Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. The Iraqis would say to me, How dare you say we are not a country. We are the Fertile Crescent where two great rivers have met. We have been the center of Western civilization. And for us to say they are not a real country, for them they find it very insulting.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for his support. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman very much for his contribution. I'm happy to yield back and urge support of this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am here to offer that amendment that is printed in the House report.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful that the House Rules Committee has made this amendment in order. This amendment would reauthorize the Weatherization Assistance Program to $1.2 billion for 2007 and $1.4 billion in 2008 through 2012. What that does is basically double the authorization level for weatherization. The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program enables low-income families to permanently reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. It is this country's longest running energy efficiency program. During the last 30 years, it has provided weatherization services to more than 5.5 million low-income families. An audit is done and then corrective action is taken on a home. I would just conclude by saying that in my own home I have a third floor. It is my office. It was insulated and it had heating but I froze. I tripled the size of this third floor, had no heating whatsoever, and the space was warmer than when I had heating; in fact, it was a comfortable temperature, just because of the insulation that we were able to put in the roof above this floor. We want low-income families to be able to take advantage of this important weatherization effort. This amendment would reauthorize the Weatherization Assistance Program to $1.2 billion for 2007 and $1.4 billion in 2008 through 2012. The program is currently authorized at $600 million for FY07 and $700 million for FY08. The bill calls for $600 million for FY07 and $750 million for FY08 through 2012. My amendment would double these authorization levels ($1.2 billion in 2007 and $1.4 billion from 2008 to 2012). The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program enables low-income families to permanently reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. It is this country's longest running energy efficiency program. During the last 30 years, it has provided weatherization services to more than 5.5 million low-income families. Through this program, weatherization service providers install energy efficiency measures in the homes of qualifying homeowners free of charge. These are not expensive upgrades but they are effective, and energy savings pay for the upgrades within a few years. The average expenditure limit is $2,826 per home. Funding for low-income weatherization comes from several sources and represents a partnership of both public and private organizations. The largest contribution has come from the DOE. The second largest source is LIHEAP, followed by gas and electric companies, and legal penalties assessed against oil companies. DOE works directly with the states, the District of Columbia, and Native American Tribal Governments to implement weatherization measures. These agencies contract with local governmental or nonprofit agencies to deliver weatherization services to low-income clients in their areas. Funding is allocated for both weatherizing individual homes and for the training and development of local technicians. Weatherization includes a comprehensive series of energy efficiency measures by analyzing each individual home. Adding weather-stripping to doors and windows saves energy. Families notice, on average, a decrease of $200 to $250 per year in energy bill savings. There are also other non-energy benefits. Many low-income households live in older homes that have structural hazards that are detected while weatherizing. By reducing long-term energy costs, weatherization also makes these housing units more affordable. In addition, the DOE estimates that the Weatherization Assistance Program employs 8,000 people nationwide. One of the challenges of making one's home energy efficient is that many of these technologies and home improvements are unaffordable. Yet the subcommittee on energy and water appropiations noted that the Committee was ``concerned that the Department has severely under-funded this program, which almost immediately results in significant energy savings in American homes.'' We know that investing in weatherization measures will reduce everyone's energy bills over time by reducing the amount of energy that we all use. The Weatherization Assistance Program is one of our most successful programs, and I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I waited 20 years for a debate like this, so thank you to this Congress. I live, all of us live, in the greatest country in the world; but we consume and waste too much energy and we are vulnerable to oil-rich states in a part of the world that would do us harm. We need to work towards energy independence, freedom from declining energy sources, freedom from nations who would do us harm. Thirteen years to reach 11 percent renewable and 4 percent efficiency that is doable. We need to set this goal and then strive every day to reach it. And it is not as hard as the opponents would have us believe. Biomass, which includes so much, incremental hydropower, solar and solar water heating, wind, ocean tidal, geothermal, distributed energy, PURPA-qualified facilities. This is a goal we can reach. At least we should strive to reach it. We have 13 years to do it, and we need to start today.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H. Res. 476, a bill originally introduced by Representative Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Trumbull High School Golden Eagle Marching Band on hosting their 25th Annual Fall Classic Bank Competition. On this silver anniversary, we commemorate the legacy of the band promoting music education through competition. For almost 40 years now, the Golden Eagle Marching Band has been known as one of the premiere marching bands in the country. The band has represented the State of Connecticut at the 2004 Hollywood Christmas Parade in California and the 54th Presidential Inauguration Parade in 2001. It has also been at the top of the Musical Arts Conference since its inception in 2001 and has won countless awards along the way. In 2006, the band was champion of its division for the third year. These young musicians benefited from hundreds of hours of practice, competitions, and most importantly memories that last a lifetime. Even after the fall sports season ends, come December, the music does not stop. Band members continue to bring credit to Trumbull High School by competing in Winter Guard International competitions. In 2007, both groups were finalists in the scholastic world class and in 2005, the winter guard placed third in the country in the scholastic open class. None of this would be possible without the hard work and dedication of staff members and band parents over many years. These unsung heroes keep this organization on the field day in and day out. Without their tremendous support, the Eagles could not have soared to the heights we see today. The Trumbull High School Golden Eagle Marching Band has raised the bar for future generations to proudly represent Trumbull High School and the State of Connecticut. These individuals on the field have embodied hard work, a positive attitude, and concentration. The State of Connecticut is proud of their hard work.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for making this point. The bottom line is: In this Chamber, only 69 Members voted against having the Iraq Study Group revisit Iraq so they could come out with a report that could complement, either agree with or disagree with, what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are going to conclude. It seems to me it would be in the best interest of both Republicans and Democrats to find areas where we can agree, where we can work together. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this Democratic Congress is opposed to bringing the Iraq Study Group up for a vote.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule. It is a continuation of closed rules on an issue that should be a very open. We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis; that cannot be denied. Two-thirds of the House voted to go into Iraq, three-quarters of the Senate voted to go into Iraq. The Senate is allowing open debate on the issue of Iraq. There was the Webb-Hagel amendment, which is basically this underlying bill. There was the Hagel-Levin amendment, which talked about troops not being sent in for more than 12 months if they are in the Army and 7 months if they are in the Marines. That was an amendment I would have liked to have introduced to this bill. Why couldn't we have had a debate on it? If it doesn't make sense, and there would have been a number on my side of the aisle who would have voted against it, it would have defeated it. But we would have started to have some dialogue about the condition of our troops. That would be a healthy thing to have. But the most important amendment that was presented was the effort by Mr. Wolf to have support for the Iraq Study Group. The thing that is astonishing is, when we voted about the Iraq Study Group a few weeks ago, only 69 Members in the Chamber voted against it, but it was attached to an appropriation. And being attached to an appropriation, we can't get the Senate to act until Lord knows when, probably after October when we are supposed to have our budgets done. We need another vehicle.

Mr. SHAYS. Absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to the Farm Bill Extension Act for a number of reasons, including the extension of our depression era system of quotas and commodity support payments. One issue I particularly want to highlight is the opportunity we have missed here to make meaningful strides towards establishing the humane treatment of farm animals. I am disappointed that there are no provisions in this bill that work to this end. I believe that there is a need to encourage agriculture companies to work towards adding protections for farm animals into their work practices. Billions of animals are raised for food every year in the United States, giving our families nourishment and helping feed the world. But there is no Federal law regarding the humane treatment of the animals while they are on the farm. On March 28, 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio and I introduced the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act. This legislation that would require that those supplying food to the Federal Government--including the military, federal prisons, school lunches, and other programs--meet a basic set of modest welfare standards for farm animals. The humane treatment of animals speaks to our Nation's core values. Modest standards preventing Federal suppliers from engaging in the most inhumane current industrial farming practices is a step in the right direction. In 1958 Congress passed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, deciding that farm animals deserve a merciful death. Half a century later, we must take steps towards giving them a merciful life on the farm. And just as the Federal Government already imposes numerous standards on contractors, including wage and labor requirements and fuel economy standards for government vehicles, we believe it's time to have basic humane standards for food purchased with tax dollars. I urge opposition to this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman very much and appreciate his work. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come here today. It's amazing, this suspension calendar has so many big bills. The chairman of the Financial Services Committee points out this is important legislation that we are discussing. It may be on the suspension calendar, but that's only because there is unanimity. There is a feeling on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, House and Senate, supporting these bills, as well as the White House. We will be dealing with the Darfur Accountability Divestment Act of 2007, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007. We are going to be expressing a sense of the House of Representatives that the Government of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed Force's coercion of young women into the sex trade. We are going to be urging the Government of Canada to end the outrageous commercial sea hunts. We will be amending the Iran Sanctions Act, and we will have a Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act, these brave men, in particular, and women, who basically risked their lives going back and forth to Europe and haven't gotten the recognition they deserve. But let me speak specifically to Darfur. I rise in support of H.R. 180, which supports State, city and university efforts to divest funds or restrict investment in companies that conduct business operations in Sudan. First, let me say I have tremendous respect for all those who have worked to raise awareness of this important issue, student groups and faith-based organizations, especially from the African-American, Jewish and Armenian communities have done a wonderful job, a really outstanding job of educating their fellow citizens and lawmakers about the crisis and the need to respond. In addition, this body owes a debt of gratitude to Representative Barbara Lee, Representative Frank Wolf, Chairman Tom Lantos and Chairman Barney Frank, Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Ranking Member Mr. Bachus and others who have kept the genocide of Darfur in our forefront and consciousness. The world collectively agreed to never again allow genocide after the Holocaust and again after the mass murders of Rwanda in 1994. Tragically, genocide is taking place, and the United States must take all reasonable steps to end the killing. The United States has made a tremendous commitment to the people of Darfur in the form of humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts to end the genocide, but more must be done. Divestment is a very serious step for our government to take against a nation that does not threaten our security or the security of our allies. It is a tool that must be used sparingly, but given the abhorrent crimes that continue to be committed against the Darfuri people, I believe it is a most appropriate act. The bottom line, as this legislation states, is that no American should have to worry that his or her investment or pension money was earned in support of genocide. I urge all Members to vote for H.R. 180 and continue our efforts and commitment to end violence in the Sudan. I want to say, in closing, that we are going to have to consider even more significant acts. One is sanctions, but we may need to consider a no-fly zone, and, frankly, working with others, military force. Obviously we have to use our military sparingly, given their overuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, but can we expect that the African Union can do more than send 7,000 troops? We should be willing to pay for that, and we are. Can we expect that Europe should be willing to step up and take action? They are rarely willing to, but in this case, I think we should expect they should, especially given their minimal role in Iraq and even their less than full participation in Afghanistan. Can we expect NATO to step up? That involves the United States. Why not? And that at the very end, if nothing else happens, the U.S. I was in Darfur in August of 2006, meeting with the governor of Northern Darfur. He was somewhat disturbed by the killings going on in his own country. But when I suggested that we might need to take other action like a no-fly zone, he was indignant. He was outraged. He couldn't accept it. That got his attention. He wasn't particularly concerned that his own people were killing each other with, frankly, the consent of its own government, but he was outraged to think that outside governments might come in and stop it. We will have to deal with that outrage. We have to stop the killing

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 23, I am pleased to support this legislation on the House floor today. The duty performed by the U.S. Merchant Marines during World War II was courageous and vital to our national interest. H.R. 23 would direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly benefit of $l,000 to U.S. Merchant Marine veterans who served in the Army and Navy Transport Services between December 7, 1941, and December 31, 1946, or to their survivors. During World War II, the Army and Navy Transport Services delivered troops and supplies to the front lines. These men often put their lives in danger to keep supplies flowing, but Merchant Marine veterans were not granted benefits under the G.I. Bill of Rights that Congress enacted in 1945. All those who served in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force or Coast Guard were recipients of benefits under the G.I. Bill. The United States Merchant Marine regretfully was not included. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 986, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, which would add the Eightmile River to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This legislation has overwhelming bipartisan support from the National Park Service, the bipartisan Connecticut House delegation, the Republican Governor of Connecticut, the Attorney General of Connecticut, the three local mayors, and the State legislature, which passed a resolution in support of Wild and Scenic designation. Concerns have been raised that H.R. 986, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, would allow land condemnations within the Eightmile River corridor. This is not the case. The bill prohibits eminent domain, condemnation or any takings. H.R. 986 also explicitly states: ``The authority of the Secretary to acquire lands for the purposes of this Act shall be limited to acquisition by donation or acquisition with the consent of the owner thereof, and shall be subject to the additional criteria set forth in the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan.'' This prohibits condemnations regardless of how local zoning laws apply. The Eightmile River is a worthy addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I strongly urge passage of H.R. 986.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on this legislation and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her work, and, clearly, Chairman Barney Frank and Tom Lantos. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2347 and am grateful to have worked on this legislation with Congressman Tom Lantos and Barney Frank as the chief Republican sponsor. This legislation will require the U.S. Government to publish a list of companies with investments of more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector and will authorize State and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list. In addition, H.R. 2347 provides safe harbor from litigation by shareholders for pension fund managers, managers of mutual funds, and corporate pension funds who divest from companies on this list. When Americans invest, it seems to me they want to know their dollars are not going to prop up the regime in Tehran, a sponsor of terrorism and an avowed enemy of American interests. By allowing State pension funds and mutual funds to more easily divest from energy companies doing business in Iran, this legislation will give investors more choice in directing their investments. Because I believe military action against Iran, while not off the table, must be an absolute last resort, it is critical our government utilize the tools at our disposal including economic sanctions and a divestment campaign to deter the threat Iran poses to global security. Iran is pursuing nuclear capabilities and is one of the world's most egregious exporters of terrorism. The seriousness of these facts was made clear when Iran's President threatened to ``wipe Israel off the map.'' In addition, last April Ayatollah Khamenei told another of the world's worst human rights abusers, Sudan, that Iran would gladly transfer nuclear technology. He stated: ``The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge, and technology of its scientists.'' The bottom line is, in defiance of its assurances to the contrary, Iran remains committed to a nuclear weapons program. The United States must be unequivocal in its rejection of these ambitions and the financial support they require

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 427, urging the Government of Canada to end its commercial seal hunts. While many countries have banned the importation of seal products, seal hunting in Canada has grown steadily in size over the past six years. The Canadian commercial seal hunt is said to have killed approximately 350,000 seals this year--a huge increase from the 67,500 average number of seal deaths during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The seals are either clubbed to death or shot with high-powered rifles so as not to bloody their fur. Last year the Canadian Government claimed the seal killings brought in $16 million. I question the number and believe even if it is accurate $16 million does not come close to justifying this brutality. Sixteen million dollars is a mere fraction of the $3 billion that Canada receives from seafood exports. In addition, commercial seal hunting amounts to less than three percent of the annual incomes of commercial fishermen. Furthermore, the market for seal meat is limited. It is generally considered to be inedible and only a few nations import it for human consumption, additional proof of how wasteful seal hunting truly is. Canada allows the seal hunt because it allegedly helps provide jobs for the region. Newfoundland experiences unemployment rates of up to 40 percent in winter because of its reliance on seafaring jobs and the collapse of the cod fishing industry. While I am sensitive to these concerns, how can this justify the cruel hunting methods employed during seal hunts. Eyewitness reports indicate numerous violations of Canada's marine mammal hunting regulations, such as baby seals being culled, animals being skinned alive, and injured animals being left behind to die slowly. H. Res. 427 urges the Canadian government to end commercial seal hunting, putting a stop to this cruel practice. I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, first, I'd like to thank the 9/11 families for their work on this legislation, their faith in their country, their love for their country. During the debate on the rule, I had to walk out, it was getting so partisan. So I want to thank Steny Hoyer for bringing us back to a sound basis for debate and appreciation that this is a bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution. Next, I want to thank former chairman Peter King for his outstanding work as chairman, never making this a partisan issue, and to Chairman Bennie Thompson for their work on a bipartisan basis on this legislation. As co-Chair of the 9/11 Caucus with Carolyn Maloney, we fought hard in the previous Congress to pass the Ensuring Implementation of the 9/ 11 Commission Report Act, which this legislation is based on. I appreciate the fact that this majority has finally brought this legislation to completion and they should be congratulated. I particularly want to thank Carolyn Maloney for her work helping to create a Department of Homeland Security, her work to help create the 9/11 Commission, her work to help create a Director of Intelligence, and her work now on this legislation, which, frankly, she is not getting enough credit for. She worked on this for a long period of time. There are many provisions in this bill that we should be proud of: the risk-based grants; the John Doe provisions; the interoperability grants; the intelligence and information sharing; the rail, bus and mass transit security grants; the 100 percent inspection of air cargo, which Ed Markey championed, and I was his Republican co-sponsor in this effort; and the 100 percent inspection of the maritime cargo. It is important that we do it. We will have to monitor that. I particularly want to point out the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board work improvements that Carolyn Maloney and I particularly had legislation on. This bill removes the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board from the Executive Office of the President and establishes an independent agency. It grants subpoena power to the board for obtaining information. This was an important provision. The critical infrastructure provision and the private sector preparedness, the whistle-blower protections. Congratulations, Mr. Thompson and Mr. King on the legislation you have worked on. Let me conclude by saying this: There are clearly more than one inconvenient truth facing us. The one that Al Gore talks about in global warming is a real concern; it is inconvenient. There is another inconvenient truth; it's what the 9/11 Commission talked about, and that's Islamist terrorism. This bill is a wake-up to that concern. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Caucus with my colleague, Representative Carolyn Maloney, I am grateful the conference report on H.R. 1, legislation to implement most of the remaining 9/11 Commission Recommendations, is on the House floor today. This legislation will take many important--and overdue--steps toward protecting our homeland, including requiring the screening of cargo on passenger planes; improving cargo screening at our ports; strengthening the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; distributing homeland security funds based on risk; and improving interoperability for first responders. Over a year ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project graded the federal government on implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, issuing a failing, near-failing or average grade for action on 27 of their 41 recommendations. As a result, Representative Maloney and I introduced the Ensuring Implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report Act, which addressed each of the recommendations and held the appropriate agency accountable for reporting to Congress on its actions. Having worked to create the 9/11 Commission; co-chaired hearings in my National Security Subcommittee on its recommendations; pushed for enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terorism Prevention Act in 2004; and co-authored legislation to fully implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, I was grateful H.R 1 passed in early January. This legislation takes additional steps to protect the American public, including provisions to provide civil liability protection to citizens who, in good faith, report suspicious activity that might indicate a terror attack upon our Nation's travel system and to establish an interoperable emergency communications grant program within DHS. While there is still work to do, such as fortifying our southern border and requiring passports at our northern border, the bottom line is this legislation is an essential step forward. It is also a testament to the work of Fourth District residents Mary and Frank Fetchet--parents of Brad; and Beverly Eckert--wife of Sean Rooney. They along with several other family members have worked for more than 5 years to establish the commission, ensure it had the tools it needed to do its job, and pushed for enactment of these recommendations into law. I have been humbled to work with them.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pence offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act, the bill we are debating today, just an amendment before, to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to enforce the criminal penalty provisions of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, provisions dealing with electioneering communications. This was debated and accepted by a voice vote. It is my intention to ask that that vote be vacated so it can be part of the 2-minute voting process. And failing that, I will just ask that the vote be heard in the full Chamber, which would take 15 minutes. I am not trying to slip one by someone. I just simply want a rollcall vote on the floor of the House. Why do I want a rollcall vote? I want a rollcall vote because the Supreme Court did not rule against the provision of Title II. It did not say that BCRA was unconstitutional as it related to Title II. Rather, it stated the provisions were unconstitutional as they applied to certain advertisements. This ruling means Title II will still be applied on a case-by-case basis. Now, what did the campaign finance reform bill seek to do? It sought to do two things. One, it sought to prevent Members of Congress from raising money from corporations, labor unions, and unlimited sums from individuals in what we call ``hard money.'' That meant to enforce the 1907 law that banned corporate treasury money; the Tillman Act, the 1947 law banning union dues money; the Taft-Hartley Act; and the 1974 act, the Campaign Finance Reform bill, that made it clear you could not get unlimited sums from individuals. That was one part of the legislation. The other part of the legislation attempted to deal with hard money contributions. These are monies from corporations, from unions, dues, from individuals, unlimited sums. And the way we sought to do that was we sought to do it by saying that a candidate's name mentioned 30 days before an election, a primary, and 60 days before a general election would be deemed campaign expenditures; therefore, no so-called ``soft money,'' the unlimited sums from individuals, corporations and labor unions, and it sought to say it had to be hard money contributions. So, Right to Life would have to raise $5,000 from each individual, put it in a political action committee, and it could spend unlimited sums based on whatever it raised in their PAC. For instance, the NRA, it has 4 million members, raises $10,000 from each. It could spend $40 million up to an election. It would be hard money, not soft. And so my point is the Supreme Court has found the campaign finance law constitutional. It had a second issue looking at these election- nearing provisions, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before general legislation, and determined the case before it, the Wisconsin Right to Life case v. the FEC, was, in fact, permitted, and, therefore, the FEC needs to rewrite its regulations. It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to ask for a rollcall vote, and let me just state again why I'm doing this. I will ask for a rollcall vote. There will be a rollcall vote. The question is, should it be a 15-minute rollcall vote or a 2-minute rollcall vote. I would prefer it be part of the whole system. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'm asking unanimous consent that the adoption by voice of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. SHAYS. I think that's fair. And I would be permitted to reoffer my motion as soon as Mr. Pence or others have been consulted. May I have the right to reintroduce this?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw my request at this time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to renew my unanimous consent and say to my colleagues that I have spoken to the author of the amendment, and he agrees with it. My unanimous consent is that the adoption by voice vote of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.