January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H179 

ideals for which Dr. King gave his life have energized a new generation of peaceful activists. 

These young people may not have experienced the words and spirit of Dr. King during 

their lifetime, but his legacy drives their efforts 

and enthusiasm. 

It is a testament to his greatness that Dr. 

King’s message has transcended time and 

generations. Dr. King called on all of us to no 

longer stand alone in silence, but to stand up 

together as a voice against injustice. He inspired us to fight for change through nonviolent means, and paved the road for us to 

continue that fight even after his death. 

Dr. King left us with the challenge to courageously fight and secure the civil rights for all, 

from the impoverished and disenfranchised 

underclass to the politically and economically 

endowed. And while we have made great 

progress, there is still work to be done. We 

must remain diligent and engaged in defining 

how our Nation will achieve this equality. 

Today’s Martin Luther King Day is as much 

about the past as it is about the present and 

the future. Dr. King’s dream is truly timeless, 

and I hope all will participate in this day of 

service to honor his faith and vision. 

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support 

of H. Res. 43 honoring the memory of Dr. 

Martin Luther King, Jr., and thanking those 

who continue to honor his memory by giving 

back to the communities in which they live. 

Dr. King once said, ‘‘Life’s most persistent 

and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing 

for others?’ ’’ Enacted in 1994 by Congress, 

the Martin Luther King, Jr., Day of Service 

was started to honor Dr. King’s legacy by giving folks the opportunity to answer that question. Its theme, ‘‘Make it a Day On, not a Day 

Off,’’ urges Americans everywhere to spend 

their day off working to create a better society—as Dr. King did. 

Despite all the hardships and discrimination 

he experienced in his lifetime, Dr. King never 

lost his profound love for all mankind. I’d like 

to thank those Americans who spend their holiday volunteering in their communities, helping 

out their brothers and their sisters. Your selflessness and sense of civic duty move America one step closer to Dr. King’s vision of the 

‘‘Beloved Community.’’ That is worth a day’s 

work from any of us. 

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today to express my strong support for H. 

Res. 43, which recognizes the efforts of those 

who serve their communities on Martin Luther 

King Day and promotes the holiday as a day 

of national service. 

Fifteen years ago, the enactment of the 

King Holiday and Service Act officially designated Martin Luther King Day as a national 

day of volunteer service. Each year since, millions of Americans across the country, and 

thousands in my congressional district, have 

been inspired to serve their neighbors and 

communities every third Monday of January. 

This is an impressive achievement but it is 

a fitting tribute to one of the greatest figures 

in world history. Dr. King dedicated and, ultimately, sacrificed his life to serve others, especially ‘‘the least of these.’’ As he famously 

observed, ‘‘Everybody can be great because 

everybody can serve.’’ 

Mr. Speaker, at this defining moment in history our country faces enormous challenges 

and given the enormity of unmet needs, every 

contribution—big and small—matters. 

All across our land, there are children and 

adults to educate; seniors to care for; hungry 

persons to feed; jobless to train and employ; 

the environment to protect; and justice to pursue. In short, there is much unfinished work to 

be done. 

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, the Martin 

Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social 

Change, and thousands of other nonprofit, 

community, national service, and education organizations across the country for encouraging 

Americans to serve their communities this holiday and throughout the year. 

I urge all Americans to honor Dr. King by 

making the holiday in his honor a ‘‘day on,’’ 

not a day off. Dr. King could always be found 

serving others. So should we. 

b 1445 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I have 

no further speakers, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

HINOJOSA) that the House suspend the 

rules and agree to the resolution, H. 

Res. 43. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on that 

I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 

Chair’s prior announcement, further 

proceedings on this motion will be 

postponed. 

f 

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF JUDGE 

G. THOMAS PORTEOUS 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I move to 

suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 15) authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House 

should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a 

judge of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The text of the resolution is as follows: 

H. RES. 15 

Resolved, That in continuance of the authority conferred in House Resolution 1448 of 

the One Hundred Tenth Congress adopted by 

the House of Representatives on September 

17, 2008, the Committee on the Judiciary 

shall inquire whether the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Louisiana. 

SEC. 2. The Committee on the Judiciary or 

any subcommittee or task force designated 

by the Committee may, in connection with 

the inquiry under this resolution, take affidavits and depositions by a member, counsel, 

or consultant of the Committee, pursuant to 

notice or subpoena. 

SEC. 3. There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary to assist the Committee in conducting the inquiry under this resolution until a primary 

expense resolution providing for the expenses 

of the Committee on the Judiciary for the 

first session of the One Hundred Eleventh 

Congress is adopted. Any of the amounts 

paid under the authority of this section may 

be used for the procurement of staff or consultant services. 

SEC. 4. (a) For the purpose of the inquiry 

under this resolution, the Committee on the 

Judiciary is authorized to require by subpoena or otherwise— 

(1) the attendance and testimony of any 

person (including at a taking of a deposition 

by counsel or consultant of the Committee); 

and 

(2) the production of such things; 

as it deems necessary to such inquiry. 

(b) The Chairman of the Committee on the 

Judiciary, after consultation with the ranking minority member, may exercise the authority of the Committee under subsection 

(a). 

(c) The Committee on the Judiciary may 

adopt a rule regulating the taking of depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of 

the Committee, including pursuant to subpoena. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 

California (Ms. MATSUI) and the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 

15. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California? 

There was no objection. 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 15 provides for a 

continuation of the authority provided 

in H. Res. 1448, as adopted by the House 

in the 110th Congress. H. Res. 15 states 

that in continuance of H. Res. 1448, the 

House directs the Committee on the 

Judiciary to inquire whether the House 

should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a 

judge of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I might consume. 

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as my 

good friend from Sacramento, my 

Rules Committee colleague, has just 

said, this resolution will allow the Judiciary Committee to continue its very 

important oversight work by reauthorizing an investigation of G. Thomas 

Porteous. 

The committee’s ongoing inquiry 

into his conduct and the question of 

whether to pursue impeachment by the 

House should continue in this 111th 

Congress. This is a bipartisan ongoing 

effort. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is so utterly bipartisan and noncontroversial 

that our colleagues could very reasonably expect that this measure would 

have been considered by unanimous 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HOUSE
H180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 13, 2009 

consent. Such widely supported procedural matters usually do not demand a 

formal debate. 

I certainly do hope that today’s consideration of this resolution under suspension of the rules is not an indication that the Democratic leadership 

needs filler time for the schedule. I 

mean, it would be a little disconcerting 

to think that they have nothing more 

important to do in the House, just 1 

week before this very, very important 

inauguration. So whatever the motivation of today’s procedure, I do strongly 

support this measure. 

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that as we 

look at this debate on this resolution 

that we’re considering under suspension of the rules that, as I said, could 

be considered by unanimous consent, 

we know that the pressing issue for the 

American people right now is our effort 

to get our economy back on track. 

That’s what so much of the talk is 

going on right here in Washington, and 

we know that virtually everyone across 

this country and, frankly, around the 

world, as we deal with this global economic downturn, virtually everyone is 

talking about what steps can be taken 

for us to get our economy back on 

track. 

And it would seem to me that, rather 

than taking time on a resolution such 

as this, which could have been considered by unanimous consent, that we 

should be moving ahead as expeditiously as possible with legislation 

that will, in fact, get our economy 

back on track. 

That’s why I, on opening day, just a 

week ago today, in fact, I was proud to 

introduce a trio of bills that I believe 

very strongly, Mr. Speaker, will play a 

key role in getting our economy back 

on track. 

The first bill is known as the Fair 

and Simple Tax Plan. We all know 

about the complexity of the Internal 

Revenue code, and we regularly hear 

from our constituents about the level 

of frustration. And we all know that it 

is very time consuming and costly to 

deal with this complex code. 

The Fair and Simple Tax Plan is a 

package that I was privileged to work 

with the former Mayor of New York, 

Rudy Giuliani; former nominee for 

Governor in California, Bill Simon; 

former economic adviser to President 

George H.W. Bush, Michael Boskin at 

Stanford University, and several others. It is a plan, Mr. Speaker, that 

would take the six tax rates that we 

have today and compress them down to 

three rates. The top rate, Mr. Speaker, 

would be 10 percent on the first $40,000 

in income, 15 percent on income between $40 and $150,000, and a top rate of 

30 percent on all income above $150,000. 

Now, I believe that that kind of rate 

reduction would increase compliance 

and stimulate very important economic growth that the American people know is desperately needed as we 

deal with these tough economic times. 

This measure also has some other 

very important components that would 

take the complex Internal Revenue 

code and bring it down to a single page, 

one page. It does maintain, Mr. Speaker, some important provisions, like the 

ability for the American taxpayer to 

deduct the interest on their home 

mortgage; the ability, and we talked 

about the resolution earlier, encouraging volunteerism; the ability to continue to deduct the charitable contributions that people make as we encourage this level of volunteerism. 

Very important. 

It also maintains the important child 

credit and the provisions that have existed. And it expands incentives for retirement, and it includes a $15,000 exclusion to deal with the challenge that 

we have with health care. And that 

$15,000 could be utilized for the purchase of health insurance or direct 

health care costs, because we know 

what a pressing need that is that exists 

today. 

It also is important, if we’re going to 

get our economy back on track, Mr. 

Speaker, and I wish that we were having a full debate on this issue right 

now, for us to, I believe, completely 

eliminate the inheritance tax, the socalled death tax. 

When you see people having to sell 

businesses, to sell homes, simply to 

comply with the Internal Revenue 

code, and I know that with that death 

tax, I believe that completely repealing 

that, nailing the coffin on the death 

tax is something that is very important. 

We also know, and today we got the 

news about the fact that we’ve seen an 

actual narrowing of the trade imbalance, we also know that one of the important things for us to do is to deal 

with the challenge of jobs leaving the 

United States and going overseas. And 

so that’s why the Fair and Simple Tax 

Plan also reduces the top tax rate on 

job creators from 35 percent to 25 percent, and economists across the board 

have recognized that that would go a 

long way towards creating good jobs 

right here in the United States of 

America. 

We also know that the tax on capital 

has been very, very high and people are 

living with the threat of it possibly 

going up. And so the Fair and Simple 

Tax Plan brings about a reduction to 15 

percent of that tax on capital gains. 

And not many people are witnessing 

capital gains at this point, but as we 

seek to get our economy back on track, 

I believe it’s very important and that 

would be a key to helping us in our effort to do that. 

So this is, again, a very simple plan 

that I believe could dramatically stimulate economic growth and get to the 

kind of permanence that we need. 

I will say that I heard some remarks 

being made by our distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Senate 

Budget Committee, Mr. CONRAD, in 

which he was referring to some of the 

concerns that he’s had with this massive economic stimulus bill that is 

about to come before us. And one of the 

concerns that he raised as he talked 

about it being timely and targeted, 

that we—and temporary, those three 

Ts—that we do everything we can to 

ensure that. And he pointed to the fact 

that the notion of dramatically extending and making permanent the unemployment insurance would not be temporary. Making permanent COBRA provisions would not be temporary. Those 

are two issues that our colleague, Mr. 

CONRAD, has raised as concerns. 

So I think that there’s a lot of controversy swirling around this so-called 

economic stimulus package, and I 

think that if we want it to be timely 

and temporary, these government 

spending programs, we need to spend 

time and effort focused on how we can 

permanently, permanently get our 

economy back on track. 

I mentioned the first of the trio of 

bills that I introduced a week ago 

today, Mr. Speaker. The second one is 

dealing with an important sector of our 

economy which we all know has played 

a key role in the downturn through 

which we’re now going, and that is the 

housing industry. And we’ve seen huge 

sums of money pushed toward the 

housing industry right now, and I believe that one of the things that we 

need to do is to reward responsible behavior. 

Now, unfortunately, government policy has encouraged people to purchase 

homes with zero down, and have interest rates that are extraordinarily low; 

basically turning the home ownership, 

something that we very much want to 

encourage, into little more than homes 

into little more than rental units, creating incentive for people to walk away 

from them. 

So the second bill that I introduced, 

Mr. Speaker, is designed to incentivize 

people to responsibly have equity in 

their homes. One of the problems that 

we found is that as we see this credit 

crunch, it’s been difficult for people to 

have what is now necessary for a down 

payment for those homes. And so the 

measure that I introduced, which, 

again, will encourage people not to 

walk away from their home and have 

equity in it, provides a $2,000 credit if 

one provides a, establishes a 5 percent 

down payment, a $5,000 credit if they 

have a 10 percent down payment, and a 

$10,000 tax credit if they will put 15 percent down. 

Now, let’s think about that. I mean, 

if someone puts 10 percent down on a 

$200,000 home, they automatically have 

$20,000 in equity and would be much 

less inclined to abandon that home as 

we’ve dealt with the challenges that we 

face out there. 

There is an inventory that needs to 

be addressed, of housing, that has yet 

to be purchased. We have neighborhoods that have been emptied, and I believe that this kind of incentive could 

again take this industry, which has 

played a role in the economic downturn, and actually, as has historically 

been the case, play a role in leading us 

back to economic strength. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HOUSE
January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H181 

And the third measure deals with the 

other industry, Mr. Speaker, that, as 

you know very well, we’ve spent a 

great deal of time talking about here; 

the administration has recently taken 

action on it, and it has to do with the 

automobile industry. 

Now, I will say that I’m not personally one who believes that we should be 

using the Tax Code to encourage the 

selection of winners over losers, but we 

know that both the housing industry 

and the auto industry have historically 

been very critical when it comes to 

moving back to economic strength. 

And so, having worked with a number 

of automobile dealers who, frankly, 

were here in December when we were 

having the debate in the 110th Congress 

on this issue, one of the things that 

was said to me was that we need to 

make sure that people are encouraged 

to get off the couch and into the showrooms to look at the purchase of automobiles. 

Now, we know, one dealer, a fellow 

called John Symes, about whom I’ve 

spoken here, a 60-year dealership in 

Southern California in the Pasadena 

area, a number of dealerships, has said 

that historically the ability to deduct 

the interest on automobile loans has 

been very, very helpful. Well, I don’t 

know that we should go back to that. 

So, instead, the third bill that I introduced on this, Mr. Speaker, would do 

the following: 

We basically are saying that today 

we know that the sales tax, both State 

and local sales tax in States has been 

very high, and so we called for a credit 

that would allow an offset for the State 

and local sales tax to encourage people, 

again, to get into the showrooms to 

purchase automobiles, regardless of 

where those automobiles are from. 

I regularly like to say when people 

say, well, what about American-made 

cars? And I ask the question somewhat 

rhetorically, what is an Americanmade car, Mr. Speaker? Is it a Ford 

manufactured in Canada with Mexicanmade parts, or is it a BMW manufactured in South Carolina with American-made parts? 

And so I believe it is important for us 

to ensure that any automobile, any 

automobile would, in fact, qualify for 

this provision. So if someone’s buying 

a $20,000 automobile and the sales tax 

is 8 percent, that would be $1,600 right 

off the top. And we set that at the sales 

tax rate for January 1 of 2009. 

Both the housing and the automobile 

provisions, Mr. Speaker, apply for a 2- 

year period of time during which I’m 

convinced we can, in fact, see our economy grow. 

b 1515 

The reason that I have raised these 

issues, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe, 

as we deal with a resolution like this 

one that could be brought up under 

unanimous consent, we should, instead, 

be debating and voting on measures 

like these three bills that were introduced last week. I know there are a 

wide range of other creative ideas that 

have come from Democrats and Republicans as well as to how we can deal 

with this. 

So I hope very much that we can 

take on this challenge and that we can 

ensure that whatever we provide in 

this economic stimulus package that it 

is, in fact, going to be a package that 

will get our economy back on track. 

I am very concerned at the reports 

that we have gotten of massive, massive spending, and I, again, congratulate our colleague Senator CONRAD for 

pointing to the deficit as being an issue 

with which we are going to have to 

contend. If we want to have sustained 

and not temporary economic growth, I 

believe the best way that we can do 

that is to take steps to encourage 

greater and greater and greater private-sector growth in our economy. 

So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am in 

support of this resolution. I hope very 

much that we can move ahead with it 

so that we will be able to deal with the 

pressing challenges that the American 

people have sent us here to address. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I urge the 

support of this resolution. 

Mrs. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased to support H. Res. 15, which I cosponsored with Chairman CONYERS. This resolution provides continued authorization for an 

inquiry into whether U.S. District Judge G. 

Thomas Porteous should be impeached. 

The Constitution reserves the exclusive 

power of impeachment to the House of Representatives and the exclusive power to try all 

impeachments in the Senate. Any ‘‘civil officer’’ of the United States, including Federal 

judges, shall be removed from office if impeached and convicted of ‘‘treason, bribery, 

and other high crimes and misdemeanors.’’ 

Only 13 Federal judges have been impeached during the past 219 years of our constitutional history. The House has exercised 

this prerogative sparingly in deference to judicial independence, one of the cornerstones of 

our republic. 

Chairman CONYERS and I concluded last 

year that there is sufficient reason to initiate 

an impeachment inquiry regarding Judge G. 

Thomas Porteous, Jr., who was appointed to 

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 

of Louisiana in 1994. 

The basis for this resolution was largely developed by a Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit. The findings of 

the Fifth Circuit were endorsed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, which notified the House of 

Representatives on June 18, 2008, of its determination that impeachment proceedings 

may be warranted. 

The materials submitted to the Judiciary 

Committee by the Judicial Conference are expansive and thorough. This led us to begin an 

impeachment inquiry last Congress pursuant 

to H. Res. 1448. However, our work is not yet 

complete. The resolution before us today is 

nearly identical to H. Res. 1448 and allows us 

to continue our investigation. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 

I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 15, 

authorizing and directing the Committee on 

the Judiciary to inquire whether the House 

should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge 

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I encourage all of my 

colleagues to support this resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary to inquire into 

the matters concerning Judge Porteous and 

let it be a signal that this Congress is interested in understanding what truly transpired 

regarding the Judge in a bipartisan and impartial manner. 

Judge Porteous was a United States District 

Judge for Louisiana, and had been a judge of 

the Louisiana Judicial District Court from 1984 

before being appointed to the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 

1994 by President Bill Clinton. 

Judge Porteous is well-known for his stance 

upholding the Constitution’s separation of 

church and state and his judgments in defense of the first amendment right to free 

speech. He has controversially ruled in several 

landmark cases against the State, including 

one 2002 case in which he ruled that the 

State of Louisiana was illegally using Federal 

money to promote religion in its abstinenceonly sex education programs. He ordered the 

State to stop giving money to individuals or organizations that ‘‘convey religious messages 

or otherwise advance religion’’ with tax dollars. 

He said there was ample evidence that many 

of the groups participating in the Governor’s 

Program on Abstinence were ‘‘furthering religious objectives.’’ 

Also, in 2002, Judge Porteous overturned a 

Federal ban on rave paraphernalia such as 

glowsticks, pacifiers, and dust masks, which 

are used at rave, electronic music concerts, 

where the use of Ecstasy is common. 

In 2001, Judge Porteous filed for bankruptcy, which led to revelations in the press 

about his private life, specifically the fact that 

he was alleged to have had close ties with 

local bail bond magnate Louis Marcotte III, at 

the center of a corruption probe, which has 

more recently led to his being the subject of 

investigation himself by Federal investigators. 

In May 2006, Judge Porteous, beset by the recent loss of his wife and still under investigation by a Federal grand jury, was granted temporary medical leave and began a 6-month 

furlough from the Federal bench. 

On June 18, 2008, the Judicial Conference 

of the United States transmitted a certificate to 

the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives expressing the Conference’s determination that consideration of impeachment of 

Judge Porteous might be warranted. The certificate stated that there was substantial evidence that Judge Porteous ‘‘repeatedly committed perjury by signing false financial disclosure forms under oath which concealed cash 

and things of value that he solicited and received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him. The certificate listed a series of 

‘‘abuses’’ that constituted an abuse of judicial 

office in violation of the Canons of the Code 

of Conduct for United States Judges. 

Late last year, I was selected to be one of 

the members of the House Judiciary Taskforce 

that will investigate Judge Porteous. Representatives ADAM SCHIFF and BOB GOODLATTE were designated as chair and ranking 

member to lead the taskforce conducting the 

inquiry. 

H. Res. 15 authorizes and directs the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the 

House should impeach Judge Porteous. The 

resolution provides that the taskorce may, in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HOUSE
H182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 13, 2009 

connection with the inquiry under this resolution, take affidavits and depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the committee, 

pursuant to notice or subpoena. 

Moreover, the resolution provides that there 

shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of 

the House such sums as may be necessary to 

assist the committee on the Judiciary in conducting the inquiry under this resolution. The 

committee is authorized to require by subpoenas or otherwise, the (1) the attendance 

and testimony of any person and (2) the production of such things as it deems necessary 

for the inquiry. Lastly, the resolution provides 

that the Committee may adopt a rule regulating the taking of depositions by a member, 

counsel, or consultant of the Committee. 

By bringing this resolution to the floor, we 

as Members of Congress demonstrate that we 

are concerned about taking the moral high 

ground and are concerned enough to investigate wrongdoing and allegations thereof 

when it affects anyone in a bipartisan manner—be the accused a Democrat or Republican. This resolution is an important first step 

to the beginning days of an administration that 

staked its campaign on change. Let us usher 

in change. I urge my colleagues to support 

this resolution 

Ms. MATSUI. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 

MATSUI) that the House suspend the 

rules and agree to the resolution, H. 

Res. 15, as amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was agreed to. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

RECESS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair 

declares the House in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today. 

Accordingly (at 3 o’clock and 17 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess 

until approximately 6:30 p.m. 

f 

b 1830 

AFTER RECESS 

The recess having expired, the House 

was called to order by the Speaker pro 

tempore (Mr. LARSEN of Washington) 

at 6 o’clock and 30 minutes p.m. 

f 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 

PRO TEMPORE 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings 

will resume on motions to suspend the 

rules previously postponed. 

Votes will be taken in the following 

order: 

House Resolution 41, by the yeas and 

nays; 

House Resolution 50, by the yeas and 

nays; 

House Resolution 43, by the yeas and 

nays. 

The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Remaining 

electronic votes will be conducted as 5- 

minute votes. 

f 

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND 

IDEALS OF NATIONAL MENTORING MONTH 2009 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to 

the resolution, H. Res. 41, on which the 

yeas and nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

HINOJOSA) that the House suspend the 

rules and agree to the resolution, H. 

Res. 41. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 411, nays 0, 

not voting 21, as follows: 

[Roll No. 11] 

YEAS—411 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Aderholt 

Adler (NJ) 

Akin 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Austria 

Baca 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Baird 

Baldwin 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berry 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blackburn 

Blunt 

Boccieri 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boucher 

Boustany 

Boyd 

Brady (PA) 

Brady (TX) 

Braley (IA) 

Bright 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (SC) 

Brown, Corrine 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Butterfield 

Buyer 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Cantor 

Cao 

Capito 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Castle 

Castor (FL) 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Childers 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cohen 

Cole 

Conaway 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crenshaw 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Cummings 

Dahlkemper 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis (KY) 

Davis (TN) 

Deal (GA) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

Delahunt 

DeLauro 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Dreier 

Driehaus 

Duncan 

Edwards (MD) 

Edwards (TX) 

Ehlers 

Ellison 

Ellsworth 

Emerson 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Fallin 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Flake 

Fleming 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foster 

Foxx 

Frank (MA) 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Fudge 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gillibrand 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gonzalez 

Goodlatte 

Gordon (TN) 

Granger 

Graves 

Grayson 

Green, Al 

Griffith 

Guthrie 

Gutierrez 

Hall (NY) 

Hall (TX) 

Halvorson 

Hare 

Harman 

Harper 

Hastings (FL) 

Hastings (WA) 

Heinrich 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Higgins 

Hill 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hodes 

Hoekstra 

Holden 

Holt 

Hoyer 

Hunter 

Inglis 

Inslee 

Israel 

Issa 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson-Lee 

(TX) 

Jenkins 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan (OH) 

Kagen 

Kanjorski 

Kaptur 

Kennedy 

Kildee 

Kilpatrick (MI) 

Kilroy 

Kind 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kirk 

Kirkpatrick (AZ) 

Kissell 

Klein (FL) 

Kline (MN) 

Kosmas 

Kratovil 

Kucinich 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lee (CA) 

Lee (NY) 

Levin 

Lewis (CA) 

Lewis (GA) 

Linder 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Luja ́n 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Mack 

Maffei 

Maloney 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Markey (CO) 

Markey (MA) 

Marshall 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McCollum 

McCotter 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McMahon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Meek (FL) 

Meeks (NY) 

Melancon 

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 

Neal (MA) 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Nye 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olson 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Payne 

Pence 

Perlmutter 

Perriello 

Peters 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pingree (ME) 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Polis (CO) 

Pomeroy 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Price (NC) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Rodriguez 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Royce 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Ryan (WI) 

Salazar 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Scalise 

Schakowsky 

Schauer 

Schiff 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Sensenbrenner 

Serrano 

Sessions 

Sestak 

Shadegg 

Shea-Porter 

Sherman 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Sires 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Smith (WA) 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stark 

Stearns 

Stupak 

Sutton 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Taylor 

Teague 

Terry 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiahrt 

Tiberi 

Tierney 

Titus 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Turner 

Upton 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Walden 

Walz 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch 

Westmoreland 

Wexler 

Whitfield 

Wilson (OH) 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

NOT VOTING—21 

Alexander 

Barrett (SC) 

Berman 

Bishop (UT) 

Blumenauer 

Gallegly 

Gohmert 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Herseth Sandlin 

Honda 

Massa 

Moran (KS) 

Rohrabacher 

Snyder 

Solis (CA) 

Souder 

Sullivan 

Visclosky 

Wamp 

Watson 

b 1859 

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the 

resolution was agreed to. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HOUSE