[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 24 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1350-H1393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADVANCED FUELS INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 133 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 133
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. 547) to facilitate the development of markets
for alternative fuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel
through research, development, and demonstration and data
collection. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. 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
Science and Technology. After general debate the bill shall
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Science and Technology now printed in the bill. Each section
of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. 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. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. 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.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time we
are adopting a rule that will allow Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner to vote in the Committee of the Whole, does the rule allow
for a separate vote on any question once the Committee rises?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Rule XVIII contemplates automatic, immediate
review in the House of certain recorded votes in the Committee of the
Whole.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. As a point of clarification on the inquiry, so
any question may be put to a separate vote once the Committee rises?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 6(h) of rule XVIII, both
affirmative and negative decisions of the Committee of the Whole may be
reviewed in the House under circumstances in which votes cast by
Delegates were decisive in Committee.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Under what circumstances will a separate vote
not be allowed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee will not automatically rise
for such an immediate review in the case where votes cast by Delegates
were not decisive.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. When a vote is not decisive, but a question put
loses, is there any opportunity for any Member, certified Member of the
House, to ask for a separate vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 6(h) of rule XVIII, immediate
review in the House occurs automatically when recorded votes cast by
Delegates were decisive, without regard to whether the question was
adopted or rejected. In ordinary proceedings of the house on the
ultimate report of the Committee of the Whole, the House considers only
matters reported to it by the Committee of the Whole, which would not
include propositions rejected in Committee. Simply put, an amendment
rejected in the Committee of the Whole is not reported back to the
House.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. On any question put?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not if it is rejected in the Committee of
the Whole.
[[Page H1351]]
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during
consideration of this rule is for debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. WELCH of Vermont asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 133 provides for
consideration of H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research
and Development Act, under an open rule. The rule provides for 1 hour
of general debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order
the Committee on Science and Technology amendment in the nature of a
substitute, now printed in the bill, as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment, which shall be considered for amendment by
section with each section considered as read.
The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and the underlying
bill. As this Congress is well aware, our country faces a pressing need
to chart a new energy future. In the crisis of global warming, it is
real, it is urgent, and it requires our immediate action.
Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that our reliance on
fossil fuels and foreign sources of energy threatens our economic
future and our international security.
{time} 1030
We as a Nation must seize opportunities, not miss them, to be a world
leader and promote our own domestic economy, to take steps similar to
what Brazil has done and has successfully demonstrated with the
reliance on increasing access to biofuels.
Today, the Chair of our Science and Technology Committee, the Member
from Tennessee, Chairman Gordon, with the assistance of the ranking
member, the Representative from Texas, Mr. Hall, are providing us with
an opportunity to take a concrete step forward to increase the use and
the supply of alternative renewable fuels through research and
development.
These alternatives provide hope for reducing our impact on global
warming while giving a boost to our local and national economies. The
particular beneficiaries of success in building capacity for biofuels
will be our rural economies, Mr. Speaker.
We have a potential, if we embrace it, in facing the challenge we
face with energy, to revitalize our rural economies. What this bill
will do is a number of things. It will fund research to make renewable
biofuels more compatible with existing infrastructure. One of the
practical problems that we face in making biofuels generally available
is infrastructure challenges.
Right now, the low sulfur fuels that are potentially available can do
damage to the basic pumps and tanks that are in the 160,000 gas
stations across this country. Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel has just 3
percent of the sulfur in traditional diesel. But current technology
does not allow for the easy testing to ensure that this standard is
met.
This is the second area where the bill will help, by establishing
clear national standards for testing that will allow verification about
what the sulfur content is in our biofuels. New low-cost testing
methods will give rise to consumer confidence and create the
possibility for greater demand.
To that end, this bill will make alternative fuel compatibility
information more available to the public. You know, the expansion of
biofuels is going to mean additional revenue options for local farmers,
like those in my State of Vermont, and a cleaner environment with less
dependance on foreign oil.
As gas prices rise, we are further reminded that we are held hostage
by a single source of fuel that threatens our economy, constrains our
foreign policy, and does damage to our environment. The most basic
level, the budgets of our seniors and our schools, our farms, and our
families are strained by high energy prices.
All of the time we are exporting dollars to import energy, we are
depriving our local economies of job creation potential. This
legislation takes small but very specific steps that will bring us
closer to a readily available source of fuel that is local and can have
tremendous potential for our local economies.
We are moving in a new direction. Our first step in this Congress,
the 110th Congress, last month was when we stood up to Big Oil and we
rescinded tax cuts that went to an industry that had been enjoying
record profits, and instead put that money into research and
opportunities for alternative renewable energy sources.
Many of us come from States that have been taking steps to focus on
energy independence and clean energy sources. My own State of Vermont
has established a utility called Efficiency Vermont that actually makes
benefits for Vermonters by finding ways to use less energy, keeping
money in our pockets.
We have created a clean energy fund, something in effect that we are
on a start to do with the legislation we passed in the 6-for-06. We
established appliance efficiency standards that when implemented can
save Vermonters and other citizens from States that have joined us
millions of dollars in energy costs.
You know, in addition to just the very practical steps this
legislation is taking, having government assist in coming up with
standards to measure what biofuel content is, having government help
come up with research money so that we can add additives to these low
sulfur, less polluting fuels, helping our small businesses, the mom and
pop convenience stores that have gas pumps, and would face an expense
of $30,000 to $200,000 to retrofit or to replace existing facilitates
in order to be able to dispense the new fuels that our private market
is producing, this is a concrete step where government is helping on
the energy front, helping small business by assisting and coming up
with practical low-cost ways to make it easy to dispense this fuel and
get it to the consumer.
These are steps where the government is acting as a partner with
industry, a partner with our small businesses and doing some things
that require the practical and efficient application of resources of
the people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, there is also another element to this bill that I think
is very important for the 110th Congress. This is a bipartisan piece of
legislation, presented by the Science and Technology Committee. I want
to quote some remarks that Chairman Gordon made at the outset. What he
said, when he took the reins of that committee as the new chairman was
this: ``I made a promise that this would be a committee of good ideas
and a committee of consensus. We are here to solve problems. In fact,
the entire Congress is here to solve problems.''
Mr. Gordon and his committee, with the ranking member, the gentleman
from Texas, have presented to us a bill that has broad bipartisan
support. Why? Because it is practical. It does something concrete. It
recognizes we have an energy crisis that requires action, and it has
found constructive ways to address that.
The committee allowed the process to be open for new ideas, inviting
Members to present amendments. The chairman then came before the Rules
Committee, Mr. Speaker, and asked for an open rule so as to permit
Members of this body who may have amendments that will strengthen or
improve this legislation to have those considered by the full Congress.
So what this bill does is two things: one, it presents us with a
practical step that we can take that helps continue to move us in the
right direction on energy independence, on reducing global warming, and
on building our local economies.
Second, it is a model of how we can work together, the presentation
of
[[Page H1352]]
good ideas in a bipartisan piece of legislation in an open rule where
other Members are invited to present relevant and thought-out ideas
that may improve this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise to express my
appreciation to my friend from Hartland, Vermont, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
legislation, H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and
Development Act. I congratulate Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon
and Ranking Member Ralph Hall on their efforts; and I applaud my
colleague, the Rules Committee Chair, Ms. Slaughter.
I extend my congratulations to my colleague, Ms. Slaughter, for
granting such a fair and judicious rule. I am very proud to stand here
extending that congratulations to my friend and colleague.
Mr. Speaker, in his January 24, 2007, State of the Union address,
President Bush called for the increased use of renewable and
alternative motor fuels. As the 110th Congress begins, alternative
fuels and advanced technology vehicles have already received a good
deal of attention, especially in discussions over U.S. energy security.
The rising cost of oil, the country's dependence on foreign oil, the
debate over global warming, and the concern with air emissions have led
to a heightened interest in developing clean and alternative energy
sources and facilitating their use by the American consumer.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Congress is in the forefront
of this research and our effort to look for alternative energy sources.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 547 is a good bill that authorizes $10 million for
the Environmental Protection Agency to launch a research and
development program aimed at making alternative fuels more compatible
with the Nation's existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure.
It also directs the EPA to develop portable, inexpensive, and
accurate methods for fuel suppliers to test the sulfur content of
diesel fuels. While biofuels such as ethanol are regarded as clean-
burning alternatives to fossil fuels, it is clear that they can corrode
or compromise pipes and storage tanks designed for petroleum products.
Now, unfortunately, retailers themselves often bear the cost of
solving this problem and revitalizing the old infrastructure. This bill
tasks the EPA with testing additive and other technologies to ease such
problems. With new findings we will be able to mobilize the
infrastructure necessary to distribute and dispense alternative fuels.
With so much emphasis being placed on the development of these
alternative fuels, it is only fitting that we develop the
infrastructure that is necessary for us to handle those new alternative
sources of energy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to point out that in the 109th
Congress legislation that is virtually identical to this, H.R. 547, was
introduced to help facilitate the marketing of alternative fuels to
consumers. In fact, the provisions of H.R. 547 are, as I said,
virtually identical to section 15 of H.R. 6203, which was introduced
last year.
Now, H.R. 6203, the Alternative Research and Energy Research and
Development Act, was sponsored by our colleague from Illinois, Mrs.
Biggert. And, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that that legislation which is
virtually identical to this was passed under suspension of the rules by
a voice vote. It was passed unanimously.
Democrats and Republicans in the last Congress came together on the
29th of September, clearly a time where there was a lot of division,
and yet we came together on this very important piece of legislation
designed to help us find ways in which we can deal with the
infrastructure challenges of putting new alternative sources of energy
into the hands of consumers in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I applaud this open rule. I
commend Chairwoman Slaughter for her first attempt at beginning to open
up this legislative process to all Members. Frankly, I was wondering
exactly when it would happen. However, I feel it is necessary to point
out, as I have said before, that this almost exact same bill did pass
under what is know as suspension of the rules. I know that that is an
inside baseball, an inside baseball issue here, Mr. Speaker.
Suspension of the rules means that there is little or no controversy
to an issue. It is required to have a two-thirds supermajority vote
with 20 minutes of debate on each side. So that is the way this
legislation passed the last time. I mean, I think it is very safe to
say that consideration of this measure, H.R. 547, could have been very
appropriately provided for under suspension of the rules, or even as
was requested by the distinguished ranking minority member of the
Committee on Science, Mr. Hall. In his discussion with Chairman Gordon,
the discussion was, why do we not bring this under unanimous consent?
I made the same proposal yesterday in the Rules Committee. I
understand that the new majority does in fact want to have an
opportunity to point out that we are going to be considering an issue
under an open rule. I commend them for that. I am just saying that it
is very, very easy to bring a noncontroversial issue that will likely
have unanimous support at the end of the day under an open rule.
Now, while I think that the research and development of clean
alternative energy sources is highly critical to our Nation, I hope
that in the future, in the future that we can save productive, yet
noncontroversial, bills for consideration under the provision known as
suspension of the rules, or under unanimous consent agreements which we
easily could have propounded.
I hope that we can grant open rules. I hope that we can grant open
rules to pieces of legislation that are very crucial and frankly where
there is disagreement, where we can see what James Madison envisioned
as that clash of ideas, because that is really when the open amendment
process is very, very worthwhile and we can engage in extensive and
vigorous debate. I know we are going to have amendments that are going
to be considered on the floor today.
{time} 1045
I suspect that most of them will be passed, and I suspect that there
will be bipartisan passage of those amendments. And so when I am
talking about the future and open rules, I hope that when we do deal
with that Madisonian clash of ideas, we are able to do it under an open
amendment process.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Rules Committee there were seven
amendments that were offered by Members, which did require protection,
point-of-order protection, which, as we all know, is something that the
Rules Committee can do. One amendment would have doubled the tax credit
for making biodiesel from recycled restaurant grease. Now this is an
issue that came forward by Dr. Mike Burgess from Texas, and I know my
colleague on the Rules Committee from Dallas, Mr. Sessions, is going to
be talking about this amendment.
This is a very, very creative way which will help us address this
issue of alternative sources, and it is being done privately. And the
notion of providing a tax incentive to deal with the utilization of
restaurant grease for biodiesel is, as I said, a very, very interesting
and innovative concept, and we could have allowed it to be considered
during the debate here on the floor. But to my disappointment, these
amendments were not made in order.
As I said, the Rules Committee does have the power to do this. And I
would say that as we look at this new-found openness and opportunity
for debate, I hope very much that when we have creative amendments like
this that could be considered, the Rules Committee would do what the
Rules Committee often has done in the past, and can do, and that is
waive points of order so that a creative idea like this can come
forward.
Mr. Speaker, I am overjoyed to be here in strong support of this open
rule. And as I said, I look forward to many, many more open rules as we
deal with controversial questions that the American people want us to
address in the future. The Democrats pledged regular order and a
transparent and fair legislative process, and I am very glad, I am very
happy and
[[Page H1353]]
very grateful to see it beginning at this point.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, just before I yield to the next
speaker on our side, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) for his support for this open rule. As he knows, and I think
the Members of this body know, the Chair of the Rules Committee, the
Member from New York, is completely committed to fair debate.
And also, what we have seen is that there has been vigorous debate on
the legislation that has already come before this body, resulting in
votes of passage that included substantial support from the other
party. So we have had a significant increase in the level of bipartisan
support for the legislation that this body has passed.
Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall have presented to us a bill
that will be considered by the body, that has broad bipartisan support.
They had an open amendment process in effect in their committee.
Chairwoman Slaughter and the Rules Committee, with the support of the
Member from California, presenting this bill once again on an open rule
process. This side is committed to fair debate, and the Rules Committee
will act in ways that are consistent with that.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch) for yielding me time. He has quickly become an excellent
contributor to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, Federal energy policy has been lagging behind forward-
looking States like California. It is now time for the Federal
Government to lead America's transformation to a clean energy economy.
Here in Congress, we must enact smart policies that demonstrate a
serious commitment to changing the way this Nation produces and
consumes energy.
In the House, we took an important first step as part of the 100-
hours agenda when we repealed $14 billion in subsidies and incentives
for oil companies, and redirected that money to a clean energy fund.
That legislation sent a clear and strong signal to our constituents
and to industry. I can tell you that businesses, universities and
research institutions in my hometown of Sacramento are enthusiastic
about helping America move forward on clean energy technologies.
One of those technologies, biofuels, has tremendous potential to
decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and if we are serious about
incorporating alternative fuels into the economy, we need to ensure
that our infrastructure is compatible with them.
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 547 because it is a commonsense next step on
biofuels. Chairman Gordon's legislation will allow for research and
development to ensure that alternative fuels, such as E-85, biodiesel
and advanced biofuels can be handled by our gas stations and pipelines.
This is a smart investment because it makes a lot more sense to modify
the existing infrastructure than to rebuild it.
I hope all my colleagues will be able to support this important
legislation. But this is just a first step. We know that. Congress must
continue to send signals that we are serious about transitioning to a
clean energy economy. That means supporting the range of technologies,
including clean alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar,
geothermal and biomass, as well as energy-efficient technologies for
buildings and transportation.
Congress and the administration should not pick winners and losers.
There will be no magic bullet. When it comes to research and
development, we must hedge our bets.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to
move toward a clean energy economy effectively and expeditiously. This
is the most important domestic priority for Congress and a generational
challenge for the Nation. There is absolutely no time to waste.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes
to our very hardworking member of the Rules Committee, my friend from
Dallas, Mr. Sessions.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate noncontroversial legislation
that will help to develop markets for biofuels and ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel through research and development.
And I am very, very pleased, and I appreciate the majority's decision
to suspend its policy of a closed rule without regular order. I hope
that this will not prove to be a unique circumstance, and one in which
we will continue to see more open rules like the one which this
legislation is being considered today.
However, I also believe that we are missing an important opportunity
to improve this legislation by offering an additional provision to be
considered that was offered yesterday in the Rules Committee by our
colleague, Dr. Michael Burgess from Texas.
Congressman Burgess' amendment would have doubled the tax credit for
making biodiesel from recycled restaurant grease from 50 cents a gallon
to $1 a gallon, thereby encouraging its further use and production.
This incentive would encourage the marketplace to reduce petroleum use
and the pollutant associated with removing this grease without removing
arable land from food production.
Mr. Speaker, this technology works. This technology is something that
we need to do more of. But, this amendment is not germane; it requires
protection from a point of order, which is what the Rules Committee's
job is all about. Unfortunately, yesterday, the Rules Committee voted
it down along party lines with every Democrat on the committee voting
to prevent this amendment from getting the protection that it would
need to be considered by the House. Said another way, good ideas don't
necessarily pass in the Rules Committee.
This amendment would allow the House to consider new and innovative
ways to achieve our goal of energy independence in a responsible way.
And I am disappointed that my Democrat colleagues on the committee
prevented us from debating that and passing that in the bill today.
I support Congressman Burgess through his thoughtful legislation to
provide incentives for the free market to create new, responsible and
leading-edge solutions to end our dependency on foreign sources of
energy.
I hope, despite the setback that he will likely encounter today, that
Congressman Burgess will continue to offer his amendments in the
future, and I also hope that he will continue to come up to the Rules
Committee to make sure his ideas, thoughts, are well understood and
communicated.
Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is open for business. That should
mean that the best thoughts and ideas that may or may not have been
considered throughout the process of going through regular order would
be permissible in the Rules Committee. Good ideas should find the light
of day upstairs in the Rules Committee, and it is my hope that the
majority will continue to allow not only an open process, but will
perhaps allow itself to engage in these ideas for the betterment of
people who want us to make sure that we work not only in a bipartisan
way, but solve, through creativity, the problems of this great Nation.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Vermont
(Mr. Welch) for yielding me the time to speak on this open rule, and I
congratulate him for managing his first rule in this body.
And I should say that after listening to the previous speaker, my
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), I have a bad case of
whiplash, first, because when his party was in the majority, he
routinely supported closed rules and, second, because when his party
was in the majority, I can't recall a time when he supported waiving
germaneness rules for a Democratic amendment.
Now, having said that, I want to tell my colleagues that the
gentleman from Vermont is part of an extraordinary new group of Members
who are helping to change the culture in Washington. And I thank him
for bringing forward this open rule. These new Members, the ``majority
makers,'' as the majority
[[Page H1354]]
leader likes to call them, were elected to this body because they stand
for change. They stand for openness, transparency and honesty.
They spoke truth to power during the 2006 elections, Mr. Speaker, and
they are here to do what is in the best interests of their constituents
and the American people.
Mr. Speaker, with this open rule, the gentleman from Vermont is
carrying forward the promise these new Members made to the voters.
Now, some of us who have been around here for a while and lived under
the previous Republican leadership may have forgotten what an open rule
looks like. I thought it was extinct, except on appropriations bills.
But the rule that we are considering today is open, and that means that
any germane amendment offered by any Member, Democrat or Republican,
can be debated and voted on by this body. It is the way a deliberative
body should act.
Now let me assure my friends on the other side of the aisle that this
is not the only open rule that you will see in this Congress. This is
the return of the House of Representatives as a deliberative body.
And I am also pleased to note that with this open rule we have
equaled, in 1 month, the number of open rules provided by the previous
Republican majority on nonappropriations bills in the 2 years of the
109th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud that this new majority has moved in such a
fashion, and I am proud that we were able to organize this House and,
at the same time, pass meaningful legislation that will affect everyday
Americans across this great Nation. A higher minimum wage, stem cell
research, reduction in student loan interest rates, an increase in Pell
Grants, ethics reform to clean up the culture of corruption that
existed in the previous Congress, these are just a few of the
accomplishments of this new majority in just 1 month.
Now we are moving on to the next phase, Mr. Speaker. Most of the
House committees are organized, and they are beginning to hold hearings
and they are producing legislation. The Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and the Judiciary Committee recently held
markups. The Ways and Means Committee and Financial Services Committee
are scheduling markups as we speak. Legislation these committees
produce will come to the Rules Committee, and we look forward to trying
to bring that legislation to the floor in a more open and honest
fashion than we experienced in the previous Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the 110th Congress is a new Congress, but it is also a
different Congress, and I am pleased to be able to serve with new
Members like Mr. Welch of Vermont, who is managing this open rule;
Kathy Castor; Mike Arcuri; Betty Sutton; along with Dennis Cardoza, who
is also new to the Rules Committee. These Members are ushering in a new
era in helping shape this new direction for the House of
Representatives.
So I want to thank my friend from Vermont for the time. I
congratulated him on this open rule, his first, but certainly not his
last.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardoza).
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont
for yielding me the time and for his able leadership on this rule.
{time} 1100
I rise in full support of the rule on H.R. 547.
As a new Member of the House Rules Committee, I am very pleased that
we were able to have an open rule so quickly in the 110th Congress.
This rule will allow an open and honest debate on one of the most
important issues facing our country: energy independence.
H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development
Act, addresses an extremely important, however often overlooked,
component to our emerging domestic biofuels industry: pipeline and
storage infrastructure.
When ethanol and other biofuel additives are mixed with traditional
fuels, it can cause disruptions to the pipeline infrastructure through
corrosion and contamination, even clogging. These small obstacles
should not be impediments to the full development of the biofuels
industry, but they are still issues that must be addressed in order to
move forward.
This important legislation we are considering today would authorize
funds to EPA and the Department of Energy to develop a program for
alternative bio-based fuels and low-sulfur diesel fuels to be more
compatible with existing infrastructure used to store and deliver
petroleum-based fuels to the point of final sale.
In California's San Joaquin Valley, we are watching the development
and progression of our domestic biofuel industry with a particularly
close eye. We have some of the most fertile agricultural land in the
country. My district alone grows over 200 different kinds of crops,
contributing over $5 billion of the $30 billion agriculture industry of
our State.
But as we are blessed with our soil, we are similarly blessed and
cursed by our geography. The steep mountains on both sides of the
valley create a trap for air which in turn creates some of the worst
air quality problems in the entire Nation. We are currently in a severe
ozone non-attainment area and quickly moving towards an extreme level
for both ozone and particulate matter. Limited emissions from ethanol
blends and other biofuels have the potential to contribute to our
increasingly dangerous air quality levels.
My colleague Ms. Anna Eshoo and I will be offering an amendment
during general debate on H.R. 547 to expand the current areas of
research covered under this legislation to include strategies to
minimize potential impacts of volatile emissions from biofuels. Our
amendment exemplifies the importance of this open rule. Neither Ms.
Eshoo nor I sit on the Science Committee; however, through this open
rule, we are able to weigh in on important legislation on behalf of our
constituents.
While I realize that the bill may have passed by unanimous consent
last year, clearly numerous Members are interested in offering
amendments, and I am pleased that our leadership has provided this
opportunity to Members on both sides of the aisle.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this open rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I congratulate my colleague Mr. Cardoza on his very thoughtful
statement and want to say that I am very pleased that he and my other
California colleague, Ms. Eshoo, are looking forward, through this open
amendment process, to offering their proposal. He stated very correctly
that neither of them serve as members of the Science Committee, but by
virtue of having an open amendment process, they will have an
opportunity to participate. So I join him in stating that I hope very
much that as we look at issues where we see great controversy in the
future that we will be able to have Members participate in a way that
Members will be able participate today on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and
friend from Vermont for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to respond to
something that my colleague from Texas said just a few moments ago with
respect to good ideas in the Rules Committee. I happen to agree with
him. I think that the proposal was a very good idea, and it is
something that certainly I would think very strongly about supporting.
However, I voted against it because I felt that there were questions of
both germaneness and also I felt that by not going through the
committee process, it would somehow make it less likely that that bill
would pass, and that was the reason that I voted against it. It had
absolutely nothing to do with a partisan issue, but more because I feel
it is a good idea and it would stand a better chance of passage by
working through the committee process. So I think it is important that
we point out here that the Rules Committee is, in fact, a committee
that recognizes good ideas and supports good ideas; and simply because
we disagree about issues does not mean we do not support good ideas on
our side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of an open rule on this
bill, and
[[Page H1355]]
I am pleased that my colleagues on the Rules Committee, including those
on the other side of the aisle, voted unanimously to approve this rule.
That level of support speaks volumes about the importance of bringing
the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure bill to the floor of this Chamber for
consideration.
During Science Committee Chairman Gordon's remarks before the Rules
Committee yesterday, he pointed out an issue that requires our utmost
attention if we as a Nation ever hope to truly address our Nation's
addiction to oil. The issue is that cellulosic ethanol and other
biofuels are highly corrosive and not compatible with the fuel
distribution infrastructure currently in place to transport them in our
country.
Biofuels are the wave of the future. Continued domestic production
and use of biofuels will reduce air emissions, diversify our energy
supply, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. A classic trifecta,
if you will.
Unfortunately, this transportation barrier imposes increased cost
burdens and could slow the transition we hope to make away from fossil
fuels. The Advanced Fuels Infrastructure bill takes a giant first step
in the right direction to address the biofuel infrastructure problem by
tasking the Environmental Protection Agency to develop additives,
blendstocks, technologies, and other methods to make biofuels less
corrosive.
Members of my staff joke that I am hooked on talking about cellulosic
ethanol. I am more than hooked. I think I would say I am addicted. No
pun intended. But the truth be known, I would rather be addicted to
some type of energy that is produced domestically rather than a foreign
or fossil fuel that is produced somewhere else other than in this
country. And so are many of my colleagues in this Chamber. Like me,
they understand the substantial benefits that biofuels like ethanol
will provide for our Nation's growing energy demand.
We in Congress and our counterparts at the State level also realize
the role which government has to play in developing cost-effective
methods of producing these fuels. Last December my home State of New
York awarded $14.8 million to build and operate a cellulosic biomass-
to-ethanol demonstration plant in Rochester, New York. A professor at
Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, was recently awarded a $10
million grant to upgrade Cornell's industrial biotechnology
laboratories and improve researchers' abilities to liberate sugars from
woody biomass and convert them into biofuels. In addition, the
Biorefinery in New York Project is about to embark upon a $20.6 million
public-private partnership to demonstrate commercial-scale cellulosic
ethanol production in Lyonsdale, New York. Half of that $20.6 million
is private investment from a Texas-based energy company that will be
pumped directly into the New York State economy. For too long New York
State has been exporting money out of state to meet our energy needs.
Now we are importing those dollars back.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request includes many
misdirected funding cuts; however, it does include a $292 million grant
for research and development programs to promote biofuels, most notably
the wide-scale production of cellulosic ethanol. This figure is more
than double the fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $119 million.
Cellulosic ethanol plants are starting to pop up all across Upstate New
York and the rest of the Nation thanks to top-notch researchers.
I stand here today very proud to support this open rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield such
time as he may consume to the very distinguished ranking minority
member of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall).
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And just to comment, this bill was originally introduced by the 109th
Congress as H.R. 5658 and included in Congresswoman Biggert's
comprehensive energy R&D bill, 6203, which was passed by the House
under suspension of the rules. And I see no reason why this one
couldn't have been handled that way. As a matter of fact, I am a
cosponsor with the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, Bob
Inglis, and with the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Gordon,
and Mr. Lampson. Actually, at leadership's suggestion and working
together with our leadership over here, I sent a letter to Chairman
Gordon requesting that he bring this up on the floor under unanimous
consent agreement. It could have easily been done and bypassed the
Rules Committee.
It is easy to bring an open rule up when there is not any opposition
to it. I hope they will follow this pattern for the rest of this
session.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 is a great bill and cellulosic ethanol
is great from a global warming perspective because it simply
recirculates carbon through the atmosphere. It doesn't add any
additional carbon. It is simply that the plant takes it out of the
atmosphere. They crush the plant, burn the fuel. It is a cycle. It
doesn't add any net increase.
But I want to make sure Members understand this bill is just a
beginning of what we need to do. Brazil is totally energy independent
today because they have gone to an E-85 system. They burn fuel that is
85 percent ethanol. But I talked to the person in Brazil that made this
happen, and he told me one clear lesson. If you don't do something to
compel the oil and gas distribution system to put in E-85 pumps, they
don't do it. Now, they in Brazil had to adopt some policies to compel
the installation of these E-85 pumps because there is a competitive
reason. The oil and gas industry doesn't want to put in these pumps to
compete with their oil and gas. So this is a start to demonstrate why
the use of cellulosic ethanol is very allowable in Brazil. They pump
this stuff all over the country all the time. But we are going to need
to take another step to get those E-85 pumps built to fuel our flex-
fuel cars. This is a first step. There is more to come.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am just going to close the debate on this
spectacular open rule myself; so I reserve the balance of my time at
this juncture.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Advanced
Fuel Infrastructure Research and Development Act, and I also thank my
colleague from Vermont for his leadership on this open rule.
I have dedicated my entire career to developing new sources of
energy, and I am pleased that we are making it easier to incorporate
biofuels into our everyday lives. Current practices have taken us where
we are today, but we need to expand our options to fight clean fuels
and viable alternatives to conventional fuels. Diversification of our
energy supply is the only way to rein in our country's increasing need
to import oil from foreign countries.
The bill we are voting on today is a good step toward making
biofuels, such as E-85 ethanol and biodiesel, easier and less expensive
to access and use. This is a very good first step toward energy
diversification, but we are on a long haul to sustainability.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from
California if he is ready to close. I am the only remaining speaker on
my side and will reserve my time until the gentleman is finished.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my new friend from
Hartland is prepared to close debate, I will do the same on our side.
I do so to simply say that I do rise in strong support of this open
amendment process. I congratulate Mr. Gordon, I congratulate Mr. Hall,
and the other Democrats and Republicans who have come together to do
what we did in the last Congress, to pass this very important
legislation which is designed to allow us to focus on the
infrastructure challenges that we as a Nation will have to deal with as
we pursue ethanol, biodiesel, all of the multifarious forms
[[Page H1356]]
that are alternative ways of our dealing with the energy needs of this
country.
{time} 1115
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the Los Angeles
Basin, part of it, along with other great colleagues of mine on both
sides of the aisle. We have very serious environmental challenges
there; air quality problems are very great, and doing what we can to
encourage these alternative sources has been a priority for my
Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and for Republicans and Democrats
alike.
One of the things that we like to argue is that Republicans and
Democrats and Independents, everyone likes to breathe clean air.
Everyone wants to have an opportunity to deal with the challenges that
are out there, whether it is global warming or just the overall concern
about environmental quality. It is very, very important for us to do
that.
I believe that this is legislation that is going to pass, probably
unanimously. I can't imagine anyone voting against it. I know that
there are some thoughtful amendments that will come forward on this.
But I do want to also say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a new day. It a
new day because we have seen a change, a change from what we have seen
in the first several weeks of this Congress.
Now, I know that a number of people talked about the fact that we
have had a vigorous discussion and debate over the issues that my
friend from Massachusetts mentioned, the issues of college loans, stem
cell research, the minimum wage increase. But we know that those are
issues that enjoy broad bipartisan support among the American people. I
was proud to have supported the stem cell research legislation,
identical to what I voted for in the last Congress. There would have
been no reason for me to oppose it.
But, frankly, I will say that as I looked at the other issues that
were included in that 6 for '06 package, Mr. Speaker, I opposed them
because they didn't allow for the kind of opportunity to improve the
legislation that we are going to see today.
Now, again, it is hardly necessary, because this could have been done
under suspension of the rules; and my challenge to my very
distinguished colleagues is, as Mr. Hall said so eloquently, we don't
need to simply have an open rule for the sake of an open rule on an
issue that everyone agrees over. There is complete agreement on this
issue. What we need to have is an open and vigorous debate when we have
disagreement and, again, a clash of ideas, as James Madison envisaged
it when he talked about the establishment of this great institution.
So, Mr. Speaker, I praise my colleagues for putting together this
effort. I congratulate once again my colleague from New York, Ms.
Slaughter, the distinguished new Chair, the first woman to chair the
Rules Committee. I congratulate Mr. McGovern, who so ably is carrying
on his responsibility in the new majority on the Rules Committee. I
look forward to working with my colleagues as we pursue our goals of
making sure that we do the best thing for the American people, and that
is to come together to address the very crucial public policy questions
that confront us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California for his kind remarks about the Chair of the Rules Committee,
Ms. Slaughter. I also thank him, as we all do, for his support on both
the open rule and the merits of this legislation.
The bottom line here is, we are all in it together. We know that we
have major problems to solve. One of them is global warming and one is
energy independence. This legislation is a practical step that was
brought to us by the cooperation of both sides of the aisle on the
Science and Technology Committee.
The Rules Committee is presenting an open rule. There will be more to
come. Its commitment is to fair debate, and it is going to have to
balance the responsibility of making decisions about how best to allow
this body to debate clearly and directly the major issues that come
before this Congress.
We can make progress by working together. It is our goal to continue
to do so. That requires that the committees be given an opportunity to
do their work. Amendments are going to be brought up in committees and
recommended or rejected. That was done in this case. It is going to be
the commitment of the Rules Committee to make the debate on all
legislation that comes before this body as fair as it possibly can be.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important step. We have to give the American
people some confidence that we can take concrete steps to move ahead,
and that is legislation, day by day, week by week, month by month, year
by year, where we are moving in the right direction.
What we have done on energy in less than a month is move away from an
excessive and damaging reliance on fossil fuels by passing two pieces
of legislation, if this passes, that move us in a new direction. That
is the right thing for this country; it is the right thing for
Republicans and Democrats to work together to achieve.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 133 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 547.
{time} 1123
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 547) to facilitate the development of markets for alternative
fuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel through research, development,
and demonstration and data collection, with Mr. McNulty in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hall) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, energy is on everyone's mind these days. The price of
fuel has been rising and awareness of the extent to which we are
dependent upon foreign sources of oil has grown. At the same time, in
an effort to reduce emissions of air pollution, we are also
transitioning to cleaner fuels.
The good news is that we have developed and are continuing to develop
alternative fuels and cleaner-burning versions of our current
petroleum-based fuels. But we must ensure the availability of
infrastructure and equipment for transporting, distributing and
utilizing these new fuels at a reasonable cost.
For a number of reasons, biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are
often incompatible with many components of the present-day
infrastructure, forcing distributors and retailers to make heavy
investments in new hardware if they want to carry these fuels. H.R. 547
initiates a program to research ways to mitigate many of these problems
and make bio-based fuels more compatible with the country's petroleum-
based infrastructure, thus avoiding the massive costs to the country of
a whole new infrastructure.
The bill also initiates a program to develop less-expensive, easier-
to-use testing methods and equipment for verifying the sulfur level of
clean diesel fuels. Since infrastructure is used for various fuel
products with sulfur content, ranging from 15 to 5,000 parts per
million, there is a concern that distributors and retailers may sell
fuel with sulfur beyond 15 parts per million limits of ULSD, ultra-low
sulfur diesel. This simply gives retailers and distributors a way to
ensure the quality and regulatory compliance of the fuels they sell.
To ensure consistent specifications throughout the fuels market, H.R.
547
[[Page H1357]]
instructs NIST to begin developing standards for biofuels as they would
for conventional, petroleum-based fuels. There is also an authorization
of $10 million to carry out all programs within this bill.
Mr. Gordon secured numerous endorsements and support for this bill
from groups as diverse as convenience store and truck-stop owners,
petroleum marketers and retailers, the Renewable Fuels Association, API
and the NRDC. Given the relatively small cost, the very specific
concerns it addresses and the carefully negotiated language and
endorsements, it would be a shame to make this bill something it is not
by amending it with provisions that are outside the scope or purpose of
this bill. I ask my colleagues to please consider this as they bring
amendments forward.
H.R. 547 is a good idea, turned into a good, bipartisan piece of
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill without making
major substantive changes or additions.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, of course, in support
of H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development
Act. It is a good noncontroversial bill that was passed unanimously by
the Republican-led Congress last session as part of a larger energy
efficiency research and development bill. I am pleased that Chairman
Gordon has indicated that we will be addressing other provisions of
that bill in the coming weeks and months ahead.
Subcommittee Chairman Lampson has already described what this bill
does, so I don't really need to go into that again. But I feel it is
important to point out that this bill not only addresses our energy
independence issues, but it also addresses clean energy issues by
working to mitigate potential problems that can rise from transporting
clean fuels, such as ethanol and ultra-low sulfur diesel. By doing
this, it ensures that clean burning and alternative fuels can be a
viable part of our Nation's transportation fuel mix.
Energy independence and clean coal are not just buzzwords that you
hear thrown around these days. They are noble and necessary goals that
we are one step closer to by the passing of this bill. This bill may be
a small piece of the puzzle, but every piece is important and every
piece is needed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1130
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time at
this time, and I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I do have requests for time, if the gentleman
pleases. I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Weller, the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friends
from Texas for this opportunity to speak during general debate.
I rise in support of the basic bill that is before us, H.R. 547. I
voted for it last year when it passed the House unanimously, like all
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and of course I stand in
support of this legislation today. However, I believe we do need to
make some minor improvements to the bill.
We have made a tremendous amount of progress. The energy bill of 2005
has caused hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment in
biofuels production. In Illinois, in the State that I represent, we are
anticipating up to 50 new ethanol and biodiesel plants, thanks to the
energy bill.
When I talk to the local farmers that I represent in Illinois, they
are pretty happy with $4 prices of corn. When the energy bill was
passed into law, the price of corn was about $1.65 a bushel. So we are
seeing the fact that rural America and small-town America, and rural
Illinois and small-town Illinois were clearly the biggest winners in
the energy bill.
But if you also care about energy independence, if you care about
addressing the issue of climate change, we need to promote greater use
of biofuels.
The basic bill makes progress when it comes to infrastructure, but we
need to do more. You know, E-85, 85 percent blend ethanol fuels, offer
part of that solution. As I drive or travel throughout the district I
represent or my constituents travel throughout the district, many of
them are looking to purchase E-85. They bought a flexible fuel vehicle;
they want to contribute to our commitment for energy independence, they
want to see investment in America rather than sending money overseas,
so they want to buy E-85. And they question, why is it not available?
Why do I have a hard time finding E-85 pumps at the gas stations that
serve my community? And that is because there is a bureaucratic logjam
in the certification process for the pumps, the infrastructure that is
used for the installation of E-85.
I have an amendment which is germane to this bill that I am going to
be offering. I believe it deserves bipartisanship support that I will
be offering to this bill, this legislation to, of course, not only draw
attention to this issue, but to help remove the logjam to the
certification process.
We talk to some of the big distributors, some of the big operators,
fuel stations across America; it is because of this issue that they
have delayed or stalled installation of E-85. If you truly want to
encourage the use of biofuels, if you believe that E-85 is part of that
solution, if you believe that we need more installation of more
infrastructure to distribute E-85 in America, then I ask that you
support the amendment that I will be offering as we move through the
processes of the bill.
Again, I support the basic bill. It is bipartisan legislation. I
believe the amendment, which I worked on with the former Speaker of the
House, Speaker Hastert, as well as a bipartisan group of Members, is a
good amendment that deserves bipartisan support.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. TERRY. Is it correct to state that the standing committees of the
House are authorized under rule XX of the House rules?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's question should be addressed in the
full House, not in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. TERRY. Are we allowed to ask parliamentary inquiries in the
Committee of the Whole?
The CHAIRMAN. In the discretion of the Chair, as they relate to the
proceedings of the Committee.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TERRY. Is it correct that the organization of the standing
committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted
statutory laws?
The CHAIRMAN. Once again, that may be a proper inquiry to the House,
but not to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. TERRY. I understand. Then, Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. TERRY. Is it correct that the organization of the standing
committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted
statutory laws?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state that inquiry to the full House.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, since the House is sitting as the
Committee of the Whole, are the Delegates and Resident Commissioner
permitted to vote on all matters in the Committee of the Whole House?
The CHAIRMAN. Under clause 3(a) of rule III, the Delegates and
Resident Commissioner possess the same powers and privileges as Members
in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So I am correct in understanding that there are
only some instances, namely the case
[[Page H1358]]
of an adoption of an amendment, where a Member may request a revote in
the full House. Is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole that the special order under which it is
proceeding (H. Res. 133) provides that any Member may request a
separate vote in the House on amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole to the Science Committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence, because
this is the first time for a number of questions, and I appreciate the
opportunity. If there is any question or if the amendment is defeated,
is there any opportunity for a duly elected Member to request a revote
in the full House?
The CHAIRMAN. Only on amendments that are adopted to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute or on that substitute.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It is my understanding that under the rules the
House has adopted, that on any matter in which the votes of the
Delegates are decisive in the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole,
that those votes shall be retaken in the full House and that the
Delegates and Resident Commissioner shall not be permitted to vote in
the full House. Is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. On recorded votes, yes, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. How is the Chair going to determine if the
votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are decisive?
The CHAIRMAN. The test for determining whether the votes of the
Delegates and Resident Commissioner are decisive under 6(h) of rule
XVIII is a ``but for'' test, that is, would the outcome have been
different had the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner not voted.
The absence of some Members is irrelevant to this determination.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair. If the Chair determines that
the votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are not
decisive, but a Member believes that in fact they are, is it
appropriate for a Member to lodge a point of order against the Chair's
determination?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's decision on a question of order is not
subject to an appeal if the decision is one that falls within the
discretionary authority of the Chair. The Chair's count of the number
rising to demand tellers, a recorded vote, or the yeas and nays is not
subject to appeal, nor is the Chair's count of a quorum.
Likewise, the Chair's count of the votes of the Delegates and
Resident Commissioner is not subject to appeal.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the Chair determines that in fact the votes
of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are not decisive, will
the Chair include those numbers when reporting the tally of the vote?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Given that, then it is my understanding, is it
correct that the number of individuals allowed to vote in the Committee
of the Whole shall be 440, and the number in the full House shall be
435?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner
may not vote in the full House; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole that the gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Do the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner
count for the purposes of establishing and maintaining a quorum of the
Committee of the Whole House?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the Delegates and Resident Commissioner are
allowed to vote on everything in the Committee of the Whole and they
vote on procedural issues that may in fact affect the substantive
nature of a bill, and if a procedural vote is lost within a decisive
margin, is there a mechanism to have a separate vote in the full House
on that procedural vote?
The CHAIRMAN. Under clause 6(h), an immediate vote in the House is
contemplated under those circumstances, given a recorded vote.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. On that procedural vote?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair. Are the Delegates and
Resident Commissioner permitted to vote on the question of the
Committee rising?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend my new colleague from
Texas, the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Mr.
Lampson for his great work on this bill, and also Chairman Gordon for
his leadership on alternative fuels.
We rely on fuel everyday. While the market is awakening to its
ability to sell alternative fuels like E85 or biodiesel blends many of
these new fuels have compatibility issues with the existing delivery
systems in place in America. Fuel depots, fuel pipelines, fuel trucks
and local gas stations are not truly ready to ship, store, or sell
these fuels to consumers.
These fuels can cause corrosion of tanks and pipelines, clog filters,
and pose danger of thermal and oxidative instability. The cost of
replacing or building new infrastructure is sometimes infeasible for
fuel suppliers, frequently small business owners.
H.R. 547, The Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development
Act, meets the needs of fuel shippers and suppliers so they can I use
alternative fuels in existing infrastructure. It directs the Department
of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to research and develop new technologies and methods such as
fuel additives, blend stocks, and easier tank reconditioning methods
that would allow fuel retailers, shippers, and storers to use
alternative fuels in existing infrastructure, significantly reducing
costs both for businesses and consumers.
The bill also directs the DOE and NIST to develop affordable,
portable, quick and accurate ways to test the sulfur content at pump
stations to make sure it complies with EPA regulations of 15ppm, and
directs NIST to develop a physical properties data base and a set of
standard reference materials for alternative fuels, which is not unlike
the ones that currently exist for standard fuels.
If we are truly serious about bringing alternative fuels to
consumers, we need to make sure that we can store, deliver, and retail
these fuels with the same efficiency and safety as we deliver
traditional fuels.
I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 547, and again want to
recognize the leadership of Chairman Lampson and Gordon for bringing
this important legislation through the Science and Technology
Committee, and Speaker Pelosi for bringing this legislation to the
floor as part of her efforts to stem global warming.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 547, the
Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. I commend
the Chairman of the Science Subcommittee for bringing this legislation
forward.
Last year under the Republican Majority, the House passed this same
legislation as part of a more comprehensive bill offered by the
gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. This legislation, called the
``Alternative Energy Research and Development Act,'' died in the
Senate. But it's never too late to take bipartisan action on good
ideas.
Reducing America's dependence upon foreign oil is an economic and
national security
[[Page H1359]]
imperative. Achieving this goal requires us to exercise creativity and
common sense. In particular, we must find ways to expand our use of
biofuels in a safe and cost-efficient manner.
H.R. 547 provides very specific mechanisms to address the challenge
of integrating ethanol and biodiesel fuels into our petroleum-based
transportation system. In particular, this bill directs the EPA and the
NIST to mitigate the harmful effects caused by the physical and
chemical incompatibility of these fuels within the current
infrastructure. H.R. 547 also tackles the quality concerns associated
with Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and biofuel production.
As the Ranking member on the Energy and Mineral Resources
Subcommittee I remain committed to working with my colleagues across
the aisle to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. In contrast
to H.R. 6, the regrettable measure the House passed a few weeks ago
that increases our dependence on foreign oil, this bill constitutes a
productive step forward--and I look forward to supporting other
measures like it.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 547, the
Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. I am
pleased we taking steps to make biofuels, like E85 ethanol, easier to
access and use.
The President's State of the Union Address discussed the importance
of diversifying America's energy supply, explaining that the way
forward is through technological advancements. I support this approach
and with Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall's Leadership, the
Science and Technology Committee can have an important role in
accelerating these efforts by promoting research and development funds
for all alternative fuels in order to use more domestic sources of fuel
and less imported oil.
Given that coal is our most economical and abundant domestic
resource, with a 250-year supply, I believe clean coal technology and
coal-to-liquids transportation fuels must be part of any solution to
achieve greater energy independence. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle on energy related issues so that
we clearly understand the benefits of clean coal technology and I thank
Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their commitment to examine
all alternative fuels, including clean coal technology.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment, and each section is considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair 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. Those amendments will
be considered read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
H.R. 547
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Advanced Fuels
Infrastructure Research and Development Act''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
The Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) in order to lessen United States dependence on foreign
sources of petroleum, and decrease demand for petroleum in
the transportation sector, the Nation must diversify its fuel
supply to include domestically produced biofuels;
(2) while ethanol has been successful in the market place
as a fuel additive, newer biofuels may present unique
challenges that may render the fuels incompatible with the
current fuel transportation and delivery infrastructure,
placing the burden of costly refurbishment and construction
on fuel distributors and retailers;
(3) chemical additives to the fuels may mitigate the
negative impacts of some biofuels on existing infrastructure
and preclude costly retrofitting or installation of new
biofuel compatible infrastructure and transportation systems;
(4) in order to mitigate air pollution and comply with
Federal mandates, Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel was introduced
into the marketplace in 2006;
(5) fuel labeled Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel may accumulate
more than the statutory limit of 15 parts per million of
sulfur when transported through multiple pipelines, tanks,
and trucks to the final point of sale; and
(6) fuel distributors and retailers may inadvertently take
delivery of fuel labeled Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel with more
than 15 parts per million of sulfur without a practical means
of verifying sulfur content.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
The Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. BIOFUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND ADDITIVES RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT.
The Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and
Development of the Environmental Protection Agency (in this
Act referred to as the ``Assistant Administrator''), in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, shall carry out a
program of research and development of materials to be added
to biofuels to make them more compatible with existing
infrastructure used to store and deliver petroleum-based
fuels to the point of final sale. The program shall address--
(1) materials to prevent or mitigate--
(A) corrosion of metal, plastic, rubber, cork, fiberglass,
glues, or any other material used in pipes and storage tanks;
(B) dissolving of storage tank sediments;
(C) clogging of filters;
(D) contamination from water or other adulterants or
pollutants;
(E) poor flow properties related to low temperatures;
(F) oxidative and thermal instability in long-term storage
and use;
(G) microbial contamination; and
(H) problems associated with electrical conductivity;
(2) alternatives to conventional methods for refurbishment
and cleaning of gasoline and diesel tanks, including tank
lining applications; and
(3) other problems as identified by the Assistant
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Burgess
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to section
3.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Burgess:
Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4).
Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) issues with respect to increased volatile emissions or
increased nitrogen oxide emissions; and
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment which was preprinted in the
Congressional Record will ensure that the Environmental Protection
Agency Biofuels Research and Development Program, which was authorized
in the underlying bill, will be cognizant of the potential clean air
issues arising from additives to biofuels. Specifically, those issues
arising from volatile emissions which occur during the fueling process
and nitrogen oxide emissions which occur during combustion.
In my home State of Texas, and particularly within my district in
north Texas, there has been some debate about the nitrous oxide
emissions from biodiesel. It is my hope that the new data from the
Environmental Protection Agency will put this debate to rest and allow
biodiesel production to move forward unimpeded. But the debate raises
an interesting question. As we look to increase the use of alternative
fuels and the accompanying infrastructure, how do we make certain, how
can we be sure that we do not hurt our efforts, that we do not roll
back our efforts to clean our air?
I understand that there are some additives that may already exist for
alternative fuels. In fact, I know of one approved for use in Texas for
the low emission diesel that has proven to be safe and effective at
reducing the nitrous oxide emissions in ultra-low sulfur diesel. It has
also been shown to cut the nitrous oxide emissions in biodiesel and to
eliminate the NOx bump that some researchers have shown for
biodiesel. But we must examine this issue as we move forward to other
alternative fuels and additives.
This amendment will ensure that we prevent any emissions problems
associated with the new additives early, at the research and
development stages, before any additives may get to market.
I think the underlying bill is a good bill, and I thank my friend
from Texas for introducing it. I look forward to supporting it again
this year. But I think this amendment can improve the bill to ensure
that we address any clean air problems, address them at the beginning
before they start.
Mr. Chairman, I was to be joined in this debate by the gentleman from
New Jersey. Let me just state a couple of his points in the absence of
his being here, and I will submit his statement for the Record.
He is concerned that in his own State of New Jersey we undergo a
constant struggle of clean air issues. This
[[Page H1360]]
amendment will go far to ensure that any new fuels that are added to
our market to decrease our dependence on foreign oil do not have an
adverse impact on the quality of air that our citizens are now
breathing.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Eshoo to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Eshoo to the amendment offered by
Mr. Burgess:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted on page 4
after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) strategies to minimize emissions from infrastructure;
and
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, first, I strongly support the use of
biofuels to diversify our fuel supply and to reduce our dependence on
imported oil.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, do we
have copies of the amendment?
Ms. ESHOO. It is at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will distribute copies of the amendment.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Chairman.
{time} 1145
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I think what is important to understand in
this debate is that there are significant technical obstacles that have
to be addressed before biofuels can be widely deployed.
Many Members this morning during this important debate have spoken
about the importance of biofuels. This amendment to the amendment
actually kind of drills down, as it were, into the specifics and I
think strengthens a very good bill.
The bill before us recognizes the specific infrastructure challenges
that we are already facing in implementing the Renewable Fuels
Standards program which was enacted in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. It
anticipates the challenge of the more widespread use of biofuels, which
I think most of us are for, by authorizing the EPA to initiate a
research and development project to make biofuels more compatible with
the existing petroleum storage and distribution system. If there is not
distribution in this system, it simply is not going to work.
Now, the reason I am offering this perfecting amendment to Mr.
Burgess' amendment, along with my colleague Mr. Cardoza, simply
requires the EPA, as part of this R&D program, to consider strategies
to minimize emissions. I want to repeat this, because these are the two
operative words, to minimize emissions that may be released when
biofuels are blended, stored, and transported.
We all understand that pollutants contained in gasoline and other
motor fuels are released into the atmosphere as a result of combustion,
and I think Mr. Burgess speaks to this, but his amendment is more about
combustion. This is about emissions also occurring as the result of
evaporation while fuel is held in storage tanks or transferred on and
off tanker trucks.
In the case of gasoline containing ethanol, evaporative emissions of
certain substances, specifically VOCs, can be greater than they would
be from conventional gasoline. In certain regions trying to comply with
the Clean Air Act, and I think Mr. Burgess, certainly Mr. Cardoza and
others are driven by understanding that where they have ground-level
ozone, these emissions could be problematic, in fact, increased.
A September 2005 report by the Bureau of Air Management for the State
of Wisconsin estimated that evaporative emissions of VOCs of gasoline
containing 10 percent ethanol, E-10, held in the fuel distribution
system will be 15 percent higher than conventional gas.
In my view, it makes important sense for EPA to not only examine
strategies that will reduce these emissions as part of this R&D
program, but that it instructs them to do that.
I want to thank Chairman Gordon for his support of this effort, and I
would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza) who is also a part of this amendment.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
California, and while I support my colleague from Texas' effort to
address emissions concerns, I cannot support his amendment.
Mr. Burgess' amendment simply directs the EPA and the Department of
Energy to study the effect of increased emissions from biofuels. We
need to do more than study this problem; and, in fact, both the
California Air Resources Board and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources have studies which show increased rates of VOC emissions from
ethanol-blended fuels and fuel tanks and pipelines.
We must develop strategies to minimize these emissions from biofuels
now so that we can accelerate the use of biofuels nationwide in the
future.
The Eshoo-Cardoza amendment does exactly what needs to be done in law
to make that possible.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his reservation?
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, it appears the secondary amendment is
germane, and I will withdraw the reservation; but I do oppose the
amendment and ask for a vote on a clean amendment on my submission.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on the Eshoo
amendment.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I will be supportive of the Eshoo
amendment if it is offered as a stand-alone amendment, but I do oppose
it being offered as a secondary amendment.
I do ask for a consideration of my amendment as a clean amendment. It
is stronger. It is more expansive because obviously it addresses the
mobile sources, as well as the static sources, that may be a source of
emissions.
While Mr. Cardoza is correct in the issuance of a study, this is a
research and development bill; and as such, it is appropriate to study
the effects of the emissions of biodiesel and add that concept to the
substance of the underlying bill.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I thank everyone for their interest in this particular matter
regarding the subject of alternative fuels generally, but I have to
support the Eshoo amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The problem of increased nitrogen oxide emissions with biofuels, and
biodiesel in particular, relates to the combustion of the fuel in an
engine and not to challenges retailers and distributors are
encountering in transporting such fuels, and that needs to be the clear
focus point here.
For this reason, we actually removed reference to the NOX
emissions in the manager's amendment in the committee markup. So Ms.
Eshoo's amendment restricts research and development to evaporative
emissions from infrastructure.
Therefore, I would support and ask for support for Ms. Eshoo's
amendment to that amendment.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and I thank our
friends Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Lampson for their efforts, and I rise in
support of this bill; but I think the bill can be better, and I rise in
opposition to the second-degree amendment because I frankly think it
would weaken the Burgess-Ferguson amendment that would really
strengthen this legislation.
The amendment that Mr. Burgess and I are offering would help take a
significant step forward in advancing fuel technology and helping to
secure our Nation's energy independence, but it also is key to stopping
a potential environmental problem before it starts.
I have been a champion for renewable energy technologies and new
developments in alternative fuels, and I really believe that we have to
ensure that these new technologies do not contribute to the ongoing
environmental problems that we are facing today.
While the gentlewoman from California has offered an original
amendment and has offered a secondary-degree amendment to our
amendment, they sound familiar, but they are very different amendments.
I believe this second-degree amendment to our amendment would
significantly weaken the improvements that our amendment would make to
the bill.
[[Page H1361]]
I commend her for her commitment to improving this legislation, but
our amendment is more comprehensive and frankly just goes one step
further. While her amendment would seek to minimize emissions from
stationary sources at the end of the process, like at gas pumps, ours
would seek to minimize emissions at both mobile and stationary sources.
It is more comprehensive, it is a stronger amendment, and it would help
to ensure that we are careful to recognize the possible environmental
impacts that these fuels have as they move from production to the end
product that ends up in your gas tank.
So in my home State of New Jersey, we undergo a constant struggle
with clean air issues. Our amendment would go so far as to ensure that
any new fuels that are added to our market to decrease our dependence
on foreign oil do not have an adverse impact on the quality of the air
that our citizens are breathing.
Let me be clear. This is a good bill. I intend to support the bill. I
think it can be better. I think it can be better with the Burgess-
Ferguson amendment. I think it would be weakened with this Eshoo
second-degree amendment.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as a representative of a farm State, one of the leading
ethanol producers in the United States and proud to be part of this new
movement of using renewable fuels to lessen our dependence on foreign
oil, and I think it is important that we broaden our portfolio of fuels
so that we can meet our ultimate goals of energy independence.
Now, there has always been, particularly with two States, California
and New York, a traditional, and I have to admit I do not understand
the depth or the reason behind those States' bias toward biofuels, but
I find it odd as we stand here today trying to promote biofuels to
lessen our dependence that we now have a secondary amendment that puts
some restrictions on the use of biofuels that will actually slow the
promotion of biofuels. I think it is odd the contradictory nature of
let us have a biofuels bill, but then let us put in amendments that
will eventually slow it.
Make no bones about this, this secondary amendment is an attempt to
slow down the process of rolling out biofuels. It is a poison pill to a
reasonable approach to the issue, the base bill from Burgess and
Ferguson.
If you represent a State that is a major player or a player in
biofuels production, you will want to vote against this poison pill
amendment.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word on the
Burgess amendment.
I would first, Mr. Chairman, like to yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will
be brief.
I appreciate what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
saying. I think it needs to be very, very clear to all the Members of
the House who are going to cast a vote on this to understand what the
underlying bill seeks to do.
It is an infrastructure bill. It is not a combustion bill. It is an
infrastructure bill, and that is why I have offered the amendment to
the amendment. It deals with infrastructure. It directs the EPA to
minimize. We all want VOCs minimized. It is the way biofuels are going
to become effective in our country, and how they are stored and how
they are handled is going to give rise to what we are all seeking.
This is a bipartisan effort, and I do not think anyone should get
confused about what we are voting on. I wish that as we did our
outreach to Mr. Burgess that they would have been part of the same
effort.
So we are all for biofuels. We want to make them effective and,
again, remember that this is an infrastructure bill. It is not a
combustion-type bill. So I thank the gentleman for giving me time.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this bill was very
narrowly drafted to address a particular issue facing the country's
energy infrastructure. This amendment does not fall within that narrow
focus of the bill. The program areas which are in this amendment would
be better addressed by a stand-alone bill or in some other manner.
The amendment specifically refers to nitrous oxide emissions. Nitrous
oxide emissions do not occur from pipelines. This bill is attempting to
address the issue of transporting additives or other fuels in a manner
that makes it easier and less expensive for retailers to be able to
accomplish that task.
I think there are going to be many opportunities for us to discuss
the engines and the burning of these fuels within those engines at
other times during this year, and I would hope that we would have the
support joining us in making it happen.
{time} 1200
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. I am going to assume that the gentleman is not speaking
in favor of increased nitrous oxide emissions. But then do I
understand, would the intent of the bill be that the truck that is
transporting the ethanol to the retailer would not be allowed to burn
biofuels?
Mr. LAMPSON. I absolutely support biofuels and have a significant
interest in wanting to do so because I believe that it is going to
bring a great deal to our economy, our independence and our security.
What we are trying to do here is to craft a piece of legislation. Not
to not address the things that you are bringing up right now on how
engines process this fuel, but on how we can transport it from one
place to another so that someone can get access to put it in their
engine.
Mr. BURGESS. But under that scenario you would not be able to burn
biofuels in that 18-wheeler that was caught carrying the ethanol to the
retailer.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this was a research and
development bill, and we keep hearing it referred to as an
infrastructure bill. I appreciate that infrastructure will follow from
that research and development, but as we are studying this problem, as
we are studying it from the origination, whether it be the cornfield or
the Fry Oil to Fuel program, we are studying it from its origination to
its end point. In my estimation, that end point should be the emissions
that are emitted at the fuel pipe.
Mr. LAMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I would just point out to the
gentleman that, yes, this is research and development, but it is not
research and development on engines and how engines burn fuel, but on
pipelines and infrastructure to transport that fuel so they can
ultimately be placed into engines. There are going to be many
opportunities for us to discuss how emissions come from these fuels.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. TERRY. So as I understand this secondary amendment on the
infrastructure, would it also apply, then, to tanker trucks that would
haul the biofuel to determine if there are any emissions from the
evaporation? That is what I understand.
Mr. LAMPSON. Reclaiming my time, only during the evaporative process
of that. Not from the engine of that truck, if it is emitting something
different from that.
Mr. TERRY. My fear is that because now the secondary amendment will
jeopardize the ability to transport ethanol and biofuels from the
Midwest because it may evaporate along the way, taking it to a refinery
to be blended. That is the danger here.
Mr. LAMPSON. That is precisely what the amendment to the amendment is
attempting to address. I think that this is an appropriate process
right now. I support the Eshoo replacement and hope that all my
colleagues will do the same.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
[[Page H1362]]
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
Page 3, line 23, insert ``The Assistant Administrator is
encouraged to utilize Land Grant Institutions, Historically
Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and other minority-serving institutions among
other resources to undertake research for this program.''
after ``point of final sale.''.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment to the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development
Act.
This legislation is an important step in gathering the most current
research to implement the vision of fuel independence and energy
efficiency set forth by this Congress.
I commend the hard work of my colleague from Tennessee, the chairman
of the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Gordon, who has brought
forth this legislation, and the ranking member and I look forward to
its passage.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this legislation today
because I feel that as we move forward with energy reform, it is
important to recognize the tremendous contributions to scientific
research and academia made by land grant institutions, historically
black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions and
other minority-serving institutions.
This amendment specifically recommends that the assistant
administrator of the Office of Research and Development of the
Environmental Protection Agency utilize the wealth of knowledge
currently available at the research-oriented universities throughout
our great Nation.
As a graduate of Fisk University and Florida A&M University, I have
seen firsthand the outstanding research generated by faculty and
students alike. An example of these contributions at Florida A&M is the
Environmental Sciences Institute. The institute has consistently
partnered with Federal agencies to furnish informative environmental
policy research. The research has included 40 publications during the
2005-2006 academic year and the services of Dr. Larry Robinson on the
National Research Council.
Fisk University also embodies this important mission in its
designations as a core research center for NASA and international
recognition as a scientific research institution.
And since we are dealing with energy, I would urge that the president
of Fisk University is the former Secretary of the Department of Energy.
The recent development of the Center for Physics and Chemistry of
Materials has established an outstanding resource for chemistry studies
with the support of the National Science Foundation and the Department
of Defense. This center generates over 34 publications a year and holds
several patents for application by the United States Air Force.
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that this amendment will emphasize the
importance and value of the research conducted by the phenomenal
network of Land Grant Institutions and other universities represented
by many of us in this great Congress. It is vital that we acknowledge
the role of research institutions as community partners in the
implementation of congressional mandates.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to
foster these partnerships for a prosperous future of responsible energy
use.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just wanted to indicate our support for the amendment proposed by
Mr. Alcee Hastings. We will support it. We think it is a good
amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have just received a copy of this amendment, but I am
somewhat bemused by the amendment. I guess that what the author means
is that he is saying that he doesn't believe that the assistant
administrator of the Office of Research and Development of the EPA
would even consider these institutions.
It would be my belief and understanding that this individual would
consider all institutions where there is appropriate research being
done that could be helpful. I am somewhat bemused by it. I am tempted
to offer an amendment that would have the individual look at
institutions in my fair State that are doing wonderful work. In fact,
each one of us could offer amendments that would identify particular
institutions in our jurisdiction.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The only thing that I am pointing out is the
significance of land grant institutions. I think the gentleman makes a
valid point, but this doesn't obviate the point that you are making.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's comment. I assume that the gentleman would then believe
that all 435 and now 440 of us ought to offer amendments to have the
individual at EPA look specifically at the institutions in our
jurisdiction. And doesn't that really do a disservice to the process
that we are in in having the EPA look at the appropriate institutions
that may have the greatest amount of knowledge?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am amused by your bemusement. At the very
same time, I certainly understand the dynamic you have put forward. If
you choose to make such an amendment and if 434 other Members and the
Delegates choose to do so, I would assume that is their responsibility.
I am discharging mine.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I remain amused and bemused. We all acknowledge the
contributions of land grant institutions and historically black
colleges and universities. We have those in our good State of Georgia.
They make wonderful contributions, absolutely wonderful contributions.
I think this amendment, however, points out kind of the folly of what
is going on here with this bill.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this legislation came through last year
under suspension, passed by, as I understand it, unanimous vote. I
think that we will all support this because it is motherhood and apple
pie. But it doesn't add to the appropriate discussion of the real issue
here, which is trying to make certain that we have an energy-
independent policy for our Nation.
I think that we are just kind of playing on the margins, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weller of Illinois
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weller of Illinois:
Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4).
Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) issues with respect to certification by a nationally
recognized testing laboratory of components for fuel
dispensing devises that specifically reference compatibility
with alcohol blended and other biofuels that contain greater
than 15 percent alcohol; and
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me begin my commending my
friends, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, as well as my friend,
Mr. Lampson, who is managing the bill this morning.
My amendment is pretty basic in what we are trying to achieve. I want
to note that the former Speaker of the House, who, as you know, is
recovering from surgery and is not able to be with us, is one I have
worked with on this amendment. But this is an amendment that deals with
infrastructure, as noted by those that are arguing for this bill which
we all support. Our focus is infrastructure and research, affecting
infrastructure of biofuels.
[[Page H1363]]
If we look back to when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005
through Congress, we included a renewable fuel standard of 7.5 billion
gallons by the year 2010. Due to passage of this increase, which
essentially doubled the amount of biofuels established under the
renewable fuel standard, we have seen a tremendous amount of growth in
investment in the biofuels industry in Illinois, my home State, as well
as across America.
Currently, there are 110 ethanol plants in production, with 70 more
under construction, producing today 5.2 billion gallons of ethanol as
well as biodiesel. Our farmers are seeing $4 a bushel of corn, as well
as $7 soybeans because of the increased demand for biofuels.
The President, as well, in seeing the need to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil, announced in his State of the Union a call for a
renewable and alternative fuel standard of 35 billion gallons by 2017,
10 years from now. In order for the biofuels industry to move forward
and achieve these aggressive goals, we need to make sure that an
infrastructure exists that can deliver fuel to the consumers.
I am often asked by my constituents, why are there so few E-85 pumps
as they travel. Unfortunately, issues have arisen with the E-85
certification by Underwriters Laboratories, which is an independent,
not-for-profit, product safety certification organization that tests
products and writes standards for safety. UL's worldwide family of
companies and network for service providers include 66 laboratory
testing and certification facilities serving customers in 104
countries.
UL began work to develop standards for E-85 fuel dispensers in early
2006 at the request for certification for such a dispenser from its
primary manufacturer. It was reported in August 2006 that the
manufacturer was to get UL approval for their E-85 pump. UL has looked
at the application for quite a long period of time. Signals were given
that the approval was imminent to the point where the manufacturer
issued a press release. Yet in October of 2006, UL has suspended
existing authorization on components for E-85 pumps, which they had
previously approved over the years, and began and are continuing a
stakeholder process to develop new standards for all components in the
finished pump.
According to UL, there are no documented reports on any issues, field
incidents, safety issues or documented reports related to E-85
components that have been authorized, or the pumps themselves. This
process could take at least another year, possibly more, depending on
numerous factors.
UL will not give a timeline for completion of the standards. It is
possible once these standards are published, manufacturers of E-85
pumps will have to retool their operations to comply.
{time} 1215
The impacts of certification issue are already being felt in my
district as well as across this country. Even though UL is continuing
to engage State and local governments and fire marshals with their
findings, suspension of the installation of E-85 tanks has started to
occur.
While States like Michigan and Minnesota are allowing continued use
with special monitoring, States like Ohio have already prohibited all
dispensing of E-85 blended fuels pending UL approval or listing. Big
retailers, names we recognize, like Wal-Mart and Valero, which
previously had announced their intention to install E-85 pumps
nationwide, have suspended the installation of any new pumps pending
this certification. This represents thousands of fueling stations
across the country.
The bill before us requires the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Energy's research and development offices to carry
out an R&D program of materials to be added to biofuels to make them
more compatible with existing infrastructure.
The amendment I have offered today will require EPA and DOE and
recognize the impact to research and recognize the impacts any further
additives they recommend through the research program may have on
issues with respect to certification by UL for fuel dispensers like E-
85 and other biofuel blends like biodiesel.
In the United States there are 110 ethanol plants in production with
70 more under construction producing approximately 5.2 billion gallons.
There are over 1,123 E-85 fueling stations around the country today,
including on Federal property.
In my district alone, there are six ethanol and biodiesel plants,
either announced or are moving forward or planned under construction,
and 14 fueling stations offering E-85. Unfortunately, the process of
bringing more has stalled.
We in this Congress have made a bipartisan commitment to an energy
policy which encourages the development and use of E-85 and other
blended biofuels. Exporting America's domestic agricultural resources
to achieve energy security, energy independence, providing jobs for
America is of utmost importance.
Mr. Chairman, I ask bipartisan support for this legislation. E-85 and
other blended biofuels are a key part of our strategy. I look forward
to working with my colleague in a bipartisan way. Again I ask for
bipartisan support for this amendment.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we like the amendment that Mr. Weller has proposed and
look forward to working with him on this and other things. Thank you
very much for your interest. We will indeed support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Dent
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask
unanimous consent that it be considered at any point in the reading.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dent:
Page 2, line 12, insert ``including hydrogen'' after
``biofuels''.
Page 3, line 8, strike ``and''.
Page 3, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 3, after line 12, insert the following new paragraph:
(7) fuel distributors and retailers may transform their
business by dispensing hydrogen, reformed on site from
various feedstocks, or delivered by pipeline or tube trucks,
resulting in new storage, handling, and equipment challenges.
Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4).
Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) challenges for design, reforming, storage, handling,
and dispensing hydrogen fuel from various feedstocks,
including biomass, from neighborhood fueling stations,
including codes and standards development necessary beyond
that carried out under section 809 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16158); and
Mr. DENT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure
Research and Development Act, is an important bill that seeks to
facilitate the development of markets for biofuels and ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel. I am pleased that it is being considered on the floor
today.
I supported this language last year when it passed as part of the
Alternative Energy Research and Development Act. I am a strong
supporter of diversifying our Nation's fuel supply. Our dependence on
foreign sources of petroleum is a threat to our economy, threat to our
national security, and a threat to our environment.
Promoting the development and implementation of clean domestic
sources of transportation fuels will advance our energy independence
and reduce the detrimental environmental effects of harmful air
emissions. Bio-based fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are an
important component of a national energy strategy, which maximizes our
domestic resources.
[[Page H1364]]
I also believe that hydrogen must play a prominent role in an energy
policy that relieves our dependence on foreign sources of oil and
minimizes the environmental footprint by improving air quality and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This bill will direct the development of additives, blendstocks,
technologies and methods which mitigate the negative effect of biofuels
on infrastructure and make them more compatible with existing
infrastructure used to store and deliver petroleum-based fuels to the
point of final sale.
My amendment seeks to acknowledge and address the infrastructure
challenges that will be presented by the advancement of hydrogen fuel,
which can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including biomass.
Specifically, my amendment will, one, direct the Secretary of Energy,
in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NIST, to consider the challenges for design, reforming
storage, handling and dispensing hydrogen fuel from various feedstocks,
including biomass.
I believe that key to our energy security is a strategy which
incorporates the various technologies and alternative fuels that will
coexist in the marketplace.
As we address the important infrastructure challenges raised by the
promotion of biofuels and ultra-low sulfur diesel, I also believe it is
incumbent upon us to start paving the way for the hydrogen economy.
These are consistent technologies that are complementary and that
promote alternative development.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the attention the gentleman from
Pennsylvania is giving to what is undoubtedly a crucial element of the
possible transition to a hydrogen-based economy. But I oppose the
amendment because it has no relation to H.R. 547.
This amendment is simply outside the scope of what is a very
carefully and narrowly drafted bill to address specific short-term
research needs that would allow currently available biofuels such as
ethanol and biodiesel and ultra-low sulfur diesel to be distributed in
existing pipelines, and use other current liquid fuel distribution
technologies. These are all fuels that can be used in a current
generation of commercially available automobiles.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment, in contrast, deals with
problems of containing hydrogen, a fuel now derived from natural gas
rather than biomass, and distributing it if and when hydrogen vehicles
become available.
Hydrogen would require a new distribution infrastructure. So while
the amendment uses similar words related to distribution, it is talking
about an entirely new generation of distribution technology.
Also, while it is possible that some hydrogen could actually be
developed from biomass, it is not today. So the references to hydrogen
derived from biomass in the bill are not really related to the research
on hydrogen distribution that would be conducted if this amendment
became law.
It is also unclear what would be the funding source for the
gentleman's amendment since it establishes a program at the Department
of Energy while the funding in H.R. 547 all goes to the Environmental
Protection Agency. For these reasons I would ask the gentleman to
withdraw his amendment.
This amendment does address an important concern. I ask the gentleman
to consult with his colleagues in the Hydrogen Caucus about ways to
work the intent of this language into hydrogen legislation that the
Committee on Science and Technology is likely to consider as it moves
on to other energy research legislation later in the Congress.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Dent, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I do have a great deal of respect for the
chairman, but I do respectfully disagree with his contention that this
amendment is outside the scope of this legislation.
Clearly the Chair and the Parliamentarian have ruled this amendment
germane. And it is germane for a number of reasons. Specifically,
biomass is a feedstock, as we know. It can be used in the production of
hydrogen. So I am trying to emphasize once again that these are very
consistent technologies.
There is $10 million authorized in this legislation. We just seek to
take some of that funding for this amendment. We are not asking for
additional funding. Again, as you develop an infrastructure for biomass
and biodiesel, developing one for hydrogen is just as essential.
I think that this is entirely consistent, well within the scope of
the legislation before us and should be supported by all of the Members
of this Chamber. I do have a great deal of respect for the gentleman
from Tennessee. I know he is dedicated to alternative fuel development.
But I think we cannot move forward on some aspects of alternative
fuels while ignoring hydrogen in a hydrogen-based economy, which is
where many of us would like to move at some point in the future.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the funding within the bill goes to the
Environmental Protection Agency. And I believe in your amendment, the
funding for the research on hydrogen goes to the Department of Energy.
Would the gentleman explain how that is going to be funded?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to respond to the query of the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment says that the funding is
through the EPA with consultation with the Secretary of Energy.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be
postponed.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Advanced
Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. Energy policy
vitally impacts our Nation's security, the strength of our economy, and
the health of our planet.
Today, high gas prices stretch family budgets. Our addiction to
Mideast oil threatens our national security. Increased consumption of
fossil fuels contributes to global warming. These issues will dominate
the 21st century, our future, and America's role in the world. It
requires a new energy initiative, and the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure
Research and Development Act is a critical component of that effort.
This bill is aimed at improving the Nation's transportation fuel
infrastructure, to improve the storage and transportation of biofuels.
{time} 1230
It will facilitate affordable delivery of alternative fuels to gas
pumps throughout the country. It is just one piece of a large puzzle.
But it is an important move towards a sustainable energy future. We
need this legislation to address specific technical problems that
hinder the storage and distribution of biofuels. Many of the country's
gas stations are not equipped to handle large increases in alternative
fuels. Ethanol and other biofuels have unique chemical properties that
make them incompatible with much of the country's existing fuel
infrastructure.
Despite their enormous promise as a cleaner, homegrown fuel source,
biofuels can be corrosive to pipelines and tanks, can clog filters and
contaminate water and air with volatile emissions. In the past, these
technical problems have created a significant barrier to market
acceptance of these alternative fuels.
The bottom line is that it would be enormously expensive to modify
existing infrastructure to accept ethanol and other alternative fuels.
We need a focused, scientific effort to address this problem. H.R. 547
would allocate $10 million in R&D monies on new technologies and
methods, including additives, blend stocks, and easier tank
reconditioning methods that allow gas
[[Page H1365]]
station owners to retrofit their infrastructure, significantly reducing
costs for businesses and consumers.
It is clear that the United States must take meaningful steps to move
away from our dependence on foreign oil. I think we all agree that this
is merely a first step. But in order to make alternative fuels
financially feasible for American drivers and gas station owners, we
need to take some of the small steps like this one today.
I am proud to support this bill. I congratulate my colleagues and
urge swift passage.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with on the floor
this morning now a second-order amendment. If, when we get to the point
of voting, the recorded vote on the second-order amendment, if that
vote passes, but it is not decisive, meaning that the Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner don't make the difference, is there any way for a
Member to get a revote on that second-order amendment once we go into
the full House?
The CHAIRMAN. Any Member may demand a separate vote on any amendment
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his further parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That includes the specific second-order
amendment that would have been offered; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. Any amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Michigan specify which
amendment he is calling up?
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order against
the amendment. I am told by the proponent that he has, actually, two.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must ascertain which amendment is before the
House.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Just so I understand, Mr. Chairman, have you
reserved your point of order?
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I will at this time reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has an amendment that is printed in the
Record, and he has an amendment which is freestanding. We need to
determine which amendment he is seeking to offer.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. The amendment that is printed in the Record,
sir, is another section of the bill. This amendment is for section 3,
which we are discussing now.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4).
Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) issues with respect to where in the fuel supply chain
additives optimally should be added to fuels; and
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I think this is going to be an
improvement to the bill.
This is a good bill. And what this, my amendment, does is deal with
the issue of infrastructure. This bill talks about infrastructure. And
we have asked the EPA, in this particular bill, to study what additives
we add to make the process better when we are talking about moving
alternative fuels through the infrastructure. But that sometimes infers
that you are either at the point of origin, the refinery, or the point
of sale.
But there are lots of places that we may be able to apply additives
in the process of making alternatives fuels viable, and what we are
asking with this amendment is very simple and noncontroversial. We are
saying, when you are studying what additives to put in, you should also
include where is the best place to put those in in the long process.
Our fear here is that we get isolated to only looking at a very small
section of where those additives ought to go in this system. And one
thing that we know, and we have talked about it here, the gentleman and
my friend from Massachusetts made a great argument about the
retrofitting gas stations and how important the infrastructure is.
Well, if we don't know where these additives go in the system, we, in
fact, may be shooting ourselves in the foot here. All it does is take
what is existing in this bill and expand it by saying, don't only look
at what, but where, those additives can go in the system to make an
improvement in our alternative fuels as we march to the future.
Very simple. I would argue it is certainly germane to the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina insist on his
point of order?
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, based on the statements of my friend,
I will withdraw my reservation.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we believe this is an acceptable amendment and thank
the gentleman for submitting it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be
postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further amendment to section 3?
The Clerk will designate section 4.
The text of section 4 is as follows:
SEC. 4. SULFUR TESTING FOR DIESEL FUELS.
(a) Program.--The Assistant Administrator, in consultation
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
shall carry out a research, development, and demonstration
program on portable, low-cost, and accurate methods and
technologies for testing of sulfur content in fuel, including
Ultra Law Sulfur Diesel and Low Sulfur Diesel.
(b) Schedule of Demonstrations.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant
Administrator shall begin demonstrations of technologies
under subsection (a).
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
The Clerk will designate section 5.
The text of section 5 is as follows:
SEC. 5. STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIALS AND DATA BASE
DEVELOPMENT.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall
develop a physical properties data base and standard
reference materials for biofuels. Such data base and standard
reference materials shall be maintained and updated as
appropriate as additional biofuels become available.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5?
The Clerk will designate section 6.
The text of section 6 is as follows:
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Environmental Protection Agency $10,000,000 for carrying out
this Act.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Roskam
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Roskam:
Page 5, lines 18 through 21, amend section 6 to read as
follows:
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO PAY AS YOU
GO.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Environmental Protection Agency $10,000,000 for carrying out
this Act, to be derived from amounts otherwise appropriated
to the Environmental Protection Agency for energy research,
development, and demonstration activities related to fuels or
environmental research and development activities related to
fuels.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, like so many others who have come to the
floor today, I rise in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 547. The
underlying measure, without question, is one that is worthy of our
support.
[[Page H1366]]
All of us, many of us in the course of our journeys to come here,
gained the confidence of the electorate by talking about alternative
energies and alternative fuel sources. I come from Illinois, which
ranks second in corn production and is one of the leading producers of
ethanol. In my district, I have over 140,000 residents who are directly
employed in manufacturing, and they would greatly benefit from having
clean fuels, that is, moving products around.
But as I was evaluating and meeting with my staff to talk about the
underlying bill, there was a word that kept popping up in the analysis
and that was a key word, new, N-E-W.
I know that in the course of my journey to come here, one of the
things that I heard consistently throughout the course of the
campaigning was that my constituents, Mr. Chairman, wanted us to live
within our means. And so the amendment that I have offered is very,
very simple. It directs the EPA that $10 million authorized for these
three new programs that don't currently exist, created under the bill,
would have to come from funds that are already appropriated. It is the
simple measure of pay-as-you-go. You see, we don't get it both ways. We
don't get to act as if we are fiscally disciplined, and yet at the
first opportunity, not act fiscally disciplined.
My dad has a phrase that he communicated to me over and over and over
when I was growing up and that was this. He said, ``Life is choices,''
and I think we have a choice today to make. This is our first
opportunity, with this open rule, to amend a new program that we have
seen created in the 110th Congress. We didn't have that opportunity in
other bills that have come along. But this is our first opportunity.
A $10 million appropriation, Mr. Chairman, or a $10 million
authorization, is comparatively small, if you compare it to the overall
EPA budget of $7.7 billion. It is less than one-tenth of 1 percent. But
my argument is simple: that we need to show the American taxpayers that
they can have confidence in us in these comparatively small programs,
so that as we move in and continue through this Congress, as new
programs are considered, that they are within the context of fiscal
discipline.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to focus the House's
attention on it and to bring the attention of the Nation to it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve his time. He either uses
his time or yields back.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Blunt).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield to the gentleman from Missouri
if he stays on his feet.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
may move to strike the last word as I run through the time here, if I
do.
I am grateful to the gentleman for bringing this amendment. I think
it is exactly the kind of fiscal responsibility that many of us on both
sides of the aisle talked about during our campaigns. It is an
important thing to have before the Congress.
We have talked about PAYGO for taxes, but this is really PAYGO for
spending. This is trying to reprioritize the spending of the Federal
Government, to look at spending we are doing now as the first way to
pay for spending we should be doing in the future.
I haven't heard anything in the debate today that doesn't suggest
that we need to move forward with the bill that the chairman has
brought to the floor, that the committee has brought to the floor, that
there is a lot of interest in amending this bill in ways that make it
better. But there is no real discussion that the underlying bill
doesn't do the kinds of things we need to be looking for as we move
toward energy independence.
Millions and billions of dollars, however, are authorized with no
real requirement for fiscal discipline. In one of the votes we have
taken this year in the early bills, the 6 for '06, the implementation
of the 9/11 Commission, when we finally weeks after the vote got the
cost estimate of the vote, the cost estimate was an estimate of $30-or-
so billion over 5 years. And so we need to be sure that we are doing
things that make sense with the people's money.
I think President Reagan, who would have been 96 this week had he
lived, said that a government has never voluntarily reduced its size.
One of the ways we can at least maintain the size of the government
is, we look at new and worthy things to suggest that the size of the
government would not grow just because the needs of the government are
changing.
{time} 1245
In this bill we ask for the authorization----
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
This legislation authorizes $10 billion in spending to the EPA. And,
frankly, the EPA spends a lot of money that could be spent in different
ways. In the EPA budget last year $47,459,367 was spent in projects in
foreign countries. I would suggest, in supporting the gentleman's
amendment, that probably you could find $10 million there and, if you
couldn't find it there, you could find it somewhere else.
Currently, the EPA has paid for things that establish a coal bed
methane clearinghouse in the People's Republic of China or developing
or producing a television documentary in China, in Chinese, on mercury
pollution or improving environmental monitoring quality and capacity in
the Ukraine. They may all be good things, but none of them as important
to American taxpayers as the proposal today. This proposal would allow
this bill to move forward, but require the EPA to find the $10 million
for this new program by evaluating the value to the American people and
the American taxpayer of their old program.
I think the money that is there to do this can be found elsewhere. I
particularly am grateful to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam)
for bringing this to the floor as one of our first opportunities to
talk about PAYGO for spending.
If we are going to do things that meet the new priorities of the
country, it is also an opportunity every time to look at the current
spending and to reprioritize what the Federal Government has been
doing.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his reservation of a point
of order?
Mr. LAMPSON. I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the two gentlemen who have spoken
on this are making very good points.
The EPA, however, has been an underfunded agency, and to take money
from one area that has been appropriated is like robbing Peter to pay
Paul. And I will give you a good example.
The Energy Star program. The Energy Star program is an investment
that we have made in the future to help consumers, and the money that
we spend on the Energy Star program, for every dollar that we put into
it, we get about $10 back, a tremendous investment. So it is an area
where government can do something positive and save a great deal of
money.
What we are trying to do right now is to improve an infrastructure
that will give us the ability to have access to cleaner burning fuels,
that will give us an access to having a product or products that
consumers are demanding, and we do it more safely, more conveniently,
and hopefully with less expense.
We believe that the bill as it stands is one that provides for the
new dollars necessary to make this project one that could be very
appropriate for the citizens of this country. And the bill could save
consumers somewhere between $5 billion and $30 billion a year, a total
of close to $30 billion on a $10 million investment. That is one heck
of a return, and it is the opposite of what I believe the gentleman,
Mr. Blunt, was talking about a few minutes ago that we want to control
the size of government. Government doing good works indeed brings us
significant returns. This is an area where there will be a significant
return, and we think that new dollars need to go into this program.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H1367]]
Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It strikes me that everything the gentleman has said is actually
consistent with the underlying amendment.
The amendment that is before the House simply says that it needs to
make priorities and make those priorities clear. I take the gentleman
at face value that the underlying program and the underlying $10
million is worthy of investment. But we don't get to have it both ways,
it seems to me.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman's
amendment says specifically ``to be derived from amounts otherwise
appropriated to the EPA.'' To me that means we are going to take money
from another project to make this one work. That does not work, in my
mind. If we are going to have a new investment that we expect a huge
return on, we need to put the money into it and make sure that it is a
committed project and we believe it is one that will give us a great
return.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from
Texas. And I guess one of his comments that this bill would save $30
billion on a $10 million investment means that he would support dynamic
scoring through CBO, which is something that we have been begging for
for a long time.
So I know that you will endeavor to work with us as we move toward
dynamic scoring for CBO.
But I find it amusing, distressing actually, that the other side
continues to break promise after promise. I read now from ``A New
Direction for America,'' which is what the majority party put out prior
to the last election, and they said: ``Our new direction is committed
to pay-as-you-go budgeting, no more deficit spending. We are committed
to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to
tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to
choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.''
Well, fiscal discipline clearly is not the order of the day today nor
is pay-as-you-go. The other side will tell you they have pay-as-you-go;
but, in fact, it does not apply to this sort of bill. So it doesn't
apply to authorization. So when rules are rules only when you want them
to be rules, then they really aren't rules at all. So it really is not
pay-as-you-go. It is go and spend, which is the program that the
majority party has in place.
This is a great bill. This is a great bill. And I think probably $10
million is an appropriate amount of resources of the American people's
hard-earned taxpayer money to spend on this kind of endeavor. However,
we are charged with developing the priorities of the Federal
Government, and, in fact, I believe this to be a priority. But the
majority party is charged, when they bring a bill like this to the
floor, to say, well, this is indeed a priority but something else has
to go to the bottom of the list, in fact, fall off the list to the tune
of $10 million. That is what PAYGO is. You say we are going to spend
$10 million on this, but we are not going to spend it on this. Well, in
fact, the majority party hasn't done that. What they have said is that
we are just going to continue to spend and spend and spend and spend.
Mr. Chairman, that is not responsible. That is not responsible
spending. That is not responsible use of the hard-earned taxpayer
money. So I would hope that the new majority would, in fact, embrace
the policy that they talk about, which is making certain that PAYGO
rules are in effect. In fact, the promise was to have PAYGO rules be in
effect for everything, for everything that came to the floor. Well, we
haven't seen that, and I look forward to that because I think it is the
appropriate way for us to budget and for us to spend.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to yield to my good friend
from Georgia.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the
gentleman from Texas if he is saying that the coal bed methane
clearinghouse in the People's Republic of China is more important than
this and maybe doesn't need to be looked at versus the $10 million for
this, or developing and producing a television documentary in China on
mercury pollution or improving environmental monitoring capacity in the
Ukraine, as Mr. Blunt mentioned, that those are more important and
might not be a way to redirect money.
I heard him make the comment of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I thought
that was the MO of the majority party, but I guess Peter has to be rich
and Paul has to be poor.
But this is something, and I applaud the gentleman for bringing this
up, that if we are going to be good stewards of the money, we have got
to prioritize our spending.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for those comments.
And I too want to commend the gentleman from Illinois for bringing
this issue forward. All of us, when we were out talking to our
constituents running up to the last election, all of us heard that we
needed to be responsible with the taxpayers' money. So I applaud him
for bringing this bill forward so that we make certain, we make
certain, that we prioritize in an appropriate way on something that is
as important as this piece of legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
First I want to state that I appreciate this open rule and this open
dialogue and debate that we have here on the floor of the United States
Congress today. It is a healthy process that we are going through, and
it is a process that, of course, is designed to perfect legislation or
allow that perfect legislation to have an opportunity to be vetted and
rise as a perfect piece.
And as I look at this overall proposal to authorize $10 million to
develop an additive so that we can put renewable fuels and particularly
ethanol down through the pipeline, Mr. Chairman, I can't help but
reflect back upon the beginnings of renewable fuels in the United
States of America.
As most people know, I represent the Fifth Congressional District of
Iowa. And there, of all the 435 congressional districts, we are number
two in ethanol production. By the end of this year, we will be number
one in ethanol production. We are number one in biodiesel production of
all 435 districts. And also with renewable energy, we are today tied
for fourth and will this year be tied at least for second and perhaps
first in the electrical generation by wind. That puts us, Mr. Chairman,
within the grasp of winning the renewable energy triple crown: ethanol,
biodiesel, and wind all tied up in one congressional district.
Now, I raise this issue because I have the great privilege of having
grown up and having developed my business and my life and my experience
in the epicenter of renewable fuels. And that perspective is so utterly
valuable, at least for me. And when I go back to Iowa and have the
opportunity to visit the Iowa Senate where I formerly served, I am
always proud to shake the hand of State Senator Thurman Gaskill of
Corwith, Iowa, who pumped that first gallon of ethanol back in 1978.
And from that first gallon, we are here today on the floor of the
United States Congress talking about a problem of how to transport all
of these billions of gallons of ethanol that we are producing. It is a
fantastic transformation that we have taken from 1978 to today. It
hasn't been without work, it hasn't been without risk, and it hasn't
been without its failures along the way. But it is a glorious success.
And I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois coming forward. And here
we are, Iowa is the number one ethanol-producing State in the Union as
well, and it produces 26 percent of the ethanol in the country. And it
is important to know that the United States has surpassed Brazil in
overall ethanol production.
So we have an industry here that is growing. We have an
infrastructure that is being established and founded, and we are to
this point now where we have so much fuel that we are producing. Not
nearly enough, I want to add that. We have to find a transportation way
to resolve that issue.
[[Page H1368]]
I want to point out also, Mr. Chairman, that of these difficulties
that we have had in the past, we have put some tax credits in place,
and the private sector has been magnificent in finding solutions. For
example, the increase in the production of ethanol out of every gallon
of corn has come from a lot of industry-driven solutions, and this
transportation problem also can come from industry-driven solutions.
So I want to watch this authorization as it moves through. The
private sector has been very, very effective. And yet we will be
producing more and more ethanol as the years go by and blending it in.
And as we move to cellulosic, of course, this becomes more and more
important.
One of the difficulties with this bill also, though, is the component
of ultra-low sulfur fuels and the burden that it puts on our jobbers,
on our fuel distributors, that they will have one truck and they will
have to haul a load of low-sulfur fuel and then turn around and load
that up and haul a load of ultra-low sulfur fuel.
{time} 1300
As that unfolds, they are going to find themselves in a situation
where they will be vulnerable to regulations without any means to
determine whether their load actually meets that very tight standard on
ultra-low sulfur fuel.
So as this process moves forward, I would remind this body and ask
the Department of Energy and the EPA to pay very close attention to
finding a way to develop an economic testing system that will allow
these jobbers to be in compliance.
So, overall, we have gone by leaps and bounds from that first gallon
of ethanol that was pumped back in 1978, and here we are the number one
ethanol-producing nation in the world. We have far eclipsed Brazil. Our
technology is far ahead of theirs. And this is not just an ability to
produce ethanol, but the intellectual property that grows from having
done this.
We have the science down and we have the research and development in
place and that is growing and multiplying, and as that happens we build
more and more expertise. That expertise grows from the epicenter of
these renewable fuels out into the regions of the country.
So I would say we will see ethanol flow out to the limits of the corn
belt, biodiesel to the limits of the soybean area. We will see the
cellulosics fill in the gaps. And we are going to see the markets drive
this and tax structure be supportive of it.
I am supportive conceptually of this legislation that is before us,
and I thank the gentleman for bringing this legislation.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
After section 6 insert the following:
SEC. 7. ENERGY SECURITY FUND AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL GRANT
PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment of Fund.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury a
fund, to be known as the ``Energy Security Fund'' (referred
to in this section as the ``Fund''), consisting of--
(A) amounts transferred to the Fund under paragraph (2);
and
(B) amounts credited to the Fund under paragraph (3)(C).
(2) Transfers to fund.--For fiscal year 2008 and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury,
subject to the availability of appropriations, shall transfer
to the Fund an amount determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury to be equal to 50 percent of the total amount
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury during the
preceding fiscal year from fines, penalties, and other funds
obtained through enforcement actions conducted pursuant to
section 32912 of title 49, United States Code (including
funds obtained under consent decrees).
(3) Investment of amounts.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
in interest-bearing obligations of the United States such
portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals.
(B) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the
market price.
(C) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund shall be credited to, and form a part of, the Fund in
accordance with section 9602 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(4) Use of amounts in fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be
made available to the Secretary of Energy, subject to the
availability of appropriations, to carry out the grant
program under subsection (b).
(b) Alternative Fuels Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, acting
through the Clean Cities Program of the Department of Energy,
shall establish and carry out a program under which the
Secretary shall provide grants to expand the availability to
consumers of alternative fuels (as defined in section
32901(a) of title 49, United States Code).
(2) ELIGIBILTY.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
any entity that is eligible to receive assistance under the
Clean Cities Program shall be eligible to receive a grant
under this subsection.
(B) Exceptions.--
(i) Certain oil companies.--A large, vertically-integrated
oil company shall not be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection.
(ii) Prohibition of dual benefits.--An entity that receives
any other Federal funds for the construction or expansion of
alternative refueling infrastructure shall not be eligible to
receive a grant under this subsection for the construction or
expansion of the same alternative refueling infrastructure.
(C) Ensuring compliance.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
promulgate regulations to ensure that, before receiving a
grant under this subsection, an eligible entity meets
applicable standards relating to the installation,
construction, and expansion of infrastructure necessary to
increase the availability to consumers of alternative fuels
(as defined in section 32901(a) of title 49, United States
Code).
(3) Maximum amount.--
(A) Grants.--The amount of a grant provided under this
subsection shall not exceed $30,000.
(B) Amount per station.--An eligible entity shall receive
not more than $90,000 under this subsection for any station
of the eligible entity during a fiscal year.
(4) Use of funds.--
(A) In general.--A grant provided under this subsection
shall be used for the construction or expansion of
alternative fueling infrastructure.
(B) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 3 percent of
the amount of a grant provided under this subsection shall be
used for administrative expenses.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping for an 11th hour
reprieve on this issue. We had sent up the call and the white flag to
try to get this worked out. Hopefully, maybe in the few minutes I will
take to talk about this, you will be moved to tears and be ready to
accept the amendment, my friend.
One of the things that we have talked about today, and this is an
important issue, is how we move forward on alternative fuels. This bill
is important. It outlines some pretty important steps for us to move
forward. But this amendment gives us the opportunity to have a concrete
action that we can take that will immediately allow us to impact.
You think about my generation: It was going to the moon. The
generation after me was the E-economy. This generation is going to be
alternative fuels and how they change the course of our consumption of
fuel both in our homes and in our cars; how national security, by
getting us away from foreign oil, is changed forever, and not soon
enough; how it helps our economy, how it helps our environment. All of
that is right now. It is not 10 years, it is not 15 years, it is right
now.
We have set up a pretty good system for research and development. We
now have great amounts of resources going to get us to alternative
fuels. We also have a look at the production of it. How do we produce
biomass? How do we produce ethanol? What is the next level of
cellulosic ethanol?
Then the big problem is the distribution of it. That is the one thing
that we are just having a difficult time getting over. It is the one
hurdle for an exponential growth in our ability to move to alternative
fuels. Be it hydrogen, be it ethanol, be it biomass, all of those
things have infrastructure problems.
The one thing that we know we can do is expand the number of ethanol
[[Page H1369]]
pumps. We have to do it. It must happen. But there is a problem. If you
are a small, independent gas station owner, you have to take a huge
risk, $30,000 to $60,000 to put in an ethanol pump on an economy of
scale that isn't there yet. So we have to kick-start it. This is our
opportunity to double the number of ethanol pumps available across the
country.
I know we are going to get into some wrangling about germaneness, and
about this paragraph doesn't jive with that paragraph, and this
committee hasn't had a chance to talk about it, but this committee has.
This bill passed by voice vote last year.
Voice vote, we all agreed in a bipartisan way. It went through
committee. It had its hearing and moved on to the Senate.
Unfortunately, that is where we didn't move it forward. But this is our
opportunity to get it done and get it done soon.
My friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, talked about the urgency,
about how fast we should go forward on this and how important it was
that we get away from dependency on foreign oil; and what that means to
our national security, our economic security, our environmental
security. There are only 34 States where you can even get ethanol at a
gas station.
Let us take this bold move now. If we are serious about moving
forward, let's just swallow this one and say, this is the right thing
to do. We have already had hearings. We have already voted on it in the
House. Let's get this thing moving, so we can double the number of
ethanol pumps and move forward for the safety and security of the next
generation that will change the course of our economy here in the
United States.
I ask my friends to reconsider their reservation, and I would urge
the support of this amendment. I look forward to working with you on
this and other issues in the future.
Point of Order
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, my friend is eloquent as usual, but he
still has an amendment that is not germane, and I continue to pose my
objection.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the amendment concerns matters that are
not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the point of
order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his amendment
and his dedication to what I clearly believe is an important issue,
deploying the necessary infrastructure to carry biofuels. However, I
find it necessary to support the point of order that this amendment is
nongermane because it is beyond the scope of this very narrow research
bill and squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce because it uses the CAFE program as a funding source and
essentially is an expansion of the Clean Cities program that was
created under legislation coming from that committee.
While it is complementary to what we are trying to accomplish today
and a subject which is potentially worth exploring elsewhere in this
Congress, this is not the proper forum for this amendment, and I would
oppose it.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, this matter is clearly in the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and if the
gentleman would be willing to withdraw his amendment, I would say to
him on behalf of the committee, we will be glad to work with him in the
future.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with you on the
committee. I know you are a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee. I think we can all agree this is an important direction and
I look forward to working together.
Mr. Chairman, I would move to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Burgess:
Page 5, after line 21, insert the following new section:
SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL ISSUES.
Research and development under this Act shall address
issues with respect to increased volatile emissions or
increased nitrogen oxide emissions.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment under section 7 should be
the increased per gallon rate for biodiesel credit.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman please submit a copy of the
amendment to the desk?
Mr. BURGESS. The amendment was submitted and should be at the desk,
but we will bring a copy to the Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Burgess:
Add at the end the following new section:
SECTION 7. INCREASE IN PER GALLON RATE FOR BIODIESEL CREDIT.
(a) Income Tax Credit.--Paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of
section 40A(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining
biodiesel mixture credit and biodiesel credit) are both
amended by striking ``50 cents'' and inserting ``$1.00''.
(b) Excise Tax Credit.--Paragraph (2) of section 6426(c) of
such Code (relating to biodiesel mixture credit) is amended
to read as follows:
``(2) Applicable amount.--The applicable amount is
$1.00.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 40A(b) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as
paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.
(2) Section 40A(d)(3)(C)(ii) of such Code is amended by
striking ``subsection (b)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection
(b)(4)(B)''.
(3) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 40A(e) of such Code
are both amended by striking ``subsection (b)(5)(C)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)(4)(C)''.
(4) Section 40A(f)(2) of such Code is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Exception.--Subsection(b)(4) shall not apply with
respect to renewable diesel.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to
fuel sold or used in taxable years beginning after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Excise tax.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall
apply with respect to any sale, use, or removal after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. BURGESS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I won't spend a lot of time expanding on
why we need to reduce our reliance on foreign energy. I think it has
been well stated this morning. Most of us recognize, just looking at a
picture of the leader of Venezuela, what the problem is.
We recognize when we see what is happening in Nigeria and other
areas, the Middle East, what the situation is. And our energy position
is not sustainable within the United States. So homegrown fuels, such
as biodiesel, can help move the United States toward greater energy
independence.
Mr. Chairman, as animal feed prices rise because of increased use of
corn for ethanol, we need to examine ways to increase alternative fuels
without reducing arable land use for farming.
Mr. Chairman, there is a small company back home in my district in
Texas, Biodiesel Industries, and they have discovered how to make
biodiesel from a variety of feedstock. Yes, they use the usual soybean
and sunflower oils, but they also manufacture it from recycled
restaurant grease, and we have got an abundance of recyclable
restaurant grease in the DFW area.
Biodiesel Industries runs a Fry Oil to Fuel program which recycles
used vegetable oils into biodiesel. Over 130 restaurants, schools,
businesses and large kitchens in the metroplex have signed up to
participate. Small restaurant owners typically have to pay for a grease
collection or simply throw it away, but as part of the Fry Oil to Fuel
program, both the recycling service
[[Page H1370]]
and the collection container are provided at no cost.
Large companies, on the other hand, often have contracts with animal
feedlots, which could increase the risk of illnesses such as Bovine
Spongiform Encephalosis and other animal neurologic diseases. If the
grease goes into landfills, it creates methane, which we know is a
potent greenhouse gas, much more potent than carbon dioxide. That
landfill methane can be captured and used to create electricity, which
is what Bioindustries does, but most often this methane is just simply
vented into the atmosphere. If the grease goes into feedlots, it
creates what we could politely refer to as bovine methane, again, a
potent source of greenhouse gasses.
Putting that grease to work as part of our fuel supply helps to
increase our energy supply here at home and could actually help to
clean up our air.
This is not just happening in my district in north Texas. There are
other facilities around the country doing this very same type of
biodiesel protection.
The American Jobs Creation Act provided an agri-biodiesel tax credit
of $1 per gallon for biodiesel from virgin agricultural production, and
50 cents per gallon for biodiesel from recycled grease through 2006.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended these credits through 2008.
My amendment would simply double the tax rate for making biodiesel
from recycled restaurant grease from 50 cents to $1 a gallon, making it
financially comparable to those from virgin agricultural sources. The
text is identical to H.R. 6354, which I introduced at the close of the
109th Congress.
I believe this issue is of paramount importance. We must encourage
our citizens and our entrepreneurs to think outside the box in reducing
our reliance on foreign energy.
I want to thank my friend and colleague from the State of Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for his support on this amendment, both in the Rules
Committee yesterday as well as speaking so eloquently in support of the
rule today.
Point of Order
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on my reserved
point of order.
I would make the point that this amendment is not germane to the
committee's substitute made in order under the rule. It would be more
appropriate to have it in the Committee on Ways and Means, because
there is a tax provision.
Again, the amendment concerns matters not within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Science and Technology.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) makes a point of order that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is not
germane.
The bill addresses research demonstration and development of certain
fuels. Specifically, it addresses biofuel activities, sulfur content of
diesel fuels and reference standards for biofuels. The bill was
referred to and reported by the Committee on Science and Technology.
The amendment seeks to increase a Federal income tax credit, a matter
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
{time} 1315
One of the fundamental principles of germaneness is that the
amendment must confine itself to matters within the jurisdiction of the
committee with jurisdiction over the underlying bill. The bill is
within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and
Technology. The amendment contains matters within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Ways and Means. The amendment is not germane. The
point of order is sustained.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cantor
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cantor:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL FINDING.
The Congress also finds that in order to lessen United
States dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, and
decrease demand for petroleum in aircraft, such as passenger
planes with 42 business class seats capable of
transcontinental flights, the Nation must diversify its fuel
supply for aircraft to include domestically produced
alternative fuels.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I reserve the right to object as well, Mr. Chairman.
We have not seen a copy of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, today's debate on H.R. 547 ultimately is
about finding ways for our Nation to reduce its dependence on petro
fuels. I offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, one in response to an
issue that has caught the attention of the American people and is being
wildly reported in the press. The subject of this report in the
amendment is the request by the office of the Speaker for the use of a
luxury jetliner.
Today, the New York Post cleverly questioned the ``Airogance,'' that
is A-I-R, of a request to use a $22,000-an-hour taxpayer-funded luxury
jetliner to fly the Speaker from coast to coast.
While citing security concerns, a request was made by the Office of
the Speaker for a plane that, according to the Air Force, has a game
room, a stateroom, entertainment center, bedroom, shower, and seats 42
to 50 people.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I hardly think these amenities help with security,
and I personally would describe them at the very least as inappropriate
and an unnecessary extravagance.
Again, H.R. 547 is about finding ways to shift our Nation's patterns
of fuel consumption. We hear a lot of talk about doing everything we
can to achieve energy independence. And there is a lot of talk as well
about stopping global warming. In this context, Mr. Chairman, these
reports and the underlying request by the Office of the Speaker is an
extravagance of power. It is something that, frankly, the taxpayers
won't swallow. And I urge the passage of this amendment.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on my reserved
point of order.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane to the committee
substitute made in order under the rules. The amendment contains a
different subject matter than the intent of H.R. 547.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlemen continuing to reserve his point of
order?
Mr. LAMPSON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise today in support of the amendment from
the gentleman from Virginia. We are discussing a very important issue
that faces all Americans today, and that is making America energy
independent.
As part of that goal, as part of that goal we must have energy
conservation. Everyday somebody comes to the floor and talks about
energy conservation.
There is another aspect to making America energy independent, and
that is the aspect of fiscal responsibility. We have a program here
today, it may be a very worthy program, but it costs money. How do we
pay for it? You cannot be energy independent and support programs
represented by the underlying bill unless you have the fiscal
responsibility to pay for them. And that is why, Mr. Chairman, recent
actions of our Speaker are most curious.
According to CNN, the Speaker's office has now requested that the
military provide her with a luxury jet that seats 42 business class
seats according to CNN, a fully enclosed stateroom according to CNN, an
entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications
system, and a crew of 16.
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to tell the American people that we are
going to be energy independent, you have to lead by example. You have
to have a culture that says, yes, we are going to do things to conserve
energy.
Now, somebody has brought up the aspect of security. That is a
legitimate issue. But how come our previous Speaker, according to CNN,
used a smaller jet, consuming far less fuel, that seated 12, not 42,
and didn't have the requested fully enclosed stateroom, entertainment
center, private bed, state-of-the-art communications center, and a crew
of 16? Again, Mr. Chairman, you have to lead by example.
I also noticed recently that our Speaker was critical of the
President
[[Page H1371]]
when it came to the issue of global warming. She was quoted as saying
in the Boston Globe: ``The signs of global warming and its impact is
overwhelming and unequivocal.'' And in criticizing the President she
said: ``It is not just about what he says; it is about what he does.''
So now we have the Speaker telling us, number one, we are going to
have a Congress that is fiscally responsible, and we have the Speaker
telling us that we have to be concerned about global climate change and
energy conservation. Let's look at the fiscal responsibility aspect of
this.
According to the D.C. Examiner, now a flight from the Nation's
Capital to her hometown of San Francisco is going to cost $300,000.
Now, any one of our constituents can go on line to Expedia.com and make
the same trip for $300. Okay, well, again, maybe there is some
legitimate security concerns, but do we need the 42 business class
seats, a fully enclosed stateroom, an entertainment center, private
bed, state-of-the-art communications system, and a crew of 16? How is
that leading by example? How is that an example of this Democratic
Congress's commitment to fiscal responsibility and energy conservation?
I don't think it is.
So why is the Speaker requesting this? Well, according to the
Washington Times, it says that she is seeking regular military flights
not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for
other members of the California delegation. That is according to the
Washington Times.
According to CNN, just recently she asked the use of the military
plane to attend a retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, that is a 2-hour
drive from Washington, D.C.
Now, this plane that she wants costs $15,000 an hour. How many
gallons of fuel is that consuming? How do we come forth to the American
people and say let's pass a bill for energy conservation, and then we
have this waste? I don't understand it, Mr. Chairman.
And now apparently there is a new wrinkle here. We understand from
the San Francisco Chronicle that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha) when asked about this said, and referring to the Pentagon: ``I
don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do,''
in dealing with this request to the military for this luxury plane.
Apparently he was further quoted in CNN, ABC, and the San Francisco
Chronicle that ``the Pentagon made a mistake in leaking information,''
quote, ``since she decides on the allocations for the Department of
Defense.''
This is not conservation. It is not fiscal responsibility. Let's
support the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Texas continuing to reserve his
point of order?
Mr. LAMPSON. I do not.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, one of the key principles of leadership is to lead by
example, and the leader of this House, Speaker Pelosi, has moved us to
restrict access to executive jets, as she should have. She has also
moved to institute new spending controls for the Congress and for the
government, as she should have. And she has moved to reduce our impact
on the environment, especially man's effect on climate change, as she
should.
I agree with each of these priorities. But the Speaker's staff
request to upgrade her military domestic taxi service from a small
plane that was offered to Speaker Hastert for 12 passengers and a crew
of five, to a major airliner with 45 passengers and a crew of 16
appears to be extravagant, appears to expand the Congress's excess to
executive jets, appears to remove any spending controls from our
operations, and dramatically increases our impact on the environment,
especially climate change.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a major airliner costing over
$10,000 an hour to fly is an extravagance that is beyond the Speaker's
status as third in line to succeed the President under our plan in the
Constitution and in procedure for the continuity of government.
In fact, the Department of Defense has ruled that since the Speaker
has never become the President of the United States in the 220 years of
our country's history, that the continuity of government plan does not
include providing 24/7 military taxi service within the domestic United
States, carrying family, other Members of Congress, staff, and
supporters to both political and official events.
Now, we know that jetliners emit a large amount of greenhouse gases,
and we know that this aircraft costs millions of dollars, and we know
that the Congress has dramatically restricted the access of executive
jets to everyone else, but the Speaker.
I might inject a point of common sense here that the Speaker's staff
has said that, for security reasons, she must have unlimited access to
an aircraft at the 89th Military Airlift Wing like this one.
And I may point out that in my experience of watching public
officials move through airports, a figure like Senator Obama or Senator
McCain attracts a much larger crowd than one for the Speaker. I might
think that if we have to offer a military taxi service to the Speaker,
we would also have to offer one to the fourth in line for the
Presidency, the President pro tempore of the Senate.
How much will this cost? How much in greenhouse gases will it emit?
And last and not least, what sort of example does it send as a leader
who is advocating all of these other policies that, in the operation of
her own staff and her own offices, she is not following those
principles?
For that reason, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, our Speaker loves to fly and it shows. Today, we are
debating a key provision in this important bill before us, the first
open rule of the 110th Congress. We are glad that the majority could
get around to it in the second month we are here.
But today it is important that we discuss a revolution in biofuels,
an idea that we can look at ways to relieve the burden of global
warming.
{time} 1330
We know the Democratic majority is very focused on researching this
idea of global warming, the idea that fossil fuels are warming the
Earth and that the burning of fossil fuels are warming the Earth.
It is ironic that the highest officer of this body seeks a large jet
to fly across country that could seat 42 people, perhaps some of the
Speaker's friends and allies and supporters, some here in this body,
some, oh, perhaps downtown, large contributors, I am not sure, although
that has been denied by the Speaker in the request for those people to
fly along, this plane, that are contributors and campaign supporters.
But let us talk today about a few important provisions. After the
Speaker made a promise to the American people that they would be the
most ethical Congress ever and after including the ban on the use of
corporate jets in her lobbying reform bill, Speaker Pelosi asked for
carte blanche access to one of the most extravagant and luxurious
airliners in the military arsenal. It seats 42 people and has an
office. It has a bedroom. Plenty of her cronies could fly along.
But the Speaker decided she, her family, her friends, her staff, her
Democratic friends from California deserved to fly in style. This is
not a matter of security, Mr. Chairman. It is a matter of, well,
whatever is convenient for the Speaker as an individual.
But this is a bullet point to a larger value for this Democrat
majority. It is about the Democrats' abuse of power since they have
taken office just a short month ago, and it began when this Speaker
denied minority rights to Republicans and continued with Tunagate which
the Speaker, throwing a sop to her home constituents headquartered in
her district, allowed American Samoa to be exempt from the minimum wage
bill. Now they are seeking a matter of personal convenience and luxury.
Well, I believe the Speaker deserves security, not luxury; security,
not convenience. As the New York Post reported today, the conventional
view is that emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are a major
factor in global warming, and the jet Pelosi is demanding produces more
than 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour, far more than the
commuter plane the previous Speaker used.
[[Page H1372]]
If the Speaker is so concerned about global warming, maybe the
Speaker should consider the same mode of transportation her colleagues
took to the retreat this past weekend. They took a train.
It is very important that this House debate this important provision
that the Speaker's request from the American military, and I think it
is important that we discuss in terms of our research that we are
trying to put forward on new fuels, new forms of transportation, new
modes of powering our economy, and in terms of the global warming
debate that is a large issue the American people are concerned about.
Let us talk about this luxury airliner and let us see what my
Democrat colleagues say about the Speaker using it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in support of the Cantor amendment, and I thank the gentleman
from Virginia for bringing this amendment.
As we look at the overall atmosphere that is here, and not just the
atmosphere in this Congress, Mr. Chairman, but in the atmosphere up
above and on this Earth, and we see the effort that is coming, this
strong effort, to address global warming.
Now, I am not one of those strong proponents of those kinds of
efforts; I want to make that clear. I do not think the science is
there, but I do look at how this Congress has started, how it was going
to be the most open Congress in history, and it has now been opened up
today, and I appreciate that.
We understand the issue that had to do with minimum wage and the
Tunagate issue, and now here we are a judgment issue, a judgment issue
of the small plane that Speaker Hastert had was plenty big enough for a
very big man and the entourage that he needed to provide his security,
and yet now here we have a request for a plane that I see is 42
business class seats, 16 staff people that consumes $300,000 for a
round trip.
The statistics that I have are $22,000 an hour, $22,000 an hour. Mr.
Chairman, that is more money than many of my constituent families make
in a year. Well, let us just say that $22,000 an hour is that amount.
Then how many people, how many families does it take to earn enough to
pay for a year of this plane flying back and forth from Washington to
the west coast every single week? So I use 50 weeks, added the math up,
its overall costs by those numbers is $15 million annually for this big
plane to bounce back and forth and to be able to load all of the family
and the supporters, the staff, perhaps other Members, constituents, who
knows who might be on that plane, $15 million.
Now, how hard is it to pay $15 million out of the Federal Treasury?
Well, if we took all of the revenue of the income of those families
that I reference, Mr. Chairman, those families at $22,000 a year, it
would take 682 families to earn enough revenue just to pay to fly the
Speaker back and forth so she could be with her family on the weekends
in San Francisco.
That lays out what is happening here in my mind, and I take us back
to that place near enough to Hollywood that I can reference it. Many of
the people in Hollywood that have been flying around on private jets
and driving around in big SUVs have been called to task for their
positions promoting an effort to stop global warming, but the hypocrisy
of riding in those SUVs and flying in private jet planes. Now, the
pressure has gotten great enough that I do not know that Hollywood has
actually seen the conflict between their public position on policy and
their actual practice when they climb in the SUV or get on their
private jet.
But the public does know that Prince Charles of Great Britain has
recognized the conflict, and he has been flying in private jets for
years; but this year, he is taking the step that he is flying
commercial, not because he is not a very intense individual that is a
high-risk target.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would invite the Speaker of the House down to this
floor to answer these important questions. I think this would be
something the body would appreciate. I think that would be a very
helpful proposition, if the Speaker of this Chamber comes to the floor
to answer these questions.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I thank the
gentleman and my statement then would be, I also offer that same
invitation.
I would say if it is good enough for Prince Charles, it should be
good enough for the imperial Pelosi regime.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of my colleague's amendment
from Virginia on three points: conservation, fiscal responsibility, and
example.
Those of us on our side of the aisle from time to time are
criticized, perhaps correctly or incorrectly, on our lack of
appreciation of conserving fuels when it comes to driving cars, buses,
trains, airplanes. I have had amendments in the past that would seek to
try to educate Americans how they can drive their own personal
automobiles smarter, in ways to use less gasoline. Not only would that
help them in the pocketbook but also help the environment.
This is a clear overreach from a standpoint of conservation because
the jets available to the Speaker, she should make the most appropriate
selection of that jet to accommodate not only her safety. Clearly, that
is an important mission for this to be considered, but also take into
consideration the operating characteristics of the airplanes that she
wants to fly in.
So the selection of a 757, however it is configured, we have already
paid for that configuring and somebody in the Air Force decided that
they needed that particular configuration, and I am not questioning
that, but the 757 itself is clearly too large an airplane to carry one
person, the Speaker, to and from her district.
The fiscal responsibility stands on its face. It does not take a CPA
to understand that an operating cost of $22,000 per hour versus the
operating cost of a G-5, which is in the $5,000 range, that $17,000 an
hour differential is being paid for by somebody.
Well, in my mind, that somebody is a taxpayer in west Texas. That
taxpayer is probably working morning tower on a Parker drilling rig or
a Patterson UTI drilling rig, going to work at eleven o'clock at night
working till seven o'clock the next morning, trying to pay his taxes,
in addition to feeding his family and providing for them.
That is who I think is going to pay the $17,000 when I look at the
option of the $5,000 G-5 versus the $22,000 757.
The last point I want to make is that of example. All of us are in
leadership positions. All 435 Members of this House are leaders in one
small way or another. We lead our own offices, and we set the example
of the way we conduct ourselves. If I conduct myself one way, my staff,
in all likelihood, is going to mimic that. They are going to do what I
do and hopefully maybe learn from my example. I think the same thing
will happen here.
When the leader of this House, by her example, says money is no
object, cost is no object, if for whatever we are trying to do, that is
not a consideration to be considered when you look at decisions that
have to be made.
Now cost does not drive every single decision; but where I grew up,
most of the folks in District 11, that is one of the questions that
gets asked whenever we are trying to make a decision, how much is that
going to cost, because in our own mind we make a quick cost-benefit
analysis between the benefits that we seek versus those costs. If we
can get those benefits for a lower cost, then I can assure you most
folks in District 11 will opt for the lower cost to get those same
benefits.
So the benefits that we want is the Speaker being able to go to and
from her district safely with the security folks that she needs to have
on the plane. Beyond that I am not sure why we should be flying folks
back and forth on this jet; but if there are empty seats in that
smaller jet, I do not begrudge any of my Democrat colleagues from
California wanting to ride back and forth. That is fine. As I make the
stop in Dallas or Houston and wait for the next leg of my flight or I
have missed that next leg of flight, I will not begrudge the fact that
they are flying nonstop to San Francisco. That is fine.
[[Page H1373]]
So safety of the Speaker, clear, that has got to be done, but we also
ought to do it in a cost-effective manner. So if she is leading from
the top, with her tone from the top being that money is no object,
whatever it takes to have something done that she wants done, that
needs to be done, we are not going to consider costs, then I think that
will percolate throughout her staff and the Democrat side of this
institution, and the fiscal responsibility that they laid claim to
throughout the campaign last year and they are trying to lay claim to
in this Congress I think is called into question.
So I support my colleague's amendment and urge a vote ``yes'' in
favor of it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cantor amendment. We all had
campaigns this last November, and my opponent kept calling the 109th
Congress the do-nothing Congress, and I want to officially name the
110th Congress as the smoke-and-mirror Congress.
We have consistently heard from the other side about the minimum wage
and the average American. We have heard about global warming. In fact,
I think the Speaker even testified today on global warming, and yet we
see the abuse of power that is going on here in the fact that we have
not been through regular order on a lot of the bills that have passed
here, especially in the first 100-hour program.
We were going to have a 5-day work week which I am not sure that we
have had one yet. We are going to be productive in the fact that we are
flying up here and all Members, all 435 Members in this body have to
fly back up here on Mondays to vote on naming a post office or wishing
somebody a happy birthday, rather than being at home with our
constituents and our families.
Now, I have learned something else today or over the last couple of
days that evidently the 757 is the smallest aircraft we have that can
haul one person. It seems to be that the military would have some sort
of other plane that could haul one person to California that would be
more fuel efficient, take less than a 16-person crew and cost less than
$22,000 an hour.
I am very fortunate in I live in Georgia and I live about 45 minutes
from the world's busiest airport in Atlanta, and so I can actually
leave Reagan and get home in about a 3-hour period of time. I am very
fortunate.
But I have flown home with many Members, my fellow Members in this
House, some of them are going to Atlanta to fly on to Oklahoma or on to
Texas, even had one colleague that was going on to California, having
to stop in Atlanta. We are not all fortunate to have nonstop flights to
our district.
I fly many times with Mr. Miller from Florida or Mr. Ross from
Arkansas or others that have to make stops and have to make transfers
of planes, that have to sit in middle seats.
{time} 1345
We don't get to eat chocolate. We can have our choice of some
crackers or peanuts. We don't have a crew of 16 at our disposal.
So as we sit in those middle seats because of the last-minute time
that we have to catch a flight, many of us might think that, you know,
we need someone to lead us by example. So I would call on the Speaker
to lead by example, to put some meaning into the things that I have
heard being said from the other side of the House.
You know, I keep hearing the word ``bipartisan,'' I see people's lips
moving. I hear these words coming out of their mouths. I just haven't
seen any action on it.
I keep hearing the word ``conservation.'' I hear the word, I see the
lips moving, but I don't know if this is a good example of being a
conservationist with our fuel and with our air quality.
I keep hearing ``being compassionate,'' haven't seen it. So there are
a lot of things that I think can be done by a leader by setting an
example.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to ask that somebody step
up to the plate and lead by example.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The gentleman from Georgia has been talking about examples. Well, let
me give you an example, we just heard about whining, whining about
chocolate and whining about tobacco. Here we are trying to give you an
example about leading, about doing something about this country's very,
very, very major problem with global warming and with alternative
energy and energy dependency.
Let me tell you what, I have just been through 3 hours of a hearing,
3 hours, where representatives of the IPCC, which represents 113
nations including the United States, came before us and said after 5
years of study, 30,000 comments, 600 scientists; they made a
recommendation, and that recommendation was that with 100 percent
certainty, there is global warming, and with 90 percent certainty,
human action is making it worse.
Today, our example is trying to do something about that. Today, we
have the first bill on this floor to deal with alternative energy, to
deal with making our Nation energy independent. So this is an example
of us trying to move forward.
It is a bipartisan bill, and I might remind the gentleman that when,
after
9/11, when Speaker Hastert was the first to be given transportation for
security reasons, I don't think anybody over there complained. I don't
think anybody over here complained.
When the President of the United States, George Bush, said that it is
a matter of security, we didn't hear anybody complain; when the
Department of Defense has also given a ruling on this, that again what
is available will be available for the person who is the second-ranking
person to be President of the United States.
Now, if Speaker Pelosi is going to be attacked here on this floor for
eating chocolate or anything else, you can imagine what more serious
people might be doing. So, yes, this is an example today. We have an
example of, if we want to, on a bipartisan basis do something about
global warming.
Let me tell you, we talk about 10 years from now, maybe. Or is it 20
years? Sometimes you can say, well, to have a serious problem with
global warming, it might be 30 years or 50 years. Well, that is not
hypothetical. I have a 5-year-old daughter. Some of you probably have
young children or young grandchildren. If any of them were born in this
century, in all likelihood, they are going to live till the end of this
century. They are going to inherit a much different world.
So this is real. So I think now the time is to lead by example. Let
us do something about this. We have a good bill on the floor. This is
our example. You can have whatever example you want.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. I do
rise on the point of conservation and pointing out some conservation.
You know, it is amazing to me to hear all of this talk that we have
about global warming. But you know what, the debate that we are having
here just points out, Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between
conservationists and environmentalists, and this is one of the debates
that points this out. Conservationists walk the walk. Environmentalists
talk about it, but they do not walk the walk.
You know, I remember, I appreciate so much the gentleman from
Tennessee's comments about global warming and the threat that is there.
Well, you know what? I am old enough to remember having been in high
school in the 1960s, and I remember in the early 1970s, going into
college where we were all going to freeze to death.
We were going to freeze to death. It was on the cover of every
magazine out there. We had an Ice Age that was coming. I was scared to
death. I thought, my goodness, I will never be able to have children,
watch them grow up, because we are going to be living in igloos.
Well, but you know what? It did not happen, and now we find out,
guess what, 100 years ago, they thought they had a warming cycle; or
they did, they documented it. Then we find out that the rises and falls
in temperatures of this great Earth are cyclical. It is there, and,
yes, it is rising a little bit right there. But in 1969 and 1970 and
1971, the Ice Age was coming, and there was scientific proof.
You know, at Energy and Commerce Committee last year, we had some
great hearings. We talked about the
[[Page H1374]]
fallacy of the hockey stick theory. We discussed that. We heard
testimony, and we can have all of our community of scientists who are
trying to serve the purpose of validating one another's theories, but
not wanting to go back and use the evidence from 100 years ago, and it
just proves the point, as is often said on this floor, you are entitled
to your opinion, but you are not entitled to a different set of facts,
and that is the truth.
You know, it is of tremendous concern, on a day when we are talking
about the environment, that we do have an example being brought forth
that would be spending, not only $22,000 an hour, but would be spending
a lot in emissions, in gases. This is something that does deserve to be
discussed, Mr. Chairman.
I tell you what, we have named this, we have talked about this being
the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress, and for every hour that our
friends across the aisle are in charge, they are racking up, not
thousands and millions, but moving to billions. Hold on to your wallet
because of what they are choosing to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned
money on.
It is of great concern to me, when I read reports that are coming out
of all sorts of papers and news organizations about how this is coming
to be, people returning to smoke-filled rooms, picking up the phones,
calling, saying, this is the way it ought to be done.
Mr. Chairman, it is of great concern to me, I think for those of us
who are conservationists, who want to be certain that we leave this
Earth a better place than we found it. We are wise to stand and to
question the bill and to support the amendment of the gentleman from
Virginia.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to identify a little bit with my colleague from
Georgia who was here talking about this being the smoke-and-mirrors
Congress. There are so many things being talked about that aren't true.
Today, I was speaking with one of my constituents at home from Wilkes
County, Angela Henley. The issue of airplanes came up, and she said to
me, you know, I think the officials should adopt the principle to lead
by example and not by extravagance. I said, you know, these are the
kinds of things, this is the reason we ought to be going home more
instead of spending all this time we are spending in Washington.
The majority party wants people to believe that you have got to be in
Washington, because that is where all the wisdom of the world is. But I
think it is this Beltway mentality that gets us in trouble all the
time, and gets people to thinking that we as Members of Congress are
here to be served, not to serve.
I said here this morning in opening remarks that I am very troubled
by this whole affair. I came here to serve the people of the Fifth
District of North Carolina. I don't think that we are supposed to be
treated like kings and queens.
We came here to do the work of the people. It is called the people's
House, and I think it is very important that we do that.
What is happening is, the mentality of the majority party is that all
the wisdom of the world is in Washington, D.C., the only work that gets
done is in Washington, D.C. We should be here 5 days a week, not be in
our district with the average American citizen.
Well, you lose track of what the average American citizen is dealing
with. That is why I thought Angela Henley's comments were so brilliant
today when I talked to her.
Again, elected officials should adopt the principle to lead by
example and not by extravagance. That is the message that needs to be
sent. That is not the message that is being sent by the majority party
and by the Speaker in her example.
What we need to be doing is we need to make sure we are doing what is
right by the American people and not putting additional burdens on them
by adding costs.
The other thing I want to mention is, there has been a lot made about
the fact that the Department of Defense has approved this. This was a
headline in yesterday's paper saying the appropriators are going to get
out of the departments what they want by twisting the arms of the
various departments and agencies. And we all know that there is a close
relationship between some of the appropriators and the Speaker, and I
have no doubt that the appropriators are going to get from the
departments what it is they want from them, to justify anything at all
that they want to justify whether it is extravagant or not.
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Interesting, Mr. Chairman, the report of
this amendment has reached the White House. I would like to report to
you the official statement from the White House just given by Tony
Snow.
Quoting Mr. Snow, ``This is a silly story. I think it's been unfair
to the Speaker. What happened in the wake of September 11 is the
Department of Defense in order to protect the Speaker began offering
aircraft to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, did it with
Representative Hastert, doing so with Speaker Pelosi.
``We think it's important that the Speaker of the House enjoy the
same kind of security that we arranged for Speaker Hastert in the wake
of September 11. And like I said, I think that there's been a lot of
overhyped reporting on this.''
I certainly concur with Mr. Snow. This is a silly story. We have a
chance to get on to serious business. To put this to rest, as the
author of this bill, and as the chairman of the Science Committee from
which it came, we want to accept this amendment and allow this country
then to get on to the serious business of trying to do something about
alternative fuels.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. Thank you so much, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
The question is, if we want to combat global warming, why should we,
as an institution, allow one person to use a 737 for a $300,000
transcontinental flight? That is the question I pose to the Science
Committee, Mr. Chairman.
{time} 1400
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and give it to
the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Thank you for that commentary, and I think
the White House has given you the answer. If you would like for me to
read it to you again. As I heard Barney Frank say here one time, I can
read it to you, but I can't understand it for you. But I would be happy
to read it to you again:
``This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the Speaker.
What happened in the wake of September 11 is that the Department of
Defense, in order to protect the Speaker, began offering aircraft to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives; did it with Representative
Hastert, doing so with Speaker Pelosi. We think it's important that the
Speaker of the House enjoy the same kind of security that we arranged
for Speaker Hastert in the wake of September 11. And, like I said,
there has been a lot of overhype in reporting this story.''
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman mentioning me.
I just want to explain, I hadn't really expected to be here, but as I
was walking by, I thought I heard someone yelling, The plane, boss, the
plane, and I wanted to come in and see what was happening.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is really one of my heroes on the
floor, and I really appreciate and respect his sense of humor.
With that, the silliness in this that I see is the silliness when
about a year ago, during the height of the energy crunch, a member of
the Kennedy clan, who was not a Member of Congress, flew to New York on
his private jet to talk about conservation of energy and global
warming. It reminds me of the silliness of those who ride in limousines
to and from their dinner engagements while whining about mothers using
SUVs to drive. That is the type of silliness that I see in this debate.
It isn't just about having a plane for security, it is the opulence of
the plane that is at discussion.
[[Page H1375]]
But I have got to tell you, I see something deeper in this than the
type of plane, and that is comments published in the San Francisco
Chronicle, made by the subcommittee chairman of Appropriations on
Defense such as: ``Don't need to put pressure on them, just tell them
what they need to do.'' This gentleman is the one that has been bidding
for our Speaker on what type of plane.
Then when this became a story, mentioned also, I guess, with some
sort of pride that was also quoted in many newspapers, CNN, San
Francisco Chronicle, reminding the Defense Department that it is them
that will make the decisions on appropriations, leaving the insinuation
that if the correct plane is not given to the Speaker, that they will
cut the Defense Department.
Now, I see the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in our Chamber, and I
would yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to explain which part of
the defense budget he intends to cut or not appropriate if she does not
get this specific plane that she wants.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Announcement By The Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his comments to the Chair.
Mr. TERRY. I am sorry. I yielded to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
My remarks are to the Chair. I am yielding to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to answer the colloquy that I put forward to him.
I see the gentleman is not moving.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, isn't it customary that after
a minority speaker speaks, then you go to the majority side?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not see the gentleman.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members, I have sat in my office and got caught up on a lot of work
and I was listening to the debate, and I guess I am concerned about the
tenor of the debate because I am serving in this Congress and I am in
my eighth term, one term in the majority, the last 12 years in the
minority, and I have never seen a display of what we are seeing on the
floor today.
Because I served with Speaker Hastert and many speakers, and it is
frustrating to see this activity. My concern is what we are portraying
to the American people. And I think the chairman of the Science
Committee pointed out the White House statement on the use of the
plane.
I was here on the floor after 9/11, and I know that not one Member on
the Democratic side questioned whether Speaker Hastert needed the
security, needed a nonstop to his district. And I think that is far
beyond anything we should be considering.
I want to save energy, although I have to admit, I have a district
where we produce a lot, and I am glad people use it. But I also know
that we have more important things in this House to do than to pick at
one person who happens to be the Speaker of the House. I could go back
and find lots of things from former Speakers of the minority party and
talk about it, but again, we didn't do that. I didn't, and I don't
remember any of my colleagues doing it. But I also know that if we are
going to seriously be legislators, then we need to pass this bill.
I was concerned with some of the amendments that were brought up
earlier literally by members of my Energy and Commerce Committee that
were not germane because their amendments would have been germane if
this had been an Energy and Commerce bill, but it is not. It is a
Science bill. That is why I think if we are serious about dealing with
global warming, more efficiency in fuel, there are lots of ways we can
do it. I know the Science Committee is doing their job, and I know the
Energy and Commerce Committee will; and if there are tax issues that
need to be dealt with, I know the Ways and Means Committee will deal
with it.
Mr. Chairman and Members, I would hope we would realize that the
actions today do not reflect good on the House itself.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) to H.R. 547. I also rise to
support H.R. 547, Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and
Development Act. It is a good bill. And I am on the Science Committee,
and it did pass by unanimous consent.
Mr. Chairman, I was also at the hearing this morning that lasted 3
hours on the Science Committee with my chairman, the gentleman from
Tennessee. And we were honored to have the Speaker of the House of
Representatives testify before that committee. Well, this is a historic
opportunity. She was received with a great deal of respect and
certainly respect by me.
She testified; I don't disagree with any of her testimony. She talked
about global warming and the concern that she has for our young
children and the environmental debt that has to be paid at some point
in the future. Unfortunately, her schedule did not permit time to take
questions, maybe a couple, from the Members of the Science Committee.
Maybe one question that should have been asked if we had that
opportunity is how about the economic debt that we would have to pay if
we do something draconian when all these other countries, especially
countries like China and India, are totally ignoring it, and they are
going to continue to pollute the environment.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Virginia brings
is about the concern with continuing to produce carbon dioxide, and
yes, polluting the environment, and jet fuel is a big problem, a big
contributor to that. I commend the chairman for accepting the
amendment, and I think we should do that unanimously. Maybe the Speaker
would like to come down on the floor and take as much time as she would
like and talk about her support for this. But the Speaker has made a
mistake in requesting a jet plane far beyond what the previous Speaker
had.
I don't disagree that she should have the same security as the
previous Speaker; we are not arguing that point. Mistakes can be made
like Tunagate; the Speaker may not have known about that. And she was
smart enough to call a press conference and say we are going to correct
that, she should be smart enough to hold a press conference and correct
this.
Mr. WEINER. I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this can't possibly be the best they have got. This
can't be. I cannot imagine that a party that governed for the last 12-
some-odd years, who had a Congress that met less days than the do-
nothing Congress, who wasted billions of dollars in the Iraq war doing
no oversight, drove up the deficit to record heights, wasted homeland
security funds, it can't possibly be that the best that party has is to
now devote an afternoon talking about the security arrangements for the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
Well, let's talk a little bit about what we have. Putting aside for a
moment, which apparently is what the other side wants, putting aside
for a moment the bill we are here to debate, which is a way to improve
energy programs with existing infrastructure, and I can guarantee my
colleagues will be lining up to take advantage of that program, we
have, in the first 100 hours of this Congress, raised the minimum wage;
we have lowered the cost of people to send their children to college;
we have implemented the 9/11 Commission Report. We have moved through
an agenda with efficiency to get things done for the American people,
and now my colleagues on the other side want to have an argument with
the White House over the appropriate arrangements for the Speaker.
Now, look, I am sure that my good friends on the other side are so
detached from reality that they think this is what the American people
want to work on. This is a party that squandered the leadership that
they had. Now the Republic Party is in the minority for the foreseeable
future. The Republic Party is so completely bankrupt of any ideas of
their own, they have taken to bringing up 3 hours of discussion and a
debate between the White House and themselves about what kind of
security the Speaker should have.
The Republic Party is the minority party not only for this reason,
but this is one of them. And then to make it worse, the Members that
the Republic Party sends over can't possibly be the
[[Page H1376]]
A team. This can't be the best. This can't be the most articulate, most
informed voices of the Republic Party, can it? This is it.
I was in my office and I heard a Member of the Republic Party, and
you will correct me, Mr. Chairman, if I am wrong, complaining that he
had to sit in a middle seat. No, not a middle seat. Complaining that he
had to eat peanuts on his flight. I don't even know what this is about.
Let me tell you what the American people are interested in. They are
interested in the idea that, like Damocles' sword, global warming is
now hanging over the head of all of us, all of us, Republican or
Democratic, even the Republic Party must be concerned about that. We
have had thousands of scientists that have reached a consensus----
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEINER. I will certainly be glad to yield.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank the Congressman from New York for yielding, but
don't you think a jet that is a 757 and can seat 42 people, flying one
person is contributing to global warming?
Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, even those members of this panel,
these scientists that took a look at global warming, global climate
change, 90 percent of them, a record level of consensus, say that human
causes are to blame.
We are not going to leave it to the Republic Party to solve this
problem. They are in the minority. They are probably in the permanent
minority if they are going to spend their time obsessing about security
arrangements for the Speaker and disagreeing with the President of the
United States' spokesman. But we are. Nancy Pelosi, this party is going
to do something about global warming; we are not going to wait for the
Republic Party to join in. Just the same way we said we were going to
increase the minimum wage, the same way we said we were going to
increase safety by implementing the
9/11 Commission Report, the same way we said we were going to reduce
college costs for the American middle class and those striving to make
it, that is what we are going to do.
You can have this debate all you want about the security arrangements
for the Speaker, but we are going to go about doing the job of the
American people. That is why the Democratic Party is in charge, not the
Republic Party.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
It is always interesting hearing from my friend from New York.
You know, we are about solutions, we try to be about solutions; that
is what this body ought to be about. And I would humbly submit that if
we were to set up windmills surrounding the Capitol, I believe there is
enough hot air that comes out of this place that we could offset all
the losses of energy from an extravagant plane that flies from here to
California with lots of passengers and a gym or whatever all it has got
on there; but I would actually like to talk about the bill that the
amendment is addressing and come back to the amendment for a moment.
{time} 1415
But I come from a district there in east Texas that is blessed with
an abundance of natural resources. And not only do we have oil and gas,
we have got coal, and we have some something that is so often
overlooked called biomass. Some folks don't know what that is, but it
can take all kinds of forms, and one of those forms is the pine tree.
You cut down the pine tree, you take the center of it, use it for
paper, pulp, plywood, all of these other things. And then there is all
this waste that can generate energy.
But the use of biomass is a source of energy, it is necessary for
domestic industry purposes and actually is being used in our timber and
paper industries to defray rapidly increasing overhead costs.
Presently, the uncertainty of energy supplies and prices make it
impossible for domestic industry to efficiently forecast operating
costs or make credible plans for future capital expenditures. For
example, the forest products industry is partially self-sufficient
because they use some of the biomass to provide energy to produce what
they do. The biomass fuels can include bark, scrap wood, wood
residuals, wood extractives from the pulping process.
So necessary to maintain a manufacturing base in this country that
will sustain a driving economy is the energy produced by biomass, and I
think that can play a vital role.
It is not enough simply to have a source of energy. It is also
necessary to have a means to deliver it. So we have also got to improve
our ability to deliver a wide array of energy resources to consumers by
addressing the infrastructures. This bill doesn't really address any of
those. It is kind of a feel-good bill. Anything can help a little bit.
But in conclusion, I just submit, look, if we all pitch in a little
bit, districts like mine that have energy, if you allow us to use
CO2, maybe pump it in the ground, get the last bit of oil
up, use biomass, convert it into energy, if we keep doing those sorts
of things using alternative energy, I think eventually we can pay for
all the waste and extravagance that we are already seeing coming from
the Speaker's request.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise to support this amendment. However, I will admit that it is
rather more symbolic than substantive. And earlier this morning,
Speaker Pelosi spoke before the Science Committee, as we have been
reminded here during this debate. And during that testimony she
declared her commitment to combat global warming. And that is a high
priority.
Well, it is not then irrelevant for Members of Congress to call into
question the seriousness of such public proclamations when personal
choices are so extravagantly contradictory to those proclamations.
I am sorry. Speaker Pelosi, by commandeering a huge government plane
for her personal transport to California, this is totally contradictory
to the alarm bells that we heard her ringing in the Science Committee
just a few hours ago.
And just for one, let me note that I certainly appreciate that
Speaker Pelosi came to speak to us. And I certainly respect Bart Gordon
and the job that he did in putting together a very fine panel of
witnesses for us. But I am personally a skeptic about global warming.
And let me just note that what we have here, after listening to the
witnesses today, is the clear evidence that global warming and cooling
have taken place in cycles throughout the history of the world. Right
now, we are being told that this particular cycle is caused by human
beings and how dangerous that is.
Well, let me note that even the witnesses today, the very witness
that was showing how we can prove the Earth is warming on the chart,
started his chart in 1850, which happened to be, by his own admission,
the very end of a cooling period that had been going on for 500 years.
So you start at the very low point and then you go to today and claim,
oh, it is getting warmer. So what? You started at a low point.
Now, there is consensus that there is some warming going on, 1 degree
over the last 30 years, supposedly. In reality, it is 1 degree over 100
years. And, yes, this is happening, but is it caused by human action?
Even after hearing the witnesses today, I can't tell you that I don't
believe, I still do not believe this is caused by human activity.
Now, why is this so important that we discuss this? Why is it
important that we reject this alarmism? Because we are all now
committed to an energy-independent America, and we are going to have to
focus our energies and resources on developing new alternative sources
of energy and technology that will make us independent of foreign oil.
And if we are alarmed by global warming and we are stampeded into
focusing our efforts on something that is going to change a climate
trend, instead of, for example, focusing on energy that will help clean
the air at the same time, while making us independent, we are going to
be making some bad decisions.
And who will be impacted by those decisions if we are stampeded by
all of this alarmism about global warming? The people who will be
better off are the researchers who have been getting grants by the
billions of dollars over these years in order to claim that there is
global warming. And I might add, there is plenty of evidence that
researchers who are opposed to the global
[[Page H1377]]
warming theory have been cut off from research grants.
But who will be worse off? My children will be worse off. Your
children and grandchildren will be worse off because we have not
developed the technology aimed at cleaning the air and making us energy
independent. Rather, we will have been stampeded into spending more
money on useless research and money aimed at changing the climate trend
of the planet, rather than on the health of the people of this planet.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
If we are committed to energy independence, let's be serious about
it. Conservation is part of the answer. And if Speaker Pelosi is
serious, she should be serving as an example and not be doing things
like commandeering a huge aircraft, which is enormously wasteful, to
take her all the way to California.
And although this is symbolic, I think there is some substance here
that does deserve to be commented on, so I am supporting this
amendment.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last comment.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned by what I am hearing on the
opposite side. And I understand fully the frustration of the American
people, having listened to the leadership of this party for so many
years distracting Americans from the real issues confronting us. And to
hear them attack Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House for using a
private airplane to take her back and forth to California, and of that
size, is just outrageous.
The truth of the matter is that this is the party that completely
blocked the 9/11 recommendations that were so critical to the security
of this Nation. This is the party that refused to make sure that all
the cargo inside the belly of airplanes is inspected. And now, when we
have the Speaker of the House, who is rightly concerned about security,
using a plane to protect her, and it is absolutely critical that we
have this, now they are standing up to speak about this.
I am also deeply concerned about the claim that we are not being
effective on global warming, because the American people understand
this. They have seen the data. They understand it. They want us to move
forward in a bipartisan manner. And they want us to stop bickering.
And so I plead to all of us to stop the bickering. Let's move on with
the legislation.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from New
Hampshire for yielding because she of all people understands, coming
from New Hampshire, that these issues of global climate change are not
something that we can simply choose to do, what the other side is
saying, which is ignore them for generations more and just hope for the
best.
You were elected, and you came to this House saying that we are going
to start getting things done. You said that we are going to reject the
frivolous politics of the other side. We are not going to spend our
time arguing over what the correct security protocols for the Speaker
are going to be. We are going to focus on things that the American
people really care about.
And I just want to ask you, has anyone stopped you on the streets in
New Hampshire and asked you, expressed concern about global climate
change?
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. People in New Hampshire are deeply concerned; both
parties, by the way, are deeply concerned about global warming. And
they want us to get on with the job of taking care of this and not
spending our time and the people's time. And we are on the payroll of
the American people, arguing and quibbling about such minor issues as
the airplane.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman further yield?
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. I thank the gentlelady.
And I would also say that I am sure that we are all very concerned
about the security arrangements for the Speaker; and I think we would
all agree, we want to do whatever is necessary, the same way none of us
had any concerns when Speaker Hastert got the protection.
But frankly, there are people that are working on that right now, and
I think, and maybe you do as well; I will ask you. Do you agree with
the statement of the White House that this is a silly issue that people
are making too much of and that we should get back to the job of the
country?
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Reclaiming my time, yes. I absolutely agree that
this is wasting our time. We are earning our paycheck from the American
people, and we need to do the work of the American people.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman further yield?
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. I really do want to express my gratitude. The people of
New Hampshire are very fortunate to have someone that came to Congress
like you did. In your first 43 hours, you voted to raise the minimum
wage, something that hadn't been done for years of neglect. You voted
to make it less expensive for parents of New Hampshire to send their
kids to school. You voted for a responsible continuing resolution that
increased spending to put cops on the beat in New Hampshire.
You have, frankly, in your first several weeks here in the House,
done more than your predecessors did for years and years because they
were focused on issues like this on the other side. And I want to thank
you for your service.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank you and we intend to
continue to deliver to the American people what they have asked us to
do.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that
they are here as guests of the House, and that any manifestation of
approval or disapproval of the proceedings, or audible conversation, is
in violation of the rules of the House.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am not going to take much time. I am very concerned about the
fiscal responsibility that we should have. And I know my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time defending the
$300,000 per trip that the Speaker is going to be spending flying back
and forth to California. But I don't think the American people are
going to understand how $15 million a year is being spent for one
person to fly back and forth to California.
The Speaker is a very important person. She is third in line to the
presidency, but there are other ways to get out there that cost less. I
think the plane the former Speaker used would cost about one-fifth or
one-fourth of that.
And I don't think, no matter what the other side says, that the
American people are going to buy $1.2 million a trip for her to go to
California or $15 million a year for her to go back and forth to her
district. It just won't wash, especially at a time like this when we
are trying to get spending under control.
Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to my friend from Arizona.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is one of those
debates where you are sitting in your office and you are watching what
has happened and you have no intention of coming down, and then you
hear something said and you feel it is important to talk about that
issue. That is how this strikes me, and I think it is important to set
the record straight on some important points.
I don't think anybody on this side of the aisle challenges the
importance of protecting the Speaker of the House and ensuring that she
is secure. Indeed, that is a very important point to all people in the
Nation. But that is not what this discussion is about.
I believe this discussion is about whether or not we are being asked
to waste money, whether we are being asked, as has been articulated, to
spend an extravagant amount of money, not to fly the Speaker and a few
staff members, but to fly the Speaker and lots of staff members, plus
family, plus other Members and who knows who. I think that is a
legitimate issue to discuss here on the floor and an appropriate issue
to discuss here on the floor.
One of the things that troubles me in this debate is that people say,
well, we shouldn't be discussing this. I would like to invite my
colleagues to think about the context in which this debate occurs. I
would suggest that it is important to understand that when the
[[Page H1378]]
majority takes office and brings the first six bills to the floor under
what is called a marshall law or some provision that says no amendments
will be offered, and that is what happened here, you brought this under
a rule or a provision that said we could offer no amendments to the
minimum wage bill. Can't discuss it. Can't propose an alternate idea.
You then brought the 9/11 recommendations bill to the floor. No
amendments. Not allowed. Can't discuss it. Can't offer your own ideas.
At that point, in fact, you didn't even have a functioning Rules
Committee.
{time} 1430
You proceeded to bring many other important bills to the floor. The
gentlewoman said that Republicans, in her view, didn't address the
important issues, and yet your first six bills including minimum wage,
stem cell, the 9/11 recommendations, student loans, energy, and
Medicare prescription drugs, you bring to the floor, and you do not
allow a single amendment by Republicans. And then you say, well, as
soon as the 6 for '06 is over, we will allow amendments. We will go
back to regular order.
But, in fact, that didn't turn out to be true. The seventh bill was
the page board. Then the Pension Act, a very important bill that I
thought was important for the Nation to pass, no amendments. Then the
delegate bill. Finally, we get to bill nine, and you allow one
amendment on that bill.
Then you come to the CR omnibus bill. On the CR omnibus bill that
runs this government for the balance of the year and spends billions of
dollars, how many amendments were the minority allowed? Absolutely
none. And now you find it odd that we would want to engage in this
debate right now.
As long as the rights of the minority are repressed by the majority
so that we cannot do our job and represent the people of our district
then you can expect this kind of exchange to occur on the floor.
And for my colleague from Texas who came to the floor and said he was
disappointed in the level of debate, I would suggest that you look
within yourself. If you repress debate, if you do not allow us to speak
and address our issues, then we are going to use whatever tools we can.
I want to address another point that has been raised on the other
side, and that is that the White House has said that it doesn't view
this issue as all that significant or views it as ``silly.'' Well, with
all due respect to the White House, I respect Tony Snow and the White
House's position on the issue; but, quite frankly, Tony Snow does not
hold an election certificate and Tony Snow doesn't represent the
taxpayers of Arizona. He does not have a duty, as I do, to come to this
floor and to discuss the consequences for our taxpayers.
It seems to me that next week we are going to debate an issue of
great importance to this Nation.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this debate has gone on for a
long time and my colleague is very eloquent in what he says.
Let me just say that I hope that Speaker Pelosi will take the time to
come down and explain to the full House the reason why she thinks she
should have $15 million a year to fly back and forth to California. I
think she could be very eloquent in explaining why the taxpayers should
spend that much money, and I would like to hear what she has to say.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is important to
understand the context in which each of these debates occur.
I agree with my colleagues on other side of the aisle who would say
that this debate is not the central debate in America today, whether or
not we spend an excessive amount of money to accommodate one Member of
the Congress who ought to be protected. That is not exactly the most
momentous moment or issue before the Nation right now.
But next week we will debate the war in Iraq. Next week we will
debate the confrontation of this Nation with global terrorism. Next
week we will debate the jihadis and their desire to destroy America and
the importance of that fight.
Now, here is my concern: you on the other side of the aisle are
concerned that we are making a big deal out of this issue. I would like
to know if somebody on the other side of the aisle will promise me that
next week you will have an open rule on the Iraq debate so that we can
have a full discussion of all of the issues, because I welcome that
debate. But what I fear, what I fear deeply is that we will not have an
open rule next week. We will not have a reasonable opportunity to
debate all of the alternatives.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. If you will answer the question of whether or not there
will be an open rule next week, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. WEINER. Certainly.
Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman vote for an open rule?
Mr. WEINER. Well, I have got to tell you something. I don't recall
there being an open rule when we had the original vote on the war; do
you, sir?
Mr. SHADEGG. All I know is we have been here so far almost 1\1/2\
months and we have been allowed, in 1\1/2\ months, one amendment. And
it seems to me that you are frustrated with this debate and you want us
to be discussing more important issues. It seems to me we ought to be
discussing issues like the importance of the war against global terror.
Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. WEINER. I recall we were given an up-or-down vote without any
opportunity for alternatives on the original war in Iraq, and I think
we are going to have eight votes, and we have accepted this amendment,
eight votes on various amendments to this bill. I think the lady doth
protest too much.
Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman answer the question I asked, though?
Will there be an open rule in the debate on Iraq next week?
Mr. WEINER. I don't have any control over that. I think the gentleman
is in scant position to protest when he himself was part of the
leadership that said we couldn't have an open rule when we originally
voted on this thing.
Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in
the Contract with America we offered to the minority 154 amendments. We
had a functioning Rules Committee. Every bill in the Contract with
America went through the standing committee process. Every bill went to
the Rules Committee. The minority was entitled to bring amendments to,
I think, all but two of those bills. This was our first effort. This
was our first initiative to claim the attention of the American people.
We allowed the minority at that time to offer 154 amendments. And in
that period, 48 of the minority's amendments were accepted. Now we have
been here almost 1\1/2\ months, and we are being allowed the ability to
amend only those bills on which there is no controversy.
I agree with the minority: the Speaker of the House should be
protected. I agree with the minority that whether she is protected or
not is an important issue for this Congress. But I do not agree that
the minority isn't entitled to debate the expenditure of public funds,
as we are doing here. I do not agree that this is an issue where, if
the White House says it is a silly issue, we are not supposed to raise
it. If that is the rule in this House, then I think there are a lot of
things the White House is saying that my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are challenging.
And it seems to me that if you are unhappy with this debate, then you
need to look at the context in which this debate occurs. And I would
suggest to you that next week when we begin a debate on the war in Iraq
and a debate on the war against the jihadis who threaten our lives in
America, who threaten world security, I only hope, I dearly hope, that
you will give us an open rule or a rule that allows each of the
alternatives to be debated, because if you don't do that, if you
continue to repress the rights of the minority, then you are going to
have to expect this kind of debate by us whenever we can
[[Page H1379]]
raise it. It is our duty to our constituents. It is our obligation.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, some of us on this side of the aisle are not at all
upset that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to
debate this particular issue. We hope it goes on forever and that the
American public is tuned in to watch just what motivates that side of
the aisle.
The fact of the matter is that the debate that they are having is
between them and the White House. When people ask that the Speaker come
down to present a case as to why there should be protection of the
Speaker of the House, they miss the point that the people motivating
that are the White House, who decided after 9/11 that the Speaker of
the House, then a Republican, Mr. Hastert, should, in fact, have the
kind of the security that Americans would expect for the person who is
two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States and that
the President in this instance is consistent in that, in believing that
no matter what party is holding the Speaker of the House position ought
to also have that protection.
I don't think that they can propose a safer way to get the Speaker
from Washington to California and back so that she can conduct the
considerable responsibilities of her position and get back to do those
in a timely fashion other than to fly back and forth.
But because some of my friends on the other side of the aisle
apparently still don't understand it and don't understand whom they are
debating with, and I understand that sometimes it is difficult to
understand what is coming out of the White House, but just one more
time so that even they can get it, I would like to yield to my
colleague from Tennessee and ask him to read once again the other side
of the debate as presented by the President of the United States in his
own words.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from
Massachusetts for yielding.
Once again from the White House: ``This is a silly story. I think
it's been unfair to the Speaker.''
And let me tell you what else is silly. It is silly for the party
that inherited the biggest surplus in our Nation's or world's history
and then turned it into a deficit, the biggest deficit in history, to
come in here and try to be fiscally conservative.
And let me tell you what is even more silly about that. What is even
more silly about that is they have a silly amendment that has been
accepted; yet they want to continue to talk about the silly amendment,
pretending to be fiscally conservative, although it is costing the
American taxpayer to keep this Record going even though this amendment,
silly amendment, has been accepted. And that is what is silly about
this.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not going to take
too much longer except to say that I for one hope that they continue to
debate this silly amendment that has already been accepted, that the
American public tunes in so they understand exactly what is going on
here and they reconfirm the reason why the majority has shifted to this
party that is now in the majority of the House.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. I have only been here a few terms. We are operating under
an open rule, is that correct?
Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, to the gentleman. We are operating under an open
rule, which, I think, equals the number of times that the other
majority of the last session had open rules during their entire
session.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I
think it is a reasonable expectation, when we have open rules in the
future and we are all done debating security arrangements for the
Speaker, I do not know what our colleagues are going to be talking
about. I mean, they had months and months and months of leadership in
the Republic Party to generate virtually nothing but standstill. Many
of the people that are here on the floor from the Republic Party were
shot down continually when they came to the floor trying to cut out
wasteful spending. More wasteful spending happened under their
leadership than, frankly, anytime in history.
The Republic Party showed such an inability to govern this country
that they were vanquished into the minority arguably for the
foreseeable future. The Republic Party was repudiated, but this is how
they want to use their debate time, on a measure that we have accepted,
on what protection to provide the Speaker.
I doubt very much, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, that
the American people are tuning in with rapt attention to see how we are
going to provide security to the Speaker. But if that is really what
they think we should be having this debate about, I for one, Mr.
Tierney, disagree. I think we should be figuring out how to do the
people's business. We have already lowered their cost of college. We
have increased the minimum wage. We have put an ethics plan into place.
We have shown again and again we are doing the business of the American
people; and the Republic Party seems, based on this debate, to be
obsessed with how we provide security for the Speaker.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, based on that, I would say to my colleague
from New York that that is exactly why I hope the conversation
continues on this amendment that has been accepted so that we can drive
home the point again that this is the choice.
But in winding up, I would just say since we have accepted this
amendment that perhaps if there is going to be more conversation, it
ought to be focused on how Members suggest that they protect the
Speaker of the House who has to get from Washington to California and
back in some manner safely other than what the President proposes, and
then they can put that information to the White House and continue the
debate with the President.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I find it ironic. What we are trying to do over here is to save the
taxpayers what could be up to $15 million, and we are accused of
wasting the time and taxes of the American people by engaging in a
debate to save $15 million.
The purpose of the House of Representatives, the purpose of the
people on this side, is to save money. This whole debate is about
saving money. This could be easily resolved if the Speaker of the House
would say: I am willing to take the smaller aircraft to land halfway in
Kansas or Illinois or anywhere else, fuel up again, and head on to San
Francisco. That would probably save the taxpayers $10 million. It would
be a much smaller aircraft, and it would inconvenience her by about an
hour to 1\1/2\ hours. This is what this is all about.
But what really bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that those of
us who are engaging in debate, this is the type of debate that the
American people want because it is the type of debate that saves them
money. It is all about saving the taxpayers' money. If this is not the
debate that should take place, I really don't know what should take
place.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. I will yield, absolutely. But first I want to ask you a
question because you didn't yield to me.
Mr. WEINER. Sure.
Mr. MANZULLO. You accused the Republicans of being a do-nothing
Congress. The last 3 days Members of Congress have been here with all
the lights burning. That costs more money. We got out yesterday at 2
o'clock in the afternoon for six suspension votes, which if the
Republicans were in control, we could have done in 3 hours. It took you
3 days.
And you know what, Mr. Chairman? I have heard complaints coming even
from the Democratic side that they cannot understand what this calendar
is all about because they can't see their children, they can't get back
home to be with their constituents, and they wonder why they are here
in the city of Washington debating for the last 3 days what could have
taken place in 2 hours.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. Of course I will yield.
Mr. WEINER. First of all, let me just say your eloquent explanation
of this amendment, perhaps you weren't here for all the discussion. We
accept the amendment.
[[Page H1380]]
Mr. MANZULLO. I understand.
Mr. WIENER. It could have been law 3 hours ago.
Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, the American people have a right to
know what is in the amendment.
{time} 1445
Mr. WEINER. If I could just further answer your question, because you
asked a good question about the schedule; the gentleman asked a good
question about the schedule. I just want, on behalf of all of us on
this side of the aisle, to express our apologies for making you all
work so hard. It wasn't our intention to inconvenience anybody. We are
just trying to get the people's work done.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, getting out at 2
o'clock in the afternoon--when the Republicans were in control, we were
here at 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, midnight, 2 or 3 days a week, working
away on all the issues. I just find it absolutely ironic that the new
Congress, intent upon coming to Washington, trying to change all the
rules, to change everything, says, come back and work 3 days on six
bills that could take 1 hour.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the midst of what has been
characterized as a silly debate, and I don't rise so much to disagree
with that characterization, but maybe for different reasons.
Let me say, as others have said, I was here on September 11, like
many of my colleagues. I do not question the imperative of providing
for the physical safety of the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives. I strongly supported the decision by the President to
provide for private jet travel for the Speaker of the House then and
support such transportation now. We must protect those who lead us and
we must not play politics with that protection.
But let me say on the subject of whether this is a silly debate
around the gentleman from Virginia's amendment, I think it is silly to
question the right of the minority to question public expenditures. The
gentleman from New York, whom I deeply respect, comes to the floor to
question the very act of Congress being Congress. We are asking
questions, in the minority, of the majority about the public
expenditure of public assets; and that is precisely what Congress and
the minority in Congress exists to do. I think it is altogether silly
to question the right to question in the Congress.
Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a little bit silly, some
of the public consternation about a Democrat Speaker's airplane needing
to be much bigger than a Republican Speaker's airplane, because to the
extent that the airplane itself is a metaphor for government, I believe
that we can expect all of the government will continue to need to be
much bigger under a Democrat majority in Congress.
In a very short period of time, we have seen our colleagues bring
wage and price controls and raise taxes. So to part of me, with great
respect for my colleagues on this side of the aisle, it is not terribly
surprising that the plane needs to be bigger too. When we think of the
history of entitlements under Democrat control of Congress, we might
well anticipate a fleet of planes in a fairly short period of time.
But, of course, I jest. I think it is a bit of a silly debate to
question the right to question in this Congress. I think my colleagues
know this to be true. But I also think it is a little bit silly for the
American people to ever expect government to get smaller under Democrat
control.
And it is also rather silly, and I close, to think that Republicans
will ever fail to come to this floor to object when government grows
needlessly under a Democrat majority. We will rise to that challenge.
We will object to the expansion of government, even when it takes the
shape of a 757.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. What is silly is pretending to be a fiscal
conservative while you are continuing to waste the taxpayers' dollars
talking about an amendment that has been accepted. That is what is
silly.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's sensitivity. I think the lights were already going to be
paid for today, and I didn't have anywhere better to be but down here
making the case for the American people for less government, less
taxes. This is the role of the minority, to question, to fight for
smaller government.
I commend the gentleman from Virginia for his principled stand today.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, almost every day I stand down here and I encourage
Members to sign on to my bill that Congress should not be above the
law. While this debate was going on, a constituent called and said, why
don't you amend that bill to also say that Congress should not be above
coach or first-class travel?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot said on this floor today in this
debate. Frankly, questions have been raised about the expectations of
the American people and what it is that they seek for their Members of
Congress to do.
There was one Member on the other side of the aisle who said we ought
to get on with the serious business of the day. Well, Mr. Chairman, the
ability to fly on a jumbo jetliner is a privilege never before granted
to a Member of Congress. And I know one thing, Mr. Chairman; the
American taxpayers do expect us to take seriously the decisions
surrounding the expenditure of those dollars. They expect us to respect
that those tax dollars do not belong to the Speaker, do not belong to
any of us. They are just that, the taxpayers' dollars.
They also expect us to lead by example, and I would want to pose to
every speaker that spoke today and ask them, do they really in their
heart of hearts support our Speaker having the access to a 42-seat
jumbo jetliner?
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike what I really hope
deep down and pray might be one of the last words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to be practical about this. You know, I sat
this morning in the ranking position as a Republican with Bart as
chairman over there, and we listened to the First Lady. She came before
us, everybody was gracious to her, she made a good speech. One of our
Members used his rights under the rules to ask her some questions. She
graciously answered them. Then we came on over here. I came on over
here hoping that this would be about an hour and a half or maybe 2
hours.
I served as ranking member under Bart today, and I was ranking as a
Democrat under Boehlert and Sensenbrenner, and the only airplane I
would like to be thinking about was the one I wanted to be on at 12:30
today heading for Texas.
But really and truly, I don't call anybody silly or anybody's speech
that they want to make here, they need to be heard and express
themselves. That is just what a lot of people call the music of
democracy.
But we started out, I thought, talking about a bill that would direct
the EPA, the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of
Standards and Technology to initiate an R&D program to make biofuels
more compatible with present-day infrastructure and to direct agencies
to do so and so, to provide low-cost, affordable and accurate
measurements and do all that; and it is going to cost $10 million to
carry this act out.
This bill was introduced in the 109th Congress and was included in
Congresswoman Biggert's comprehensive energy bill. It passed under
suspension of the rules last year. We didn't have all this debate about
it. Everybody was for that bill. It encompassed more than what this
bill started out with.
Somehow--and I like Bart Gordon, and I respect him. I have known very
few people from Tennessee I didn't like. If it weren't for Tennessee,
there probably wouldn't even be a Texas, and that may be better off for
a lot of people. And I wrote Bart a letter, what is it, in the Merchant
of Venice or Othello, where they said, ``O, that mine enemy might write
me a letter.''
[[Page H1381]]
Maybe you should have read it, Bart. Maybe you should have answered it.
I wrote him a letter to this effect, that I have conferred with my
leadership, who agree that the best way to bring H.R. 547 to the floor
is under a unanimous consent agreement. Given the uncontroversial
nature of the bill, there is no need for us to go before the Rules
Committee. And for some reason, we wound up with an open rule.
Now, I can only guess why that is. I wondered why. An open rule for a
bill that everybody is already for? Give me a break. That doesn't make
any sense.
So I can only think that perhaps maybe you, Bart, or somebody over
you, made the suggestion that, well, it looks like we are fair with
that bunch of poor people over there that are in the minority now to
give them a shot and tell them, yes, we have given you an open rule,
probably thinking they wouldn't use it.
Well, I did not think it would be used either, but we have talked all
day about everything in the world here. And there is a poem that says,
``Maud Muller, on a summer's day, raked the meadow sweet with hay.''
The last verse lines are, ``For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the
saddest are these, 'It might have been!'''
It might have been that I would be on that airplane if we had taken
that unanimous consent, sent this on over and gone about our business.
All this other is just the music of democracy. It doesn't bother me 15
cents. And it might be a little cheaper on my government for me to ride
the bus from here to Dallas every week, you know. Maybe we could talk
about that some afternoon: Why doesn't Ralph Hall ride the bus to Texas
and back every year? That would save money for this country.
But I have another feeling about the third person in command in this
country. That is the leader, and I think she is entitled to protection
and to a good way to go and to cut short the time that she has to spend
in the air to get there and get home. Those things don't really bother
me.
But what really bothers me is for us to sit here throwing things at
one another when there is better work to do. We need to get about our
business and pass this bill and let me get strapped in that airplane
and go back to my grandchildren, who need me.
My son is a district judge, and I have got to go home and do a
terrible thing. I have to go home and file suit against him in his own
court. He threatened to spank one of my granddaughters last week. I
don't have to stand for that type of thing.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL of Texas. Are you going to answer my letter? See, we can all
laugh.
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. My friend, the gentleman from Texas, that is
not a contradiction of terms. As usual, you do a good job of putting
oil on the water and we thank you for that.
I thank you also for cosponsoring this bill, this bipartisan bill,
that went through the hearings, this bill that will be the first real
effort to deal with alternative energy.
This is part of the process, unfortunately, and we will go through
it. But at the end of the day we are going to have a good bill. I thank
you for being a part of that.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield to my fellow Texan.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
Let me just add my voice of support for H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuel
Infrastructure Research and Development Act. I know, Mr. Ranking
Member, my good friend, we have had a colorful discussion on many, many
issues. The American people are waiting to pass this bill. I add my
support to H.R. 547.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 547, the Advanced
Research and Development Act. H.R. 547 will make biofuels, like E85
ethanol, easier to access and use by developing new technologies that
would allow retailers to offer biofuels using existing infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, providing consumers with diverse fuel choices is
crucial to the viability of a strong economy and a safe environment.
First, creation of alternative fuels through research and development
will not only create employment opportunities across the country, but
it will also allow consumers to save money previously spent on high-
priced gasoline and oil. These savings will fuel the American economy
by putting more money in the pockets of consumers which they will spend
on other goods and services in their local communities and across the
country. Moreover, businesses will be able to reinvest those savings
from lower gas and oil prices to reinvest to expand its productivity
and profits. Second, investing in clean renewable energy and providing
consumers with diverse fuel choices will create a cleaner environment
and reverse the terrible trends that have led to the Global warming
throughout the world.
H.R. 547 is a vehicle by which we can drive this country in the
direction of energy independence. The high costs of oil and gas derive
primarily from our overwhelming dependence on foreign oil. The Energy
Information Administration estimates that the United States imports
nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot even remotely begin to reduce the high price
of oil and gas which has caused many of our citizens to change their
standards of living, unless and until we find ways to create a more
self-sufficient energy environment within the United States. Investing
in clean, renewable energy is an important first step to achieving this
goal. For example, replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives
such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the
$180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, but it
can also end our addiction to foreign oil. According to the Department
of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30 percent of our nation's
petroleum consumption.
Under H.R. 547, costs of fuels will also decrease due to the role
that the EPA, the Department of Energy and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology will play in the area of research and
development. The bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency EPA,
in consultation with the Department of Energy DOE and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, to research and develop
new technologies that would allow retailers to offer biofuels using
existing infrastructure, rather than refurbishing or building new
infrastructure--essentially, putting the fuel in consumers' tanks at a
savings to both retailers and consumers.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to forge a strong surge ahead to
create alternative fuels because:
Alternative fuels like E85 ethanol and some biodiesel blends have
different physical and chemical properties that often make them
incompatible with much of our existing infrastructure.
These fuels can experience a variety of compatibility issues, such as
corrosion of tank and pipeline materials, increased sediment buildup,
clogging of filters, water and microbial contamination, varying flow
properties, thermal and oxidative instability, and emissions
volatility.
The cost of replacing or building new infrastructure is simply not
feasible for fuel retailers, most of whom are small businesses.
Even when new infrastructure is installed, those costs may be passed
along to consumers.
In 2006, EPA began implementing the transition to Ultra Low Sulfur
Diesel--a fuel significantly cleaner, at 15ppm sulfur, than traditional
diesel, at 500ppm sulfur. Although this transition has been largely
successful thus far, it is still possible that as ULSD moves from the
refinery through pipelines, tanks, and trucks, it may absorb enough
residual sulfur to exceed the new EPA limit.
However, there is currently no affordable, real-time mechanism for
testing the sulfur content of diesel fuel at the pump.
H.R. 547 directs EPA and NIST to develop an affordable, portable,
quick, and accurate way to test the sulfur content in diesel fuels.
If our country wants to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, we
must get serious about creating the infrastructure necessary to
distribute and dispense alternative fuels. H.R. 547 will help achieve
these goals using research and development for alternative fuels and
new technologies.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 547 is a sound bill that has been endorsed by the
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, National
Association of Convenient Stores, Renewable Fuels Association, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Petroleum Marketers Association of America,
NATSO representing travel plaza and truckstop owners and operators, the
Coalition of E85 Retailers, and the American Petroleum Institute.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 547.
{time} 1500
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H1382]]
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. . REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than 1 year after the establishment of the
program under this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
transmit a report to Congress containing suggestions for any
Federal incentives that could help such program be more
successful.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, after the
technologies are developed that are needed to transport safely ultra-
low sulfur diesel company products, we need to have a follow-up here.
The implementation will be slow without some sort of incentive to do
so.
My amendment is very simple: It directs the Secretary of Energy to
provide a report to Congress within 1 year, with recommendations for
Federal incentives to implement the technologies developed through this
program.
Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that Congress is slow at improving
programs that we create and helping the markets in which they would
thrive. Hopefully, this amendment will make it a little bit faster, and
I urge all Members to support the amendment.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I would like to thank the gentlewoman for her constructive amendment
to this good bipartisan bill, and we will accept that amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Tierney). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Ms. Eshoo of California to the amendment by Mr. Burgess
of Texas.
Amendment by Mr. Burgess of Texas (as amended or not).
Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
Amendment by Mr. Weller of Illinois.
Amendment by Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania.
Amendment by Mr. Rogers of Michigan.
Amendment by Mr. Cantor of Virginia.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Eshoo to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 185, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 81]
AYES--242
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--185
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Barton (TX)
Boucher
Davis, Jo Ann
Faleomavaega
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
{time} 1528
Messrs. ROGERS of Michigan, McKEON, REICHERT, ROSKAM and LATHAM
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
[[Page H1383]]
Messrs. JOHNSON of Georgia, WALSH of New York, McHUGH, BARTLETT of
Maryland, CASTLE and KIRK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)
Legislative Program
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to speak to Mr.
Blunt, the Republican whip. I want to put Members on notice early
enough so they will know before they run out of here. There are going
to be votes, maybe two, at least, revotes when we come out of the
Committee of the Whole and into the full House.
There will be at least two votes. In conjunction with the Republican
whip, we have agreed that they will be 2-minute votes. The reason I am
giving that announcement now, I want all the Members to know they will
be 2-minute votes so that we can try to get Members out of here on
time.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess, as Amended
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424,
noes 0, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 82]
AYES--424
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Boucher
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Faleomavaega
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Space
Sullivan
Velazquez
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1537
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weller of Illinois
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Weller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424,
noes 0, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 83]
AYES--424
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
[[Page H1384]]
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Boucher
Davis, Jo Ann
Faleomavaega
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hunter
LaTourette
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Norwood
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1546
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Dent
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 201, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 84]
AYES--226
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Costa
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
NOES--201
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
[[Page H1385]]
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Bishop (UT)
Boucher
Davis, Jo Ann
Faleomavaega
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1555
Messrs. UDALL of Colorado, LYNCH and AL GREEN of Texas changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CUELLAR changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Rogers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 419,
noes 6, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 85]
AYES--419
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--6
Blackburn
Feeney
Flake
Paul
Royce
Sali
NOT VOTING--14
Boucher
Davis, Jo Ann
Faleomavaega
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Solis
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1601
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cantor
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Cantor) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 422,
noes 3, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 86]
AYES--422
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
[[Page H1386]]
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--3
Flake
LaHood
Paul
NOT VOTING--14
Boucher
Davis, Jo Ann
Faleomavaega
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Jones (OH)
Larson (CT)
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Whitfield
{time} 1608
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, on the vote just taken, the Chair announced
the vote as 422-3. Should the Chair not have delineated the vote to
properly reflect that the vote was 418-3 of those Representatives
representing the several States as specified in the Constitution, and
that the votes of those Delegates not representing States was 4-0?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. BLUNT. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The
further parliamentary inquiry is, am I accurate in believing that all
of these votes can be revoted once we rise from the Committee of the
Whole?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Those that are adopted may be revoted.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Only those amendments adopted in the first
degree may be revoted. Second-degree amendments may not be isolated for
separate votes.
Mr. BLUNT. Those amendments that passed in the Committee of the Whole
in the first degree would all be subject to be revoted?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry in that
regard.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TERRY. A question was posed by a parliamentary inquiry during the
Committee of the Whole earlier asking specifically if secondary
amendments could also be revoted, and the answer from the Chair was all
amendments. It appears that the ruling from the Chair or the answer to
the whip's parliamentary inquiry is different from an answer previously
given to a similar question.
Could the Chair please clarify?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Those amendments
adopted in the first degree are able to be voted upon and those in the
second degree are not.
Mr. TERRY. So the clarification from the earlier ruling is not all
amendments, but all first-degree amendments, even though the question
earlier was posed on second-degree amendments. I thank the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The speaker could address that question in the
House, which would be preferable to its being addressed by the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole.
Are there any further amendments?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Burgess of Texas:
Page 5, after line 21, insert the following new section:
SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL ISSUES.
Research and development under this Act shall address
issues with respect to increased volatile emissions or
increased nitrogen oxide emissions.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, earlier during this process, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) and I offered an amendment, but it did
not receive a clean vote. I have redrafted the amendment to more
comprehensively addressed emissions from the increased use of biofuels
or additives covered in the research and development program in this
bill.
Republicans and Democrats should be thought of as being
environmentally friendly, and I found myself in the position of arguing
for a more stringent standard than some of my Democratic colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, MTBE was an additive. Additives can cause environmental
harm. We need to look at this all the way through the fuel cycle,
beginning at the R&D phase, through combustion, through emission.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, although this amendment is a
bit oddly written, it appears to be repetitious to the previous Burgess
amendment, which is repetitious to the previous Eshoo amendment.
With that said, in the spirit of civility, we accept this amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson as a Substitute for the Amendment
Offered by Mr. Burgess
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ferguson as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Burgess:
[[Page H1387]]
Page 5, after line 21, insert the following new section:
SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL ISSUES.
Research and development under this Act shall address
issues with respect to increased volatile emissions or
increased nitrogen oxide emissions, and strategies to
minimize emissions from infrastructure.
Mr. FERGUSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my
amendment to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered as a
substitute for the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Tierney, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 547) to
facilitate the development of markets for alternative fuels and Ultra
Low Sulfur Diesel fuel through research, development, and demonstration
and data collection, pursuant to House Resolution 133, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Permission to Reduce Time for Electronic Voting
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further
proceedings today in the House, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that
otherwise could be subjected to a 5-minute vote under clause 8 or 9 of
rule XX.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 547.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TERRY. Is it correct to state that the standing committees of the
House are authorized under rule X of the rules of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
{time} 1615
Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
And is it also correct that the organization of the standing
committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted
statutory laws?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. They were ordained by the adoption of the
rules on the opening day of this Congress.
Mr. TERRY. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I could not hear you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of the standing rules on
January 4, 2007, put those committees in place.
Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
Is it also correct that the Committee of the Whole House is provided
for under rule XVIII of the standing rules of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. TERRY. And, Madam Speaker, is it true that the Committee of the
Whole is not a standing committee of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
And is it correct that under rule XVIII, the Committee of the Whole
House was not created by statute, but instead comes from previous rules
of the House adopted in 1789, modified in 1794, and later adopted by
the House in 1880?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Rule XVIII was adopted on opening day of
this Congress, as well.
Mr. TERRY. One last parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
So under the rule adopted by the House last week giving Delegates and
Commissioners voting rights, the standing committees of the House and
the Committee of the Whole House have the same legal standing under the
rules of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to affirm that. Rules X
and XVIII have the same provenance.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole?
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I demand a re-vote on the following
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole by those Members of
this House duly recognized to vote by the Constitution:
The amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
The amendment by Mr. Weller of Illinois.
The amendment by Mr. Rogers of Michigan.
The amendment by Mr. Cantor of Virginia.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, during the Committee of the
Whole, I had a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair about a second-degree
amendment, and the response from the Chair may not have been accurate.
So in an effort to clarify for the House, in the Committee of the
Whole, if a second-order amendment passes but it is not a decisive
vote, meaning that the Delegates and the Resident Commissioners weren't
decisive in that passing, can any Member call for a re-vote of a
second-degree amendment in the full House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair appreciates the gentleman's
inquiring in this forum because an earlier response he received about
second-degree amendments in the Committee of the Whole, which should
not have been given in that forum in the first place, was incorrect.
Under the regular order, the Chair must put the question in the House
on amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole. In the instant
case, the Committee of the Whole has reported a single amendment in the
nature of a substitute on which the Chair will put the question to the
House in due course.
In addition, House Resolution 133 included language to allow any
Member to seek a separate vote on any amendment adopted to that
original-text substitute in the Committee of the Whole. However, this
opportunity for separate votes is not availing either in the case of an
amendment rejected in Committee or in the case of an amendment to an
amendment to the original-text substitute.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So as I understand your answer, Madam Speaker,
there is no opportunity for a Member of the House of Representatives to
receive a vote in the full House on a second-order amendment from the
Committee of the Whole that passed by a nondecisive margin; is that
correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
The Chair will designate the amendments on which a separate vote has
been demanded in the order they appear in the text.
The Clerk will designate the first amendment on which a separate vote
has been demanded.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H1388]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
Page 3, line 23, insert ``The Assistant Administrator is
encouraged to utilize Land Grant Institutions, Historically
Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and other minority-serving institutions among
other resources to undertake research for this program.''
after ``point of final sale.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of the House,
subsequent votes will be reduced to 2 minutes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417,
noes 0, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 87]
AYES--417
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Boucher
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Emerson
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Matheson
McDermott
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
{time} 1639
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the second
amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4).
Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) issues with respect to where in the fuel supply chain
additives optimally should be added to fuels; and
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 354,
nays 58, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 88]
YEAS--354
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Fattah
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
[[Page H1389]]
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--58
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baird
Blackburn
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Castor
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Doyle
Emanuel
Farr
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Harman
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Honda
Inslee
Jones (OH)
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Murphy (CT)
Neal (MA)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sali
Sarbanes
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Sutton
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Welch (VT)
Wexler
NOT VOTING--22
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Calvert
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Eshoo
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hinojosa
Matheson
McDermott
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Smith (WA)
Tancredo
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 1
minute remains in this vote.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. WESTMORELAND (during the vote). Madam Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the parliamentary inquiry related to this
vote?
Mr. WESTMORELAND. It is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, could you tell me the reason this
vote is being held open and could you read the rule about holding votes
open?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not holding the vote open; the
Chair is waiting for the clerks to process changes in the well.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. I didn't realize there would be so much
confusion about the way they voted.
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
the Speaker close the board and all Members would have an opportunity
to re-vote this issue. It might save a considerable amount of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk is processing changes of votes in
the well. The gentleman's request is not in order.
The Clerk will proceed.
{time} 1654
Mr. CROWLEY and Mr. SALI changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. JACKSON-
LEE of Texas, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN
of California, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. WATERS and Ms.
HOOLEY of Oregon and Messrs. SESTAK, HASTINGS of Florida, BOREN,
McGOVERN, LANGEVIN, PERLMUTTER, COSTA, CARDOZA, SCOTT of Georgia,
COURTNEY, PALLONE, COOPER, MEEKS of New York, WYNN, SKELTON, OLVER,
ALLEN, LANTOS, BISHOP of New York, JOHNSON of Georgia, CUMMINGS, KAGEN,
KIND, Mrs. LOWEY, Messrs. PATRICK MURPHY of Pennsylvania, PAYNE, TOWNS,
Ms. WOOLSEY and Mr. YARMUTH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the third amendment
on which a separate vote has been demanded.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weller of Illinois:
Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4).
Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) issues with respect to certification by a nationally
recognized testing laboratory of components for fuel
dispensing devises that specifically reference compatibility
with alcohol blended and other biofuels that contain greater
than 15 percent alcohol; and
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 385,
nays 24, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 89]
YEAS--385
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
[[Page H1390]]
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--24
Baird
Capps
Castor
Cleaver
Conyers
Crowley
Dingell
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Harman
Hinchey
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Kilpatrick
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Matsui
Sarbanes
Slaughter
Stark
Sutton
Waters
NOT VOTING--25
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Calvert
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Eshoo
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hinojosa
Matheson
McDermott
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mitchell
Norwood
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Simpson
Smith (WA)
Tancredo
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there is 1 minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1700
Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the fourth
amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cantor:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL FINDING.
The Congress also finds that in order to lessen United
States dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, and
decrease demand for petroleum in aircraft, such as passenger
planes with 42 business class seats capable of
transcontinental flights, the Nation must diversify its fuel
supply for aircraft to include domestically produced
alternative fuels.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 385,
nays 23, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 90]
YEAS--385
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--23
Baird
Capps
Castor
Conyers
Crowley
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Hinchey
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kucinich
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Matsui
Sarbanes
Slaughter
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
NOT VOTING--26
Berman
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Calvert
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Eshoo
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hinojosa
Matheson
McDermott
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Norwood
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Smith (WA)
Tancredo
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
is 1 minute remaining on this vote.
[[Page H1391]]
{time} 1707
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Shimkus
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SHIMKUS. In its current form, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Shimkus moves to recommit the bill H.R. 547 to the
Committee on Science and Technology with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
Strike ``biofuels'' each place it appears and insert
``alternative fuels''.
Strike ``biofuel'' each place it appears and insert
``alternative fuel''.
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 7. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this Act, the term ``alternative fuel'' has
the meaning given that term in section 301 of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992.
Page 3, lines 4 and 9, redesignate paragraphs (5) and (6)
as paragraphs (6) and (7), respectively.
Page 3, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph:
(5) as the Nation's recoverable coal has the energy content
equivalent of one trillion barrels of oil, Ultra Low Sulfur
Diesel fuel derived from coal-to-liquid technologies will
help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum;
Page 5, line 3, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
Page 5, line 4, insert ``, and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel
derived from coal-to-liquids technologies'' after ``and Low
Sulfur Diesel''.
Mr. SHIMKUS (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, last time I spoke on the floor was on
H.R. 6, and I challenged my fossil fuel Democrats, my coal Democrats,
to not abandon fossil fuels. I know that the majority of the Members of
the Democratic Caucus are anti-coal, but I was assured the interests of
coal would not be left out in the future.
Well, here we go again. With this bill we do just that. My motion to
recommit would expand the universe of this bill to do what was passed
and accepted by a Democratic House in 1992 under EPACT, the Energy and
Policy Act.
This bill, as written, does not use the 15-year accepted word of
``alternative.'' By leaving this out, the bill discriminates not only
on coal-to-liquid technologies that produce low sulfur diesel and
aviation fuel, but also natural gas and hydrogen.
This motion to recommit improves this bill and does not limit
science, research and development to not only biofuels but coal-to-
liquid, hydrogen and natural gas.
It is my hope that one day the Speaker and all of us will be able to
fly back to our districts using aviation fuel produced from coal from
U.S. coal mines and U.S. refineries.
And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield to Ranking Member Hall.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I will be brief.
In our drive towards energy independence, we cannot exclude one of
our greatest natural resources. I am a fossil fuels guy. I am from
Texas, and I am for fossil fuels, but I also know the value of coal.
Coal must continue to be part of our energy portfolio, along with
alternative fuels and renewable fuels.
The Republican motion to recommit recognizes this fact, and I thank
you for it. It ensures that coal is going to continue to have a place
at the table by clearly defining coal-to-liquids as an alternative fuel
and including ultra low sulfur diesel derived from coal-to-liquids in
the bill.
The U.S. is in no danger of running out of coal. At current
consumption rates, U.S. recoverable coal reserves are estimated to last
for 250 years. The U.S. currently has over a quarter of the world's
recoverable coal, more than Russia, over twice the amount of China.
This compares to the U.S. oil reserves that are 2 percent of the
world's total natural gas which are 3 percent of the world's total. We
have plenty of coal. Actually, coal reserves are spread also over 38 of
your States. Thirty-eight of you there have coal, and it is important
to you.
I would just say this. John McKetta, noted author and writer from the
University of Texas, said 14 years ago, We have enough coal in the mid-
section of the United States to double the total output of the OPEC
Nations all combined if we could but mine it.
Let's don't send our kids overseas to take some energy away from
someone when we got plenty right here at home.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I want to concur with my
friend from Texas in terms of his concern about coal being a part of
the overall package of dealing with energy independence. He is
absolutely right, and I think everyone in this body recognizes that
clean coal will be a part of our energy independence.
Unfortunately, though, this amendment does not really deal with clean
coal. This amendment is a continuing effort to try to undermine this
good bill today dealing with alternative energy. This is a very narrow
bill.
This is a bill that was cosponsored by myself as chairman of the
Science Committee, the ranking member of the Science Committee, and
many others, and passed out of the committee unanimously because we are
trying to deal with the problem today. We want to deal today with the
infrastructure problems that stop our alternative fuels from being able
to be used in existing infrastructure.
Clean coal will be a part of a solution later, but clean coal is not
available right now. And so why are we stopping dealing with something
we can do today for something that there is no solution for today?
Clean coal will be a part of what we do over in the Science and
Technology Committee. We have been in discussions about this. I think
everybody should know that. So that is off the table.
The question today on this motion to recommit is, do you want to move
forward and do something today about alternative energy? If you do,
vote down this amendment. If you do not want to do anything about this
today, if you want to talk and talk and talk and come back another day,
then vote ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the earlier order of the House,
the Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any electronic
vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 207, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 91]
AYES--200
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
[[Page H1392]]
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--207
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--27
Berman
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Calvert
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Eshoo
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hinojosa
Matheson
McDermott
McKeon
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Norwood
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Smith (WA)
Tancredo
{time} 1732
Mr. WILSON of Ohio and Mr. HILL changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 400,
noes 3, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 92]
AYES--400
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
[[Page H1393]]
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--3
Flake
Shadegg
Shimkus
NOT VOTING--31
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Calvert
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Dreier
Eshoo
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hinojosa
Matheson
McDermott
McKeon
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Norwood
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Smith (WA)
Tancredo
Van Hollen
Wilson (NM)
{time} 1739
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``To facilitate the
development of markets for biofuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel
through research and development and data collection.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________