[Pages H3060-H3066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2009

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) making further continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

H.J. Res. 38

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (division A of
Public Law 110-329) is amended by striking the date specified
in section 106(3) and inserting ``March 11, 2009''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

General Leave

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous and tabular material on H.J. Res. 38.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, this proposition simply keeps the government open
until midnight on Wednesday so we can complete our business. I urge its
adoption.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I guess you all know that we didn't have to be here today debating
yet another extension of a continuing resolution and we certainly
didn't have to wait until the fiscal year was almost half over to
complete a package of spending bills addressing funding for 2009. And
yet here we are, 157 days into the new fiscal year, passing another
short-term CR while our work on 2009 bills remains unfinished.
Unfinished. What a shame. Madam Speaker, what a shame.
Had the Appropriations Committee been allowed by the Democrat
leadership to do its work this year, we could have easily passed each
of the 12 spending bills. Each of the bills would have benefited from
Members offering ideas, debate. We actually do have talented Members on
both sides of the aisle at the subcommittee level, not allowed to
participate in the process.

{time} 1045

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, liberal or conservative,
your rights as a duly elected Member of this body have been belittled
by a majority leadership that believes absolute power flows from the
top.
Members should have had the opportunity to do what they were elected
to do, shape legislation and make sure that their own voices and the
voices of their people are heard. Instead, virtually every Member of
the House has been shut out of the process of writing this massive $410
billion spending bill that will govern how taxpayer dollars are spent
for the remainder of this year.
The sad irony is that while the House passes another CR that keeps
the government running, the Senate is doing what the House could only
dream of doing, offering and debating amendments to the omnibus bill.
It is no wonder so many Members of the House aspire to serve in the
Senate. The Senate is the only place left in the U.S. Congress where
legislation is still considered under a reasonably open process.
The Senate has wisely observed what the House has failed to
recognize: Not one of the nine bills in the omnibus spending package
was ever debated or considered in the House or the Senate. Six of the
nine bills in the omnibus were never debated or considered by the full
House Appropriations Committee. Senators are doing the right thing by
attempting to improve this legislation, which is busting at the seams
with too much spending.
The Senate's action last night sends an unmistakable signal that
spending fatigue has finally set in. Certainly not in the House, but in
the Senate spending fatigue has finally set in. Senators from both
parties recognize what the House leadership failed to observe, that the
spending in the omnibus is excessive and goes far beyond what our
public believes is reasonable and responsible.
Omnibus funding represents a $32 billion or 8 percent increase over
last year for the very same agencies and programs. This represents the
largest annual Federal Government spending increase since President
Carter served in 1978.
There is a storm brewing out there in the hinterlands, fueled by the
public's disdain over the free-for-all spending of the Congress.
Hundreds of billions of dollars directed to the stimulus package, Wall
Street, auto makers, and the line of folks with their hands out
continue to grow. Where does the spending end, Madam Speaker?
It has been said completing the omnibus is merely completing last
year's unfinished business. But what a wasted opportunity it is to
demonstrate to the American people that this Congress and this
administration ``gets it,'' and that we are ready to roll up our
sleeves and address government spending going forward. Again, where
does the spending end?
The Members of the House have had enough of the ``my way or the
highway'' legislative process that has governed the formulation of the
omnibus, the stimulus package and every supplemental bill passed over
the last couple of years, and I believe the majority of our Members
have had it with the proliferation of spending that will come to define
the 111th Congress under this majority.
Madam Speaker, each of us recognizes that extending a CR one more
time is an admission of our failure to complete our work on time. It
will surely pass, but let's not lose sight that this is simply doing
our work in the worst possible way. Again, it didn't have to be this
way.
In closing, Madam Speaker, let me say that I don't believe this is
Chairman Obey's fault. While we may disagree over policy and funding
levels, we both believe that it is time to get our appropriations
process back on track. I look forward to working with the chairman this
year and I am hopeful that together we can embrace an open process that
allows for the full participation of the Members on both sides of the
aisle.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, the continuing resolution before us
today presents us with a golden opportunity to send over to the other
body some legislation that does not contain thousands of earmarks,
legislation that is not bloated, legislation

[[Page H3061]]

that is not overspending. We can improve this joint resolution by
adopting a motion to recommit to have the continuing resolution go
through the end of this fiscal year, meaning September 30th, and that
will present the other body with a choice; to keep the government open
by passing this continuing resolution through the end of the fiscal
year, or continuing going on a bloated, earmark-laden track.
I would hope that we would get the fiscal year 2009 appropriations
over with so that the Appropriations Committee can do the work on the
fiscal year 2010 budget. The way to save the taxpayers a lot of money,
the way to stop all of the earmarks that have been crammed into the
omnibus bill that this House passed last week is to pass a continuing
resolution that continues government agencies at their existing
spending level through the end of this fiscal year. I would hope that
we would have an opportunity to vote on that, and I would
enthusiastically support it, as would most of the taxpayers of this
country.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute
to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and suggest that
this continuing resolution we have on the floor today shouldn't be for
the next 4 or 5 days; it really ought to be through the end of this
fiscal year, which is September 30th of this year.
I know there are a lot of Members that have a lot of other issues
that they would like to include in this, but the fact is that American
families are hurting, small businesses are hurting around the country,
our economy is hurting, and I think we can help our economy and we can
send a strong signal to the American people by extending this spending
freeze through September 30th.
Let's show the American taxpayers that we get it. Let's show
investors in our American economy that we get it. Because clearly the
bill that has been under consideration both here in the House and now
in the Senate has a $30 billion increase over last year's spending and
includes nearly 9,000 earmarks, and the way to put all of this to a
stop is to just have a spending freeze. Let's show the American people
we understand the pain that they are under and show them that we are
willing to tighten our belt.
So when we have our opportunity to offer our motion to recommit at
the end of this process, there will be an extension of that date
through September 30th, with some increases for those in police
departments and the FBI and other law enforcement jurisdictions, and it
is something that I think is a responsible way forward. I would
encourage my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
To paraphrase the late Admiral James Stockdale from his famous vice
presidential debate of nearly 17 years ago, why are we here?
I don't quite get this. I know there will be some who want to blame
George Bush or any other Republican out there, but the fact of the
matter is, for the first time in a long time, we have a Democratic
President, a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic
United States Senate, and yet we at this moment are dealing with the
possibility of a government shutdown. I just don't quite comprehend
this.
The American people, as our Republican leader and my California
colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, have
said, the American people are hurting. We know very well with the
unemployment rate that just came through it today at 8.5 percent, a
one-half percent increase over 8 percent, that there are a lot of
people who are suffering. We know of individual stories, and I have got
to tell you the most painful one for me was to hear of the father of
three young teenagers who committed suicide out in California over
this.
So, we have a very, very difficult challenge ahead of us, and yet we
are sitting here dealing with this issue and a massive increase in
spending, which clearly the American people do not want. It is a policy
that has failed. It failed throughout the 1930s.
We know what needs to be done, Madam Speaker, for us to get our
economy back on track. What we need to do is we need to follow the
model that was put forward by John F. Kennedy in 1961, the model of
Ronald Reagan in 1981, because those solutions have in fact succeeded
in the past. And yet we know that massive increases in spending, as the
rest of the world has learned, are not the answer for the future.
I strongly support our effort to keep this spending as low as
possible by supporting our motion to recommit.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, we come to this well at a very difficult
time in the life of our Nation. American families are struggling under
the weight of this recession. Millions of Americans are watching as
their life savings are evaporating before their eyes. My own family has
been touched by the hardship in the housing crisis and by job loss. So
I come to this floor with a sense of urgency, and it is a sense of
urgency that was confirmed this morning with the jobs report and a
startling reality.
But in the midst of these very difficult times, the American people
are rising to the occasion. As we speak in this well this morning,
millions of Americans are doing in their small businesses, in their
family farms and around their kitchen tables what this Congress should
be doing. They are finding places to save. They are putting off
expenditures that they don't have to make this year to make sure they
make ends meet for the priorities in their lives.
Yet this Congress, by this massive omnibus bill, is going on with
spending as usual. An 8 percent increase in Federal spending, the
largest increase in a single year since I was in high school in the
1970s, apart from those months following September 11th, is not what
the American people expect to see this Congress doing.
``Spending as usual'' with thousands upon thousands of earmarks and
special projects is not what the American people expect from this
Congress during these difficult times. Madam Speaker, they want to see
the Congress doing what they are doing, and that is making careful
decisions, practicing fiscal discipline and setting aside ``business as
usual'' to confront these challenging times.

{time} 1100

And so I rise today to say, let's not just do this continuing
resolution for a week but, as others have said, for the rest of this
year, let's freeze Federal spending in virtually every area of the
government. Let's say no earmarks in the Year 2009.
And it's not a value judgment on the Members who've made those
project requests. I, myself, don't request projects of that nature. But
it is to say, Madam Speaker, that in these difficult times, we have to
do what every American family, every small business owner and every
family farmer is doing, and that is making sacrifices and practicing
discipline.
I urge my colleagues in both parties to join the minority today in
supporting our motion to recommit. It's a motion that would essentially
freeze all Federal spending, say to historic increases in spending in
these difficult times, no to earmarks, and say yes to the practiced
values of millions of Americans in these difficult days.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, speaking as a partisan Republican, perhaps
I should want the President to sign the omnibus bill if it is passed.
There may be money for tattoo removal in the omnibus bill, but it won't
be easy to remove the tattoo that comes with signing a bill like this,
with nearly 9,000 earmarks contained in it.
Now, most of the attention has been put on the silly earmarks like
swine odor abatement in Iowa or the tattoo removal in California. But
more damaging are the thousands, literally,

[[Page H3062]]

thousands, Madam Speaker, of no-bid contracts that are contained in
this legislation, thousands of congressionally-directed earmarks to
private companies, which are no-bid contracts. And that will be a gift
for Republicans that will probably keep on giving, because, as they are
discovered in this legislation going forward, there are bound to be
problems.
Already we know that the Department of Justice is investigating a
lobbying firm that secured a number of earmarks in this legislation for
its clients, and then turned around and made campaign contributions to
the Members that secured those earmarks. There's an investigation going
on right now. And those earmarks are still in the bill.
So, as I mentioned, as a partisan Republican, we probably should say,
President, sign this bill. It will be good for us politically because
it will be tougher for you to enact your agenda afterwards. But it's
not good for the country.
It's not enough for the President to say this is last year's
business. He should know that most of the bills contained in this
omnibus spending measure didn't even go through the full committee
process. Nearly 9,000 earmarks, most of them were air-dropped right at
the end. We didn't see them last year. We saw most of them only 48
hours this year before the bill was signed. We had no ability to
challenge any of them. So saying that is last year's business is simply
not accurate.
Even if it were last year's business, let's take that analogy a
little further. Iraq policy. If the President were to say----
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. FLAKE. If the President were to say, you know, this Iraq policy
that was last year's business, I've inherited it. I'm just going to
continue it, continue with the status quo. But he's not, nor should he.
He is the President. His signature will go on the bottom of this bill,
and he shouldn't sign it.
We should enact a long-term, 1-year CR and fund the government at
last year's levels. Let's act on the fiscal responsibility that we all
say that we are for.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, my classmate, Dan Burton.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. You know, the people of this country, Madam
Speaker, are not only hurting, they're mad as hell. They're losing
their jobs. They're losing their homes. And then they look at
Washington, D.C., and they see us spending this country right down the
tubes.
They worry about their kids and their grandkids and what kind of a
life we're going to leave for them with higher taxes and huge amounts
of inflation because we're blowing so much money right now. And they
say, why are they doing that? Why don't they freeze spending? Why don't
they live like I have to live back in my district, back in my home?
$787 billion, ultimately over $1 trillion in the stimulus, $410
billion in this bill, a budget of $3.9 trillion, with a $635 billion
down payment on a new health care plan that's going to lead to
socialized medicine and probably bankrupt the country down the road.
The people of this country want us to do our job. They want us to
make sure that they have a better quality of life. They want to make
sure they have lower taxes and they can send their kids to school and
not have to worry about not having the money to do it.
And what are we doing here?
We're blowing their money over and over again, trillions of dollars,
and putting them in a bigger and bigger hole.
My good friends on the Democrat side, I hope they'll listen to the
people of this country. I hope you'll listen.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, here we are, March 6, doing what the
Democrats should have done at the fiscal year closing on October 1.
Now, I understand they were intimidated by George Bush and did not want
to pass a budget out of the Democratically-controlled House or Senate.
But they've now been in control of all three, House, Senate and White
House, for 6 weeks, and nothing has been done.
Well, there have been some things done. For example, they had time to
create 31 new Federal programs. They've had time to do some paybacks,
political paybacks to their union supporters through executive orders.
They've had time to entertain Stevie Wonder at the White House, to have
the Nation's Governors into the White House for a little conga line
dancing and, of course, they've had time to attack Rush Limbaugh.
Meanwhile, since election day the Dow has dropped 1,300 points,
wiping out people's college education accounts and retirement savings.
Unemployment is now above 8 percent. And yet, today, we're going to
pass, or we're trying to pass a continuing resolution because we can't
do what should have been done by the Democrat leadership October 1st.
This bill, by the way, is $410 billion. It's an 8 percent increase.
When combined with the $790 billion stimulus package, that represents
an 80 percent increase in Federal spending in 1 year. You know, if it
worked, we would be in great shape because, under President Bush we
passed a stimulus package. And I voted against that one. Fannie Mae,
$200 billion, that stimulus package last year, $168 billion, AIG now up
to $180 billion, Bear Stearns, $29 billion, the Wall Street bailout,
$700 billion. If spending worked, we would have the economy turned
around by now. We would be in great shape. But it doesn't work.
Let's reject this 80 percent increase in Federal Government spending.
Let's do things to create jobs and rescue the savings of America's
middle class.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. At a time when Americans are more concerned than ever
before about the security of their job, about their next paycheck,
about the strength of the American economy, at a time when everyone in
Congress should be focused on protecting the American economy from
sliding deeper into recession, the new majority in Congress is focused
on spending more money and less time than any Congress in U.S. history.
These first 32 days that the new majority has been in control have
been focused on, in many ways I'm reminded of what used to happen when
a conquered city fell to a conquering army. The army was given 3 days
to pillage.
This is like an unrestrained, absolutely unrestrained spending spree
that we've never seen before in our history. We have, in these 32 days,
the new majority in Congress has spent about $1.6 trillion, $800
billion in the stimulus package, $400 billion with this omnibus here in
front of us, $350 billion with the additional TARP funds, at least $65
billion in the new SCHIP children's health insurance bill.
We are spending money we do not have. We're borrowing money to pay
off borrowed money. It is as though the new majority were paying off
America's mortgage with a credit card. And everyone in America
understands that this defies common sense. It defies all reason. No one
in their private life would engage in conduct like this. And we, at a
time of economic peril for the Nation, should not engage in it in
Congress.
We, in the minority, the fiscal conservatives, have not only fought
as politely as thoughtfully and carefully as we can this spending, but
today we're offering a clear choice to the Congress and the country. We
fiscal conservatives are offering an alternative to freeze Federal
spending for the remainder of the fiscal year with a continuing
resolution. It's called freeze current spending. That's common sense.
It's something everyone in America can understand, that at home, in our
businesses, and certainly when it comes to protecting the Treasury of
the United States of America, we must not spend more than we bring in.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. CULBERSON. We cannot spend more as a Nation than we bring in in
revenue. We're already on a national credit card. And no matter who I
talk to, in an E-town hall meeting last night, people back home who
have never been involved in politics before

[[Page H3063]]

are paying attention closely to this debate. And today we fiscal
conservatives in the minority are offering a very simple, clear choice.
Our alternative today, the motion to recommit, the vote that will be
taken today, America, on the motion to recommit, a ``yes'' vote to
recommit is a vote to keep spending flat for the rest of the fiscal
year and exercise fiscal restraint. A ``no'' vote is to continue this
unrestrained spending spree which will bankrupt our children.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, the President last week held a fiscal
responsibility summit. A week before that he had come to these Chambers
to call and implore us for fiscal responsibility. Then last Thursday he
rolls out a budget that's anything but fiscally responsible.
Following his speech the other night I was asked what I thought, what
I wished he was going to say, actually before he spoke. What I wished
he would have said is we've got some hard choices ahead of us, very
difficult financial statements to be made; that we're going to start
those with this statement: We're going to hold spending for the rest of
fiscal 2009 to the numbers that were there in fiscal 2008. All of these
new programs weren't in existence before we started. This Nation will
get along without them if we don't have them in place.
And so the President could have made a great statement toward
beginning this hard, arduous, difficult task of beginning to spend less
money out of this Federal Government than we are currently
contemplating.
I would call on my colleagues across the aisle to back the President
up on his fiscal tough concepts and fiscal tough decisions that he
wants to make by starting with this one. This is probably the easiest
hard choice to make that we're going to have across these next months,
and that is, let's just leave the rest of 2009 to spend at the exact
levels we're spending right now. No increases from the $31 billion that
are contemplated in this bill.
The sad truth is the economic stimulus package that was passed
includes additional monies to be spent on these exact line items. The
numbers I saw was that, combined with this $30 billion, that increased
a total of $301 billion of extra discretionary spending in Fiscal 2009
as a result of the stimulus and as a result of this passage of this
omnibus bill of the continuing resolution.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit. Let's hold
this spending at this year's levels. That's the easiest hard choice
that we have to make. And there are lots of hard choices on the
horizon. Let's start with that today and begin the process of reining
in Federal spending with this vote.
And I urge passage of the motion to recommit here shortly.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I have no additional
speakers. I must say that, as I rise to at least close my side of this
discussion, I know that my chairman has to be very, very frustrated to
find ourselves this far into the next fiscal year's work, finally
passing 9 out of 12 of our appropriations bills from last year, I mean,
all lumped into a big package, none of which have had any hearings on
the full committee.
The Appropriations Committee members, Democrats and Republicans,
presume themselves to have some individual expertise, but we never call
upon them. We certainly wouldn't want to call on their fine staff to
provide the sort of input that would reflect the finest of the
Congress.
I must say, I'm working very hard with my chairman to get us back on
regular order for the 2010 appropriations bills that are going to be
ahead of us. We're actually going to have subcommittee hearings, Madam
Speaker. We actually are probably going to have full committee
hearings. We're going to call upon Democrat Members to provide some
input regarding what the details are of their bills. Interesting
process to get back to that regular order.
But having said that, Madam Speaker, we've taken much too much time
and, because of that, I'm very happy to yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I don't know how many of us remember the old song,
``Shine on Harvest Moon.'' I'm reminded this morning more of ``Whine on
Harvest Moon'' when I hear some of the complaints lodged about budget
practices by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

{time} 1115

I also am tempted to ask where on Earth is Herbert Hoover, but then I
come to the realization, which is obvious, that he is alive and well,
and resides in the House Republican caucus.
I find it strange to be lectured by folks on that side of the aisle,
the folks who did such a ``brilliant'' job of running this institution
and in running this economy and in running this country for the last 8
years. I find it interesting to be lectured on fiscal responsibility by
people who borrowed $1.2 trillion in order to pay for tax cuts,
primarily for the wealthiest people in this country, all on borrowed
money. I find it interesting to be lectured by people who managed to
borrow almost $1 trillion so far to fund what I regard as the most
avoidable and dumbest war in American history, in Iraq, who paid for
the whole war on the cuff. I find it ironic to be lectured about
earmarks by the party that spent twice as much money on earmarks as we
are spending since we took over and reformed the earmarking process. I
also find it interesting to be lectured about economics by the folks
who presided over a government which, in the words of FDR, was frozen
in the ice of its own indifference while 90 percent of all of the
income growth in this country in the past 8 years went into the pockets
of the wealthiest 10 percent of people in our society, leaving
everybody else to struggle for table scraps.
So I do find all of that interesting, but I don't find it
particularly productive, and I think we ought to get back, not to what
we don't like or do like about what has happened in this institution,
but I think we ought to focus instead on what is happening outside this
institution to average Americans all over the country.
As has been noted several times this morning, the recent figures out
of the Labor Department now indicate that unemployment has now risen
above 8 percent. We're told by the most reputable economists in the
country that it's liable to rise above 10 percent or even significantly
worse. We see almost 700,000 new workers who are unemployed today in
comparison to last month. We have lost 3 million jobs since the
Democratic Party in the House tried to produce the first economic
stimulus bill, modest though it was, in September of last year.
We are now debating a bill which is $20 billion for education, for
health care, for science, and the like, which is $20 billion above the
budget request made by President Bush last year. That sounds like a lot
of money until you compare it to the $200 billion that this economy has
already lost because of its shrinkage just in the last 3 months of last
year, and that $20 billion in increased government funding looks mighty
small in comparison to the $200 billion more that we expect to have
seen the economy shrink by in the first 3 months of this year, leaving
a total hole in the economy for just that 6-month period of $400
billion.
We are trying in this bill to provide the funding, which was the base
for the stimulus bill that we passed just 3 weeks ago in this place,
and they are intimately related to each other. This is an integral part
of what we did in the stimulus package, which is supported by the
American people in the most recent polls by well over 60 percent of the
American public. They understand, when the economy is contracting at a
record rate, squeezing millions of Americans out of the circle of
prosperity, that we've got to respond to try to reinflate that economy
again, and so this bill plays a small but crucial role in doing that.
Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle say we should just do
a full year's CR. Well, if you do, you will come in virtually,
identically, very close, at least, to President Bush's budget request
for these programs. I don't think in a time of near economic collapse
that we want to do that.
I don't believe that we want to eliminate the funds in this bill that
are meant to deal with the Social Security/

[[Page H3064]]

disability backlog. I don't believe that we want to see the Federal
Housing Administration cease to have the ability to issue mortgage
insurance in April, as would be the case if we simply provided funding
at the level that our friends want us to provide under their motion to
recommit. I don't believe that we should follow a course of action
which would mean that we could provide no new targeted vouchers for
disabled and homeless veterans. I don't believe that we should
eliminate the $37 million that we have in this bill to enhance
enforcement, oversight and investor protections at the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Neither do I believe that we ought to cut these programs to the level
supported and requested by President Bush last year. If we did that, we
would be cutting the Job Corps by $46 million. We would be eliminating
the employment service grants. We would be cutting senior jobs programs
by $172 million. We would be eliminating vocational education. We would
be terminating the Community Services Block Grant program and so many
others.
So I think the point is obvious. We really have operating here two
different parties with two different visions for the future of this
country, and we believe that when the private sector is essentially
collapsing, as it is right now, that the government has an opportunity
to step in and do what it can through fiscal policy and through
supporting crucial programs, such as contained in the omnibus bill, so
that we can counter the economic destruction that's going on in the
private sector of the economy. That is what this bill tries to do.
If Members are more comfortable with the idea that we should simply
glide along, do nothing and stick to the way we did things last year,
be my guest. I don't think that's going to help the economy very much.
I don't think it's going to impress the American people very much.
So I would urge the rejection of the motion to recommit when it's
offered, and I would urge the passage of this resolution. In the end,
the passage of this resolution is necessary in order to keep the
government open, and that's what we ought to do today by passing this
resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today,
the joint resolution is considered read, and the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly am, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 38 to the Committee on Appropriations
with instructions to report the same back to the House
forthwith with the following amendments:
Page 1, beginning on line 5, strike ``March 11, 2009'' and
insert ``September 30, 2009''.
At the end of the joint resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Section 122 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2009 (division A of Public Law 110-329) is
amended by striking ``$5,396,615,000'' and inserting
``$5,595,754,000''.
Sec. 3. Section 123 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2009 (division A of Public Law 110-329) is
amended by striking ``$1,245,920,000'' and inserting
``$1,295,319,000''.
Sec. 4. Section 158 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2009 (division A of Public Law 110-329) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Notwithstanding section 101, the maximum Pell Grant
for which a student shall be eligible during award year 2009-
2010 shall be $4,860.''
Sec. 5. The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2009
(division A of Public Law 110-329) is amended by inserting
after section 174 the following new sections:
``Sec. 175. Notwithstanding sections 101 and 102 of this
joint resolution, amounts are provided for `Department of
Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation--Salaries and
Expenses' at a rate for operations of $7,147,700,000.
``Sec. 176. Notwithstanding section 101 of this joint
resolution, amounts are provided for `Department of Justice--
Drug Enforcement Administration--Salaries and Expenses' at a
rate for operations of $1,939,084,000.
``Sec. 177. Notwithstanding section 101 of this joint
resolution, amounts are provided for `Department of Justice--
United States Attorneys--Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for
operations of $1,836,336,000.
``Sec. 178. Notwithstanding section 101 of this joint
resolution, amounts are provided for `Department of Justice--
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives--
Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for operations of
$1,054,215,000.
``Sec. 179. Notwithstanding section 101 of this joint
resolution, amounts are provided for `United States Marshals
Service--Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for operations of
$950,000,000.
``Sec. 180. In addition to amounts otherwise provided by
section 101, an additional amount is provided for `Department
of Justice--State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance' for
the State Criminal Alien Program, as authorized by section
241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C.1231(i)(5)), at a rate for operations of $420,000,000.
``Sec. 181. Notwithstanding section 101 of this joint
resolution, amounts are provided for `The Judiciary--Courts
of Appeals, District Courts, and other Judicial Services--
Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for operations of
$4,801,369,000.

Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I would ask unanimous
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Golly, Madam Speaker, I had really hoped we
could read that entire thing, but on the other hand, I certainly
wouldn't want to interfere with this speedy process we're going
through.
Madam Speaker, I do have a motion to recommit at the desk. I must say
that, following that very small bill as described by my chairman, which
is only $410 billion on top of $800 billion, it's a shame we can't
quite spend enough of the folks' money.
My chairman refers often to one who appears to be his favorite
President, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who clearly, for all of
us, demonstrated that throwing money at problems to try to solve them
was not the answer to those problems.
Anyway, Madam Speaker, going back to my motion to recommit, today we
find ourselves in a difficult situation where we must vote on a CR to
allow the government to operate while we wait for the Senate to pass
this flawed omnibus appropriations bill.
The quandary we face today is a symptom of the larger problem. When
Congress engages in regular order where we consider and pass individual
appropriations bills on time and under an open process, these massive
omnibus bills and continuing resolutions are just simply not needed.
However, we are between a rock and a hard place, and this motion to
recommit is the best solution to that.
Instead of punting for yet another few days, this motion takes care
of the problem now by providing funding for the rest of the fiscal year
at an adequate and restrained level while we consider the other huge
packages that are coming forth from this leadership. This motion to
recommit extends the current funding levels for all government agencies
and programs with certain exceptions.
I must mention as I talk about the exceptions: The other side, but
particularly my chairman, loves to talk about cuts from cuts. The
public should understand that those cuts really are talking about cuts
from wished-for increases in spending from the previous fiscal year. In
about 90 percent of the cases, that is the case.
These exceptions include law enforcement programs in our package like
the DEA, the FBI, U.S. Attorneys, the Judiciary, and the detention
programs such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which
helps local communities with the costs associated with the
incarceration of illegal aliens. These programs will receive limited
and necessary increases to maintain public safety. This motion also
allows the Pell Grant increase approved in the enacted stimulus bill to
move forward into next year.
Madam Speaker, a year-long continuing resolution with these
exceptions is the best option. It will maintain critical government
services at a

[[Page H3065]]

sufficient level while saving the taxpayers between $15 billion and $18
billion compared with our Democratic leadership's 2009 spending plan.
It is time to move forward with the work of this new Congress and, once
and for all, close out 2009 and its appropriations process. This motion
will allow us to do this immediately and responsibly and without
massive spending increases that the taxpayers cannot afford.
As we begin the work of the 2010 appropriations process, it is my
hope and, I believe, the commitment from my leader that we can work
together in a bipartisan way to complete our annual work on time and
under regular order. That is even with subcommittee hearings--my
goodness--and with full committee hearings. This includes asking the
Democrat and Republican members of the Appropriations Committee to
participate individually, even talking to their staffs once in a while
in a professional way. That would be, indeed, a wonderful change to
return to regular order.
So, with that, Madam Speaker, I appreciate your accepting my motion
to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1130

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority
leader.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We have one option here because the government will shut down
tomorrow by action of this Congress. And so our alternative is to keep
the government operating, to defend our people in many ways, continue
health care in many ways, to make sure that the services that are
needed and available for our citizens remain so.
The Senate has already deemed the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion
to be passed. Why? Because they've gone home. They're not here.
I urge every Member to reject this motion to recommit. Why? Because
it will be objected to by at least one Senator, and therefore, the
government will shut down.
Pending before the Senate is an appropriation bill passed by this
House to fund government and to apply the resources of our country to
our country's priorities. The gentleman from California knows that we
had to do that numerous times under his chairmanship. Sometimes we
passed those bills in January, sometimes we passed them in February,
having a very large number of bills because the regular order was not
effected within the time frame set forth. He did not like that. I did
not like it. We don't like it as a process. None of us like this
process, and hopefully we will have the cooperation of both sides so
that it is not affected again.
But we have pending in the Senate a bill, the omnibus bill, and let
me read to you the quote of the Republican leader of the United States
Senate:
``If we want to do a bill immediately, again, my recommendation is
the omnibus appropriations bill.'' Hear me. This is Senator Mitch
McConnell, the Republican leader.
``These were nine bills that were not passed by October when they
should have been passed.'' I agree with that.
``They are ready to go,'' he said. ``They've already been vetted by
both sides,'' he said, ``would pass on an overwhelming, bipartisan
basis,'' he said, ``and much of that spending, George''--he was
speaking to George Stephanopoulos--``would be on things similar to what
the President may be asking for in that package.''
He was accurate then; he's accurate now. But unfortunately, the
Senate did not effect the passage of this bill in a timely fashion,
although they have had it for a significant period of time.
And so the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is confronted
with but one option because the option that is offered on the other
side will not receive unanimous consent. And the Senate, as I said
before, has gone home.
And so I say to all of my colleagues on our side of the aisle, we
need to pass this motion, and we need to reject the motion to recommit.
And responsibly, there is not another option.
So I ask all, on both sides of the aisle, to give us the opportunity
to move forward, to keep the government open, and to continue the
debate that the Senate apparently wants to continue to have. The
minority does not have the votes in the Senate to do what they want to
do. The majority will vote for the omnibus appropriations bill. This is
not a question of whether the majority of the Senate is for it, it's a
question of whether the minority will stop its passage.
We can be here Saturday and Sunday and Monday and heaven knows how
long, but it will not change the fact that confronts us.
Reject this motion to recommit that will not be approved by the
Senate, pass the short-term continuing resolution proposed by the
chairman, and let us come back next week and work the will of this
House and the Senate.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the motion, and I urge
passage of the resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 218, not voting 53, as follows:

[Roll No. 108]

AYES--160

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--218

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Halvorson
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski

[[Page H3066]]

Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--53

Abercrombie
Barrett (SC)
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cao
Coffman (CO)
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dingell
Duncan
Ehlers
Fattah
Gallegly
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Harman
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Jordan (OH)
Kaptur
Kilroy
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
McDermott
McHugh
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller, Gary
Neal (MA)
Perriello
Pitts
Putnam
Rangel
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Shimkus
Shuler
Space
Stark
Sullivan
Tiberi
Wilson (OH)

{time} 1200

Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. McMAHON, Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN, Messrs. MURTHA,
GUTIERREZ, Mrs. CAPPS and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MILLER of Florida changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 328,
noes 50, not voting 53, as follows:

[Roll No. 109]

AYES--328

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gerlach
Giffords
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Speier
Spratt
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--50

Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Carter
Chaffetz
Cole
Davis (KY)
Fallin
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Herger
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Kingston
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McHenry
Moran (KS)
Neugebauer
Pascrell
Paul
Petri
Poe (TX)
Radanovich
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stupak
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Westmoreland

NOT VOTING--53

Abercrombie
Barrett (SC)
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cao
Coffman (CO)
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dingell
Duncan
Ehlers
Fattah
Gallegly
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Harman
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Jordan (OH)
Kaptur
Kilroy
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
McDermott
McKeon
Melancon
Miller, Gary
Neal (MA)
Perriello
Pitts
Putnam
Rangel
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Shimkus
Shuler
Space
Stark
Sullivan
Tiberi
Wilson (OH)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1207

Mr. PENCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________