[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 24, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3776-H3779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2419, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 291 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 291
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except for section 104. Where points of order are
waived against part of a paragraph, points of order against a
provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only
against such provision and not against the entire paragraph.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purposes of debate only.
(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
{time} 1030
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 291 is an
open rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 2419, the Fiscal
Year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. The rule
provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
I would like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate that we
bring forth this resolution under a fair and open rule.
Historically, appropriations bills have come to the floor of the
House governed by open rules. We continue to do so in order to allow
each and every Member of this House the opportunity to submit
amendments for consideration, obviously as long as they are germane
under the rules of the House.
This legislation before us today, Mr. Speaker, appropriates almost
$30 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Departments of
the Interior and Energy, and several independent agencies. This bill is
truly fiscally sound, representing a reduction of $131.7 million from
the fiscal year 2005 legislation and the same spending level as was
requested by the President in his budget request. At the same time, Mr.
Speaker, this legislation provides the resources necessary to address
the energy and water needs of the United States.
H.R. 2419 provides $4.7 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Corps is the world's premier public engineering organization,
responding to the needs of the Nation in peace and in war. For over 200
years the Corps has been involved in such important missions as flood
control, shoreline prevention, navigation and safety on the waterways
of this great Nation. The vital work of the Corps will continue under
this act, which includes a vigorous civil works program.
The bill also includes a number of significant changes to improve
project execution and financial management, including more responsible
use of reprogramming, continuing contracts and implementation of long-
term financial planning.
I would like to highlight a Corps project of particular interest to
my community, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program. The
restoration of the Everglades, that wonder of nature, is the largest
and most significant environmental initiative that this country has
ever undertaken. The legislation continues our commitment to the
restoration of this environmental treasure with an appropriation of
$137 million. I am pleased to report that Everglades restoration is
moving forward expeditiously and effectively. Congress, and the
Committee on Appropriations especially, should be proud of this
environmentally sound action.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, which includes the
nuclear weapons program, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval
reactors and the Office of the Administrator, is funded at $8.8
billion, an increase of $24 million over fiscal year 2005. I am glad to
see that the appropriators increased this program. Nonproliferation is
essential to the defense of the homeland. Our work across the globe,
especially in Russia, makes it ever more difficult for rogue states and
terrorists to obtain the weapons necessary to attack the United States
or our Armed Forces abroad or our allies.
I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis)
and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) for truly extraordinary
work on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker,
to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to today's consideration of H.R. 2419,
which reflects much thought and long-term planning on behalf of the
Committee on Appropriations. This year's energy and water bill means a
great deal to my constituents and to my home in Sacramento.
Sacramento's history has long been intertwined with flood control.
When the city endured a near catastrophic flood in 1986, the community
quickly realized they did not have nearly the level of flood protection
necessary to fully safeguard the region. After the city again faced
more floods in 1997, the community set off to achieve 200-year flood
protection. However, until that day arrives, flooding remains a very
constant and real threat, and continued Federal assistance plays an
important role to attaining that goal.
In spite of years of efforts, Sacramento still remains one of the
most flood-prone and threatened cities in the country, paling in
comparison to the level of protection enjoyed by other river cities.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento's flood risk
is among the highest of major urban areas in the country.
Located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers,
Sacramento is the hub of a six-county regional economy that provides
800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people. A major flood along the American
River would cripple this economy, cause between $7 billion and $16
billion in direct property damages and likely result in significant
loss of life. The risk of serious flooding poses an unacceptable threat
to the safety and economic well-being of Sacramento and to California's
State Capitol.
With the steady support of Congress, Sacramento has already made good
progress toward our initial goal of
[[Page H3777]]
achieving 100-year flood protection for the region and ultimately
moving as quickly as possible towards 200-year flood protection. At the
beginning of this year, FEMA revised its flood maps for the majority of
Sacramento to reflect 100-year flood protection. But this level of
flood protection is still a far cry from the protection afforded other
large river cities and at least 100,000 people and 1,500 businesses
continue to be at high risk in the south Sacramento area.
Fortunately, as a result of long, bipartisan negotiations, Congress
has authorized a suite of projects that will achieve 200-year flood
protection. Upon completion of the authorized projects to improve area
levees, modify the outlets at Folsom Dam and raise Folsom Dam by 7
feet, Sacramento will attain its long-term flood control goal. I deeply
appreciate the Committee on Appropriations's commitment to funding
these projects to help give Sacramento the level of flood protection
that it both needs and deserves.
I am also quite pleased with the work that the committee has done to
ensure Corps projects are executed in an efficient manner with improved
financial management. For example, the work necessary to achieve 200-
year flood protection will take 15 to 20 years to complete. The
committee is asking that the Corps develop a 5-year plan and a vision
for water infrastructure in the country. The current year-by-year
strategy would not be an efficient manner to plan for the significant
financial demands. This would ultimately compromise the ability to
implement the region's flood control projects. Efforts to
comprehensively interrogate financial planning and project management
in the Corps will greatly benefit not only the execution of the
projects, but also the local and State partner's ability to plan their
budget.
It is certainly understandable that no matter how extensive the
planning and preparation for a project, that as it moves forward, it
may get off schedule. With that in mind, it is certainly helpful for
the Corps to be able to reprogram funding to projects that can keep
progressing. But this should only happen if the Corps can return the
funding back to the project the funds originally came from. To not do
so is a complete disregard of congressional directive. In such tight
financial times, the Corps must curb this practice.
I strongly support the committee directive that the Corps
specifically identify all of the funding owed to projects as a result
of reprogramming. I also believe integrating this funding into the
Corps budget will help clear the books and assist the Corps in
efficient project execution and financial management.
By working together, the Congress, the administration and the Corps
of Engineers will be better prepared to ensure limited Federal
resources are spent efficiently, commitments to local sponsors are
honored and projects remain on schedule.
I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the committee's
work determining funding priorities for the Department of Energy. This
year's Energy and Water Appropriations bill highlights the committee's
focus on other long-range issues, noticeably their commitment to
nuclear nonproliferation.
Sadly, this President's go-it-alone approach has been ineffective in
reducing the threat by cooperating and working with our allies and
others around the world to bring economic, social and political
pressure to bear on any country trying to gain nuclear weapon
capabilities.
It is illogical to expect any other nation to listen to Americans
speak of nonproliferation when we are developing bunker-busting nuclear
weapons. I stand with the committee's position to stop nuclear earth
penetrator research. Considering the vast amount of nuclear material
that is not secured in the former Soviet Union, I believe it is a much
better investment to fund the Sustainable Stockpile Initiative. Through
this program, we will be able to increase our Nation's security by
keeping their Cold War-era nuclear weapons and materials from falling
into the hands of terrorist organizations.
My one disappointment with this rule, Mr. Speaker, is that yesterday
afternoon the Committee on Rules refused to make in order a good
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Her amendment would provide the Department of Energy an additional $250
million to accelerate energy research, development, demonstration and
deployment. This investment will help our Nation harness technology to
secure greater independence from foreign sources of energy. As we face
rapidly rising prices for crude oil and gasoline at the pump, I believe
this issue is very timely and of great relevance to our debate today
about the funding priorities for the Department of Energy.
This bill moves our country forward on many levels, from improving
local water infrastructure, to bigger-picture Corps of Engineers
financial management and efficiency issues, to global issues like
nuclear nonproliferation. I strongly support the underlying bill and am
pleased it was reported in a bipartisan fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the rule under consideration.
Yesterday, I asked the Committee on Rules to provide a waiver so that
the House could consider my amendment to create the energy technology
to power the 21st century initiative which would provide $250 million
to accelerate the research, development, demonstration and deployment
of new energy technologies and make our Nation less reliant on foreign
energy. Unfortunately, my request was denied along party lines.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question much of our energy supply is
controlled by foreign nations. Just as we are trying to improve
national security, we have failed to complement these efforts with the
energy policies that would move us towards greater energy independence.
The recently passed Energy Policy Act failed to adequately invest in
renewable energy and conservation, directing $600 million to these
efforts while allocating more than 40 percent of the bill's $8.1
billion in tax cuts, that is, $3.2 billion, toward the oil and gas
industries, the same traditional resources that in large part we depend
on foreign countries for.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not change our focus, our country's consumption
of oil will only increase. By 2025, oil usage will increase to 28.3
million barrels per day, with imports accounting for 19.68 million of
those barrels. Leaving our energy security in the hands of
international oil barons is a foolish and dangerous approach.
{time} 1045
That is why I wanted to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2006
Energy and Water Appropriations Act that would provide the Department
of Energy with $250 million to accelerate the research, development,
demonstration, and deployment of new energy technologies.
Mr. Speaker, the benefits of controlling our own energy sources are
enormous. A down payment of $250 million would spur much-needed work in
the emerging sector of energy technology. We could bring to bear
reliable and successful methods of wind, solar, biomass, hydrogen, and
other forms of energy. It could bring new ways to bring cleaner, safer,
and more efficient energy with more traditional sources, including coal
and oil. It would put the United States on a course to energy
independence, something we all talk about.
It would also help maintain our standing as a world leader with
regard to scientific discovery by establishing a 21st-century engine to
discover new, more efficient, cleaner energy sources for the future. We
would help to create new, high-paying jobs and keep the United States
on the cutting edge of science and technology. With appropriate
investments, consumers as well as businesses will have greater, rather
than fewer, and less expensive options.
In the end, shifting our energy economy means improved national
security, more American jobs, a stronger economy, and a cleaner
environment. It is time to demand action on policy initiatives that
will set the United States free from its reliance on imported oil.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
[[Page H3778]]
With regard to an amendment that was allegedly not made in order, I
want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that we brought forth this legislation
under an open rule. Obviously, an amendment has to be germane and not
violate the rules of the House. We very much attempted to bring forth
this appropriations bill under an open rule, and we are pleased that we
were able to do so, and obviously that permits the amendment process to
be wide open and obviously fair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons), my distinguished friend and a great leader in this House.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for
allowing me today to rise in support of the rule, but in opposition to
the underlying bill. First, I would like to thank the chairman, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for allowing me time to speak
on an issue that is very important to my home State of Nevada.
Mr. Speaker, since the proposal of Yucca Mountain over 2 decades ago,
Nevadans have collectively fought against this ill-advised project. I
hope that one day I can come to the House floor and tell the people of
Nevada that they no longer need to worry about this disastrous
proposal. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, today is not that day.
I agree with my colleagues that we must find a solution to the
escalating energy problem in this country. However, digging a hole in
the Nevada desert and burying the waste is simply not the answer. The
Yucca Mountain project was based on 1980s science and technology and
has no place in our country today. We need to focus on 21st-century
solutions like reprocessing and transmutation processes to reduce our
nuclear waste. Going forward with the Yucca Mountain project is like
still using cassette tapes or even 8-track stereo tapes in an era of
MP3 players and Ipods.
In addition to this disregard of modern technology, it seems now the
DOE does not even care about ensuring the science they are basing the
project on, outdated or not, is even accurate. I met with Secretary
Bodman, along with the rest of the Nevada delegation, and we discussed
the recent scandal regarding the falsification of science from some
employees directly involved in the project. Despite the manipulation of
the data and the complete disregard for quality assurance that the
employees have shown, the Secretary demonstrated absolutely no
willingness to review the Yucca Mountain project.
I know most of my colleagues are not following this issue as closely
as we are in Nevada; but for the sake of government accountability, we
must halt this project until we have time to fully investigate these
accusations.
As Members of Congress, we are entrusted with responsibly spending
the taxpayers' dollars, and now is the time for us to stand up and
demand that the Department of Energy be accountable for its actions. We
are only wasting our constituents' tax dollars by pumping money toward
a project that continues to crumble from the inside.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the funding levels for
Yucca Mountain in the underlying bill. However, I will support the rule
so that we can move forward with debate on this very important issue.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can
consider the Schwartz amendment that was offered in the Committee on
Rules last night, but rejected on a straight party-line vote.
Mr. Speaker, the Schwartz amendment proposes an important new
initiative to help the United States reduce our dependence on imported
oil and strengthen our national security. It would provide the
Department of Energy with an additional $250 million next year to
accelerate the research and deployment of energy technology that will
reduce our country's consumption of fossil fuels.
I also want to point out that the cost of this amendment is fully
paid for and will not increase the deficit by one penny. The funding
for this amendment will come from a small, less than 1 percent
reduction in a tax cut for people making over $1 million this year.
A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote
on the Schwartz amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from
voting on this responsible and aggressive approach to help our Nation
out of its dependency on foreign oil.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the
text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on the previous question so that
we can have an opportunity to vote on the Schwartz amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.
Res. 291.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
This is an important appropriations bill, and it is one that we are
pleased, obviously, to bring forward under the great tradition of open
rules. So I very strongly support not only the underlying legislation
but also the rule, and I would ask for an affirmative vote by all of
our colleagues on the previous question as well.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, while I am not present for
today's debate on this rule or on the underlying Fiscal Year 2006
Energy and Water Appropriations bill due to an illness in my family, I
do urge my colleagues to support both measures.
This is an open rule and allows for full debate on funding for the
Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and all programs and
activities of the Department of Energy in the next fiscal year.
Writing this bill was a challenging task, as Subcommittee Chairman
Hobson had over $130 million less to spend in Fiscal Year 2006 than was
spent in Fiscal Year 2005. I commend Chairman Hobson for the tremendous
leadership he has shown in constructing this bill and for garnering
bipartisan support for it in both his Subcommittee and the full
Appropriations Committee. I fully expect it will pass this House with
strong bipartisan support as well.
I particularly want to thank Chairman Hobson for the continued
commitment he has shown to the Department of Energy's Environmental
Management program and cleanup of the Hanford site in Washington state.
The Administration's proposed budget reductions at Hanford would have
jeopardized the progress and cleanup momentum that has been achieved
through accelerated cleanup over the past 3 years and put cleanup
deadlines in jeopardy of being missed. The restoration of over $200
million for Hanford in this bill will ensure that cleanup momentum
continues, the Department has the ability to meet its legal timelines,
and that skilled workers remain on the job.
The Federal government has a legal and moral obligation to cleanup
Hanford and the Nation's other nuclear waste sites, and this bill
ensures that these promises are kept.
In addition to significantly restoring funds to Hanford's budget,
this bill provides funding for preservation of the B Reactor, for
operation of the Volpentest HAMMER training facility, and for the
critical effort to develop replacement lab space for Pacific Northwest
National Lab scientists who will soon be required to vacate their
current workspaces for cleanup work. PNNL is home to world-class
researchers and ensuring they are able to continue their work is
important for our Nation and for the economic future of the TriCities
community in Washington state.
While water project funding is much tighter this year due to overall
spending constraints, I am pleased that several important Washington
state initiatives were included in this bill. Scarce funds will be used
to continue the progress on the Bureau or Reclamation study of
additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin that I began in
2003. Additional funding is also provided for work to address depletion
of the Odessa Subaquifer, the Port of Sunnyside's wastewater treatment
and wetland restoration project, and the deepening of the Columbia
River channel.
[[Page H3779]]
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support passage of
the underlying Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:
Previous Question H. Res. 291--Rule for H.R. 2419, FY06 Energy and
Water Appropriations
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Schwartz of
Pennsylvania or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R. 2419, as Reported
Offered by Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania
Page 19, line 5, insert ``(increased by $250,000,000)''
after ``$1,762,888,000''.
Page 45, after line 8, insert the following:
Sec. 503. In the case of any taxpayer with adjusted gross
income in excess of $1,000,000 for the taxable year ending in
calendar year 2006, the amount of tax reduction for the
taxpayer for such year resulting from enactment of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
(Pub. L. 107-16) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced
by 0.78 percent.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 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.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 190, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 203]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--24
Boehlert
Brady (TX)
Burton (IN)
Cardoza
Delahunt
Dingell
Gohmert
Hastings (WA)
Istook
Jones (NC)
Kuhl (NY)
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Poe
Pryce (OH)
Reynolds
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Walsh
Watt
Wexler
Wu
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1115
Messrs. BISHOP of New York, ORTIZ, RUPPERSBERGER, BERMAN, GENE GREEN
of Texas, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ and Ms. SOLIS changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________