国会记录：2007年6月28日（众议院）] [Page H7347-H7390] Emanuel先生Emanuel先生提供的2008年修正案金融服务和一般政府拨款法。主席先生，我提供了一项修正案。那位主席。店员将指定修正案。修正案的文本如下：伊曼纽尔先生提供的修正案：在法案结束时（在简短标题之前），插入以下内容：标题IX额外的一般规定。901.本法中没有提供的任何资金都不能用于以下任何一项：（1）副总统正式住所的护理，运营，翻新或改善。（2）副总统的任何费用，包括雇用乘用车，官方娱乐费用以及美国法典第3109条和美国法典第3条第106条所述的服务。那位主席。根据2007年6月27日（星期三）的房屋命令，来自伊利诺伊州的绅士（伊曼纽尔先生）和一个反对的成员将控制5分钟。椅子认可了伊利诺伊州的绅士。 Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I offer a simple amendment that bars the executive branch from being used to fund the office that does not exist in the executive branch, the Office of the Vice President. Last week, we all received a tutorial in U.S. Government history from the Vice President's office. Apparently his office is not an entity within the executive branch. There have been 46 Vice Presidents in U.S. history, and not one of them knew this or ever claimed this position. Perhaps the Vice President thought he occupied an undisclosed fourth branch of government. His claim flies in the face of the Constitution and was offered in an attempt to avoid following the rules governing the treatment of classified information and documents. This claim was particularly ironic this week, given the four-part series the Washington Post ran about the Vice President's role in this administration. And rather than claim that he wasn't part of the executive branch, it sounds like, from reading those stories, he is the executive branch. Yesterday, the Vice President was forced to admit what even an eighth grade student knew, there is no ``Cheney branch'' of government. While the Vice President's excuses may change, his desire to ignore the rule remains just as strong as ever. The Vice President is unwilling to risk that the documents detailing the flawed intelligence and faulty assumptions that led us into the war in Iraq. He has been held unaccountable for 6 years, and now he wants to be unaccountable in the historical record. Whatever his reasons, this penchant for secrecy is not new. Shortly taking office, the Vice President, in meeting with oil and gas executives and not wanting to turn over that information, claimed he was part of the executive branch. After the Vice President excluded himself from the executive branch, my amendment follows up on the Vice President's assertion and restricts the executive branch funding for the Vice President's office. It leaves intact his Senate presidency office. It delivers two messages. If the Vice President is not in the executive branch, then there is no executive branch office to fund. And perhaps more importantly, it underscores that the Vice President is not above the law and cannot ignore the rules. The law should follow him, whatever branch of government he chooses to hang his hat in. Mr. Chairman, we have a duty to ensure that no individual in our government, no matter how powerful, is allowed to ignore the rules. And when the Vice President is avoiding accountability, it is the Congress' responsibility to demand that accountability. The Vice President must know that no matter what branch of government he may consider himself part of on any given day or week, he is not above the law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman and Members of this body, I am sure that the sponsor thinks he is going to improve the operations of the government, but I think this is probably offered for political purposes. We cannot deal with the constitutional responsibilities in this bill, and the Vice President does have constitutional responsibilities as President of the Senate. The Senate Legislative Branch appropriations bill provides funding for his salary and legislative operating expenses. In fiscal year 2008, his requests equal $2.3 million. I think it's important that I take time to oppose this amendment because it is setting a bad precedent. I think the sponsor must be making an assumption that they will never have a Vice President, because you are setting a precedent here that might come back to haunt you at some time in the future. The Vice President's office also receives $4.8 million to fund the executive branch duties of the Vice President and pay for his residence. We decided that, for security reasons, the Vice President needs to have a residence. There was a time that that was not the case. And I don't think that because some Members may not like the current Vice President, or any future Vice President, doesn't mean Congress should use its power of the purse to eliminate funding for the office. That is not how the Founding Fathers envisioned the separation of powers operating. Eliminating funding to maintain the Vice President's residence and the 25 Federal employees funded by this object is irresponsible. I think it is disrespectful of the Constitution and the Office of the Vice President. Whether we agree or not, the Vice President's office serves an important executive and legislative function. And let me just say again to my colleagues, this sets a very bad precedent. Where do we stop if we determine that we're going to, by using the power of the purse, pass judgment on the policies of people that serve in government? It's a political activity. It's a political attempt to embarrass the Vice President. I would hope my colleagues reject this. Just remember, you may have a Vice President, too. And once you set a precedent, I'm not sure that you would want that to be part of your legacy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield back his time? The gentleman had moved to strike the last word. Mr. REGULA. I do claim the time in opposition to this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is permitted to strike the last word and to claim time in opposition. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. REGULA. And I reserve my time. Just let me say again, this is a bad, bad precedent. And it's an example, you better be careful what you wish for, because you may decide that it's not something you want to happen. Mr. EMANUEL. I would like to say that it's true, there is an important constitutional precedent here, and that's why the Vice President should never have claimed that he wasn't part [[Page H7366]] of the executive branch, something any eighth grader knows. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from New York (Mr. Israel). Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman. Responding to the gentleman's suggestion that we not do this because we may have a vice president one day, we may have a vice president one day, but that vice president will admit to being vice president. The current Vice President refuses to admit that he is Vice President. {time} 1300 Now, we have heard in Washington flimflam and rope-a-dopes and evasions and half truths. This one takes the cake. This turns the theory of plausible deniability into undeniable irrationality. The Vice President is part of the executive branch. If he is going to state that he is not part of the executive branch, he should act accordingly. Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The Vice President has violated a number of rules, maxims, constitutional provisions; but he has clearly violated one that I would have thought him wise enough and old enough to understand. No matter how difficult the situation in which your own misactions have put you, and no matter what kind of a corner you have gotten yourself into, try to avoid saying something that no one will believe. When the Vice President offered his justification for his refusal to follow the fundamental principle of openness, he made a statement that no one would believe. Apparently, in this case, even he didn't believe him, which was a new reach for him. He is now trying to take it back. The gentleman from Ohio said to be careful what you wish for. Well, here is what I wish for, I would say to my friend from Ohio: a Vice President of the United States who will follow the law, who will not show contempt for the norms of a democracy. Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Emanuel's amendment to allocate only the budget of the Senate president to Mr. Cheney. We have known for the Vice President to go to undisclosed locations, but never to an undisclosed branch of government. I turned to my Constitution for some help. It looks to me like article II does include the Vice President in the executive. The Senate itself seems confused, having subpoenaed Vice President Cheney yesterday for records on the administration's spying program. The other body doesn't seem to appear to embrace Vice President Cheney as one of its own. The Vice President can't have it both ways. This amendment helps him sort it out. We will defund his executive office, leaving him with a vastly reduced budget but giving him what he wants, at least on some undisclosed days. Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is a very interesting and important issue that the gentleman has brought up. I am just thinking, as I had prepared this bill, and sent it over to the executive for a signature, maybe I should declare myself as part of the executive for that period of time and get all the Secret Service protection and all that goes with it. If we start doing that, we could get to a big problem. He brings up an interesting point. It has to be dealt with. The Vice President has to decide if he is part of the Senate or is he a part of the executive branch. We can deal with it later once he tells us what he wants to do. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I support my friend from Illinois' amendment. Everybody, everybody, in our system is accountable. It doesn't matter what you call yourself. It doesn't matter how you define yourself. When it was convenient for him to avoid scrutiny over the energy bill, the Vice President in 2002 said he was a part of the executive branch and preserved by that privilege. When it was inconvenient for the Vice President to comply with everybody else's requirements regarding classified information in 2005 and 2006, he said he was not part of the executive branch, he was part of the legislative branch. Under our Constitution, what you call yourself does not define your responsibility. What the Constitution says is your responsibility is your responsibility, even if you are Vice President of the United States. Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman very much for yielding. I thank the Chair of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Emanuel, for his amendment, upon which I decided not to offer my amendment on this issue. Let me explain why I believe that the American people understand that no one is above the law: secret energy task force; secret wiretapping of Americans in violation of the FISA Act; a clandestine campaign to gut critical environmental protections; and new rules developed in secret governing the treatment of foreign terror suspects held by the United States. The Vice President said he is part of the legislative branch. That means we can expel him. But in this instance, I believe we must say to the American people, he is not above the law. This is a nonfunding of the Vice President's residence on the basis of his declaration that he is not part of the executive. I think this is an appropriate vehicle. I think we must say to the American people that not one of us, not one legislator, not one executive person, none of us is above the law. I wholeheartedly support this amendment. I am proud to join as a cosponsor with my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel, in sponsoring this amendment to H.R. 2829, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2008. I also rise to commend Chairman Serrano and Ranking Member Regula for their leadership in shepherding this bill through the legislative process. I declined to offer the amendment that I filed so unity could be exhibited under one premise--no one is above the law--including the Vice President. Among other things, this legislation provides funding for the Supreme Court and the Federal judiciary, the District of Columbia Government; and several independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission. The bill also funds the Executive Office of the President and other executive branch agencies, including the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service. While most Americans do not know that this legislation also provides funding to operate the official residence of the Vice President, they do know that the Vice President is a member of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. This fact apparently is news to the current occupant of the office, Vice President Cheney, who it has been reported resisted compliance with an executive order issued by President Bush in 2003 regarding the handling of classified information on the ground that the Vice President and his office is not a unit of the executive branch. Mr. Chairman, if it were not so serious and not part of a long pattern of disturbing conduct, the Vice President's claim would be merely laughable and his weak grasp of the facts might even be charming. But this Vice President has a long, disturbing, and disastrous record of asserting as fact things that he plainly knows to be untrue. This is the same Vice President who said this about the war in Iraq: ``I think it will go relatively quickly . . . [in] weeks rather than months.'' In the run-up to the war, this same Vice President went on national television and confidently assured the nation that there was a connection between 911 and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Vice President Cheney proclaimed in March 2002 that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed ``biological and chemical weapons,'' and confidently assured the nation less than a week before the launch of the Iraq War that, yes indeed, ``we believe [Iraq] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' In each instance, the Vice President was proven wrong by the facts. With his preposterous claim not to be a member of the executive branch, history is repeating. But as the saying goes: ``history repeats; the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.'' Indeed, perhaps the only person in the whole history of the United States who has been more wrong more often about more things of great consequence than the Vice President is the current President, who after all, is the nation's Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. [[Page H7367]] Let us set the record straight and get our facts right. The Vice President is a creature of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government as Article II, section 1 of the Constitution makes clear. The Vice President is not a ``member'' of the Legislative Branch because membership in that branch is governed by the first clause in sections 2 and 3 of Article I. No member of Congress is elected to serve a four-year term as is the Vice President. And no member of Congress is provided an official residence as is the Vice President and the President. A member of the Federal legislature can be involuntarily removed from office if his or her colleagues, by a \2/3\ margin, vote to expel. The Vice President can be involuntarily removed from office after impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate. Mr. Chairman, the Vice President is extremely intelligent and no doubt knew his claim to be a member of the legislative branch was and is specious. The claim was simply a dodge to evade accountability and compliance with the requirements of the law. We have been down this road before: Secret Energy Task Force, secret wiretapping of Americans in violation of the FISA Act, clandestine campaign to gut critical environmental protections, new rules developed in secret governing the treatment of foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have spent the majority of my time in Congress protecting and defending the separation of powers that is the hallmark of our democracy. I have consistently opposed this Administration's abuse of executive powers and prerogatives. That is why I introduced H.R. 264, the Congressional Lawmaking Authority Protection Act, challenging the president's misuse of bill signing statements. Similarly, I introduced the Military Success in Iraq Act (MSIA or ``Messiah'') to deliver American troops from Iraq by terminating the authorization to use military force and requiring a new vote to continue offensive military operations in Iraq. A third example of my resistance to this Administration misuse and abuse of authority is H.R. 267, the Military Commissions Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, which I introduced to repeal the restriction on the jurisdiction of courts, justices, and judges to hear or consider applications for writs of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of certain aliens detained by the United States. Mr. Chairman, no person is above the law and certainly not Vice President Cheney. That is why I joined with Congressman Emanuel to resist his latest attempt to avoid accountability and evade responsibility. The intent of the amendment is straightforward: to limit the availability of funds for the Office of the Vice President only to Vice Presidents who are members of the executive branch of the Federal Government and subject to the executive authority of the President of the United States. The appropriated funds are not available to members of the legislative branch. A person is a member of the legislative branch only if they are so qualified by virtue of compliance with Article I, section 2, clause 1 or Article I, section 3, clause 1. Acting as President over the Senate is not sufficient to make one a ``member'' of the Senate, and thus a member of the legislative branch. Although our amendment will save the taxpayers $4.752 million from being used by the Vice President, it does not restrict funding for the Vice President's secret service protection and does not affect the funds Cheney would receive as President of the Senate. The Senate version of the FY08 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill provides the President of the Senate with $2.3 million. Mr. Chairman, if the Vice President does not think he is a member of the executive branch there is no reason he should impose upon the taxpayers to fund the perquisites of his office. Democrats were entrusted by the voters with the majority to restore fiscal responsibility, oversight, and accountability to government. The new majority is committed to ensuring that government operates in an open, transparent, accountable and fair manner. For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. Let me again thank Chairman Serrano and Ranking Member Regula for their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together this excellent legislation. Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, now that the gentleman from New Jersey has shot down any chance of me being part of the executive branch, reminding me that the Constitution doesn't allow it, I will just keep quiet on that and yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), our caucus chairman. Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to make two closing points really quickly to my colleague from Ohio, if I can: one is I don't come to this amendment lightly. The Vice President's unprecedented act of declaring that he was not in the executive branch is the reason I submitted this. To the second point, you had said, we may have a Vice President. Having worked in the executive branch, Vice President Cheney is the Vice President of all of us. He is not yours. He is all of ours. That is why all of us were outraged by the position that he took that he was not part of the executive branch so he can avoid accountability. He is the Vice President of all of us. We ask him to abide by the law, to understand that when there is a rule in place that he is accountable and responsible to that, both for the historical purposes and when it relates to national security matters. That is why all of us were outraged when he made the decision to keep his meetings with oil executives secret. At every step of the way, he has chosen secrecy over sunshine; obstruction over accountability. We would ask seriously that the Vice President operate with that seriousness. We didn't come to this lightly. He took an unprecedented step. It is not one we would have done gingerly, messing with his office. But I want to remind everyone here, the reason we are speaking up is because he is our Vice President. We would like him to act accordingly, in the office that he has and the responsibilities that come with the office. Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman is correct. This is a very serious matter. This administration, this Vice President, whether on torture, whether on prisons, whether on their behavior in spying on Americans, has told us over and over that they are above the Constitution. What this says is that they are not above the Constitution. No one is. The Vice President certainly is not. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Number one, of course, you are going to abolish the residence. I assume you are going to get a Katrina trailer to provide for the Vice President, since we historically have provided housing and you don't offer any substitute for the existing residence. So I would think you would want to give that some thought. Secondly, we have elections. This is not the place to establish an amendment to the Constitution or to define what you may or may not like about the operation of the Vice President's office. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished whip. Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the Vice President is a talented man. He is a former Member of this body, a former whip of this body. I would like to think that any former whip of the body or current whip could confuse people as much as the Vice President appears to be able to do. Certainly my good friend from Illinois is a smart man. He knows what branch of government the Vice President is a part of. There are only three, after all. We know he is not part of the judiciary. We know he is not part of the legislative. So he must be part of the branch that is funded in the bill. This amendment may be lots of things, but it is not a serious amendment about really defunding the Vice President's office. It is an amendment about something other than that, and we know it. It has nothing really to do with moving this issue forward. There will be some discussion as the day goes on today about whether or not an amendment on our side was really an important part of the debate on the bill. This amendment is an amendment in search of a press release. In fact, let me take that back. This amendment is an amendment that is following a press release. We have already had the press release. We have already had the comments to the press about how we take advantage of a moment about who has access to what records. We all know that defunding the Vice President's office is not the way to do that. {time} 1315 I was glad to hear my friend from Illinois say in his concluding remarks, or what I believe would have been his concluding remarks, I may find that was not right, is we understand the Vice President of the United States is our Vice President, we understand that his office is funded under this bill, and we [[Page H7368]] understand that is the work that needs to be done by the Congress. We know what branch of government he belongs to. No matter how confusing that may seem, there are only three. We know which one he is part of. Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield for a short question for the whip? Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois to ask a short question of the whip. Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, question number one to the minority whip, I would say to you that, of course, there are three branches of government. I don't think anybody in room or in the Chamber needs that explanation. It is the Vice President's lawyer that needs that explanation. Second, you do believe if he is in the Vice President's office, he should observe all the laws and regulations that come with that as it relates to the responsibility of that office. Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Ohio will yield, based on the gentleman's time on the topic we are discussing, my personal view is that the Vice President and the President are bound by the same standards. But that is only my personal view. And, after all, we are not the judicial branch of government. Which branch of government would we be? The legislative branch. We know where the Vice President's office is. We know what branch he belongs to. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate, not a legitimate debate, about whether or not the Vice President is in one branch or the other. After all, he presides over the U.S. Senate. So if we did not decide to put the funding into this particular appropriations bill, we would have to put it in the other. This is a raw grab for power to defund an essential constitutional office, and it is wrong. And if it even comes close to passing, if it is not on a bipartisan basis defeated, the gentleman from Illinois will, in fact, have undercut the very underpinnings of the Constitution. This is an important vote. It is an important vote because how dare we, how dare we use a maneuver like this, to try to stifle any constitutional officer, including our own. I am ashamed to belong to a branch that would even consider this, and I am ashamed that the gentleman would do such a thing. Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel. In light of recent events, in which various Executive Branch officials, including the Vice President's former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, have acted with reckless disregard for the protection of classified information, I applaud Mr. Emanuel's leadership in introducing this amendment. This amendment would eliminate funding for the Office of the Vice President in light of the Vice President's refusal to comply with Executive Order 12958. Executive Order 12958, as amended by President Bush in March 2003, requires the Information Security Oversight Office, ISOO, within the National Archives and Records Administration to establish a uniform system to protect classified national security information throughout the Executive Branch. In 2004, the Office of the Vice President refused to submit to an on- site inspection. In doing so, it made the astonishing claim that it was not an Executive Branch entity and therefore not covered by the Executive Order. The director of the ISOO wrote the Vice President's office to contest the claim and also asked the Department of Justice to evaluate the Vice President's argument. The Vice President and the Justice Department repeatedly ignored these communications. Moreover, we learned this week that the Vice President's staff has proposed amending the Executive Order to eliminate the ISOO. Congress should not tolerate this effort by the Vice President to exempt his office from oversight and retaliate against the agency charged with maintaining our Nation's most sensitive secrets. The Vice President is making a mockery of the law and our system of checks and balances. If the Office of the Vice President insists upon defining itself as not being an Executive Branch entity, then clearly it should not be funded like one. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address this important issue--accountability. All of us in government service have an obligation to be accountable for our actions and we all take an oath to follow the laws of this country. Unfortunately, it appears the Vice President believes he should be held to some different standard that applies only to him. The news that the Vice President as advanced a legal argument that he is not a part of the executive branch and not a part of the legislative branch but has some special status which means he does not have to comply with Executive Orders or the law in safeguarding classified material is nothing less than shocking. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee I can report to my colleagues that if we stand by and allow the Office of the Vice President to exempt itself from the same rules that apply to any employee in our intelligence services, we will deal a serious blow to the morale of these patriotic Americans defending our country. I will therefore support every measure in this Financial Services Subcommittee bill, at every step in the process as it becomes law to compel the Vice President to follow the law of the land. The Vice President should be leading by example. He should be setting the highest standards of conduct and accountability. [...] Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, over the past week, the country did a collective double-take, as one commentator said, when they heard that Vice President Cheney does not believe he is part of the executive branch. That's why Representative Emanuel has proposed his amendment today. This issue first came to the public's attention last week when I wrote to the Vice President asking why he blocked efforts by the National Archives to conduct security inspections of his office, as required by the President's own executive order. The response was that the Vice President's office was not an entity within the executive branch. Legal experts ridiculed this argument, and late-night comics got some good new material. But the Vice President's extreme aversion to any oversight whatsoever, by Congress or even by his own Administration, is not a laughing matter. The Vice President has claimed special privileges that even the President doesn't have. The Vice President has unilaterally claimed an absolute exemption from inspections, while other White House offices comply with the executive order. Take the National Security Council, which is an entity within the White House. It had the wisdom to allow an inspection. The fact is, until the Vice President took this unprecedented stance, nobody at the White House had ever blocked any security inspections by the Archives. And this is not the only time the Vice President has acted to prevent oversight. He went to court to stop GAO from examining the actions of his energy task force. He blocked the Secret Service from disclosing visitors to his residence. In fact, he even refused to provide information to Congress about his employees for the annual Plum Book. His argument is--and I quote--``The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter.'' Even school children know this is preposterous. The reality is that since 2002, there's been no oversight, no monitoring, and no reporting in the Vice President's office. That's an invitation to exactly the kind of leaks and criminal violations that have occurred in Mr. Cheney's office. We are a government of laws and rules, not arbitrary decrees. The Vice President can't unilaterally decide he is his own branch of government and exempt himself from important, commonsense safeguards for protecting classified information. And he can't insist he has the powers of both the executive and the legislature branches, but the responsibilities of neither. The Vice President is not above the law. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be postponed. [...] Amendment Offered by Mr. Emanuel The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment. The Clerk redesignated the amendment. Recorded Vote The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded. A recorded vote was ordered. The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, noes 217, not voting 11, as follows: [Roll No. 596] AYES--209 Ackerman Allen Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Baird Baldwin Barrow Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Bordallo Boswell Boucher Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capps Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carson Castor Chandler Christensen Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Cramer Crowley Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis, Lincoln DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly Doyle Ellison Emanuel Engel Eshoo Etheridge Faleomavaega Farr Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Giffords Gillibrand Gonzalez Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Higgins Hill Hinchey Hirono Hodes Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kagen Kanjorski Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind Kucinich Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Markey Marshall Matheson Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McGovern McIntyre McNerney Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Norton Oberstar Olver Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Perlmutter Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Rodriguez Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sanchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Shea-Porter Sherman Shuler Sires Slaughter Solis Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Tauscher Taylor Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Towns Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velazquez Visclosky Walz (MN) Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Wilson (OH) Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth NOES--217 Aderholt Akin Alexander Bachmann Bachus Baker Barrett (SC) Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bean Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boustany Boyd (FL) Brady (TX) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Capuano Carter Castle Chabot Coble Cole (OK) Conaway Crenshaw Cubin Cuellar Culberson Davis, David Davis, Tom Deal (GA) Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Ellsworth Emerson English (PA) Everett Fallin Feeney Ferguson Flake Fortenberry [[Page H7403]] Fossella Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Hayes Heller Hensarling Herger Herseth Sandlin Hobson Hoekstra Hulshof Hunter Inglis (SC) Issa Jindal Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jordan Kaptur Keller King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Klein (FL) Kline (MN) Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) Lamborn Lampson Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Manzullo Marchant McCarthy (CA) McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McDermott McHenry McHugh McKeon McMorris Rodgers Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Moran (KS) Murphy, Tim Murtha Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Nunes Obey Pearce Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Ramstad Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Royce Ryan (WI) Salazar Sali Saxton Schmidt Sensenbrenner Sestak Shadegg Shays Shimkus Shuster Simpson Skelton Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Space Stearns Sullivan Tancredo Tanner Terry Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walberg Walden (OR) Walsh (NY) Wamp Weldon (FL) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) NOT VOTING--11 Abercrombie Davis (KY) Davis, Jo Ann Forbes Fortuno Hastert Hinojosa LaHood McNulty Ortiz Sessions Announcement by the Chairman The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute to record their vote. {time} 1808 Mr. GRAVES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. [...]