these major fires.
  I want to point out, as my ranking member pointed out yesterday in 
the Rules Committee, 98 percent of the fires are stopped: 98 percent. 
But the 2 percent, the mega-fires that get underway, do this enormous 
damage to our national parks, to our Forest Service lands, to our BLM 
lands, and we need very serious funding to help that.
  The parks are better off, wildlife refuges are better off, the 
endowments for the arts and humanities are better off.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, I will yield to my friend for a second.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I don't want to take a lot of time on the 
general debate, but I presume that the chairman is going to allow some 
time to discuss the question that has been raised regarding an 
exemption that affects ships among the Great Lakes, the Michigan boat 
question.
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, we will be glad to discuss that. But this is the 
rule, as you know.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I just wanted to make sure we would have 
time during the general debate to discuss that. It won't take a lot of 
time, I am sure, but I didn't want to be left out.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman alerting us to his concern.
  This is a great rule, a great bill. It is bipartisan. We do 
everything in my subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Simpson has 
been just a delight to work with, and the Republican members have been 
at every hearing. We couldn't have better members on our subcommittee 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just close by responding first not to the very thoughtful 
remarks given by the subcommittee chairman. He didn't quite focus 
totally on the rule. We talked about everything from Watergate to 
California fires, and I appreciate his fine work there.
  But I will say that as we look at the remarks that were offered by my 
friend from Fort Lauderdale at the outset, in which he talked about the 
60 vote number that exists in the Senate and where we are, there are a 
couple of differences. We never had the 60 votes in the Senate, number 
one; and number two, we did not shut down the appropriations process, 
Madam Speaker. And that is what has happened throughout the past 
summer.
  The American people had their ire raised on a procedural issue for 
the first time ever on June 26 of this year when early that morning, at 
3 o'clock, while the motion was being offered in the Rules Committee to 
bring a special rule to the floor to consider the so-called cap-and-
trade bill, my friend Mr. McGovern was offering the motion, and I had a 
300-page amendment dropped on my place at that moment. People have 
said: read the bill, deliberate, think about the process. That message 
is resonating across the country. That did not happen with this 
appropriations process.
  Unfortunately, on consideration of this measure, we are having a 
continuation of that because one of the waivers provided in this rule 
is for the 72-hour layover, the 3-day layover requirement, which the 
American people believe we should have.
  I am going to ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so

[[Page 26136]]

we will be able to make in order the very thoughtful bipartisan effort 
launched by Messrs. Baird, Culberson and Walden that will, in fact, 
require the 3-day layover for measures as they move to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
amendment, along with the explanatory material, appear 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. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, by funding the EPA, the 
Department of the Interior, the Forest Service and other related 
agencies, the conference report provides the resources necessary to 
protect the environment and our natural resources. The attached 
continuing resolution ensures that the government will continue to 
function through December 18th.
  The increases in this bill over previous years are essential to 
maintain and improve current programs and activities, bettering the 
lives of all Americans and their communities.
  As I discussed before, I hope that this body will move beyond the 
debate over whether or not to close Guantanamo and, instead, work to 
develop comprehensive detainment policies that uphold the Constitution, 
human rights and the rule of law.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 876

                  Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (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. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam 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. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 adoption of H. Res. 876, if ordered, and 
suspension of the rules with regard to Senate Concurrent Resolution 45.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 183, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 823]

                               YEAS--236

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     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
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     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
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     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
     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
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson

[[Page 26137]]


     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     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
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--183

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     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)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     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
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (SC)
     Buyer
     Connolly (VA)
     Engel
     Fattah
     McCotter
     Michaud
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Pomeroy
     Van Hollen

                              {time}  1142

  Messrs. JONES, DUNCAN, CASSIDY, BURGESS, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of 
California and COSTA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 184, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 824]

                               YEAS--232

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     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
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     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
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     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
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     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)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     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
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     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
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (SC)
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Deal (GA)
     Emerson
     Fattah
     Hirono
     LaTourette
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nunes
     Pastor (AZ)
     Scott (VA)
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Waxman

                              {time}  1150

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 26138]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 824, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________