[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4138-4142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3309, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
                 COMMISSION PROCESS REFORM ACT OF 2012

  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 595

       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. 3309) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 
     to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the 
     procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission. 
     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 chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce. 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 Energy 
     and Commerce 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. 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 in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period from March 
     29, 2012, through April 16, 2012, as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

                              {time}  1310

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WEBSTER. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying bill. House Resolution 595 provides for a structured 
rule for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications 
Commission Process Reform Act of 2012.
  The rule makes 10 of the 11 amendments submitted to the committee in 
order. Of these, eight are Democrat-sponsored amendments and two are 
Republican-sponsored amendments.
  As noted by the subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Eshoo, during the 
Rules Committee meeting on this last night, H.R. 3309 has come to the 
floor under regular order. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 
Communications and Technology held an oversight hearing and 
subsequently a legislative hearing on Federal Communications Commission 
process reform.
  The subcommittee then circulated a discussion draft before holding an 
open markup and favorably reporting the bill to the full committee on 
November 16, 2011. On March 6, 2012, the full committee ordered the 
bill favorably reported to the House.
  In 2010, the communications and technology industry invested $66 
billion to deploy broadband infrastructure, $3 billion more than in 
2009. New products and services are innovated by this sector on an 
almost daily basis. With the innovation come high-quality jobs and 
marked improvements for every American's quality of life.
  As a result, all efforts should be made to avoid stalling this 
important economic engine. The FCC should strive to be the most open 
and transparent agency in the Federal Government, and any intervention 
into the marketplace should be the result of rigorous analysis 
demonstrating the need for government regulation.
  The Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act would change 
the process the FCC must follow in issuing regulations and limit the 
agency's ability to set conditions on transactions relating to 
corporate mergers and acquisitions.
  The legislation would require the FCC to be more transparent and 
methodical in determining whether to intervene in the communications 
marketplace in dealing with customers and regulated parties, and in 
reviewing transactions.
  Customers, small businesses, and outside-the-beltway stakeholders, in 
particular, do not have the regulatory lawyers needed for rush review 
of proceedings. The only way to get their input is to give them time to 
provide feedback on well-delineated proposals.
  Before it starts intervening, the FCC should make sure it has a full 
understanding of the state of competition and current technologies. By 
requiring the FCC to be more transparent, to find a market failure 
before proposing regulations, and to conduct cost-benefit analyses 
before adopting rules, H.R. 3309 helps promote jobs, investment, and 
innovation in one of the few sectors still firing on all cylinders in 
this economy.
  In particular, the bill prohibits the FCC from coercing parties to 
accept concessions, such as network neutrality obligations, as a 
condition of approving their mergers. Such conditions are typically 
unrelated to the specifics of the transaction and involve requirements 
the FCC otherwise lacks the policy justification or legal authority to 
impose. They also chill transactions that might otherwise advance the 
economy, and impose unnecessary costs on businesses.
  The bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace through a notice 
of inquiry before proposing new rules that would increase costs for 
customers and businesses; to establish the specific text of proposed 
rules before their consideration so the public and industry know what 
is being considered and have adequate information to provide input, 
much as House leadership has adopted in the layover requirement for the 
bills that we now hear on the floor; to identify a market failure or 
customer harm and conduct a cost-effective analysis before adopting 
economically significant rules that cost more than $100 million; to set 
the shot clock and schedules for issuing decisions and to report to 
Congress on how well it is abiding by them so the public and industry 
know when issues will be resolved; and to create performance measures 
to evaluate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a program that 
costs more than $100 million.
  These proposed process reforms are not radical, nor are they an 
attempt to cripple the FCC, as some opponents of the legislation have 
claimed. Instead, this legislation seeks to pull back the curtain on 
bureaucratic regulation of a sector of our economy that has provided 
high-tech innovation and investment, and the high-quality jobs that 
come with it, despite the economic downturn.
  So, once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from

[[Page 4139]]

Florida for yielding the time to me, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3309, the 
Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act. There may be 
beneficial provisions in the underlying legislation to make the FCC's 
processes more transparent and more efficient.
  I do suggest that the FCC has made great strides in this regard under 
the leadership of Chairman Genachowski, and certainly more can be done. 
But the fact remains that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have squandered important opportunities in this process to walk the 
walk and talk the talk.
  Now, last night an amendment was offered by my good friend and 
colleague, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, to require FCC disclosure of 
spending on political advertisements, which was opposed in committee 
but made in order to go forward today.
  Recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the Citizens United case, 
have opened the door for unlimited spending by wealthy entities aiming 
to influence the electoral process. These individuals, organizations, 
and corporations have the financial resources to reach millions of 
Americans through cable, broadcast television, the radio, and other 
media.
  Unfortunately, Americans do not yet have the right to know who is 
paying for these efforts. Under current law, Americans have no way of 
knowing whether an advertisement urging them to vote for a certain 
candidate or support certain legislation is being done at the behest of 
someone who stands to make a lot of money from that candidate or the 
bill.
  That's no way to run a country. That's no way to hold an election. 
And that's no way to run a government.
  Since Citizens United, our government is less like a democracy and 
more like a mystery. I firmly support the Eshoo amendment and ask all 
of our colleagues to do so. It aims to provide some clues by requiring 
the disclosure of any individual or corporation that contributes 
$10,000 or more for the purpose of airing political programming in an 
election cycle.

                              {time}  1320

  This amendment is modeled after the DISCLOSE Act, sponsored by my 
friend and colleague, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, of which I am a 
proud cosponsor. Both these measures educate voters by disclosing who 
is donating money to influence the electoral process. It is as simple 
as that: transparency, accountability, and democracy.
  Yet some of my Republican colleague friends continue to be baffled as 
to why the American people will want to know who is trying to influence 
them. Last night in the Rules Committee, my good friend from Georgia 
(Mr. Woodall) was indicating his motions regarding this; and I said to 
him what I say to all of our colleagues and to all Americans, that the 
day somebody shows up with $500, you would be interested to know, if 
they are opposed to you, who they are.
  So the question remains: Why do some Republicans oppose these efforts 
now?
  Madam Speaker, we know full well about some of the biases that some 
Republicans have in favor of the wealthiest Americans. When they're not 
trying to eviscerate social safety net programs--as I suggested in the 
Rules Committee, and in 40 minutes we will be taking up the proposed 
budget that does just that--to make room for tax cuts for the well off 
in our society, it appears that Republicans are eager to allow the 
richest Americans to hijack the electoral process. Because that is what 
is about to happen, and it is and will be a hijacking.
  When vast sums of money are used to influence the democratic process, 
the voices of those who do not have such resources get drowned out. 
When that influence is allowed to remain in the shadows, suddenly we 
find that the wealthiest interests in this country are the ones driving 
the bus, the train, the plane, and the rest of us do not know where the 
stops are.
  This amendment, along with the DISCLOSE Act and similar efforts, aims 
to provide Americans with the basics of who is spending how much on 
what. It does not impose any new obligations on broadcasters or 
providers; it does not hold broadcasters or providers liable for 
inaccurate information; and it does not take action with respect to 
posting this information online. This is a simple disclosure 
requirement. It benefits all Americans. It is good for our democracy.
  Quite frankly, I think that a commendable thing occurs when many of 
the amendments are made in order. In this particular instance, I'm 
especially pleased that my colleagues made the Eshoo amendment in 
order.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to urge Members to vote against the previous question.
  Now, why would we do that?
  Because we need to invest in America's crumbling infrastructure, and 
the Republicans are totally incapable of producing a transportation 
bill.
  Here's a little bit of review of history.
  February 8, 2011, Chairman Mica: We will have a bill by August.
  Then we skip forward a little bit, August, Chairman Mica: I will 
agree to one additional highway program extension--meaning they didn't 
get the bill done by August.
  Then we fast-forward to November, Speaker Boehner: House to pass 
highway bill this year.
  That was, of course, November 2011. It's 2012. Now the Republicans 
are saying they need another 90 days to get agreement in their own 
caucus. They're never going to get agreement. There are 80 Members of 
the Republican caucus who believe that there is no Federal interest--
get this--no Federal interest in the national transportation system. It 
should devolve to the 50 States, back to the good ol' days when Kansas 
built the turnpike and Oklahoma didn't, and the cars were launched off 
the end of the turnpike into a farmer's field for another 5 years until 
Kansas finally got around to it. Let's go back to those good old days.
  They also say they don't want to create jobs. This won't create jobs, 
the Speaker has said. Well, guess what? Transportation investment is 
the best way to create made-in-America jobs: transit equipment made in 
America, steel made in America, construction jobs by Americans for 
Americans for our future. They can't get it done. No more 90-day 
extensions or whatever they're dithering around now. They've got the 
throttle on the floor and they're spinning doughnuts, but they've run 
out of gas.
  So it's time to act. What we need to do is defeat the previous 
question, bring up the bipartisan, Senate-passed transportation bill, 
which half of the Republican Senators--some of the members of the Flat 
Earth Society even voted for. Bring that bill up here--we can get the 
votes on this side of the aisle--and pass it and put Americans back to 
work.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire if the gentleman from 
Florida has any more speakers because I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I appreciate my colleague for asking. I was 
hoping that Mr. Bishop from New York would be here, but in light of the 
fact that he is not, I'm prepared to close.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If Mr. 
Bishop does arrive, then perhaps I would use some of my time to yield 
to him.
  We all know that this legislation is never going to pass the Senate, 
and so this exercise remains just that, an exercise.
  Republicans claim to be in favor of reducing the size of government, 
but this bill will require the FCC to hire 20 additional staff at a 
cost of $26 million over 5 years just to handle all the additional work 
created.
  Rather than focus on stimulating the economy, funding infrastructure 
investments, and improving our democracy, my friends on the other side 
insist on devoting time and energy in a

[[Page 4140]]

pursuit that is never going to go beyond this Chamber.
  Rather than support transparency and our democratic process, my 
friends on the other side want to shield the best off in our society 
and corporations from having to disclose their financial influence on 
the political process. And rather than work with Democrats to craft 
comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that can pass the House and 
Senate, Republicans would rather see their partisan bills die than 
allow a compromise measure to live. I would say that I'm appalled, 
Madam Speaker, but this kind of thing seems to happen all the time 
around here.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House 
adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 14, the House companion to the 
bipartisan Senate transportation bill and to discuss our proposal, but 
before that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding, and I 
apologize for my tardy arrival on the floor.
  As Yogi Berra once said, it's deja vu all over again. Here we are a 
week later and we still have not addressed the imminent expiration of 
our highway programs.
  As we witnessed with the implosion of H.R. 7 six weeks ago, we once 
again saw last night the inevitable result of the Republican mantra: My 
way or the highway. Last night, House Republicans were forced to remove 
from floor consideration their short-term extension bill, in part 
because they absolutely refused to reach out to their Democratic 
colleagues to get anything done. Meanwhile, I have sponsored the Senate 
bill, MAP-21--now called H.R. 14 here in the House--a bipartisan path 
forward that makes meaningful reforms and provides certainty to States.
  I'm proud to be offering this bipartisan legislation to refocus the 
discussion on jobs and economic opportunities rather than the 
Republican message this week of tearing down Medicare and protecting 
the 1 percent at the expense of middle class families.

                              {time}  1330

  As of today, House Republicans have yet to put forward a credible 
highway reauthorization that puts Americans back to work. Their only 
attempt, H.R. 7, which is the Boehner-Mica authorization, was called 
the worst highway bill ever by United States Department of 
Transportation Secretary LaHood, who is a former Republican Member of 
this body. It was drafted in the dark of night without Democratic 
input. It removed transit, the transit guarantee, from the highway 
trust fund, and it couldn't attract a single Democratic vote nor even a 
majority of Republican votes.
  MAP-21 passed overwhelmingly in the Senate with a bipartisan 
majority, a vote of 74-22, and it is fully paid for--something House 
Republicans seem unable to come close to. MAP-21 pay-fors are less 
controversial than the House Republican bill. The Senate has estimated 
that MAP-21 will save 1.8 million jobs and will create up to 1 million 
more jobs. During a weak economic recovery that's looking for a jump-
start, this is the kind of bill we need to be passing and passing as 
quickly as we possibly can.
  Is MAP-21 the silver bullet to our surface transportation needs? No, 
but there is no silver bullet when it comes to our infrastructure 
needs.
  We all would prefer a 5-year bill, but we need to get a bill passed. 
MAP-21, H.R. 14, is the path forward. I would urge my Republican 
colleagues to bring that bill to the floor so that we can vote for it 
in a bipartisan fashion and send it to the President.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous 
material, immediately 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself the balance of my time, and will get back 
to the issue at hand.
  This is not necessarily a highway bill, but it does talk about a 
highway, one which is much faster than the ones we drive on. It is hard 
to imagine a world without a high-speed wireless Internet service. It 
is hard to imagine staffers walking down the hallways without some sort 
of wireless devices that they're communicating with others on, and 
usually their hands are glued to them.
  Communications and technology innovations over the past several years 
have made us a more connected world. In some instances, the new global 
connectedness has brought us even closer together, allowing us to share 
in similarities and differences between our peers in distant cultures. 
It has given us a chance to marvel at the world's best athletes on the 
grandest stages, and in some cases it has exposed the atrocities of 
war, intolerance, and disregard for human life. We want our innovations 
to continue and our inventors to keep inventing. In the communications 
and technology fields they have, and they continue to amaze us with new 
breakthroughs every day.
  This bill simply pulls back the curtain on the FCC, the agency 
charged with regulating the communications sector. It asks them to 
institute commonsense reforms to better keep the public informed on 
their actions. It requires the Commission to rigorously examine the 
marketplace before intervening; to give increased time for public input 
and comment; and to increase transparency while approving new rules and 
amendments. These process reforms are simply good government, and they 
should be embraced in a nonpartisan fashion.
  I ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this rule 
and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 595 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon 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 a bill consisting 
     of the text of the bill (H.R. 14) to reauthorize Federal-aid 
     highway and highway safety construction programs, 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. 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. 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. 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.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        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 Republican 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

[[Page 4141]]

     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 Republican 
     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 Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In 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 Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 595, if 
ordered; suspension of the rules with regard to H.R. 3606; and 
suspension of the rules with regard to H.R. 3298, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 182, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 130]

                               YEAS--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--182

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akin
     Engel
     Flores
     Jackson (IL)
     Landry
     Lewis (GA)
     Mack
     Marchant
     Neal
     Rangel
     Watt
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall

                              {time}  1401

  Messrs. SCHRADER, SARBANES, SIRES, CHANDLER, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of 
California, Messrs. BLUMENAUER, HONDA, and KEATING changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. POSEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 130, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page 4142]]



                          ____________________