[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1087-1094]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4061, CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT 
                                OF 2009

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1051

       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. 4061) to advance cybersecurity research, 
     development, and technical standards, 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.

[[Page 1088]]

     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 Science and 
     Technology. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science and Technology now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
     rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question. 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. 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.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Science and Technology 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).

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for purposes of 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1051.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1051 provides for consideration of H.R. 
4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009. The rule waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising 
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Science and Technology Committee. The rule provides that 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science 
and Technology Committee now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
an original bill for purposes of amendment and shall be considered as 
read.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule 
XXI. The rule further makes in order only those amendments printed in 
the report. The amendments made in order may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to demand for division of the question. All points of order 
against the amendment except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
XXI are waived.
  The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. The Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise 
only if offered by the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee or 
a designee. Finally, the rule provides that the Chair may not entertain 
a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the threat of cyberwarfare cannot be overstated. 
Cyberattacks target everything from classified government information 
to business and trade secrets to individual financial records. The 
motivation for these attacks can range from immature harassment to 
illicit financial gain. The scope can be similarly broad, from an 
individual computer or Web site to an entire network.
  Investing in cybersecurity is the Manhattan Project of our 
generation. The only difference is that when we were doing the 
Manhattan Project, we were the only power with the technology. This 
time around, we are facing far more enemies that have the same level of 
technology that we do. In fact, nearly every high school hacker has the 
potential to threaten our unfettered use of the Internet. Just imagine 
what a rogue state committed to disrupting our cyberinfrastructure 
could do.
  The National Institute of Standards and Technology is responsible for 
setting cybersecurity standards for nonclassified Federal networks. The 
bill tasks NIST with developing cybersecurity awareness programs to 
educate individuals, small businesses, State and local governments, and 
educational institutions on how to implement cyber best practices. It 
is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of all cyberbreaches could have been 
avoided with this type of cybersecurity training.
  The legislation also directs NIST to conduct research related to 
improving the security of information and network systems that support 
so many aspects of our day-to-day life, which many of us take for 
granted.
  The most troubling cyberthreat may be the very real prospect of 
state-sponsored cyberattacks against sensitive national security 
information. Cyberexperts believe China is effectively targeting our 
government networks and that these attacks have resulted in at least 
one breach of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development 
program.
  It is estimated that the Federal Government alone needs to recruit 
between 500 and 1,000 more cybersecurity professionals each year in 
order to address these threats. The Upstate New York district that I 
represent is on the frontline of defending our Nation in the cyberwar 
in which we are engaged. Utica College offers a bachelor of science 
degree in cybersecurities. Graduates of this program are employed 
across the country, working to secure the networks of government and 
private business alike. However, this program currently only graduates 
about 50 students per year into the cybersecurity field.
  Clearly, simply maintaining the status quo will not be enough. Media 
reports of new attacks by cybercriminals are becoming more frequent and 
alarming. Just last week, following the State of the Union address, 
hackers, suspected to be from Brazil, defaced 49 House Member Web 
sites. Each day, 400,000 new ``zombies'' are activated. These are 
computers that are taken over by hackers and can be remotely controlled 
without the owner knowing it, and 1.5 million new malicious Web sites 
are identified each month. There are more than 1 billion new endpoints 
added to the Internet; 50 percent of those will be in China and 35 
percent will be in India.
  We are locked in a technological arms race with our cybercompetitors. 
In order to win that race, we must train individuals to look at warfare 
from an entirely new perspective. This effort goes to the heart of our 
national security because it requires us to create opportunities in our 
colleges and universities to train this new type of warfighter to 
defend our Nation from cyberthreats, a warfighter every bit as 
important to our security as a traditional armed soldier in the field. 
The training for this new generation of warfighters that defend us, not 
from land, sea, or air attacks, but from cyberattacks, is every bit as 
important as boot camp is for our soldiers. In fact, that is what this 
bill does, creates a boot camp for our future cyberwarfighters.

[[Page 1089]]

  H.R. 4061 sets that course by authorizing funding for a Scholarship 
for Service program through the National Science Foundation that will 
provide scholarships for students pursuing cybersecurity fields. The 
scholarships would be provided for up to 1 to 2 years for students 
pursuing a bachelor's or master's degree and up to 3 years for students 
pursuing a doctoral degree in the cybersecurity field, provided that 
the recipient serves as a cybersecurity professional in government 
agencies for an equal amount of time. This investment in cybereducation 
is necessary to meet our enemies on the cyberfrontlines and repel their 
attacks.
  Through increased workforce development and continued strengthening 
of our public-private partnerships, we can and will ensure that the IT 
systems, on which so much of our way of life depends, are safe from 
cyberattack. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act contains the strategic 
plan necessary to focus our resources to meet these challenges.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding time.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this structured rule that 
restricts my colleagues from offering amendments to the bill. We 
certainly are concerned about cybersecurity, but nothing is going to 
matter if we don't get our fiscal house in order.
  The Democrats are basically wasting the American people's time by 
bringing this bill, which they know has widespread support, to the 
floor today, as it could, instead, have been on the suspension calendar 
for this week, leaving us more time to debate legislation that would 
address the major problems facing the American people and my 
constituents in North Carolina, such as the status of our economy and 
what are we going to do about dealing with the national security issues 
that are facing us in this country. Instead of using the suspension 
calendar productively, Democrats have consistently used the majority of 
our time debating legislation that is not relevant to the challenges 
that American families are facing on a daily basis.
  Democrats have spent the majority of our time debating suspensions 
such as H. Res. 784, which honors the 2560th anniversary of the birth 
of Confucius. In doing so, the Democrats have set a higher priority on 
the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius over solving the 
problems of the American people. I have nothing against Confucius, Mr. 
Speaker, but this resolution is not helping American families get back 
to work or put food on their kitchen tables.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, so far this year the Democrats have spent the 
majority of our time debating resolutions such as H. Res. 1020, which 
honors the 95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky Mountain 
National Park Act, and H. Res. 981, supporting development in Ukraine. 
Mr. Speaker, again, I have nothing in particular against these 
resolutions, but I would be remiss if I did not address the fact that 
Democrats are making these resolutions higher priorities of these 
topics than bringing forth commonsense solutions that will help 
Americans who are suffering across the Nation.
  While the bill before us today authorizes several important programs, 
it also authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary for activities to 
improve cybersecurity.'' When American families are facing tough 
economic challenges, Congress should be tightening its own belt and 
setting funding limits rather than authorizing blank checks on the 
backs of the American taxpayers. We can do better than this, and we owe 
it to the American people to do better than this.
  This bill also provides for annual increases in authorization levels. 
At a time of record budget deficits, it is crucial that we hold the 
line on spending. The Obama administration likes to talk about fiscal 
restraint, but we have yet to see those words put into action. In fact, 
talk of fiscal restraint is nothing but talk.
  This bill is a classic example of legislation that could be trimmed 
back by keeping the authorization levels static rather than increasing 
them each year. But the Democrats refuse to allow such restraint and 
instead continue to govern as though they are not aware of the fact 
that our Federal deficit is growing each day. Perhaps they are not 
aware. So many have been in Washington for so long that they are out of 
touch with average citizens and the common sense that our citizens 
represent.
  My colleague, Mr. Sessions, offered an amendment that would maintain 
fiscal year 2011 authorization levels in the bill for 3 years instead 
of increasing them annually, but the Democrats on the Rules Committee 
rejected the amendment and did not allow for debate on it on the floor 
today.
  This bill is also being brought forth today under a structured rule, 
adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the 
Democrats have arbitrarily used since they have been in the majority. 
Even though an open rule was requested for this bill, Democrats have 
chosen to stifle and control the debate today, and so we have another 
structured rule before us, eliminating both Republicans' and Democrats' 
ability to offer important amendments affecting their constituents. 
With this structured rule, the Democrats in charge have blocked at 
least 13 amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee last 
night. If we had an open rule today, I am certain we would be debating 
many more.
  After promising to have the most open and honest Congress in history, 
why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are the 
Democrats, who are in charge and have a large majority, shutting off 
debate and silencing their colleagues from both sides of the aisle? Are 
they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their members from tough 
votes?
  Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in 
charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow 
their representatives to offer amendments on the floor of the people's 
House. The American people want to hear debate and are tired of the 
backroom dealmaking of the Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to say that my colleague talks about bipartisanship. And 
I want to say I can't understand how she can talk about a bipartisan 
bill, a bill that came out of the Science and Technology Committee with 
support from both sides of the aisle, and turn it into a partisan 
political fight. She is right, that is what Americans are tired of. And 
yet, during her statement she mentioned Democrats at least six times. I 
lost count after the sixth.
  This is not a partisan bill. This is a bipartisan bill that is 
necessary for the security of our country. That is what people sent us 
to Washington for. They send us to Washington to make sure that we take 
steps to ensure that their way of life continues and that they are safe 
and secure.
  This bill strategically places money into education so that we can 
educate the next generation of cyberwarfighters to protect the Internet 
and to protect people to be able to use the Internet.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Lujan).
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of H.R. 4061, the 
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009. I am a proud cosponsor of this 
bill, and I commend Congressman Lipinski for his work on this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, more and more Americans rely on the Internet every day. 
Businesses depend on it for commerce. Consumers depend on it to be able 
to engage in transactions to support small business all across this 
country. People network in hopes of finding a job or connecting with 
friends, exploring opportunities to find the financial means necessary 
to go to college. This means that every day more people rely on secure 
networks to keep their personal information safe to make sure that 
people aren't taking advantage of their privacy and exploiting them, 
exposing businesses to attacks, costing taxpayers thousands and 
thousands of

[[Page 1090]]

dollars, growing to millions and millions of dollars, with attacks 
every day.

                              {time}  1130

  We know that this costs the Federal Government money, Mr. Speaker, as 
more and more countries are looking to engage and find vulnerabilities 
in these networks just to do harm, to cost the American taxpayers more 
and more money. We need to make sure that we are truly investing and 
providing educational opportunities to young people, bringing in those 
who have some skill sets to teach them how to defend our country and 
defend business from all these cyber attacks that are costing us 
millions and millions of dollars every day. Because of our increasing 
dependence on technology, we must teach these students these important 
skills.
  One provision of this legislation we are debating today will help 
train the force by establishing the Federal Cyber Scholarship for 
Service program. During committee markup, I successfully included an 
amendment to address any regional disparities that may exist to make 
sure that we are truly looking across the country, in small communities 
and rural America, to find these experts that can help us protect our 
country to make sure that small businesses aren't subject to those 
attacks.
  My district in New Mexico is home to 17 different tribes, Mr. 
Speaker. New Mexico has 22. We need to make sure as they are developing 
their infrastructure that we provide them the opportunity to make sure 
they have these skill sets as well. We need to make sure that we are 
helping keep a vulnerable population engaged, that we are looking to 
create educational opportunities. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, 
that we are standing up to those nations, to those people around the 
world that continue to try to find ways to attack this Nation. They 
found a way through cybersecurity. They are finding ways to be able to 
cost commerce money, to prevent business from happening, to stifle 
small business from growing.
  We as a Congress need to make sure we stand with small businesses 
across the country and provide educational opportunities and work with 
them. I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I certainly agree with my colleague from New York that the bill 
itself is not a partisan bill. I am not talking about the bill. I am 
talking about the rule. This is a very partisan rule. It didn't need to 
be a partisan rule. All the majority had to do was allow for amendments 
on the floor and it wouldn't have been a partisan rule. So I need to 
remind him that that is where the partisanship comes in. We are here 
debating the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, while debt limit increases have been passed under both 
Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congresses, the acceleration 
in the accumulation of the debt that brought us to this point merits 
examination. In January of 2007, when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of 
the House, the statutory debt limit stood at $8.965 trillion. In less 
than 3 years, the debt limit has increased by more than 33 percent, 
representing an additional $1 trillion of debt per year. By comparison, 
the statutory debt limit, which stood at $40 billion in 1940, did not 
cross the $1 trillion mark until 1981.
  And it has been only 7 weeks since the Democrats voted to increase 
the debt limit by $290 billion on December 16, 2009. In that time, 
House Democrats have passed seven resolutions congratulating sports 
figures or teams; passed 23 resolutions honoring individuals, entities, 
or causes; passed five bills naming post offices; authorized $50 
million to construct a new national park in the Virgin Islands, but 
passed zero bills to reduce spending or lower the deficit. Clearly, 
they are not serious about this serious issue facing this country.
  Since taking office just 1 year ago, the President has increased the 
public debt by $1.47 trillion, or 23 percent, from $6.3 trillion to 
$7.78 trillion. Under the administration's budget, the public debt will 
triple, jumping to $17.5 trillion by 2019. Before President Obama's 
budget and stimulus were enacted, the CBO estimated that the public 
debt in 2019 would be $9.34 trillion, or $8 trillion less than it is 
now projected to be under President Obama.
  While the President touts his commitment to fiscal responsibility, he 
is encouraging Congress to pass a $1.9 trillion increase in the 
national debt limit, allowing the government to keep borrowing in order 
to keep on spending. The Senate has done it last week, and it is 
probably going to be brought to us tomorrow, where the Democrats will 
pass this. And I mention the Democrats being in charge and the 
Democrats doing this because it is important for the American people to 
know that the Democrats are doing this alone.
  While the decline in Federal revenue as a result of the economic 
slowdown has contributed to the increase in the debt, the significant 
increases in Federal spending have also contributed to reaching the 
debt limit faster than anticipated. Record government spending in the 
form of both the first stimulus bill and increases in appropriations 
bills has been a recurring theme of the majority, and it is their 
responsibility alone because they have done it alone.
  The record amounts of debt are a direct responsibility of a spending 
binge in the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House. In 1 year of 
controlling Washington, Democrats increased the annual deficit by 308 
percent, from $458 billion to $1.4 trillion.
  A quick review of Democrats' spending increases in 2009 shows why the 
deficit exploded. In that year alone, House Democrats passed $787 
billion in, quote, ``stimulus'' spending, in addition to paying $347 
billion in interest on borrowing money we don't have, two omnibus 
spending bills totaling more than $855 billion, and increased non-
defense spending by 12 percent. Again, totally alone.
  Faced with declining revenues, Democrats have pushed forward with the 
most irresponsible option by increasing spending and deficits rather 
than by lowering Federal expenditures. According to the House 
Appropriations Committee Republican staff, when all appropriations 
spending increases are combined, the Democrat majority has pumped over 
half a trillion dollars in additional spending into non-defense 
discretionary programs in three short years. This is over $512 billion, 
or 127 percent more money for non-defense discretionary programs than 
they received in the last year of GOP control of the Congress.
  In fact, the fiscal year deficit for just 2009 of $1.417 trillion is 
the largest ever, and three times the size of the previous record-
setting deficit, last year's figure of $458 billion. It is no wonder 
that we hear Democrats such as the House majority whip, who recently 
proclaimed, ``We have got to spend our way out of this recession.'' 
Statements like this make clear that the Democrats in charge have 
absolutely no concept of the value of money or how to meet a budget. It 
really is stunning that despite the economic turmoil caused by 
government spending too much, the ruling Democrats can't comprehend the 
consequences of spending money we don't have.
  Although some rigid partisans may choose to ignore the election of 
Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown and try blaming the current 
spending largesse on George Bush, it is true that since President 
Obama's inauguration, the U.S. has had an average monthly deficit of 
$122.6 billion. By comparison, from the year 2000 until 2008, the 
average annual deficit was $196 billion, and we were fighting a war. So 
the Democrats' solution for a terrible problem is to make it much worse 
and just blame it on the other guy.
  To that sentiment, Charles Krauthammer responds, ``Let's just get 
this straight: The antipathy to George Bush is so enduring and powerful 
that it just elected a Republican Senator in Massachusetts. Why, the 
man is omnipotent. And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by 
running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing 
the race, running hard against the Obama agenda.''
  Unfortunately, the trend of increased Federal deficits will not come 
to an

[[Page 1091]]

end under the President's new fiscal year 2011 budget. According to the 
President's own estimates, his budget and spending plan will cause 
deficits to average $905 billion for each of the next 10 years. Budget 
shortfalls incurred by the government fuel the rise in the Nation's 
debt because the government is forced to borrow money to meet the 
shortfall. In 2009, the budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, the first 
time in history the deficit exceeded $1 trillion, and the first time 
the deficit exceeded 10 percent of gross domestic product since World 
War II.
  The consequences of this kind of reckless spending are worth 
highlighting. Today the cost of the national debt is $39,870 for every 
man, woman, and child in the United States. According to the December 
2009 Monthly Treasury Report, the Federal Government is projected to 
spend $465.444 billion paying interest alone on the national debt in 
this fiscal year 2010. That amounts to $1.275 billion per day, or 
$1,530.75 for every one of the 304 million people living in the United 
States today. Just like paying interest on a credit card, these amounts 
are recurring and do nothing to actually reduce the debt principal.
  Ironically, in March of 2006, then-Senator Obama warned his 
colleagues of the danger of raising the debt limit without addressing 
the underlying cause, explaining that, quote, ``The fact that we are 
here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of 
leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its 
own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial 
assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless 
fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and 
internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, 
Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs 
of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a 
failure of leadership. America deserves better.'' President Obama was 
against raising the debt limit before he was for it. We agree with 
then-Senator Obama, but we disagree with President Obama.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is exactly what the American people are so tired of. My 
colleague talks about what the race in Massachusetts meant. It meant 
that people are tired with the partisan bickering. She just squandered 
all of the time that we could be here talking about cybersecurity and 
the importance of passing this bill with talking about politics. Of 
course she fails to point out the fact that much of the debt was 
incurred under President Bush, fails to point out the fact that now two 
wars are on the books.
  But that is not what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk 
about cybersecurity. And I want to read a quote for you. Just yesterday 
Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, testified before 
the Senate Intelligence Committee. And he said, ``Malicious cyber 
activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary 
sophistication.'' He went on to say, ``Sensitive information is stolen 
daily from both government and private sector networks, undermining 
confidence in our information systems, and in the very information 
these systems were intended to convey.'' These statements make clear 
that we cannot afford to maintain the status quo.
  In order to meet our enemies on the cyber front lines and repel their 
attacks, we must create a boot camp for our future cyber warfighters. 
The investments contained in H.R. 4061 will increase our cyber 
workforce development and continue to strengthen the public-private 
partnerships to defend the IT systems on which so much of our daily 
life relies. That is what the American people have sent us here to 
Washington to ensure. Cybersecurity enhancement contains the strategic 
plan necessary to focus our resources to meet the challenges which 
Director Blair spoke of yesterday.
  H.R. 4061 will also strengthen partnerships between the Federal 
Government and the private sector to guarantee a secure and reliable 
infrastructure. The benefit of existing public-private partnerships is 
also on display in Upstate New York, in my very district. The Air Force 
Research Laboratory Rome Research Site, the Rome Lab as we call it, 
hosts the main offices of the Air Force Research Lab's Information 
Directorate.
  Located at the former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, Rome Lab's 
scientists and engineers use the latest electronic and computer 
technology to demonstrate new ways to defend our information networks 
against attacks. In concert with Rome Lab, the Mohawk Valley is home to 
a number of companies that are engaged in cutting-edge cyber research, 
companies that will use the graduates who come out of college with 
degrees in cybersecurity. Large companies such as PAR Technology, BAE 
Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, and 
smaller, home grown companies, such as Dolphin Technology, Black River 
Systems, Assured Information Security, New York State Technology 
Enterprises Corporation, Syracuse Research Corporation, and Research 
Associates of Syracuse.

                              {time}  1145

  Together, the AFRL and these companies account for thousands of jobs 
in central New York; men and women doing critical research on our 
Nation to help fend off cyberattacks. There is no doubt that these 
companies and the critical public-private partnerships that they have 
formed with the Air Force Research Laboratory will benefit from this 
program. But, more importantly, it's the American people that will 
benefit from this program.
  The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act requires the White House Office of 
Science and Technology policy to convene an industrywide 
nongovernmental task force of businesses and universities to explore 
potential public-private collaborations on cybersecurity research and 
development. This will ensure that these collaborations continue to 
strengthen our Nation's cyberdefenses. That is what we are here to 
debate. That is what the American people sent us to Congress for. And 
that is what we need to pass today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. It's time for our colleagues to accept accountability. 
They've been in the majority for 3 years but they continue to blame 
George Bush in the same breath that they accuse me of being partisan. 
Since the Democrats regained the majority in the House, I have heard a 
number of Members come down to the floor and quote Supreme Court 
Justice Brandeis, saying, ``Sunlight is said to be the best 
disinfectant.'' That quote is quite fitting today, considering that as 
we speak the majority has been drafting, behind closed doors, no 
sunshine in sight, health care legislation that will affect every 
American. What is going on behind these closed doors? We really do not 
know. We don't even know who is at the table. The American people 
deserve to know what is going on behind closed doors. We need to bring 
in the sunlight to a process that is shrouded with secrecy.
  That's why I, along with a bipartisan group of 171 other Members, 
have cosponsored H. Res. 847, a resolution by my friend and colleague 
Representative Buchanan, that expresses the sense of the House of 
Representatives that any meetings held to determine the final content 
of sweeping health care legislation be held in public view and not 
behind closed doors.
  In order to help bring sunshine to a process that the majority 
continues to hide from public view, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote 
on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the 
House to consider the Buchanan transparency resolution. This vote will 
give Members of the majority the chance to live up to their promise, as 
Speaker Pelosi said, ``to lead the most honest, most open, and most 
ethical Congress in history.'' I know that Members are concerned that 
this motion may jeopardize consideration of the bill under 
consideration today, but I want to make clear: The motion I'm making 
provides for separate consideration of the transparency

[[Page 1092]]

resolution within 3 days so we can vote on the bill before us today, 
and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 847.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the first rule that they 
teach you in trial advocacy class, and that is when you're trying a 
case and you don't have the facts on your side, talk about everything 
but the facts. And I feel that's what my colleague from North Carolina 
is doing today. Rather than say that we can work together in a 
bipartisan way on a bill that is good for all Americans, she would 
rather talk about everything else that there is. Well, we're not here 
to talk about everything else today. We are here to talk about 
cybersecurity and the importance of passing this bill for the American 
people.
  As I said earlier, investing in cybersecurity is the Manhattan 
Project of our generation. Cyberthreats and attacks are real, and they 
threaten our financial and defense networks every day. Nearly every 
aspect of everyday life in our global society is dependent on the 
security of our cyber networks. We rely on these systems to carry 
virtually all our business transactions, control our electric grid, 
emergency communication systems, and traffic lights.
  The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act reauthorizes and expands the 
programs aimed at strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity, including a 
new scholarship program to train the thousands of cybersecurity 
professionals that are needed to defend our Nation. In requiring a 
cybersecurity workforce assessment, this bill will also give us a 
clearer picture of our current cybercapabilities and identify what new 
skills and educational advances are needed in both the Federal 
Government and the private sector to combat future attacks.
  H.R. 4061 requires NIST to undertake research and development 
programs to improve identity management systems, which include health 
information technology systems, in order to improve interoperability, 
authentication methods, privacy protection, and usability of these 
systems. These systems hold great potential for streamlining the 
delivery of services and care to individuals, but they must be secure 
in order to function properly and efficiently. This legislation will 
ensure that they are.
  From the perspective of my district in upstate New York, it plays a 
critical role in our Nation's cybersecurity, and this research and 
development work is often discussed publicly. Yet, the work done by 
contractors, subcontractors, and universities, in conjunction with 
Federal agencies, employs thousands across New York in cutting-edge 
R&D. But, more importantly, they are essential to defending America 
from cyberterrorist attacks and espionage. It is essential these 
public-private partnerships continue to flourish and they have the 
necessary manpower in place to protect our Nation from these threats.
  The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act will make that happen not just for 
New York, but across the Nation. This is not a program for which we can 
afford to ask, How can we do this, but a program for which we must ask, 
How can we afford not to do this?
  H.R. 4061 is supported by numerous organizations, including the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, Business Software Alliance, Software and 
Information Industry Association, National Cable and Telecommunications 
Association, U.S. Telecom, TechAmerica, and Computing Research 
Association. This legislation enjoyed bipartisan support in committee, 
and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

             Amendment to H. Res. 1051 Offered by Ms. Foxx

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. 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. 847) expressing the 
     sense of the House of Representatives that any conference 
     committee or other meetings held to determine the content of 
     national health care legislation be conducted in public under 
     the watchful eye of the people of the United States. The 
     resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution 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 chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit which 
     may not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall 
     not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 847.
                                  ____

       (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. ARCURI. 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.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. 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,

[[Page 1093]]

this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed 
by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 1051, if ordered; and 
suspending the rules with regard to H. Res. 1043, H. Res. 901, and H. 
Res. 1044.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 175, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 29]

                               YEAS--238

     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)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     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
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     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)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     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
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     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
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--175

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     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
     Kline (MN)
     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
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     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)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (SC)
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal (GA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gutierrez
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Massa
     Murtha
     Radanovich
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Serrano
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1218

  Messrs. TERRY, SMITH of Texas, WHITFIELD, and SMITH of Nebraska 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 176, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               AYES--237

     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)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     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)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     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
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--176

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn

[[Page 1094]]


     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     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
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     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
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     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)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal (GA)
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Massa
     Murtha
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1227

  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.

                          ____________________