[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 82 (Tuesday, June 15, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3973-H3980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4503, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2004,
AND H.R. 4517, UNITED STATES REFINERY REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2004
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 671 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 671
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4503) to enhance energy conservation and research and
development, to provide for security and diversity in the
energy supply for the American people, and for other
purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate on the bill, with 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 10 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Resources; and 10 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4517) to
provide incentives to increase refinery capacity in the
United States. The bill shall be considered as read for
amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 671 is a
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy
Act of 2004; and H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization
Act of 2004.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4503, with 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 10 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Resources, and 10 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides one motion to
recommit.
Section 2 of the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R.
4517 to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also
provides one motion to recommit H.R. 4517.
Mr. Speaker, the first bill provided for under the rule, H.R. 4503,
reflects the conference report on H.R. 6 that passed the House this
November by a vote of 246 to 180. It is a bipartisan, comprehensive
energy plan that is focused on providing a secure and diverse energy
supply for our Nation.
There is bipartisan agreement on this plan to modernize our power
generation systems, improve conservation and promote the development of
renewable energy resources. The predominant source of energy varies
among the different regions of our country. The bipartisan energy plan
is comprehensive and addresses energy produced from oil, natural gas,
wind, biomass, solar, coal, nuclear, and hydro.
In my area, the Pacific Northwest, Mr. Speaker, our primary source of
power comes from hydroelectric dams. Clean, low-cost hydropower was
critical to building the Northwest's economy. Whether it was
electricity to irrigate central Washington's farms or to build
airplanes in Seattle, it was vital to our economy.
This bipartisan agreement includes reforms to the lengthy and costly
dam relicensing process that is critical to maintaining our region's
low-cost hydropower. Environmental protections are preserved while
providing flexibility to reduce costs and delays. Getting this plan
enacted into law will help keep prices lower for Northwest families and
for job-creating businesses.
An adequate, affordable energy supply is vital for a growing economy
and job creation, and we need to get this plan enacted into law.
Mr. Speaker, today, the United States imports nearly 60 percent of
its oil. This energy plan contains provisions to reduce our dependence
on oil from the Middle East. The second bill provided for under this
rule, H.R. 4517, will also help increase our Nation's energy
independence.
The United States Refinery Revitalization Act would responsibly
encourage the opening of previously closed refineries in the United
States and the construction of new refineries to increase the domestic
supply of gasoline which would help lower the price at the pump.
American demand for gasoline and refined fuels currently outpaces the
capacity of our Nation to produce these needed products, and
consumption of gasoline is expected to rise as our economy grows over
the next 2 decades. Our choice as a Nation is to either increase our
dependence on foreign sources of fuel or to help ensure refineries are
built in America, which will create jobs here rather than at refineries
in other countries.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to act and get a bipartisan energy plan
enacted into law. It is time to increase America's energy independence.
Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule, H.
Res. 671, and the two underlying bills, H.R. 4503 and H.R. 4517.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House
Resolution 671, which is the rule for the consideration of H.R. 4503,
the Energy Policy Act of 2004, which is masquerading today as the
energy conference report of 2003; and H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery
Revitalization Act.
Mr. Speaker, this summer Americans all across the country are
flooding into movie theaters to see the much-anticipated sequels to
such blockbuster films as ``Shrek,'' ``Spider Man,'' and ``Harry
Potter.''
{time} 1130
So far the early reviews and box office returns for these sequels
suggest Hollywood has actually managed to improve on the original
versions by adding exciting new characters and interesting new plot
lines.
Sadly, that is not so here in the House of Representatives. This
summer, the Republican leadership is forcing us to vote on the same
tired old reruns of bad bills that we have already seen and voted on
once before. The consideration of H.R. 4503 actually marks the sixth
time this year that this House has passed a bill for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of the bills that the
House has voted on at least twice this year.
(1) Bankruptcy. The House passed its bankruptcy reform bill
on March 19, 2003 (H.R. 975, vote No. 74) and passed it again
on January 28, 2004 when it substituted the text of
[[Page H3974]]
the already-passed H.R. 975 into a non-controversial Senate
family farmer bankruptcy bill (S. 1920, vote No. 10).
(2) Medical Malpractice. The House passed medical
malpractice reform legislation on March 13, 2003 (H.R. 5,
vote No. 64) and then passed it again on May 12, 2004, as
part of the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R.
4280, vote No. 166).
(3) Association Health Plans. The House passed legislation
creating Association Health Plans (AHPs) on June 19, 2003 and
then passed the same bill again in May 13, 2004, as part of
the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R. 4281,
vote No. 174).
(4) Teacher Training. The House passed the ``Ready to
Teach'' Act on July 9, 2003 (H.R. 2211, vote No. 340) and
then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004
under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then
inserted by H. Res. 656 into H.R. 444).
(5) Graduate School Grants. The House passed a bill to
reauthorize programs that award grants to U.S. graduate
students under suspension of the rules on October 21, 2003
(H.R. 3076, voice voted) and then passed it again under a new
bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules
(H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into
H.R. 444).
Mr. Speaker, there are no exciting new characters, no interesting new
plot lines, just the same old story: special interests meet Congress;
Congress rolls over; special interests destroy environment and Congress
weakens the Nation's energy policy. End of story.
In fact, all that can be said of H.R. 4503 is that with each passing
day, we discover something new about the original energy conference
report that further confirms how bad that bill was and still is. Since
the House passed the energy conference report in November last year,
new details about the 1,100-page bill have come to light.
For example, the bill lifts tariffs on Chinese-made ceiling fans, a
provision which is widely acknowledged to benefit Home Depot of
Atlanta, Georgia. It includes a $500,000 grant for the Georgia carpet
industry to research the burning of industrial carpet waste in the
manufacture of cement, and it contains a tax-exempt ``green bond''
program that will finance the construction of a mall in Shreveport,
Louisiana, which will house a Hooter's restaurant.
This bill is so laden with special interest money that no less than
Grover Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform and the National
Taxpayers Union have said that the energy conference report is
``chockful of subsidies, pork barrel projects, and unnecessary spending
that have little, if anything, to do with our Nation's energy needs.''
An in-depth analysis of the energy conference report conducted by the
well-respected Energy Information Administration of the Department of
Energy concluded the following: that the energy conference report's
energy provisions will not reduce the overall amount of energy
consumption in the United States over the next 15 years and
furthermore, its transportation fuel provisions will cause the average
gas prices in the year 2015 to be 3 to 8 cents higher than they would
be under current law.
Mr. Speaker, I imagine that is a surprise ending that not even the
Republicans who single-handedly wrote the energy conference report
would enjoy. Imagine, after handing out $23 billion in tax breaks and
subsidies to the oil and gas industry, we are actually going to pay
more for gas at the pump.
I can tell Members my constituents in Massachusetts will be demanding
their money back after seeing that surprise ending. In Massachusetts,
the average cost of gasoline this month will be $2.10 per gallon. This
is 58 cents higher than a year ago at the same time. At that rate,
motorists in the Worcester, Massachusetts, area will pay $29 million
more for gasoline this summer driving season than they did last summer.
That is $200 more for the average family between Memorial Day and Labor
Day.
Meanwhile, the Republican leadership's response to this very real
national crisis is to bring us a repeat of the same failed energy bill
which has been stalled in negotiations with the other body for nearly 7
months, a so-called energy security act that will not secure our future
energy supply by enhancing our independence or reducing our demand, a
bill that does not include a renewable energy portfolio standard, but
does include a $2 billion bail-out and liability protection for
producers of MTBE.
Mr. Speaker, since the Republican leadership of this House seems bent
on bringing the same bills to the floor, I am compelled to respectfully
repeat the same suggestion that I have offered them before: instead of
shamelessly using the legislative calendar here to send a message to
the other body, perhaps the House leadership could walk across the
Capitol and simply confer with their fellow Republican leaders. It is
not that far, and I will remind them that the House is under Republican
control and so is the other body. They should go over and talk to each
other and try to work these things out.
If that is too much trouble, maybe at a minimum the House leadership
could make in order thoughtful, responsible amendments offered by their
own Members, such as the climate change amendment offer by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) in the Committee on Rules last evening, an
amendment that would have established a voluntary, and I repeat
voluntary, greenhouse gas registry and database. This would be
something different, something worth watching for.
Mr. Speaker, the truly amazing thing about the House leadership is
that when they are not bringing bills to the floor that we have already
voted on, they are bringing bills to the floor that have never had a
hearing.
This rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S.
Refinery Revitalization Act. This bill was filed on June 4 and referred
to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. On June 7, the bill was
promptly offered to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. Exactly
one week later, it was before the Rules Committee, and today it is on
the floor. No committee hearings or markup.
To his credit, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
conceded this point in the Committee on Rules last evening, going so
far as to say that the ranking member's request for a hearing on the
bill was reasonable.
I do not doubt that the lack of domestic refinery capacity has been
discussed before in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I will
not dispute the statistics regarding the number of refineries currently
operating in the United States that are cited in the findings of this
bill. However, it seems to me that there is considerable and legitimate
debate over the causes for this shrinking capacity. In fact, some fuel
economists argue that there are fewer refineries today because they are
run more efficiently than in the past.
Now, in light of this, I think it is reasonable to allow the
committees of jurisdiction to examine these issues before we rush bills
to the floor that make sweeping changes to the permitting process for
these facilities.
H.R. 4517 gives extraordinarily broad powers to the Secretary of
Energy to grant approval for building new refineries and reactivating
idle refineries. It allows the DOE to force other State and Federal
agencies to make decisions within 6 months and allows the DOE to
override the objections of a Governor of a State or the EPA on such
projects. The bill also allows the DOE to ignore the provisions of the
Clean Air Act that limit the emissions of the toxic air pollutants that
refineries produce.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4517 is intended to streamline and expedite the
permitting process for refineries, but the rule under which the bill is
being considered is intended to deliberately circumvent and subvert the
legislative process. That is not only unacceptable; it is appalling,
and it should concern every single Member of this body regardless of
his or her party affiliation.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to
put an end to this charade of bringing bills to the floor that we have
either voted on before, or alternately have never been before a
committee.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think probably the right thing to do is just review
back to how we got to this point. Let us remind ourselves we have not
had an energy policy in this country for several decades, and we need
to have an energy policy. This House has passed three energy bills, and
the other body has not acted on those three energy bills.
[[Page H3975]]
The last energy bill, however, did get to a conference where we
worked out the disagreements between both of the bodies, and the
ensuing conference report was then passed by this body and then went to
the other body and was subject to a filibuster which, of course, is in
their rules. In order to break that filibuster, it takes 60 votes. They
got 58 votes. The presumption would be if they had a chance to vote up
or down on the bill that perhaps they would have enough votes to pass
the energy bill.
But I think it is even more instructive to go back and reflect on how
we got to this point of the conference report. In the House alone in
the last 3 years, we had 80 public hearings on energy policy in this
country. We had 11 markups in the various committees on this energy
bill. They considered 224 amendments, and we had 5 days of floor debate
with 39 amendments in this body.
In the other body, there were 37 hearings, there were eight markups,
and they had weeks of debate on the floor. When they finally got to
conference, which of course is the final product which will develop the
bill which will ultimately be the policy of this country, there were
nine public hearings, there were 24 hours of debate. On a bipartisan
basis, there were 10 staff meetings working out some of the details,
and to say that this was not made public totally misses the point
because there were 14 titles and 1,163 pages of text posted on the Web.
It is not surprising then with this background that the conference
report dealing with our energy policy would pass on a bipartisan basis:
246 in this body to 180 against.
So I would just remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) that there was a great deal of work that went into this. We
are simply bringing the bill back again with the idea to pass an energy
bill that we need, and we need it very badly. It has been reflected, of
course, in the higher prices of gasoline, which, I might add, are
starting to reduce because of market pressures; and I am in favor of
that.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I think to set the record straight there has
been a great deal of work that has gone into the original bill and into
this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying
bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair would remind Members to
refrain from characterizations of the actions of the Senate, such as
use of the term ``filibuster.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) that this process is lousy. H.R. 4503, the bill the gentleman
was referring to, Members on the Democratic side were not even allowed
to participate in the conference where this bill was negotiated. The
process here is awful, and it really is indefensible.
I also remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this
rule is not only for the consideration of H.R. 4503, it is also for the
consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery and Revitalization Act.
There were no hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction on that
bill. There was no markup by the Members of the committee of
jurisdiction on that bill.
I think we need to say something in defense of the Members, both
Democrat and Republican, who are on that committee of jurisdiction that
they should have an opportunity to be present at hearings and ask
questions and to be able to make suggestions to make that bill better.
So this process is indefensible. It is indefensible not only by the
fact that people are getting locked out and bills are being rushed to
the floor without hearings and without markups, but also this is bad
policy. I think almost everybody knows it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, we are debating an energy bill which does plenty for
energy companies, but does precious little for energy consumers.
The elephant in the room is still the failure to address the 2000-
2001 western energy crisis. Two weeks ago, CBS News broadcast tapes of
conversations in which Enron employees bragged about stealing money
from California during the energy crisis. They talked about shutting
off power plants, they bragged about all of the money they stole from
``those poor grandmothers in California.'' Some of the language was so
profane it could not be broadcast. The language was shocking and the
facts in the transcripts chilling. They are part of a litany of
widespread market manipulation.
Today, we have the smoking gun memos in which Enron admitted how it
gamed the market. We have today the transcripts of employees of Reliant
Energy describing how they gamed the market. We have today 3,000 pages
produced by the State of California. We have today the Department of
Justice's indictments and plea agreements with many energy traders and
producers. We have today even the language that FERC found
``significant market manipulation.''
{time} 1145
What we do not have are refunds for the consumers who were gouged to
the tune of $8.9 billion and $1.1 billion in the Pacific Northwest.
The law requires that this money be refunded, but for 4 years
consumers are still waiting. For 4 years this Congress has failed to
investigate, and the administration has continued to perpetrate the
myth first stated by Vice President Cheney that ``The basic problem in
California was caused by Californians.''
Have you listened to the tapes, Mr. Vice President? For 4 years, the
administration has lectured consumers about supply and demand and free
markets. Now the Enron tapes make it clear that consumers in the West
were robbed.
I want to repeat that. Consumers in the West were robbed. Once again,
in this bill the House is turning its back on these consumers by doing
nothing to hold industry accountable, but then again we are living in
an era of total unaccountability. It is a culture of unaccountability.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It is deeply flawed, and it
does nothing for consumers in this country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Linder) from
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 671 provides for the consideration
of H.R. 4503 under a closed rule as well as providing for the
consideration of H.R. 4717 under a closed rule. I urge my colleagues in
the House to join me in supporting this rule so that the full House can
proceed to consider the merits of the underlying legislative measures.
In particular, I want to urge the House to approve H.R. 4503, which
is a comprehensive energy plan that focuses on developing and
implementing new energy technologies, as well as increasing current
energy reserves through cutting edge methods and technologies. It
closely follows the text of H.R. 6, the final version which the House
passed last year but which has fallen victim to a filibuster by the
minority of the other body's membership.
In recent months gas prices have increased from an average of $1.34
to over $2 per gallon. Furthermore, the average family is paying 25
percent more for energy than they were in 1998.
We must take action, but more importantly Congress needs to take the
right kind of action. Increasing the supply of energy will help bring
prices down, while imposing governmental mandates and requirements will
simply drive energy prices higher.
The ability of our economy to continue growing and creating jobs, as
it has for the last several quarters, depends on affordable energy
prices. H.R. 4503, H.R. 4517, and 2 other energy-related measures that
the House will consider later today are explicitly designed to increase
energy supplies, bring prices down and make the United States more
energy independent.
Energy drives the American economy, and this legislation would allow
us to reiterate our commitment to the economy and send the message to
the American people that our consumers and businesses need a new far-
sighted, free, market-oriented energy policy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule
so we
[[Page H3976]]
may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair would admonish Members
to avoid improper references to the Senate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this rule is not just ineffective. It is not
just inefficient. It is not just unfair. It perpetuates one of the
largest frauds on consumers in American history. It aids and abets the
rip-off by Enron of over $1 billion of American consumers of
electricity in the West Coast of the United States in the last 4 years.
This rule does nothing about that. This rule allows Enron to keep
their billion dollars they took away from our people, and this is
clear. We have heard the tapes. We have heard the Enron traders saying
let us jam a million dollars here to the grandmothers of California.
Let us rip off the Washington ratepayers for $500,000. Let us stick
Snohomish County for $152 million. Let us let California burn, baby,
burn. And your rule does nothing about that. This rule is in bed with
Enron. It aids and abets Enron. It is written for and by Enron, and it
should be rejected.
Now, we have offered an amendment that will allow ratepayers relief,
give ratepayers in Snohomish County that $122 million back, give
ratepayers in California over hundreds of millions of dollars in relief
back, and the Republican Party said, no, we are on the side of Enron.
Now, why did they do that? Well, this administration has not lifted a
finger to help the ratepayers of the West Coast, not a finger. They
have got all the efficiency of the Keystone cops and the aggressiveness
of Barney Fife when it comes to enforcing the laws of this country.
In fact, when we met with the Vice President during the height of the
energy crisis in 2000, we explained to the Vice President that Enron
had turned off a third of the generating capacity in the West Coast and
driven the prices sky high. And you know what he did? He looked at us,
Members of Congress, and he said, ``You know what your problem is? You
just do not understand economics.''
Well, we do understand economics. We just do not understand
Enronomics. We do not understand why the majority party will not allow
us to do anything to get relief back from the customers who are gouged
by Enron. Why will not they allow this Chamber even the right to vote
on the measure to recover some sense of justice? Why do they lay down
with Enron? Why do they get in bed with Ken Lay? Why are you motivated
to do that? We cannot understand it.
What I know is the people of my district deserve relief. They deserve
a refund. The Snohomish County ratepayers deserve that $122 million
back. So I want to ask my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings), a friendly question, if I can. Today the gentleman is
denying us the opportunity to get relief for ratepayers of the State of
Washington and Enron.
When will the Republican Party bring to the floor of this House a
measure to allow us to get refunds from Enron of the millions of
dollars they stole from Washington and Oregon and California?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend from
Washington that I am outraged as he is and other speakers have been by
the revelation of the traders at Enron. No question about that. It is
in black and white.
Mr. INSLEE. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman will just kindly
answer my gentlemanly question. When will you bring a bill to the House
to allow a refund by Enron? Just give me an answer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this combined rule. This rule
governs debate on H.R. 4503, an energy policy bill, and on H.R. 4517, a
refinery revitalization bill. Everyone is well aware that H.R. 4503 is
identical to the conference version of H.R. 6, which the House already
adopted in November and is pending before the Senate. So that part of
this exercise is a complete waste of time.
With that said, in my view H.R. 4503 will do little if anything to
achieve energy independence or enhance national security. I had and
still do have extensive environmental concerns with that bill. I voted
against that bill last year and I will vote against this rule and that
bill again today. But I want to take this time to highlight one of the
most glaring oversights of H.R. 4503, its failure to address the issue
of climate change.
Last night, I brought a bipartisan amendment to the Committee on
Rules with the gentlemen from the First and Eighth Districts of
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and (Mr. Van Hollen). Our amendment would have
done 2 things. First it would have required the development of a
national climate change strategy with the basic goal to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere. Second, it would have
established a voluntary greenhouse gas reductions registry and
information system to provide data to be used by public and private
policymakers to develop effective greenhouse gas stabilization and
reduction strategies. If, after 5 years, less than 60 percent of
emissions were being reported to the registry, emissions reporting by
large greenhouse gas producers would become mandatory.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are simple. Greenhouse gases are accumulating
in the Earth's atmosphere. These accumulations are substantially caused
by human activities. Temperatures are rising at the Earth's surface.
All of these statements have been confirmed by our own National Academy
of Sciences and by the work of thousands of international scientists
and American scientists together through the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Impacts are fully observable. The time to act is now.
The amendment was really very moderate. This language was passed by
the Senate by voice vote and it was included in the Senate-passed
energy bill of 2002. It is a modest start, but at least it is a start.
Not only was this amendment rejected, all amendments were rejected by
the Committee on Rules. So this is a sham exercise and a sham debate.
I urge a no vote on the rule and a no vote on H.R. 4503 when it comes
forward.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule before us. There are
several bills that we are going to bring up today under this rule. The
first has been renumbered, but it is the comprehensive energy
conference report that this body passed last November by a vote of 246-
180 on a bipartisan basis. If the other body had been willing to bring
that up, I feel very comfortable that it would have passed and the
President would have signed it and it would be law by now. That
particular bill reforms our electricity grid, it provides much needed
R&D dollars for clean coal technology, provides some incentives for oil
and gas development in this country, and has several provisions for
renewable energy, including the President's hydrogen fuel initiative.
That is a bill that has already passed this body once and hopefully if
we pass it again today, the other body might be willing to bring it up
and at least let there be a vote.
The second bill is the Refinery Revitalization Act. This is a piece
of legislation that is needed because the number of refineries in the
United States has fallen by 53 percent in the last 20 years. We are now
having to import refined products. Somewhere between 5
[[Page H3977]]
and 10 percent of our refined products are being imported and are not
being refined in the United States. This bill is in an area that has 20
percent employment higher than the national average, would have an
expedited procedure coordinated by the Department of Energy, would not
waive any existing environmental restrictions but would set up a
coordinated effort. If you wanted to refurbish an old, shutdown
refinery or modernize an existing refinery or even build a new refinery
in certain brownfield areas, you would have an expedited method of
doing so.
This would maintain jobs in the United States and hopefully create
new jobs in the United States and also make us less dependent on
imported refined products which is a growing problem for this country.
I would ask for a yes vote on both of these rules and I would also
ask for a yes vote on the underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, rather than have a thoughtful discussion
about ways to reduce American dependency on foreign oil, this body is
again recycling bad legislation, in this case a series of corporate
subsidies and environmental rollbacks that indemnify companies that
would poison our water, encourage the polluting of our air, and waste
taxpayer dollars.
Two provisions would have the gravest of impacts upon my State. The
first permits a controversial Long Island Sound energy cable, the Cross
Sound Cable, to be reactivated despite having been turned off by the
Secretary of Energy earlier this year. The cable is in violation of
State and Federal environmental permits. The bill disregards pending
litigation by the Connecticut Attorney General and stifles the
regulatory authority of Connecticut and the Army Corps of Engineers,
who share jurisdiction over the installation of such transmission
cables.
{time} 1200
This bill would also sound a death knell for States' abilities to
regulate the siting of natural gas pipelines by eliminating the ability
of State environmental departments to prevent the damaging
environmental effects of pipeline siting. It would grant FERC, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the sole authority to make these
decisions. Remember, FERC is charged with protecting consumers; but as
the people in California and the Pacific Northwest know very well, they
abdicated that responsibility in support of the industry. They gave the
industry every break and not one for the consumer.
If we grant FERC this authority, it paves the way for the
construction of Islander East, the gas pipeline, across the Long Island
Sound, stretching from Branford, Connecticut, to Shoreham, New York.
The results will be that Islander East, that pipeline, would be
installed over and above the objections of the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
This is a slippery slope, Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members,
because this will run roughshod over State authority. These provisions
disregard the needs of Connecticut's economy, its environment, and the
voices of millions of Connecticut citizens who will be directly
affected by these provisions. By not even allowing for the amendments
to address these concerns, the leadership insisted once again that it
is they and not the Connecticut citizens, who are elected officials,
who know what is best for our State.
The Republican leadership does not know what is best for the State of
Connecticut. If we want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, if we are
serious about saving taxpayers' money, we should have a real debate in
this body, if we are serious about what constitutes good energy policy
instead of more corporate giveaways like this in this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, we need a comprehensive national energy
bill to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil by investing in
cleaner, safer ways to power America. The bill attached to this rule
absolutely fails to reduce our growing demand for oil and will only
increase our vulnerability by making us more dependent on foreign oil
in the future.
We need an energy policy that restores electric system reliability;
keeps consumers' energy bills affordable; promotes energy conservation;
provides more power from clean, renewable sources; and tackles global
warming. Again, this bill fails miserably on every count.
This energy bill is the most anti-consumer, anti-environment, pro-
polluter, pro-corporate welfare legislation that I have seen in the 12
years that I have served in this House. It could cost consumers as much
as $136 billion in subsidies to polluting industries and corporate
handouts. The bill rewards energy companies with billions in subsidies
while sticking taxpayers with the bill and the pollution and the bill
for that pollution, which right now comes to about $167 billion in
monetized health care costs cross the country.
It eliminates consumer protections and subsidizes the construction of
new nuclear power plants that most people do not want. The bill fails
to take any step whatsoever to require that the Nation reduce its
dependence on oil or improve the fuel economy of our cars, trucks, and
SUVs. The conference even removed the Senate-passed provision to reduce
U.S. energy demands by 1 billion barrels a daily.
It nullifies lawsuits by cities, States, and others filed on or after
September 5, 2003, seeking compensation for contamination of
groundwater by MTBE, which is a very heavily suspected carcinogen. This
forces State and local communities to pay the cost that was originated
by the polluters. And then the bill provides 2 billion in taxpayer
dollars for these MTBE manufacturing companies to transition themselves
into a new line of work, more corporate welfare.
It violates the ``polluter pays'' principle by forcing taxpayers,
rather than polluters, to pay for the cleanup of contamination from
leaking underground storage tanks. Taxpayers, rather than polluters,
will pay another $2 billion to compensate the polluters rather than
having them to pay the bill. The bill does nothing to address the
serious damage caused by global warming. It dramatically increases air
pollution and global warming with huge new incentives for burning
fossil fuels. It allows more smog pollution for longer than the current
Clean Air Act currently authorizes. This means more kids and others
breathing dirty air for longer periods of time, more cases of asthma,
more public health problems.
It undermines the Clean Water Act. It threatens drinking water
supplies, public health, and the environment by exempting hydraulic
fracturing, a drilling technique which injects chemicals into the
groundwater.
This is an absolutely atrocious presentation. The rule should be
defeated, and the bill should be defeated.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the people watching the
floor today are feeling like they are having deja vu all over again;
and, yes, they are right. We did do this before; and, no, there is
nothing new here.
What we should be talking about is renewable energy. We should be
talking about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. We should be
talking about ensuring that catastrophes like Enron's cheating the west
coast out of billions of dollars never happen again. We should be
talking about improving our electrical transmission lines so that the
blackouts we experienced last summer do not happen again this summer.
We should be talking about how to make our buildings more energy
efficient, and we should be talking about the high price of gas and how
to bring relief to the American people.
Instead, we are talking about the same flawed energy bill that has
already passed the House. That bill was not good the first time, and it
is not good this time. This is the exact same energy bill that allows
companies to pollute our air and contaminate our water while giving
huge tax incentives to big oil and gas companies, the same companies
that are today gouging the American people with high gas prices at the
pumps.
[[Page H3978]]
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing this rule and these bills and to get on with the work of a
real energy policy, one that will bring us independence from foreign
fuels; one that will protect our environment and ensure that we are no
longer depending on fossil fuels.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to support
comprehensive energy legislation.
I think it is ironic that we are having to do this for the third time
when gas prices are at historic high levels in our country; and I do
not know what message it will give to two thirds of the Senate to say
we need a national energy, one that applies for more energy, domestic
sources of energy.
I know we need more energy, whether it be from crude oil for our
gasoline in our cars. We need lower natural gas prices. We have some of
the highest in the world. And yet we still have people in this country
who do not want to produce in our own Nation.
The nation of Cuba can drill 60 miles off Key West, and yet the
Governor of Florida does not want American companies drilling with zero
emission platforms 100 miles away. Obviously ANWR is an issue. We need
to drill domestically and produce it, and that way we will not become
dependent on foreign oil.
I support passing this bill, again, Mr. Speaker; and I would hope
that the bipartisan majority of the House would support it also.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members
it is inappropriate to urge action on the part of the Senate.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests
for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this House is becoming a place where the rules are
constantly being broken and a place where the process is constantly
being ignored. No hearings, no markups, no amendments made in order.
How cynical on an issue so important.
We need an energy policy in this country, Mr. Speaker. But this is
not it. What we are being presented with today really is a giveaway to
big campaign contributors. This bill does nothing to lower gas prices.
This bill does nothing to have us become less dependent on foreign oil.
It does nothing to support, in a meaningful way, renewable energy
sources.
This bill is having a tough time for all the right reasons, because
it is a bad bill. And rather than trying to fix it and rather than
trying to negotiate with the other body, here we are again going
through the same old routine.
Mr. Speaker, it is not just people like me who have problems with
this bill. Let me read just a section from a letter signed by the
president of Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the president of the
Council for Citizens against Government Waste, the President of the
National Taxpayers Union, the president of the Americans for Tax
Reform, and the president of the American Conservative Union. They
recently sent all of us a letter. Let me just quote from one paragraph.
They say: ``There is too much waste to describe in one letter,''
contained in this bill. ``Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches
everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to
'green' bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal
industries to billions in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas
pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges
across this country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a
quarter of the bill's funding.''
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and I will insert this letter in
the Record.
Mr. Speaker, we could do so much better, and I would urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule, to force the
committees of jurisdiction to do their job, to go back and meet again
and to come up with an energy bill that we all can be proud of.
December 1, 2003.
Pop the Ballooning Energy Bill
Dear Senator: On behalf of our members, the undersigned
groups urge you to oppose H.R. 6, the so-called ``Energy
Policy Act of 2003.'' We are concerned that at every
opportunity the energy bill has been larded up with more and
more waste and inappropriate taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Between initial passage on the floor of the House of
Representatives and the bill's emergence from the sequestered
conference committee, the bill's price tag ballooned from $46
billion to over $72 billion in authorized spending. That is a
50% increase in authorized spending in just a few months. Our
organizations will strongly consider including votes on this
bill in our end-of-the-year scorecards.
H.R. 6 is chock full of subsidies, pork barrel projects,
and unnecessary spending that have little, if anything, to do
with our nation's energy needs. Even supporters of the
legislation have admitted that it is not real comprehensive
energy policy, but merely a goodie bag of various projects
and policies. The Wall Street Journal called this bill ``one
of the great logrolling exercises in recent Congressional
history'' and that to get the bill through, leadership has
``greased more wheels than a Nascar pit crew.'' The
Washington Post also editorialized against the bill, calling
on lawmakers to ``make sure the bill doesn't become law.'' We
echo that sentiment.
There is too much waste to describe in one letter. Suffice
it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything,
from giving billions to ethanol producers to ``green'' bonds
for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal
industries to billion in loan guarantees for an Alaska
natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet
projects at colleges across the country. The oil and gas
industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's
funding.
Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6 and we will strongly
consider including votes on this wasteful legislation in our
organizations' end-of-year scorecards. We would be happy to
discuss these issues with you further. Please contact Aileen
Roder at Taxpayers for Common Sense Action at (202) 546-8500
130 or [email protected] with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Jill Lancelot,
President, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action.
Tom Schatz,
President, Council for Citizens against Government Waste.
John Berthoud,
President, National Taxpayers Union.
Grover G. Norquist,
President, Americans for Tax Reform.
Richard Lessner, Ph.D,
Executive Director, American Conservative Union.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the revelations that came to light
last week regarding the tapes on the Enron traders. As I started to say
earlier, that is pretty black and white, and it is bad. There is
absolutely no question about that. And FERC is responsible for that.
FERC has been working on this for some time. They have been. I think,
frankly, they have been moving rather slowly. But now that this new
information is out, I think FERC has to move much more quickly on this
issue because there is an awful lot at stake for the rate payers in the
western part of my State and certainly in my State and, indeed, the
whole northwest. So I share concerns with my colleagues on the west
coast that FERC needs to act immediately, and I hope that they would.
I might also add that since these revelations came to light last week
about the trading, the Department of Justice has now weighed in, as
they properly should. So we will get to the bottom about this. I do not
think there is any question about that. But there is no way that
anybody in this body can condone what we heard that was made public
with those tapes.
So with that, getting back to the business at hand, I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
[[Page H3979]]
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 671 will be followed by 5-
minute votes, as ordered, on adopting H. Res. 671; ordering the
previous question on H. Res. 672; and adopting H. Res. 672.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 197, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 236]
YEAS--218
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--18
Bishop (UT)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Collins
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, M.
Ehlers
John
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Olver
Pascrell
Terry
Watson
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1237
Messrs. POMEROY, DAVIS of Illinois, BRADY of Pennsylvania, BACA,
DAVIS of Tennessee, ACKERMAN, GORDON, WEINER, SHAYS, and RANGEL, and
Mrs. NAPOLITANO and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 193, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 237]
AYES--225
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
[[Page H3980]]
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Collins
DeMint
Deutsch
Ehlers
John
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Pascrell
Turner (TX)
Waters
Watson
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1246
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________