 |
 |
 |
 |
Mr. George Miller of California: Mr. Speaker, all Members of Congress support the effort to thwart international terrorism and make Americans safe. But there are right ways and wrong ways to carry out that critical effort. The military commissions bill before us today is the wrong way, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
The Geneva Convention protects Americans everywhere. Congress should not alter our international obligations in an election-year rush ordered by Karl Rove's partisan strategy shop.
We cannot use international law to justify America's actions when it suits our purposes and ignore it when it does not.
America has given its word to the rest of the world that we win abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Redefining our interpretation of the Geneva Convention is a slippery slope. Consider the words of the Navy's own Judge Advocate General, who testified to Congress on the possible implications of altering America's commitment to the Geneva conventions:
"I would be very concerned about other nations looking in on the United States and making a determination that, if it's good enough for the United States, it's good enough for us, and perhaps doing a lot of damage and harm internationally if one of our servicemen or servicewomen were taken and held as a detainee."
Beyond military personnel, the Geneva Conventions also protect those not in uniform--special forces personnel, diplomatic personnel, CIA agents, contractors, journalists, missionaries, relief workers and all other civilians. Changing our commitment to this treaty could endanger them, as well.
In addition to my concerns about our commitment to the Geneva Conventions, there is a real possibility that this bill will not stand up to judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court in "Rasul v. Bush" decided that detainees have habeas corpus rights. And well established case law lays out that legislation depriving federal courts of jurisdiction does not effect currently pending cases. And nine former federal judges recently wrote:
"Congress would thus be skating on thin constitutional ice in depriving the federal courts of their power to hear the cases of Guantanamo detainees. . . . If one goal of the provision is to bring these cases to a speedy conclusion, we can assure you from our considerable experience that eliminating habeas would be counterproductive."
Sacrificing our principles makes us neither safe nor free. In fact, there is some evidence that sacrificing our principles in this bill may make us less safe.
Just yesterday, the President declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate--or NTE--which, news accounts say, details that U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere has increased the spread of terrorism, making America less safe.
One of the key reasons outlined in the NTE for this conclusion was that, entrenched grievances of injustice help create an anti-U.S. sentiment among Muslims that terrorist groups exploit to recruit new members and grow the jihadist movement--the images of and stories about detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib; the unexplained death of prisoners at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan; the denial of habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo bay; the use of extraordinary rendition to kidnap suspected enemies of the state anywhere in the world; and secret CIA prisons.
These incidents have all helped spread anti-U.S. sentient around the world. This has alienated us from friends and allies and added to the list of grievances terrorist groups like al Qaeda use to recruit new jihadists.
The President should have the best possible intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States and our allies. And those responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist acts should be brought to justice, tried, and punished accordingly, and their convictions should be upheld by our courts.
Sadly, this legislation does not accomplish any of those things. For that reason, I encourage my colleague to vote against its passage.
Mr. Crowley: Mr. Speaker, I have lost faith in this Republican controlled Congress. The Congress is no longer about doing what is right for out country.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle care more about giving the President what he wants then what is in the best interests of the people we are here to represent.
And in case my friends don't read, the country does not have a very high opinion of this Congress and the rest of our government.
This Congress granted an excessive amount of executive power to the President to wage his war on terror with no oversight.
That excessive power brought us to our present day problems and this President is unwilling to fix these problems or even admit they exist.
We must reclaim our Constitutional authority and bring America back to the moral high ground.
Regardless of how we feel about detainees, we must treat them humanely and in accordance with our rule of law and the Geneva Conventions.
The example set by the United States is the example given to our own soldiers in the field.
These terrorists are vicious murderers, I know firsthand because they killed my cousin on 9/11, but my values as an American are what keeps those hatreds in check.
I find it amazing that the man who campaigned on bringing values back to the Oval office has lead the perception of our nation to an all time low.
Torture and harsh interrogation techniques are not my values and are not those of the American people.
We must lead by example on these issues, not be an evasive quasi participant.
Our soldiers are abroad fighting a battle our President has not allowed them to win because of his continued mismanagement of all aspects of the war.
The National Intelligence Estimate done by our 16 intelligence agencies flat out says that the war in Iraq has actually invigorated the growth of terrorism and worsened the threat around the globe.
We diverted all our attention from Afghanistan where the terrorists actually are and invaded Iraq on false statements and scare tactics.
This Administration with the help of the Republican controlled Congress has continued to stay on the wrong course.
Today, we could have had an opportunity to fix ones of those mistakes, but we are ignoring the respect for due process and denying Habeas Corpus to detainees.
This bill disregards the Hamdan decision, which stated that it should be a requirement of a "regularly recognized constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people."
As civilized people we must respect our laws, without the rule of law we would have chaos.
The Bush Administration still refuses to explain why we even need a different judicial system for accused terrorists.
We must take the back the moral high ground in Congress just like many of our military leaders on the ground threw out the Department of Defenses recommendations on interrogation and instead decided to strictly follow the Geneva Conventions.
We should be following the advice of our military who truly understand what the Geneva Conventions mean, not the civilian leadership who stay out of harms way.
The President wants this Congress to bend the rules of our laws and the Geneva Conventions, a document that has protected our soldiers abroad since its inception.
I ask my colleagues, are you prepared to bend those laws that have governed us so successfully so the President can have the power to allow the harsh interrogations tactics and detention of detainees who mayor may not be terrorists.
We need to regain our stature as a world leader.
I hate these terrorists and I believe they should be punished, punished for the murder of my cousin on 9/11.
But they should be punished under the rule of law.
I pray this Congress will lead by example and not follow the example of the terrorists.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend American values.
The Military Commissions Act--H.R. 6166--continues Republicans' despotic assault on the Constitution. It denies detainees held abroad the fundamental right of habeas corpus, which has for centuries protected against unjust government imprisonment. It limits protections against detainee mistreatment, sanctioning "alternative procedures" of interrogation that amount to cruel and unusual punishment. It denies people the opportunity to confront the evidence used against them--even if that evidence is obtained through coercive and inhumane practices. It strips our courts of the jurisdiction to review cases--including those already pending--concerning detainee abuse.
Some call this legislation a "compromise." I call it a capitulation. No sooner had the ink dried on this deal than the Bush administration declared that the CIA's program of secret detention and interrogation could and would continue. That should come as no surprise. Though this bill does not explicitly redefine our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, it permits the President to "interpret the meaning and application" of our historic commitment to the international community--and theirs to us.
Make no mistake, our disregard for international law imperils the safety and security of our men and women in uniform. Our denial of due process to detainees invites foreign states and organizations to indefinitely imprison and interrogate our soldiers. Our insistence on defining detainees as "enemy combatants" undeserving of legal protections encourages our adversaries to deny these very same protections to American prisoners. Provided, of course, we haven't already done so ourselves: This legislation allows the Government to declare not only foreigners, but also U.S. citizens, "enemy combatants" and arrest and hold them indefinitely.
This legislation further confirms that Republicans in Congress are no more interested in fundamental human rights than is President Bush and his administration. I urge my colleagues to vote "no."
Mr. Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to personally cast votes today because I was attending a memorial service for SFC Michael Fuga. Sergeant Fuga was killed September 9, 2006 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Sgt. Fuga was assigned to the Missouri National Guard's 35th Special Troops Battalion based in St. Joseph, MO. He and his family made Independence, in the district I am proud to serve, their home. Sgt. Fuga was 47 and had spent 28 years of his life in the Army. At the time of his death, he was training Afghan armed forces to help bring peace and stability to a nation that has known neither for decades.
SGM James Schulte, who was in charge of Sergeant Fuga's deployment said, "He was a true patriot and a great family man. I am truly honored to have known and served with him." We should all be so lucky to have something like that be said of us when we are gone.
Sergeant Fuga volunteered to extend his time in Afghanistan because, his family says, he was committed to defeating those who attacked our Nation 5 years ago this week. Each day we are blessed to live under the freedoms which Sergeant Fuga and his colleagues in the Armed Forces so bravely serve to protect and ensure.
Sergeant Fuga leaves behind his wife and 12-year-old daughter.
I do not take the decision to miss votes lightly, but hope I can provide Sergeant Fuga's family some comfort on what will be a difficult night.
Today, the House of Representatives debated and voted on H.R. 6166-- Military Commissions Act.
Republicans tried to paint those who were not in favor of the bill as being soft on bringing terrorists to justice and meting out just punishment. They implied that those who were not in favor of the measure were trivializing the heinous crimes perpetrated against American citizens and service members.
They refused to allow an open debate by suppressing thoughtful and germane amendments designed to strengthen the intent of the legislation. Once again they rushed through a piece of bad legislation written to appease an administration stubbornly determined on doling out justice as it sees fit. I am disheartened by the lack of importance this administration places on human rights, on due process, and on upholding the Constitution of these United States.
Mr. Langevin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6166 and am deeply disappointed that Congress has missed an opportunity to act in a bipartisan manner to prosecute those who would do harm to Americans, while ensuring that such efforts would withstand legal scrutiny.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that President Bush exceeded his authority by establishing military commissions to try detainees in the global war on terrorism without explicit congressional approval. That decision presented Congress with an important opportunity to develop a proposal to try some of the world's most dangerous people and to provide swift justice to those who engaged in horrendous acts against our Nation. Unfortunately, instead of proceeding in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that enjoys the full confidence of this body, Congress is faced with a proposal negotiated exclusively by Republicans and whose actual effectiveness in prosecuting terrorists remains in question.
After the Hamdan decision, the House Armed Services Committee held numerous hearings on how Congress should respond, and I commend the chairman for his efforts to ensure that committee members learned the complexities of this topic.
One constant theme we heard from the witnesses testifying was that Congress should ensure that any system established to try military detainees followed existing legal procedures to the greatest extent practicable.
On that point, let us be clear. Despite the mischaracterizations of some Members on the floor today, no one has recommended giving terrorists the same rights as criminals or members of our Armed Forces. Everyone recognizes that many of these detainees are dangerous people, and we agree that the judicial system used to try them must reflect the complexities of prosecuting enemy combatants in the midst of an ongoing war. What the legal experts did counsel, though, was that if military commissions did not include basic, broadly accepted principles of jurisprudence, the commissions could be subject to legal challenge.
Unfortunately, we have no idea if the legislation before us will withstand such scrutiny because the commissions it would establish vary significantly from other accepted forms of tribunals that have been used to prosecute crimes in times of war.
I hope that this legislation does ultimately pass constitutional muster, because it would be a devastating blow to our efforts to combat global terrorism if the conviction of a terrorist were overturned on a legal challenge. However, because I am not confident that the legislation will be upheld, I must oppose it.
The other overarching concern I have with this measure is the impact it will have on the United States' obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The legislation would give the President broad authority to interpret U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions and would create confusion about which practices would be prohibited. The Supreme Court specifically stated in Hamdan that basic protections of the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3 apply to detainees, but the legislation actually complicates compliance with Common Article 3 by creating new definitions of offenses that do not comport with international law. Unfortunately, this change could endanger our own men and women in uniform by encouraging other nations to redefine how they treat captured prisoners. We would not want other nations to offer anything other than full Geneva protections to our own troops, and we must therefore respect the concept of reciprocity on which the Conventions were established.
As Colin Powell noted, respecting the Geneva Conventions not only protects our own servicemembers, but it affirms our commitment to international standards of law and justice at a time when our moral authority in the global war on terrorism is increasingly being questioned.
I am deeply disappointed that, on a matter of such importance to the American people, Congress did not act in a careful and bipartisan fashion to establish a system of military commissions that can protect the American people and withstand legal scrutiny. Instead, the leadership is forcing this measure through the House while ignoring some very valid concerns. I simply ask where their sense of urgency was nearly 5 years ago when the President established military tribunals without congressional input.
Some of my Democratic colleagues have argued for years that we need greater congressional involvement in the justice system for military detainees, but those appeals were ignored. Once again, Congress has abdicated its constitutional oversight responsibility for too long and, when finally forced to act, has chosen partisanship over sound policy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure so that we can craft an alternative that is tough on terrorists while meeting our legal and international obligations.
The Speaker pro tempore: All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1042, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker pro tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Skelton: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Skelton moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6166 to the Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:
SEC. 11. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following rules shall apply to any civil action, including an action for declaratory judgment, that challenges any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, on the ground that such provision or amendment violates the Constitution or the laws of the United States:
(1) The action shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard in that Court by a court of three judges convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.
(2) An interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action under paragraph (1) shall be reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10 days after the date on which such judgment, decree, or order is entered. The jurisdictional statement with respect to any such appeal shall be filed within 30 days after the date on which such judgment, decree, or order is entered.
(3) It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any action or appeal, respectively, brought under this section.
SEC. 12. REAUTHORIZATION REQUIRED.
(a) Military Commissions.--No military commission may be convened under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, as added by this Act, after December 31, 2009, except for trial for an offense with respect to which charges and specifications against the accused are sworn under section 948q(a) of that title before that date.
(b) Treaty Obligations.--Effective on December 31, 2009--
(1) sections 5, 6(a), and 6(c) of this Act shall cease to be in effect; and
(2) section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (c), by striking the text of paragraph (3) and inserting the text of that paragraph as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) by striking subsection (d) (as added by section 6(b)(1)).
Mr. Skelton (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The Speaker pro tempore: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, it is our obligation in this body to fix the deficiencies in this system in order to bring terrorists to justice. My motion to recommit with instructions would add two important elements to the bill that address this basic concern. First, it would require an expedited constitutional review of the entire matter. That is what we need. Second, it would require reauthorization of these military commissions after 3 years.
Expedited judicial review is a well-known way to improve legislation for which legal challenges can be anticipated, and we can be sure that the military commissions system created by this bill will be subject to change. We can provide for expedited review of civil actions challenging the legality of this act by creating a three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court that would hear the actions. The U.S. Supreme Court would then review a judgment or review an order of the panel on an expedited basis.
This type of provision is routinely placed in novel legislation. It was part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, part of the Voting Rights Act, and part of the Communications Decency Act.
The motion to recommit would also require that Congress reauthorize these military commissions after 3 years and would allow any action before a military commission begun before 2010 to go forward, but it would require an educated debate on reauthorizing this system after we have had some real-world experience with this new judicial process.
There is ample precedent for requiring reauthorization for controversial measures passed in a hurry in times of conflict. Most recently, Mr. Speaker, the PATRIOT Act contained reauthorization, or sunset, provisions. And taken together, Mr. Speaker, these two provisions will significantly improve the flawed legislation that we have before us today.
We need not only to be tough. We need to be certain. And my motion to recommit would make this more certain that those despicable terrorists would be brought to justice.
The Speaker pro tempore: Does the gentleman from California claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit?
Mr. Hunter: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I do rise to oppose this motion.
First, let me thank my colleague, Mr. Skelton, an outstanding gentleman and friend and a guy who cares about our country, and all the folks who have really worked this issue and participated in the hearings and the briefings that we have had and the discussions with military experts.
Let me tell you why I oppose this. First, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court not only gave permission but invited the Congress to put together this new system to try terrorists. And I want to direct my colleagues to the opinion of Justice Breyer, where he said: "Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."
So the point is the Supreme Court has not only given us permission. They have given us the obligation of putting this together. The American people have given us the obligation of putting this together.
The idea that we are going to pass this legislation with an uncertainty, with a lack of confidence, sending a message that somehow we need two permissions, is, I think, exactly the wrong message to send to the world.
And I just remind my colleague Mr. Skelton that when we had our initial hearings and our initial markup, Mr. Skelton, you held up Senator Graham in the Senate and Senator McCain as having the gold standard with respect to this legislation and you offered their legislation. Let me tell you that this legislation will be introduced by them. The gentlemen that you said had the gold standard and judgment on what is fair, they will be introducing this in the other body very shortly.
So, my colleagues, this is not a time to seek a second permission before we have passed the first legislation that actually sets into force and effect this important structure with which to try terrorists.
Let me just go to the second problem with what Mr. Skelton has. Mr. Skelton has a sunset provision. This sunsets a very important part of the bill. It sunsets the commission. So it says we have to go back and redo it, that we don't have confidence in what we have done, and we have to redo it after 3 years.
The other bad part about this motion to recommit is it sunsets section 5 and section 6 which protect American troops. They say that you cannot sue American troops under Geneva article 3. You can't sue them civilly. Now that is a bad thing. That means that you would have, if this sunset goes into place that Mr. Skeleton is asking for, that you will have American troops exposed to civil suit by terrorists in American courts for alleged violations of Geneva article 3.
It also does away with this distinction that we have made between grave offenses under Geneva article 3. The real grave offenses, the murder, the torture, all of those things, goes away with the cleavage between that. And maybe an American female colonel interrogating a male Muslim, and therefore being construed as having degraded him and his culture by having an American female interrogate him, that distinction between that and a bad offense would now be erased and American troops would be exposed to civil liability and civil suits under Geneva article 3.
I would just ask my colleagues, if you have confidence in what we have done, and this has been a product of this body, of the other body, and of the administration working night and day to put together a solid package, if you have confidence in that, and you have confidence in this list of rights that we have enumerated, that we give to the defendants, that we give to the people who designed the attack on 9/11: the right to counsel, the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to a secret vote in the jury so that a colonel cannot lean on a lieutenant to get a guilty verdict, the right against self- incrimination, all of the basic rights. If you look at that package of rights and you think that is enough for the terrorists, then vote "yes" on this bill, vote "no" on this motion to recommit.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Skelton motion to recommit with instructions to the Armed Services Committee the bill H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I support the Skelton motion because it provides for expedited judicial review of the bill's constitutionality.
The need for expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of this proposed law is clear. Already, the Administration's military commissions plan has already been found fatally defective by the Supreme Court. That the majority has worked closely with the Administration to produce the bill before us provides little comfort or confidence that this bill will pass constitutional muster. It would be a shame to go prosecute detainees under the regime established in this bill only to have any convictions set aside because the procedures are later found to be constitutionally infirm.
Mr. Speaker, Congress should pass legislation that will provide the President with a tough and fair system of military commissions that will ensure swift convictions for terrorists and protect our men and women in uniform. But the legislation must also respond to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the Hamdan case and withstand judicial scrutiny, or it may not serve its other purposes.
Many legal experts have raised serious questions about this bill's constitutionality. That is why it is critically important to quickly determine whether the statute will survive judicial scrutiny. Just think. If this bill is tied up in years of litigation and eventually struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, this could have disastrous implications: Convictions would be overturned; terrorists would have a "get-out-of-jail-free" card; and the United States would once again be left without a working military commissions system.
Mr. Speaker, there is a right way to remedy this situation and it is simple. Under the Skelton provision, the judicial review would occur early on and quickly--before there are trials and convictions. And it would help provide stability and sure-footing for novel legislation that sets up a military commissions system unlike anything in American history.
Such an approach provides no additional rights to alleged terrorists. All it does is give the Supreme Court of the United States the ability to decide whether the military commissions system under this act is legal or not. It simply guarantees rapid judicial review.
For this reason, I support the Motion to Recommit.
Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, 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 question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Skelton: Mr. 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 195, noes 228, not voting 9, as follows:
| Roll No. 490 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AYES--195 | ||||
| Abercrombie | Ackerman | Allen | Andrews | Baca |
| Baird | Baldwin | Bean | Becerra | Berkley |
| Berman | Berry | Bishop (GA) | Bishop (NY) | Blumenauer |
| Boren | Boswell | Boucher | Boyd | Brady (PA) |
| Brown (OH) | Brown, Corrine | Butterfield | Capps | Capuano |
| Cardin | Cardoza | Carnahan | Carson | Case |
| Chandler | Clay | Clyburn | Conyers | Cooper |
| Costa | Costello | Cramer | Crowley | Cuellar |
| Cummings | Davis (AL) | Davis (CA) | Davis (IL) | Davis (TN) |
| DeFazio | DeGette | Delahunt | DeLauro | Dicks |
| Dingell | Doggett | Doyle | Edwards | Emanuel |
| Engel | Eshoo | Etheridge | Evans | Farr |
| Fattah | Filner | Ford | Frank (MA) | Gonzalez |
| Gordon | Green, Al | Green, Gene | Grijalva | Gutierrez |
| Harman | Hastings (FL) | Herseth | Higgins | Hinchey |
| Hinojosa | Holt | Honda | Hooley | Hoyer |
| Inslee | Israel | Jackson (IL) | Jefferson | Johnson, E. B. |
| Jones (NC) | Jones (OH) | Kanjorski | Kaptur | Kennedy (RI) |
| Kildee | Kilpatrick (MI) | Kind | Kucinich | Langevin |
| Lantos | Larsen (WA) | Larson (CT) | Leach | Lee |
| Levin | Lipinski | Lofgren, Zoe | Lowey | Lynch |
| Maloney | Markey | Matsui | McCarthy | McCollum (MN) |
| McDermott | McGovern | McIntyre | McKinney | McNulty |
| Meek (FL) | Meeks (NY) | Melancon | Michaud | Miller (NC) |
| Miller, George | Mollohan | Moore (KS) | Moore (WI) | Moran (VA) |
| Nadler | Napolitano | Neal (MA) | Oberstar | Obey |
| Olver | Ortiz | Otter | Owens | Pallone |
| Pascrell | Pastor | Paul | Payne | Pelosi |
| Peterson (MN) | Pomeroy | Price (NC) | Rahall | Rangel |
| Reyes | Ross | Rothman | Roybal-Allard | Ruppersberger |
| Rush | Ryan (OH) | Sabo | Salazar | Sanchez, Linda T. |
| Sanchez, Loretta | Sanders | Schakowsky | Schiff | Schwartz (PA) |
| Scott (GA) | Scott (VA) | Serrano | Shays | Sherman |
| Skelton | Slaughter | Smith (WA) | Snyder | Solis |
| Spratt | Stark | Stupak | Tanner | Tauscher |
| Taylor (MS) | Thompson (CA) | Thompson (MS) | Tierney | Towns |
| Udall (CO) | Udall (NM) | Van Hollen | Velazquez | Visclosky |
| Wasserman Schultz | Waters | Watson | Watt | Waxman |
| Weiner | Wexler | Woolsey | Wu | Wynn |
| NOES--228 | ||||
| Aderholt | Akin | Alexander | Bachus | Baker |
| Barrett (SC) | Barrow | Bartlett (MD) | Barton (TX) | Bass |
| Beauprez | Biggert | Bilbray | Bilirakis | Bishop (UT) |
| Blackburn | Blunt | Boehlert | Boehner | Bonilla |
| Bonner | Bono | Boozman | Boustany | Bradley (NH) |
| Brady (TX) | Brown (SC) | Brown-Waite, Ginny | Burgess | Burton (IN) |
| Buyer | Calvert | Camp (MI) | Campbell (CA) | Cannon |
| Cantor | Capito | Carter | Chabot | Chocola |
| Coble | Cole (OK) | Conaway | Crenshaw | Cubin |
| Culberson | Davis (KY) | Davis, Jo Ann | Davis, Tom | Deal (GA) |
| Dent | Diaz-Balart, L. | Diaz-Balart, M. | Doolittle | Drake |
| Dreier | Duncan | Ehlers | Emerson | English (PA) |
| Everett | Feeney | Ferguson | Fitzpatrick (PA) | Flake |
| Foley | Forbes | Fortenberry | Fossella | Foxx |
| Franks (AZ) | Frelinghuysen | Gallegly | Garrett (NJ) | Gerlach |
| Gibbons | Gilchrest | Gillmor | Gingrey | Gohmert |
| Goode | Goodlatte | Granger | Graves | Green (WI) |
| Gutknecht | Hall | Harris | Hart | Hastings (WA) |
| Hayes | Hayworth | Hefley | Hensarling | Herger |
| Hobson | Hoekstra | Holden | Hostettler | Hulshof |
| Hunter | Hyde | Inglis (SC) | Issa | Istook |
| Jenkins | Jindal | Johnson (CT) | Johnson (IL) | Johnson, Sam |
| Keller | Kelly | Kennedy (MN) | King (IA) | King (NY) |
| Kingston | Kirk | Kline | Knollenberg | Kolbe |
| Kuhl (NY) | LaHood | Latham | LaTourette | Lewis (CA) |
| Lewis (KY) | Linder | LoBiondo | Lucas | Lungren, Daniel E. |
| Mack | Manzullo | Marchant | Marshall | Matheson |
| McCaul (TX) | McCotter | McCrery | McHenry | McHugh |
| McKeon | McMorris Rodgers | Mica | Miller (FL) | Miller (MI) |
| Miller, Gary | Moran (KS) | Murphy | Murtha | Musgrave |
| Myrick | Neugebauer | Northup | Norwood | Nunes |
| Nussle | Osborne | Oxley | Pearce | Pence |
| Peterson (PA) | Petri | Pickering | Pitts | Platts |
| Poe | Pombo | Porter | Price (GA) | Pryce (OH) |
| Putnam | Radanovich | Ramstad | Regula | Rehberg |
| Reichert | Renzi | Reynolds | Rogers (AL) | Rogers (KY) |
| Rogers (MI) | Rohrabacher | Ros-Lehtinen | Royce | Ryan (WI) |
| Ryun (KS) | Saxton | Schmidt | Schwarz (MI) | Sensenbrenner |
| Sessions | Shadegg | Shaw | Sherwood | Shimkus |
| Shuster | Simmons | Simpson | Smith (NJ) | Smith (TX) |
| Sodrel | Souder | Stearns | Sullivan | Sweeney |
| Tancredo | Taylor (NC) | Terry | Thomas | Thornberry |
| Tiahrt | Tiberi | Turner | Upton | Walden (OR) |
| Walsh | Wamp | Weldon (FL) | Weldon (PA) | Weller |
| Westmoreland | Whitfield | Wicker | Wilson (NM) | Wilson (SC) |
| Wolf | Young (AK) | Young (FL) | ||
| NOT VOTING--9 | ||||
| Castle | Cleaver | Davis (FL) | Jackson-Lee (TX) | Lewis (GA) |
| Meehan | Millender-McDonald | Ney | Strickland | |
Messrs. Gallegly, Kennedy of Minnesota and Murtha changed their vote from "aye" to "no."
Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Messrs. Gordon, Otter, Brady of Pennsylvania, Stupak, Mollohan and Kanjorski changed their 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 (Mr. Bass): The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Speaker pro tempore: This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253, noes 168, not voting 12, as follows:
| Roll No. 491 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AYES--253 | ||||
| Aderholt | Akin | Alexander | Andrews | Bachus |
| Baker | Barrett (SC) | Barrow | Barton (TX) | Bass |
| Bean | Beauprez | Biggert | Bilbray | Bilirakis |
| Bishop (GA) | Bishop (UT) | Blackburn | Blunt | Boehlert |
| Boehner | Bonilla | Bonner | Bono | Boozman |
| Boren | Boswell | Boustany | Boyd | Bradley (NH) |
| Brady (TX) | Brown (OH) | Brown (SC) | Brown-Waite, Ginny | Burgess |
| Burton (IN) | Buyer | Calvert | Camp (MI) | Campbell (CA) |
| Cannon | Cantor | Capito | Carter | Chabot |
| Chandler | Chocola | Coble | Cole (OK) | Conaway |
| Cramer | Crenshaw | Cubin | Cuellar | Culberson |
| Davis (AL) | Davis (KY) | Davis (TN) | Davis, Jo Ann | Deal (GA) |
| Dent | Diaz-Balart, L. | Diaz-Balart, M. | Doolittle | Drake |
| Dreier | Duncan | Edwards | Ehlers | Emerson |
| English (PA) | Etheridge | Everett | Feeney | Ferguson |
| Fitzpatrick (PA) | Flake | Foley | Forbes | Ford |
| Fortenberry | Fossella | Foxx | Franks (AZ) | Frelinghuysen |
| Gallegly | Garrett (NJ) | Gerlach | Gibbons | Gillmor |
| Gingrey | Gohmert | Goode | Goodlatte | Gordon |
| Granger | Graves | Green (WI) | Gutknecht | Hall |
| Harris | Hart | Hastert | Hastings (WA) | Hayes |
| Hayworth | Hefley | Hensarling | Herger | Herseth |
| Higgins | Hobson | Hoekstra | Holden | Hostettler |
| Hulshof | Hunter | Hyde | Inglis (SC) | Issa |
| Istook | Jenkins | Jindal | Johnson (CT) | Johnson (IL) |
| Johnson, Sam | Kelly | Kennedy (MN) | King (IA) | King (NY) |
| Kingston | Kirk | Kline | Knollenberg | Kolbe |
| Kuhl (NY) | LaHood | Latham | Lewis (CA) | Lewis (KY) |
| Linder | LoBiondo | Lucas | Lungren, Daniel E. | Mack |
| Manzullo | Marchant | Marshall | Matheson | McCaul (TX) |
| McCotter | McCrery | McHenry | McHugh | McIntyre |
| McKeon | McMorris Rodgers | Melancon | Mica | Michaud |
| Miller (FL) | Miller (MI) | Miller, Gary | Moore (KS) | Murphy |
| Musgrave | Myrick | Neugebauer | Northup | Norwood |
| Nunes | Nussle | Osborne | Otter | Oxley |
| Pearce | Pence | Peterson (MN) | Peterson (PA) | Petri |
| Pickering | Pitts | Platts | Poe | Pombo |
| Pomeroy | Porter | Price (GA) | Pryce (OH) | Putnam |
| Ramstad | Regula | Rehberg | Reichert | Renzi |
| Reynolds | Rogers (AL) | Rogers (KY) | Rogers (MI) | Rohrabacher |
| Ros-Lehtinen | Ross | Royce | Ryan (WI) | Ryun (KS) |
| Salazar | Saxton | Schmidt | Schwarz (MI) | Scott (GA) |
| Sensenbrenner | Sessions | Shadegg | Shaw | Shays |
| Sherwood | Shimkus | Shuster | Simmons | Simpson |
| Smith (NJ) | Smith (TX) | Sodrel | Souder | Spratt |
| Stearns | Sullivan | Sweeney | Tancredo | Tanner |
| Taylor (MS) | Taylor (NC) | Terry | Thomas | Thornberry |
| Tiahrt | Tiberi | Turner | Upton | Walden (OR) |
| Walsh | Wamp | Weldon (FL) | Weldon (PA) | Weller |
| Westmoreland | Whitfield | Wicker | Wilson (NM) | Wilson (SC) |
| Wolf | Young (AK) | Young (FL) | ||
| NOES--168 | ||||
| Abercrombie | Ackerman | Allen | Baca | Baird |
| Baldwin | Bartlett (MD) | Becerra | Berkley | Berman |
| Berry | Bishop (NY) | Blumenauer | Boucher | Brady (PA) |
| Brown, Corrine | Butterfield | Capps | Capuano | Cardin |
| Cardoza | Carnahan | Carson | Case | Clay |
| Clyburn | Conyers | Cooper | Costa | Costello |
| Crowley | Cummings | Davis (CA) | Davis (IL) | DeFazio |
| DeGette | Delahunt | DeLauro | Dicks | Dingell |
| Doggett | Doyle | Emanuel | Engel | Eshoo |
| Evans | Farr | Fattah | Filner | Frank (MA) |
| Gilchrest | Gonzalez | Green, Al | Green, Gene | Grijalva |
| Gutierrez | Harman | Hastings (FL) | Hinchey | Hinojosa |
| Holt | Honda | Hooley | Hoyer | Inslee |
| Israel | Jackson (IL) | Jefferson | Johnson, E. B. | Jones (NC) |
| Jones (OH) | Kanjorski | Kaptur | Kennedy (RI) | Kildee |
| Kilpatrick (MI) | Kind | Kucinich | Langevin | Lantos |
| Larsen (WA) | Larson (CT) | LaTourette | Leach | Lee |
| Levin | Lipinski | Lofgren, Zoe | Lowey | Lynch |
| Maloney | Markey | Matsui | McCarthy | McCollum (MN) |
| McDermott | McGovern | McKinney | McNulty | Meek (FL) |
| Meeks (NY) | Miller (NC) | Miller, George | Mollohan | Moore (WI) |
| Moran (KS) | Moran (VA) | Murtha | Nadler | Napolitano |
| Neal (MA) | Oberstar | Obey | Olver | Ortiz |
| Owens | Pallone | Pascrell | Pastor | Paul |
| Payne | Pelosi | Price (NC) | Rahall | Rangel |
| Reyes | Rothman | Roybal-Allard | Ruppersberger | Rush |
| Ryan (OH) | Sabo | Sanchez, Linda T. | Sanchez, Loretta | Sanders |
| Schakowsky | Schiff | Schwartz (PA) | Scott (VA) | Serrano |
| Sherman | Skelton | Slaughter | Smith (WA) | Snyder |
| Solis | Stark | Stupak | Tauscher | Thompson (CA) |
| Thompson (MS) | Tierney | Towns | Udall (CO) | Udall (NM) |
| Van Hollen | Velazquez | Visclosky | Wasserman Schultz | Waters |
| Watson | Watt | Waxman | Weiner | Wexler |
| Woolsey | Wu | Wynn | ||
| NOT VOTING--12 | ||||
| Castle | Cleaver | Davis (FL) | Davis, Tom | Jackson-Lee (TX) |
| Keller | Lewis (GA) | Meehan | Millender-McDonald | Ney |
| Radanovich | Strickland | |||
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. Keller Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 491, I voted "aye" and I was here. Apparently, there was a card malfunction and it did not record my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted "aye".
