[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18485-18492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 3307, HEALTHY, HUNGER-FREE KIDS ACT 
                                OF 2010

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1742 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1742

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 3307) 
     to reauthorize child nutrition programs, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule 
     XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1742.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H. Res. 1742 provides a closed rule for consideration of S. 3307, the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The rule provides 1 hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  The rules waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. The rule provides 
that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points 
of order against provisions of the bill. Finally, the rule provides one 
motion to recommit the bill with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin, as many of my colleagues know, my 
colleague from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has decided not to 
seek reelection and move on to other endeavors in his home State of 
Florida. I just want to publicly thank him for his friendship over the 
years, and also thank him for his great service not only to the people 
of Florida but to the people of this country. This may be the last rule 
that we handle together, so I wanted to take this opportunity simply to 
acknowledge his service and to thank him.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to pass a very good bill 
that will improve the lives of our children. And I believe that we must 
seize that opportunity.
  I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Miller, Congresswoman 
DeLauro, Congresswoman McCarthy, and others who have worked so hard on 
this issue. And I want to say a special thank you to First Lady 
Michelle Obama. She has been an incredible champion for our children, 
particularly in the areas of nutrition and obesity.

                              {time}  1110

  She has challenged us to live up to one of our highest moral 
obligations--to make sure that the children of this Nation have the 
nutritious food they need to grow, to thrive, and to succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I chair both the House 
Hunger Caucus and the Congressional Hunger Center, and I've said many 
times that hunger is a political condition. We have the resources to 
end hunger, particularly childhood hunger, and what we need is the 
political will to make it happen.
  President Obama has pledged to end childhood hunger in America by 
2015. If we support that goal, then we must pass this bill. I hope that 
the Members of this House, all of us, Democrats and Republicans, can 
come together today to summon the political will necessary to move 
forward on this issue.
  There is not a single community in America that is hunger free. Talk 
to any food bank. They will tell you that the demand has never been 
greater, and far too many of the people who need help are children.
  The child nutrition bill that we will take up today gives us a chance 
to provide healthy meals to hundreds of thousands of children who need 
them. It's also important to remember that hunger and obesity are two 
sides of the same coin. The fact is that highly processed, empty 
calorie foods are less expensive than fresh, nutritious foods. That's 
why so many families are forced to make unhealthy choices. This bill 
increases the reimbursement to schools for meals by 6 cents a meal, 6 
cents, and that's the first increase in 30 years.
  Too often, the only nutritious food our kids get is in a school 
setting, and this bill also increases access to after-school programs. 
And the bill helps communities to establish farm-to-school networks, 
which are not just good for children, but they're also good for our 
local farmers.
  Now, it's no secret, Mr. Speaker, that I've had concerns with how 
this bill is paid for, and I remind my colleagues that this bill is 
fully paid for. The cuts to the SNAP, or food stamp, program don't make 
a lot of sense to me. I don't believe we should be taking access to 
food away from some people in order to provide it for others. But we 
have been assured, repeatedly, by the President and the White House 
that they will work with us to restore these cuts, and I look forward 
to working with the administration and my colleagues to make sure that 
the White House lives up to that commitment. Quite frankly, if I did 
not believe that this commitment to restore SNAP funding was real, I 
would have had a hard time voting for the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, this exact same piece of legislation, passed 
unanimously in the Senate. Every single Member in the Senate, including 
a Who's Who of the most conservative Republicans, voted for 
reauthorizing our child nutrition programs. Unfortunately, from what I 
heard in the Rules Committee last night, that probably won't happen 
today in the House.
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have no problem 
expanding wasteful weapons systems. They have no problem expanding tax 
cuts for millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street, but apparently, 
some of them have a problem with expanding access to nutritious food 
for our children.
  They say it's an outrageous example of Big Government or that a high 
school basketball team would be prohibited from having a bake sale. 
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. As the president of the national PTA has 
said, ``The measure will effectively eliminate the constant presence of 
junk food in school while allowing reasonable practices like periodic 
PTA or other school group fundraisers, such as bake sales, and the sale 
of hot dogs and sodas at after-school sporting events.''

[[Page 18486]]

  An extra few million for a hedge fund manager who doesn't need it? No 
problem, so my Republican friends say, but heaven forbid we spend 
another 6 cents to make sure our kids have a more healthy school lunch. 
Those may be their priorities, Mr. Speaker, but they're not mine, and 
they're not the priorities of the people in my district.
  Some of my friends on the other side will say that they want no 
children in our country to go hungry. Fair enough. Here's their 
opportunity to put their vote where their rhetoric is. Here's their 
opportunity to demonstrate that their concern for the hungry in this 
country is more than just lip service.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the politics here. It's pretty simple. If 
the President's for it, my Republican friends are against it. But I 
would ask them and I would plead with them to check those politics at 
the door just this once. Please don't sacrifice an opportunity to 
improve the lives of millions of our children on the altar of partisan 
politics.
  The need to act is clear. Our moral obligation is clear. Our children 
are getting sicker and sicker and sicker. If kids don't have enough 
nutritious food to eat they don't learn. We are wasting millions and 
millions of dollars on health care for diseases like diabetes and heart 
disease that are preventable with healthier diets.
  Today, we could begin to turn that tide. Please join us in doing the 
right thing. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume, and I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) for yielding me the time.
  First, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I don't know if I will have the 
privilege again of speaking on this floor while you're presiding, and I 
want to thank you for your service and especially for your friendship.
  And to Mr. McGovern, I thank him for his kind words. I said a few 
days ago in some remarks here on the floor that this is a great honor 
of being a Member of Congress of the United States I will never forget, 
and for the rest of my days, I will feel that honor. And I thanked all 
of my colleagues, those who have helped me during the years here and 
the many battles that I've been involved in, and those who have opposed 
me. And so I think it's appropriate to point to the example of the 
graciousness demonstrated by Mr. McGovern. We've had very strong 
debates on this floor, and yet, he demonstrated that graciousness once 
again today. I thank him for his words, and as I did the other day, I 
thank all of my colleagues, those who have agreed with me and those who 
have opposed me, for the great honor of having been able to serve along 
with them here in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing the issue of the effect of the 
debt on the economic reality of the American people, and as a matter of 
fact as this Congress starts reaching an end, I think it's appropriate 
to bring forth the fact to remind our colleagues that this is going to 
be, I believe, the first Congress where we have not seen even one open 
rule. So we stand here today with another piece of legislation being 
brought to the floor with no amendments allowed by the Rules Committee 
and, in this case, a product from the Senate before us that has had 
absolutely no input from Members of the House.
  I think that all of us in this House, certainly an overwhelming 
majority of the membership of the House, would support--I certainly 
do--the continuation and reauthorization of reduced and free school 
food programs. The bill before us unfortunately does not improve upon 
the current situation in that regard.

                              {time}  1120

  In fact, the bipartisan National Governors Association has outlined 
several problems that they have with this underlying legislation, and I 
was reading some hours ago their objections. Governors Ritter of 
Colorado and Rell of Connecticut highlighted new certification and 
monitoring mandates that will be forced on States by this legislation 
in order for the States to be able to continue their important 
participation in these programs.
  Actually, I was disturbed to learn from the bipartisan National 
Governors Association that the underlying legislation sets a federally 
mandated minimum price that school districts must pay for meals. In the 
past, if a school district negotiated lower food costs, that was 
considered applying smart business practices by the school districts. 
But no longer. With a mandatory minimum, school districts are now going 
to have to pay more for their food programs, which of course will be 
passed along to middle class families in the form of higher meal costs.
  So I think, in reality, what we are seeing in this legislation is a 
tax increase on working families. Unfortunately, a substitute that was 
brought forth in the Rules Committee by the minority, by Ranking Member 
Kline, which would have reauthorized these important programs, was not 
allowed to be offered. That substitute amendment would have extended 
and strengthened the existing important programs but would have avoided 
the new mandates on States and communities.
  There is another issue, Mr. Speaker, that I think is important to 
bring out. In order to pay for the new programs in this legislation, 
the congressional majority decided to use previously appropriated 
funding intended for the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp funds were 
provided under the so-called stimulus legislation, so it's as though 
the majority is admitting that taxpayer dollars were incorrectly spent, 
and they are now using those stimulus funds to pay for these programs.
  The stimulus bill was not subject to the so-called PAYGO requirements 
because the majority labeled it as ``emergency spending.'' Under the 
rules of the House, emergency spending cannot be used as a PAYGO offset 
for future spending because it was never originally offset. As a 
result, the rule that we are debating must again waive the important 
PAYGO requirements.
  Now, I know it's difficult to follow. I was trying to understand it 
in the Rules Committee last night. But the end result is that this bill 
is paid for by funds that are borrowed by the Federal Government. So I 
guess we could say that we are voting to provide our children with 
nutritious school lunches which will be paid to foreign entities in the 
future, with interest, foreign entities from which we are borrowing 
funds, thus adding to our national debt and imposing new fees on 
families.
  By the way, we could have reauthorized these programs without adding 
to our national debt and imposing new fees on families. Adding to our 
national debt in that way and imposing new fees on families is not the 
solution to improving the Nation's school meal programs at a time when, 
obviously, many are struggling.
  At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just respond to my colleague briefly by saying, 
when he talks about borrowing, I can't help but be reminded of the fact 
that my friends on the other side of the aisle have borrowed countless 
billions of dollars to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and 
billionaires. They have no problem with doing that. They have no 
problem with borrowing money to pay for wars. That all goes onto our 
credit card. They have no problem with that.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is improving the quality of 
nutritious food that our kids will have access to. In doing so, we 
accomplish a number of things.
  One is we end up with healthier kids who, quite frankly, will grow up 
to be healthier adults, which--guess what?--will cost less to our 
public systems. We are ensuring when our kids get healthy meals that 
they can learn better in school. I don't think there is any debate--
maybe there is on that side of the aisle--about the fact that there is 
a tie between kids' ability to concentrate and learn and having 
adequate food and having healthy food.
  So I would say to my colleague Mr. Diaz-Balart, we are paying for it, 
and

[[Page 18487]]

I know we are paying for it because I don't like the offset. I don't 
like the fact that the offset that the Senate gave us was in the SNAP 
Program. I've been fighting that offset. That is a real offset and it 
has real consequences. It is one of the reasons we are lobbying the 
White House: to find an alternative offset.
  But let's not diminish the fact that, by passing this bill, we are 
actually saving this government countless billions, if not trillions, 
of dollars down the road by making sure that our kids have access to 
nutritious food in the school setting.
  At this point, I yield 3 minutes to a valued member of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and would like to 
join him in expressing my great honor in having served with the 
gentleman from Florida.
  It is my hope that he and I have another opportunity to manage a rule 
together. It is my expectation we will have the opportunity to manage 
another rule together. But in the event that that doesn't happen, I 
would like to express my warm wishes for his continued success in his 
future. I very much look forward to seeing what the gentleman from 
Florida will be involved with next, and I look forward to staying in 
touch and in close contact for many years in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free 
Kids Act of 2010. The passage of this bill, which would reauthorize the 
Child Nutrition Act, is critical to our Nation's children--to their 
health and well-being and to their academic success in school. Making 
sure that our children get a world-class education can't be 
accomplished if our children don't get the proper nutrition to make it 
through the day and learn.
  I have a background of involvement in public education, both as the 
superintendent of a charter school I started as well as the chairman of 
the Colorado State Board of Education. I have tasted and eaten many 
school lunches. I have seen firsthand how the lack of access to 
nutritious food prevents too many kids from reaching their full 
potential--intellectually, academically, and physically.
  Childhood hunger and poor nutrition are two of the greatest public 
health challenges--and yes, education challenges--that face our 
country. Nearly one-third of American children are overweight or obese, 
and many of those who are overweight or obese also suffer from 
malnutrition. This number has been on the rise nationally as well as in 
my home State of Colorado.
  This bill tackles both hunger and obesity by addressing access to 
food and the nutritional quality of food, and I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of the House version of this bill. This bill 
facilitates a coordinated approach across all levels of government, the 
private sector, communities, school districts, and families to make 
real positive change.
  Specifically, this bill ensures up to 115,000 more eligible children 
access to school meals through direct certification, reduces paperwork, 
makes qualification easier, and creates savings for school districts. 
It increases the lunch reimbursement rate by 6 cents per meal. That is 
the first real increase in over 30 years. It requires updated Federal 
nutritional standards for school meals, strengthens local school 
wellness policies, and continues to provide schools with increased 
resources and training to improve meal quality.
  In particular, I am pleased that this bill will strengthen school 
districts' wellness policies. These provisions, which I introduced in 
the House in H.R. 5090, the Nutrition Education and Wellness in 
Schools, or NEW Schools Act, were also supported by the White House 
Task Force on Child Obesity report and included in the bill.
  Our schools should be our first defense against childhood obesity and 
unhealthy nutrition habits that stay with kids as they mature into 
adults and even have an intergenerational effect across their lives. 
While hunger affects people of all ages, it is particularly devastating 
for children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. POLIS. Overall, this is a very strong bill that makes the 
necessary and responsible investments and that represents a critical 
step in answering President Obama and First Lady Obama's call to end 
childhood hunger. For the sake of the health and well-being of our 
Nation's schoolchildren and our future, I urge my colleagues to support 
the rule and to pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to my friend from New York (Mr. Lee), who is the author 
of the proposal that we will be discussing subsequently, the YouCut 
proposal.
  Mr. LEE of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The American people are truly frustrated, and we saw that in the 
November election. They are demanding that Congress start to do what 
they were brought here for, and that is to get our fiscal house in 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, I introduced the STOP the Overprinting Act earlier this 
year as a commonsense way to cut spending in Washington, and I 
appreciate your support in selecting it as this week's YouCut winner.
  When a Member of Congress today introduces or cosponsors a bill, we 
receive five printed copies of the legislation, regardless of the 
length. The best example I can show is the 2,000-plus page health care 
bill that stands here. So, in essence, you would be getting 10,000 
copies of paper in your office when, in fact, each office has it 
readily accessible online--a waste of money. This bill was introduced 
months ago, and we finally now have an opportunity to do something 
about this needless spending that's going on.
  When the bill was introduced, just on this bill alone, the Government 
Printing Office had to print nearly a half million pieces of paper. 
Again, that's just on one single piece of legislation. In this last 
Congress, we've had more than 14,000 bills that were introduced--a lot 
of unnecessary cost and waste when the American people keep scratching 
their head as to what's going on in Washington. We have a very simple 
way to save money. This week's YouCut vote will save $35 million over 
the next 10 years.
  The unfortunate thing about Washington is that unless that amount has 
either a ``B'' or a ``T'' after it, bureaucrats are ignoring it. That 
has got to stop, and that's why we saw such a huge change in the 
November election.
  Simply put, we've got the information online. Let's start doing what 
the private sector has been doing for years--going paperless. This is a 
very simple way to do it. We've got to start managing a budget and 
doing what the private sector is doing and looking for every way that 
we can start saving a dollar. Starting now, we truly can change that 
attitude in Washington and start cutting wasteful spending by 
supporting this YouCut bill.
  Over the past several months, House Republicans have been stressing 
this for some time, and we have proposed over $155 billion in savings 
for taxpayers through this YouCut initiative. Despite the more than 2.5 
million votes cast, Republicans--and those of you who have cast your 
votes through YouCut--have been met with a lost resistance on the other 
side. Hopefully, that will change.
  Again, thank you for your vote and for your participation in cutting 
Washington spending through this YouCut initiative.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca), who will focus on the important issue of child 
nutrition.
  Mr. BACA. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I thank the 
gentleman from Florida and wish him the very best of luck in his 
future. He has been a good friend and a terrific legislator, too, as 
well here.
  I rise in support of S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
  Too many families are struggling to put food on the table. There are 
40 million people going hungry in the United

[[Page 18488]]

States right now. We recently passed the SNAP program. We recently put 
stimulus money to increase the SNAP program to provide food for many 
individuals. There is 9.6 percent unemployment in the United States, 14 
percent in my district alone. These are individuals that are struggling 
to put food on the table.
  Can you imagine a child that does not have the ability to put food in 
their stomach? One in four American children are currently at risk of 
going hungry. You have to feel what a person who is actually going 
hungry and doesn't know where their meal is coming from. And one in 
three American children are either overweight or obese. When we talk 
about it's going to cost the taxpayers money, no, it's actually going 
to save the taxpayers money in the long run because it's costing us, 
right now, $147 billion in what we are paying for obesity right now. It 
would reduce our health costs in that area, reduce our costs overall.
  As chair of the House Agriculture Committee on Nutrition, I chaired 
hearings both in Washington and in California to explore ways to fight 
childhood obesity and increase access to healthy food. Today's 
legislation offers a step forward in addressing both child hunger and 
obesity. This bill expands the after school and summer meals programs, 
better connects eligible children with free meal benefits, improves and 
expands the school breakfast programs, extends the WIC certification 
period for children, and puts more fresh fruits and vegetables into our 
schools.
  We passed the No Child Left Behind. Well, can you imagine a child 
going to school and having to pass a test?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. BACA. Many children have a difficult time passing a lot of these 
tests because they're going hungry.
  None of us are pleased with the cuts to the SNAP program made by this 
bill, but I am committed to work with the administration and my 
colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee to ensure that we fully 
fund the SNAP program.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up with our children and pass this 
much-needed legislation. I ask you to support this.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, on Election Day, the American people sent a very clear 
and unmistakable message--that it is time to reduce the size of 
government and to cut spending. In fact, they have been demanding that 
we take these steps for some time, but unfortunately the leadership in 
this Congress has been unwilling to listen.
  The Republicans in this House have heard the calls of the American 
people and earlier this year began a YouCut program in which the 
American people actually get to choose specific spending cuts that we 
attempt to bring to the floor. We understand the need to change the 
culture around here from one of spending to one of fiscal discipline, 
cutting spending and ending the practice of piling a mountain of debt 
onto future generations.
  Today's YouCut looks to end the practice of wasteful spending by 
eliminating the mandatory printing of all congressional bills and 
resolutions by the Government Printing Office, potentially saving over 
$35 million over the next 10 years. Certainly that is something that we 
can all agree is a commonsense cut.
  I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the 
previous question so that we can have the opportunity to bring this 
commonsense spending cut to the floor. If they do not intend to join us 
in the effort to end the spending now, American taxpayers can rest 
assured that our new Republican majority will bring this cut and many, 
many others, Mr. Speaker, forward in the next Congress as we endeavor 
to get America's fiscal house in order.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlewoman that 
when they are in charge next year, I am happy to support her in 
eliminating excessive paperwork. But I wish she and others would 
understand the importance of what we are discussing here today, feeding 
hungry kids, making sure that our children get nutritious meals at 
schools. I mean, I've got to be honest with you. I think that's a hell 
of a lot more important. The fact that, to some of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, this appears as if it's some sort of a trivial 
issue tells me that they haven't been to food banks and they haven't 
been in some of their schools talking to teachers and talking to the 
people who oversee the food service program about the challenges that 
so many school districts face in providing healthy meals to our kids.
  We all talk about how we want to control health care costs. Let's 
give our kids healthy food in school settings. That will do more to 
control health care costs and ensure that kids will have a healthy 
adulthood. You want to deal with the issue of better test scores? 
Making sure kids have a good, nutritious meal in a school setting is 
one of the ways to do that.

                              {time}  1140

  That's an important issue. This is a big deal what we're talking 
about here today. This is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation that has come to this floor, and I would appreciate if my 
friends on the other side of the aisle would join us in supporting this 
underlying bill so we can get it on the President's desk at the end of 
the day to get him to sign this so we can move forward in an area that 
is of great importance.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who's been a champion on 
this and so many issues dealing with food insecurity and hunger and 
good nutrition.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. And I might just say to the prior 
speaker on the other side of the aisle that the American people did not 
vote to cut food for kids in our country. They voted to cut the tax 
cuts that are provided to the corporate special interests in this 
Nation, which the other side of the aisle seems to have no problem 
with.
  I rise today in support of this rule. The Hunger-Free Kids Act 
represents a long overdue, a much-needed recommitment to the health and 
to the well-being of our schoolchildren. We all know the double-edged 
problems that millions of young people currently face.
  Today's kids are threatened by both a growing obesity epidemic, and 
far too many struggling families in this economy are facing gnawing 
hunger. According to a recent report, one out of every four young 
adults is too overweight to serve in our military. At the same time, 
according to the Food Research Action Center, one out of every four 
households with children experienced food hardship this year--meaning 
they did not have the money to purchase the food their families needed.
  Don't let people fool you with words like ``food hardship'' and 
``food insecurity.'' It results in hunger. Kids in this Nation are 
going to bed hungry every single night.
  This bill marks a significant step forward against both fronts of 
this dangerous pincer movement. By expanding access to and emphasizing 
good nutrition for all schoolchildren, this bill will reduce hunger. It 
will reduce obesity. The Hunger-Free Kids Act will add 115,000 new 
students into the school meals program by using Medicaid data to 
certify eligible kids. It will provide an additional 21 million meals a 
year by reimbursing providers for after-school meals to low-income 
children.
  While expanding access to meal programs, this bill also works to 
improve the nutritional quality of all of the food in our schools. It 
sets national nutrition standards that will finally get all of the junk 
food infiltrating our classrooms and our cafeterias out the door. And 
for those schools who comply with these revised nutrition standards, it 
provides the first real reimbursement rate increase--6 cents a meal.

[[Page 18489]]

And that is the largest increase we have seen in over 30 years.
  This bill will also strengthen the farm-to-school networks so that 
more healthy produce, local foods, even the foods that are grown in the 
school gardens can find their way into the menus.
  Our kids consume roughly 35 to 50 percent of their daily calories 
during the school day. By passing this bill, we can help see they are 
getting enough nutritious food to stay healthy, to grow, to learn, to 
succeed.
  Given the current economic climate, I know some will ask, How can we 
afford this bill? I say how can we afford not to pass it? Leaving 
millions of children hungry and malnourished in the name of budget-
cutting is penny wise, pound foolish, and is unconscionable--especially 
from those who would now say let's provide the richest 2 percent of the 
people in this Nation with a tax cut of over $100,000 a year. They're 
eating well, they're eating high on the hog, and kids are going to bed 
hungry every night in our Nation.
  Countless studies have shown that kids with access to a nutritious 
breakfast learn more and perform better in school. From the very 
beginning, I have been working, and others have been working, to expand 
access to Federal aid, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program--yes, the food stamp program--for eligible children. We want to 
make sure that all of our kids have access to the nutrition that they 
need for a healthy future.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Using the food stamp as an offset at a time when one in 
five kids receives food stamp assistance moves us away from that goal.
  Nevertheless, this legislation is a big step forward. I, for one, and 
others have said we will continue to push to see that the SNAP funding 
is restored; we will work with the White House to make sure those funds 
are restored. I'm happy to see the Congress moving in the right 
direction today and pledge to fight to continue to have access to the 
resources that will allow us to have all kids who are eligible for 
these resources have the accessibility to gain these resources.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule. Nothing that we 
do in this body is as important as ensuring that our children, our 
grandchildren, and the next generation of Americans have the tools, the 
opportunities and the nutrition that they need to thrive and to 
succeed. Our kids deserve no less.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to 
point out I think it's important to clarify that if our proposal today, 
the YouCut proposal, to eliminate for the taxpayer unnecessary spending 
on paperwork, if that's adopted it would not negate in any way 
consideration of the underlying bill on the lunch programs.
  At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I applaud the 
first lady, Michelle Obama, for her efforts in childhood obesity. I 
hail from the State of West Virginia, which has probably some of the 
highest percentages of childhood obesity; and I think the issue in the 
underlying bill is tremendously important for our Nation and for the 
future, as is the nutritional aspects of that.
  And as the gentleman from Florida said, I'm going to talk on the 
YouCut because I believe cutting spending and not passing on 
generational debt to those same children is an important issue as well.
  Over the last few months, millions of Americans have used YouCut as a 
way to voice their concerns over the out-of-control spending in 
Washington, and many have offered their own solutions on how the 
government can be more efficient and more accountable. Unfortunately, 
most of these have fallen on deaf ears as the Congress has voted 
repeatedly not to try to rein in the spending of taxpayer dollars, and 
we simply cannot continue down this path. Each week we have brought a 
simple, yet effective way to cut spending before the House, and it has 
failed every time.
  So today I will support eliminating the requirement to print copies 
of every single bill and resolution--imagine how many pages that is--
that's been introduced in Congress because all of these are already 
available online.
  I want to congratulate Mr. Lee of New York for bringing forth this 
proposal. This will save millions of dollars over the next decade--a 
small number in the grand scheme of things--but nevertheless a 
significant start.
  There is no question that cutting the deficit will require some tough 
decisions on our part, but let's start out now on one which everyone 
can agree, and I think this should be one of them.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When my friends talk about passing on to future generations debt, I 
can't help but wonder where they were when President Bush passed these 
tax cuts that added over a trillion dollars to our debt, totally unpaid 
for, most of it going to millionaires and billionaires. And I want to 
know where they are right now, they want to extend the tax cuts for 
millionaires and billionaires and they still don't want to pay for it.
  But somehow when it comes to debt and piling it on to future 
generations, when it comes to tax cuts for very wealthy people, they're 
silent. Where were they when President Bush at 2 o'clock in the 
morning, they kept a roll call open for 3 hours and passed a Medicare 
prescription drug bill that cost hundreds of billions of dollars that 
was totally unpaid for. That cost a lot more than was advertised. 
Totally silent.
  Where are they when some of us are saying, we ought to pay for these 
wars. If you want them, you ought to pay for them or end them. I'd 
prefer to end them, but for those who want them you ought to pay for 
them. They're silent.
  When it comes to closing loopholes for big corporations that 
routinely stick it to the American people, no, no, we can't do that. 
Even though it might save money for taxpayers, we can put it toward 
deficit reduction. No, no, no. Those are very wealthy special 
interests. They want to protect them, whether it's Big Oil or big 
pharmaceuticals or whatever, at any cost.

                              {time}  1150

  So when I hear them talk about debt, I am reminded of the fact that 
when President Clinton left office we had a surplus. They ran this 
place and drove this economy into a ditch. And quite frankly, it's been 
a nightmare trying to dig us out of this ditch.
  And I give the President great credit for his courage in trying to 
move this country forward in the area of health care, and today in the 
area of trying to move this bill forward on child nutrition. So they 
have no credibility when it comes to talking about reducing deficits or 
debt.
  And, in fact, as we speak, they are trying to figure out a way I 
think probably to defeat this bill, to take the money that this bill 
costs, the offsets for this bill, take that money and put it toward tax 
cuts for rich people. I mean, that's what they want do.
  So again, I would urge my colleagues to understand the importance of 
what we are doing today. We are trying to make sure that our kids get 
healthy food and nutritious food in school settings. We are trying to 
pave the way for healthy futures for our kids. We want to make sure our 
kids can learn better. This is important stuff that we are talking 
about here today, and I would urge all my colleagues to support the 
rule and to support the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I 
believe it's fitting that those of us on this side of the aisle are 
bringing forward another proposal, a YouCut proposal that's been voted 
on and recommended to this House by a significant number of our 
constituents. They continue to sound the alarm on government spending, 
and we must, this Congress must finally listen.
  To date, participants in Republican Whip Cantor's YouCut initiative 
have voted to cut over $180 billion in spending. This week, those 
participating

[[Page 18490]]

have voted for a proposal by Congressman Lee of New York, who we heard 
from before, to end the unnecessary printing of congressional bills and 
resolutions.
  I think it's appropriate that we finally acknowledge the existence of 
the Internet, and that much unnecessary spending is taking place 
through the printing of documents. That was appropriate and logical in 
the past, but not after the development of many new technologies.
  So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
so we can have a vote on Congressman Lee's proposal. And again, I 
remind my colleagues that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will 
not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation that we have 
been debating today.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the text of the amendment 
and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
  Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends will do what they 
always do. They will come up with some stunts to try to get us to delay 
or to not pass this bill today. That's just what they do. And the fact 
is that if we change this underlying bill in any way--and I would urge 
my colleagues to be prepared for probably an uncomfortable or an ugly 
motion to recommit later on in the debate. But if any of their 
procedural stunts prevail, then we will end up not passing this bill--
the Senate will not consider an amended child nutrition bill; it ends 
it right here and now--and that would be a tragedy.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stop the 
politics just for a few minutes and do the right thing when it comes to 
this child nutrition bill. This is a bill that will improve access for 
our kids. This is a bill that increases the focus on nutrition quality 
and on children's health. It is a bill that will improve program 
management and program integrity. It is fully paid for at no cost to 
the taxpayers.
  And I would say to my colleagues on the Democratic side who are 
concerned about the current offset, that we have a commitment from the 
White House to fix that in a future vehicle so that the offset is not 
the SNAP cuts. But the underlying bill here is a good bill, is a good 
bill that will mean a world of difference for hundreds of thousands, if 
not millions, of our kids all throughout this country. Making sure that 
hungry kids get at least one, hopefully more than one nutritious meal a 
day in a school setting is something we all should be for. It should 
not be the subject of partisan politics.
  Making sure our kids get healthy, nutritious food and not junk in 
school should be a priority of all of ours, Republican and Democrat 
alike. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. I mean, the fact that we are 
here today and there is some controversy around this bill tells me that 
it's just politics as usual. My friends on the Republican side don't 
like it because the President likes it. Well, you know what? That's 
been the routine throughout the entire tenure of this President. But 
for once, for once, just put the party politics aside and do what's 
right.
  I cochair the House Hunger Caucus and the Congressional Hunger 
Center. Hunger is a problem in this country. There are tens of millions 
of our citizens who are hungry. Seventeen million children in this 
country, the United States of America, the richest country on this 
planet, are hungry. It's a national disgrace. All of us in this 
Congress should be ashamed of that fact, that we haven't been able to 
help be part of the solution in a more significant way. This is one way 
that we can be part of that solution.
  I have a list of national organizations and State organizations, too 
many to put in the Congressional Record, but it is significant. The 
support across this country for this legislation is significant.
  I want to thank the Speaker of the House and Chairman George Miller 
and Rosa DeLauro and Carolyn McCarthy and Barbara Lee and so many 
others who have been part of this legislation. I want to thank Senator 
Blanche Lincoln, who was a champion of this legislation over in the 
Senate.
  But we must act today. We must do what's right for our kids, not for 
our political party, but for our kids. So enough of the stunts. Let's 
say ``no'' to all the stunts today. Let's say ``yes'' to this important 
child nutrition reauthorization bill, ``yes'' to a healthier future for 
our kids, ``yes'' to making sure they can better learn in school, 
``yes'' to developing better and healthier habits that will last them a 
lifetime. This is a good, this is an important bill. This is a big deal 
today. This is a huge deal, and everybody should join and support the 
final passage of the bill.
  So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I 
urge my colleagues not to fall for any motion to recommit stunts when 
the bill is under consideration.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the program, YouCut 
has offered the potential for Republicans and Democrats to join 
together to begin tackling America's unsustainable fiscal situation. 
That's why I was encouraged yesterday when President Obama embraced an 
idea originally chosen by YouCut voters by declaring a freeze on all 
non-military Federal employee salaries for the next two years.
  This proposal was not an easy one for the President to make, nor was 
it a pain-free vote for House Republicans when we offered it back in 
May, as there are thousands of Federal employees who do important work 
for our country. But make no mistake, no one said that getting America 
back to opportunity, responsibility and success was going to be easy. 
We have to make tough choices together if we want to get our economy 
back to where it needs to be.
  This week's YouCut proposal was developed by Chris Lee and would 
eliminate the mandatory printing of bills introduced before Congress, a 
practice that wasted nearly three million paper copies and 
approximately $7 million taxpayer dollars during the 111th Congress 
alone. With all of the digital technology that's available, surely 
Congress can find a more efficient and fiscally responsible way to do 
its business. Changing this body's printing practices would be a simple 
and important step in the right direction. We must start injecting some 
common sense into Washington, and this is a no-brainer.
  As we look to the new Republican majority, YouCut will serve as an 
important tool as we strive to transform the culture of spending in 
Washington into one of savings. As we wrap up this Congress, Mr. 
Speaker, I encourage our Democrat friends across the aisle to join us 
in voting for this common sense spending reduction.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1742 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 4640) to amend title 44, United States Code, to 
     eliminate the mandatory printing of bills and resolutions by 
     the Government Printing Office for the use of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall he considered as read. At the conclusion of

[[Page 18491]]

     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. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of 
     rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 4640.
                                  ____

       (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. McGOVERN. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 1742, if 
ordered; adopting House Resolution 1741; and suspending the rules with 
regard to House Concurrent Resolution 323; House Resolution 1735, if 
ordered; and House Resolution 1430, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 180, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 587]

                               YEAS--232

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     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
     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)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     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
     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
     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
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--180

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     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
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)

[[Page 18492]]


     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Alexander
     Barrett (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Fallin
     Hastings (FL)
     Hodes
     Marchant
     Markey (MA)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Minnick
     Myrick
     Radanovich
     Speier
     Welch
     Wu

                              {time}  1228

  Mr. GERLACH changed his 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. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 174, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 588]

                               YEAS--230

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     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
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     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)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Taylor
     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
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--174

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     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
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Alexander
     Barrett (SC)
     Berkley
     Bright
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Coffman (CO)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Fallin
     Gohmert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hodes
     Johnson, Sam
     Lynch
     Marchant
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Minnick
     Myrick
     Radanovich
     Ruppersberger
     Shadegg
     Speier
     Whitfield
     Wu

                              {time}  1236

  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.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 589, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________