Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, our friends on the other side of the aisle have spent a great deal of time over the past few years railing against deficits and railing against the debt. And last year, their first time in the majority in over a decade, the Democrats finally got their chance to show their version of what a fiscally responsible Congress should actually look like. But all they've done since they've come into power is mismanage the fiscal situation.

The key to managing and to budgeting is to set priorities, and everyone who has ever had a family or run a business knows this. You have to make difficult choices, and you can't always have everything you want right when you want it.

But the Democrats have refused to set priorities. They simply want to spend more on everything and everyone within the reach of the Federal Government. And we've even seen things that they spend money on that the Federal Government has absolutely nothing to do with.

And to pay for all this new spending? Well, they're simply going to raise taxes, this time by $683 billion. That tax hike lets them show balance, at least on paper, for this round of spending. But their plan to chase ever-higher spending with ever-higher taxes can only work for so long. Pretty soon, as their spending continues to spiral out of control without any priorities, without any effort to cut waste, and without any effort to reform entitlements, they're simply going to run out of people to pay for it all. Then what?

Again, budgeting is about setting priorities and making decisions. But the decisions this budget makes, and perhaps more importantly, those that it fails to make, sets up a vicious cycle of tax and spend that neither the budget nor the American taxpayer can sustain for long.

Mr. Speaker, Anthony ``Tony'' Eubanks, professional basketball player, collegiate basketball record holder and two-time All American, during Black History Month, I would like to recognize his efforts as a mentor to our Christian youth in South Carolina.

Through his professional basketball career, Tony was able to travel to the Middle East, Europe, and Argentina. This travel led him to work with youth as a volunteer for Young Life, FCA, and other ministries.

Currently, he now serves as the chaplain of the Clemson Tigers football team and volunteers with FCA on the Clemson campus.

South Carolina is proud to have this citizen who is so truly dedicated to strengthening youth faith. Each day, he contributes to pregame chapels, coaches' Bible study and graduate assistants' Bible studies, and other ministries that continue to make a difference in the lives of athletes, coaches, and the community.

Tony is not only a leader for our youth, but also a strong role model for athletes. He is a true athlete for Christian Ministries.

Madam Speaker, community volunteers run our school boards, our civil centers, help with youth programs, and assist our hospitals. They make a difference to so many and ask for nothing more than an opportunity to give.

Richard Johnson, Jr., is not your average community volunteer, and during Black History Month, I would like to honor him for his dedication to service. A community activist and well-known civil volunteer, Richard has devoted his spare time to promote education, health care, and politics around the Aiken area.

He is not only a volunteer to his region, he has also served his Nation in the United States Army and is a member of the Korean War Veterans Association.

Each of the boards Richard serves, councils he governs, and committees he chairs, bears the benefit of his knowledge, commitment, and experience.

During this month, our Third District of South Carolina recognizes the true community service of Richard Johnson, Jr., and I proudly thank him for those he has served in his State and in his Nation.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to come tonight and talk a little about spending, talk a little bit about the budget, talk a little bit about reform, talk a little bit about entitlements, and talk a little bit about earmarks.

What we want to do, Madam Speaker, over the next hour is talk a little bit about what is going on in Washington, what is broken, what needs to be fixed and have a big-picture discussion. We can talk about line items. We can talk about things down in the weeds. But what we want to talk about tonight is a philosophical difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on how we are going to get this country, Madam Speaker, back on track.

Now the President's budget lays out critical fiscal issues that the Congress is going to have to deal with in the near future. Key among them are balancing the budget, promoting sustained economic growth, slowing the growth of Federal spending and addressing the coming entitlement crisis.

First on deficits. Last year at this time, after several years of dramatic declines in the Federal deficit, we found ourselves on what may be described as a glide path to balance in the near term. Now that path has been interrupted, mainly due to the slowdown in the economy and the stimulus package, but we will still balance the budget.

Even while addressing current challenges in the economy, the President's budget achieves balance by 2012 without raising taxes. Now let me say that again, because I think that is extremely important. The President's budget achieves balance by 2012 without raising taxes by demanding the Federal Government get in control of guess what? Spending.

The budget also achieves balance through sustainable fiscal policies that support economic growth and job creation. It maintains the tax policies that have supported the solid growth which until only recently succeeded in producing appreciably higher revenue, appreciably higher revenue, and dramatic reductions in the deficit, and we have got some charts to show you just that.

Finally, the President's budget recognizes that our Nation's challenges go well into the next few years. It takes a significant critical step towards addressing the greatest threat to our Nation's future strength and prosperity, the unsustainable growth of our largest entitlement programs.

While the President's budget doesn't fix the entitlement problem in one fell swoop, it does propose specific reforms, ones which would reduce Medicare's $34 trillion in unfunded liability by nearly a third, and that would be a tremendous step, Madam Speaker, $10 trillion, and I congratulate the President on this step.

These are issues that we can debate on how best to approach that. But to cut the unfunded liability by $10 trillion is remarkable. And if the people want to criticize the President's specific proposals for addressing that problem, that's fine. Then let's make sure they come forward with solutions on how we can fix this stuff. Don't just tell me the problem. Tell me how to fix it.

We must reform these programs so they can meet their mission of providing health and retirement security and a reliable safety net today and in the future. The administration has a proposed plan, but it is Congress who has the power of the purse strings. It is Congress who will decide the Federal budget. And it is Congress who is ultimately responsible and accountable for ensuring a sustainable path to our Nation's future.

Let me show a couple of charts to kind of substantiate what we are talking about, Madam Speaker.

The first chart. Now a lot of people have said the Bush tax cuts, let's make them permanent. Let's do away with them. When we talk about the Bush tax cuts, what are we talking about? We are not talking about the Bush tax cuts. We are talking about real things. We are talking about capital gains. We are talking about the marriage penalty. We are talking about dividends. We are talking about a death tax. A child tax credit. Things that affect everyday Americans, Madam Speaker.

Now this chart shows the best Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. If you look at the red first, this shows what happened before the tax cuts, and the blue shows what happened after the tax cuts. Now my friends on the other side have always said, well, what we need to do, we need to tax the rich. We need to make sure that they are paying more than their fair share.

Let me show this. After the Bush tax cuts, the top 1 percent, their taxes actually went up. That's right. The top 10 percent, guess what? After the Bush tax cuts, their taxes actually went up. The top 50 percent, after the Bush tax cuts, guess what? Their taxes actually went up.

Now, again, the Democrats will argue, well, we need to do more for the little man, for the guy that is in the middle. Look at the bottom down here. The bottom 50 percent after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, their tax liability actually went down. So the argument that we need to tax the rich more to save the little man doesn't quite fit that chart, does it?

Let's show another one. Job creation before and after the Bush tax cuts. If you look at the red lines going south, or below the line, this is before the Bush tax cuts. Look what happened after the Bush tax cuts. Now it appears to me on this chart that job creation went up. So we have got the lower 50 percent that are actually paying less, and we are creating more jobs.

An interesting concept. Let me show another one.

Now, Madam Speaker, I really love this one. This is one that me being from South Carolina can truly understand. This is before the Bush tax cuts. Then, after 2003, everything was fully implemented. The line goes increasingly up. So even after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented, revenues to the Federal Government soared through the roof.

It just proves that when you allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, that they know how to spend it better than we do. They are going to buy a new truck. They are going to build a new building. They are going to hire a new employee. They are going to grow the economy. And the way you grow the economy is through the private sector and not the public sector.

Now, let's change subjects just a little bit. Spending. No matter what we do, whether it is tax policy, whether it is changes here or changes there, we have got to get spending under control. The red line assumes that my friends on the Democrat side are successful and the Bush tax cuts are going to go away. We will have higher taxes. The red line shows here that the taxes are increasing.

But look at the green line. The green line, Madam Speaker, is runaway spending, and you can't address one without addressing the other, because unless we get our fiscal house in order, none of it is worth anything.

Now, I want to read you a quote here. Comptroller General David Walker came in front of our committee and said, ``You are not going to tax your way out of this problem. You're not going to grow your way out of this problem. You are not going to do it by constraining spending. You are going to have to do a combination of all these things, and the biggest thing is going to be entitlement reform, Social Security and Medicare, health care being a much greater challenge. And

we need to start soon, because time is working against us.''

Let's look at entitlements. Now, of course, the top of it says ``mandatory spending.'' There is actually nothing mandatory about this, because Congress can change this if we need to. It is entitlement spending.

In 1995, entitlement spending was roughly about 49 percent of our Federal budget; in 2005, which, by the way, was 3 years ago, 53.4 percent of our budget. And, lo and behold, unless we do something to address entitlement spending, by 2018, it will be 63.3 percent of our budget.

Now, you look at the interest, how it has kind of stayed the same, actually gone down a little bit. But discretionary spending has gone from 36 to 29 percent. Roads, education, infrastructure, defense, things that are vital to our Nation, things that are vital to our national security, are being eroded because of this monster that we call mandatory spending.

This is the last chart I want to show. Now, again, I want to applaud the President for trying to attack entitlement spending. There is $34 trillion, as we speak, of unfunded liabilities. And what his budget proposes is an estimated $10 trillion trying to trim that off.

Now, my chairman, Chairman John Spratt from South Carolina, an honorable man, sat right in the committee and said these are draconian cuts to Medicare, to Medicaid. But, Mr. Chairman, tell me how to fix it? Let's have an open and honest debate on how to address entitlement spending, because, Madam Speaker, this is the camel that broke the straw's back literally; not the straw that broke the camel's back, but the camel that broke the straw's back.

Madam Speaker, I can go on, and I want to do that, but I have some tremendous partners here with me tonight that want to talk about spending, that want to talk about runaway spending, that want to talk about this system that, personally, I think is broken.

The first gentleman I would like to recognize is a dear friend of mine, a classmate of mine from the great State of Minnesota, Representative Colonel John Kline.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I guess it is a philosophical question: Who do you trust? Who do you trust? Do you trust a Federal bureaucracy that has grown and grown and grown? Or do you trust the men and women in South Carolina? Do you trust the men and women in Minnesota? Do you trust the men and women in Texas or Tennessee? Because they are the ones out there day after day busting their humps, making a living, trying to make ends meet. And all they want is a fair shake. All they want is for us to spend their money wisely.

I have never met a constituent, Madam Speaker, that didn't say ``I don't want to pay my fair share.'' But every one of them will tell you ``I don't want to pay more than my fair share.'' And it is incumbent upon us, it is incumbent upon the United States Congress, to do the right thing.

With that, Madam Speaker, there is a lovely lady in the Chamber tonight that is a budget hawk, that is a stalwart when it comes to conservatism in the House, a lady that speaks with a gentle voice but carries a big stick, and I am talking about my dear friend from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn.

I thank the gentlelady.

Madam Speaker, I couldn't have said it any better. Mrs. Blackburn does a beautiful job, and we really appreciate her coming down and sharing some thoughts with us tonight.

My next speaker again is a classmate of mine, a wonderful man, the author of the Family Budget Protection Act, which was a fantastic piece of legislation, and I hope he talks a little bit about it tonight, also the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and a dear friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Hensarling, I thank you for being here tonight and for your hard work. Your steady leadership with the RSC is truly appreciated. We appreciate you coming down here tonight.

Madam Speaker, my next speaker tonight is a gentleman that we call our songmeister in the Members' prayer breakfast every Thursday morning, a gentleman who is dogmatic when it comes to being a true conservative, when it comes to spending constraint, and when it comes to doing what is right in the United States Congress, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

I thank the gentleman. I can certainly tell one thing, Madam Speaker, and I know the other folks in the Chamber will agree, that the gentleman from Missouri is certainly passionate and believes in what he is talking about.

Madam Speaker, now it is an honor and a privilege to turn to one of our newer Members, but a Member who has proven himself time and time again, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

I thank the gentleman from Ohio so much.

My last speaker, Madam Speaker, I don't know what to say. I mean, he's awesome. When you need somebody watching your back in a fight, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) is the guy I want beside me. It is my pleasure to introduce him.

In closing, Madam Speaker, when I was working in the furniture store, my furniture store in Westminster, South Carolina, I had a guy named John R. McAllister. I called him Hoss. And Hoss would come in every Friday to see me and he'd make his payment. And it didn't matter whether I was working in the back or working on a truck or unpacking furniture, Hoss would look me up and come grab my hand and shake it and say, thank you for what you're doing. You know, Hoss McAllister probably didn't have an idea close to what I did. But I think about Hoss McAllister tonight, Madam Speaker, and all the Hosses out there that want a fair shake.

We're going to do the right thing. We're going to keep taxes low. We're going to give more money to Hoss so he can make a living.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to honor an individual who has a rich background in managing health care services and agencies within the State of South Carolina.

His experience and education in health care has placed him throughout locations in the South, affiliating him with dozens of communities and civic organizations.

As February recognizes Black History Month, I honor Dr. Joseph Patton, who has continuously reached out to provide knowledge, support, and service to benefit those in the community.

A native of Spartanburg, South Carolina, Dr. Patton is an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church and holds an honorary doctorate degree for his services to the church and community.

Along with his service to his region, Dr. Patton has served overseas, is a veteran of the United States Army, and is currently a member of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

During Black History Month, I give recognition to Dr. Patton for serving as an educated leader of health, for being well known as a caring husband, father, grandfather, and mentor to those in the community.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of faith in the American people. I believe that, given the proper tools, they can best decide how to spend their money. I also believe they can best determine how to borrow money, just as lenders can best determine who should be lent money. In other words, I trust free choice in the free market. Businesses should be able to take risks just as consumers should be able to. With these risks, come consequences.

However, I understand we have a major problem on our hands, a problem that has spread far beyond the housing market to the heart of the American economy. Some homeowners are struggling to make mortgages they can't afford and financial institutions are stuck holding mortgages that probably will not be repaid. But to say all subprime mortgages are bad is an incorrect conclusion.

Unfortunately, this legislation, Mr. Chairman, will not help those who today are in danger of losing their homes, and it will certainly not help the availability of credit for those purchasing homes in the future. This legislation will not add confidence to the credit market and will not help our housing market find its footing.

I was a small business owner in another life, and I understand when we make certain types of loans cost-prohibitive by adding burdensome regulation or liability, all those loans will simply stop being made. When we ban compensation for certain types of loans, the originators have no reason to make them, especially when they are now subject again to these new regulations and liabilities.

Rather than ensuring this market works smoothly through increased oversight and transparency, we are effectively legislating these loans out of existence and further tightening our credit markets. It is not a good thing for our housing market, our economy, or the free choice of our homeowners.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose H.R. 3915, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Elestine Smith Norman. Born December 12 of 1949 to the late Wilbert and Elese Morton Smith in the Promise Land Area of Greenwood, South Carolina, she is the youngest of five children.

She attended the public schools in Greenwood and is a graduate of Piedmont Tech and Limestone College. She was the first in her family to graduate from college.

She has been married to Pastor Willie Neal Norman for 37 years. Willie is the pastor of Weston Chapel AME Church in Greenwood where Elestine and he have served faithfully for over 18 years. She and Neal have never had any children of their own, but there are lots of folks that would call Elestine their spiritual mother.

She has survived a diagnosis of breast cancer twice in her life and has ministered to many, many others with cancer throughout the years. Her positive attitude through these trials has always inspired others to fight a strong fight. She has trusted faithfully in her Lord Jesus Christ to bring her through the many hardships.

Mr. Speaker, she is a former president of the Greenwood Business and Professional Women's Club. She has served on the Greenwood United Way Board, the Lander University Board of Visitors, and the Piedmont Technical College Board of Visitors. She is also the recipient of the 2007 Women's History Month Government Award from the AME Church for the State of South Carolina.

In 1972 she went to work for then-Congressman of the Third Congressional District of South Carolina, Bryan Dorn. She has continued to work as a senior caseworker in the Greenwood district offices for the following Members: Congressman Butler Derrick and Congressman, now Senator, Lindsey Graham. She has worked for both Democrat and Republican Congressmen, always putting the love of serving people above politics.

When I was elected to succeed Senator Graham as the Representative from the Third Congressional District, I was honored that Elestine agreed to continue her dedicated service in my Greenwood office. Now after 34 years of public service, she has decided to retire. And all these years of compassionate service, she has never lost her heart for people. And I know she will always continue to serve throughout the community for as long as the good Lord keeps her on this Earth.

Mr. Speaker, I had these prepared remarks that I wanted to say so I didn't forget anything. But I want to share one short story about Mrs. Elestine Norman. When I was elected in 2002, I knew Elestine had worked for three other Congressmen, and I thought to myself, well, there is no way that she could have the compassion and the fire and the desire to help people. And this lady has proved me wrong time and time again. Her love, her can-do attitude, her sweet spirit, she has been a rock for me, for my staff, and for all the people of the Third Congressional District.

Mrs. Elestine, I hope you're watching tonight. We love you. I love you. We will miss you greatly. Godspeed.

Madam Speaker, it's that time of year when we begin to make plans to travel to be with our families for Thanksgiving, so I want to recognize those American military men and women fighting overseas who will be unable to go home for Thanksgiving.

Specifically, I'd like to recognize General Bob Livingston, who is currently serving with South Carolina's very own 218th National Guard Brigade currently serving in Afghanistan.

General Livingston sent an American flag to his wife, Barbara, who put it into my hands to thank me for supporting their mission. I've never been more honored and never received anything more symbolic of true patriotism.

Our U.S. soldiers are making the sacrifice away from their families during these holidays. They're always serving to protect our freedom and our safety.

My wish during this time is that our citizens offer a salute to these brave soldiers for the loyalty and honor they have had in America and for their courage to fight for freedom.

218th, Fit to Fight.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, America will pay tribute to tens of thousands of military veteran men and women who have bravely served their country and who have fought to protect our freedom.

I mention one resident from Pickens, South Carolina, Mr. Tommy Wires, who served this country for 9 years in the United States Marine Corps. Tommy joined the Marine Corps in 1959. He served two tours in Vietnam and, while serving with the 26th Marines on his second tour in Vietnam, was wounded.

During his service, he remained devoted to his wife and his two sons.

Tommy is a part of those brave soldiers on this coming Veterans Day who deserve recognition for his sacrifice and love for this country.

He is an American patriot, and while he served as a soldier for America, he demonstrated to his friends, his family and his country the true colors of red, white and blue.

Tommy, thank you for your service. We love you. God bless.

Mr. Speaker, a man that is faithful to his family, church and community, MGySgt James Peterson is distinguished and honored as a true American veteran.

His unit invaded Iwo Jima on February 19, 1945, and he fought bravely to see the American flag flown over Mount Suribachi. He then served 30 months in the South Pacific, after which he was assigned to be a drill instructor at the recruit depot in San Diego.

In honor of our veterans who have served and are serving this country now, MGySgt James Peterson of Aiken, South Carolina, is truly an American soldier through and through. Americans are in debt for his service in the Marine Corps, and Mr. Peterson will always be honored as an American soldier who fought to defend American freedom.

Madam Speaker, our veterans and our troops have protected us from enemies, foreign and domestic, in the past decades and currently today.

When has it become a part of our congressional activity to not fully protect their interests? Our VA appropriations bill passed the House over 140 days ago with strong bipartisan support. However, the House majority party never appointed conferees for the bill, where the Senate immediately appointed them.

The military and veterans appropriations bill is now back on the floor with an additional bill attached. Our servicemembers, veterans and our troops, deserve the best that Congress can deliver to them. The MilCon-VA appropriations bill should not be an accessory for massive labor spending.

Has politics blocked our activities in Washington where we cannot pass a military funding bill for our soldiers?

I stand here today with so many others who join me in saying, our MilCon-VA appropriations bill needs to stand alone, unattached to another bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on October 28, 2007, a tragic and accidental fire in Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina, claimed seven very young lives. Six of the victims were students at the University of South Carolina: Cassidy Fae Pendley, Lauren Astrid Kristiana Mahon, Justin Michael Anderson, Travis Lane Cale, Allison Walden, William Rhea. One of the victims, Emily Lauren Yelton, was a sophomore at Clemson University, a graduate of J.L. Mann High School in Greenville, a member of the Delta Zeta sorority and a member of Young Life of Greenville.

These brilliant young college students were sisters, brothers, devoted sons and daughters, athletes, instructors, friends, volunteers, coaches, and leaders. Family members and friends have recounted how each one has given support, made a difference and brightened people's lives.

I stand here today to support H. Res. 787, which is a resolution sponsored by Congressman Jim Clyburn to express much-needed support for those fire victims.

I would also like to recognize and offer sympathy to the victims' families and let them know that South Carolina and the people of this Nation, Mr. Speaker, will always honor those names that we loved and lost.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 30 years since Congress first implemented FISA allowing the use of telecommunications technology against those who threaten the safety of our people and our way of life. The majority party has refused to believe that FISA needs to be modernized in a way that improves our intelligence agencies' capability to gather information, not hamper it.

When FISA passed 30 years ago, technology didn't include devices used now on an everyday basis. Just think, 10 years ago hardly anybody even owned a cell phone. The Director of National Intelligence testified before the House Judiciary Committee that if the government required FISA court orders for surveillance overseas, approximately 66 percent of the information normally collected would be lost.

Therefore, Congress should have its duty to update the tools used by our intelligence officials so that they have the ability to gather all the essential information to prevent future attacks. FISA needs to be modernized.

I encourage my colleagues on the floor today to vote against this flawed FISA bill.

Madam Speaker, instead of the reauthorization of a successful plan, the majority party is trying to reinvent the government health care wheel by proposing a $35 billion expansion of the current SCHIP plan.

The current SCHIP plan has proven itself successful because it now provides approximately 6.6 million low-income children with government- funded health care services annually. By the way, only 13 percent of this money will actually go to children anyway.

If we allow the vetoed SCHIP bill to pass, the intent of the original SCHIP program, which is to provide health care insurance to children of low-income families who are unable to afford private coverage, will be lost.

This bill would allow families earning an annual income $83,000 a year to take advantage of a program designed to help low-income, uninsured children.

Voting against the SCHIP bill reflects a disagreement for the manner in which the health care coverage will be distributed and to whom. The SCHIP bill needs to be authorized, but can be and should be done in a fiscally responsible manner.

I will vote to sustain the President's veto for this bill because it will overlook the children it was first intended for.

Madam Speaker, due to a family emergency, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Wednesday and Thursday of last week.

Had I been present on October 3, 2007, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 932 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 701), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 933 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 702), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 934 (on passage of H. Res. 702), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 935 (on agreeing to the Conyers amendment to H.R. 928), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 936 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 928 with instructions), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 937 (on passage of H.R. 928), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 938 (on motion to postpone consideration of the veto message of H.R. 976).

Also, had I been present on October 4, 2007, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 939 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 2470 with instructions), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 940 (on passage of H.R. 2470)--While I support holding Federal contractors and employees accountable for criminal actions that they may commit while serving our Nation overseas, I have concerns with the drafting of H.R. 2740. I am hopeful that the Senate can address these concerns and return to the House a bill that accomplishes the above goal in a workable fashion. ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 941 (on ordering of the previous question of H. Res. 704), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 942 (on passage of H. Res. 704), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 943 (on ordering of the previous question of H. Res. 703), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 944 (on passage of H. Res. 703), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 945 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3246 with instructions), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 946 (on passage of H.R. 3246), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 947 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3648 with instructions,) ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 948 (on passage of H.R. 3648).