[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 168 (Thursday, November 1, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12389-H12396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1015
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2262, HARDROCK MINING AND
RECLAMATION ACT OF 2007
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 780 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 780
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. 2262) to modify the requirements applicable to
locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with
the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived 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
Natural Resources. 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
Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising
under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of
rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. 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.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2262
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H. Res. 780.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 780 provides for consideration of H.R.
2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, under a structured rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. It also makes in order an amendment in the nature of a
substitute reported by the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
legislation. My home State of California is what it is today because of
the business of mining. When James Marshall discovered gold in the
American River in my area more than two centuries ago, California was
not yet a State.
The economic boom that followed the discovery of gold helped to
remake the West. It infused our young Nation with renewed energy and
capital. It began one of the most well-known episodes in our country's
history: the Gold Rush.
Without mining, the City of Sacramento, which I represent proudly,
would probably not be the capital of the largest State in the Union.
Without mining, States like Nevada and Utah would be without the
economic basis upon which they are now growing. Without mining, the
western half of the United States would be a different place.
But in the West, Mr. Speaker, we have more than hardrock minerals. We
also have rivers, streams, mountain ranges, and millions upon millions
of people. These are natural resources just like gold and silver, and
they must be protected from environmental harm.
Unfortunately, the law that currently governs mining operations is
extremely outdated. It was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant. This
was during the time when miners used shovels and pickaxes. Now, huge
machines and industrial equipment are the tools of the mining trade.
Times have changed, Mr. Speaker. In the year 2007, we recognize that
the term ``natural resources'' includes more than what we extract from
the Earth. Its definition now encompasses the whole environment in
which we live, from the water we drink, to the land we farm, to the air
we breathe.
All Americans have a stake in preserving this environment, Mr.
Speaker, and mining companies should contribute their fair share.
However, they currently enjoy access to Federal land that no other
industry does, not natural gas, not oil shale, not coal.
Under the 1872 law, mining companies pay next to nothing to extract
metal from publicly owned lands. American taxpayers foot the bill for
the extensive environmental remediation that many abandoned mines
require.
Other old mines simply never get cleaned up. They sit empty and
vacant, leaching chemicals into groundwater, polluting watersheds, and
posing safety hazards for the public. After 135 years' worth of this
subsidy, it is long past time for mining companies to pay their fair
share.
This bill received three subcommittee hearings and a full committee
hearing that stretched over 2 days. The rule makes in order seven total
amendments, five of which are Republican.
This legislation has been considered and debated in the best
tradition of the U.S. Congress. It is good environmental policy in the
very same tradition. It is also good social policy. The bill also takes
into account industry concerns and provides economic assistance to
mining communities. One-third of the revenue created by this bill will
go to a community assistance fund to help mitigate the social and
economic impacts of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Sacramento grew up around a place called
Sutter's Fort. It was originally built to be a base for agricultural
trade. The discovery of gold in the foothills northeast of Sutter's
Fort changed its history and the history of our Nation forever. Because
of gold, what was once Mexican territory soon became our 31st and most
prosperous State.
[[Page H12390]]
Mining has left a permanent imprint on this country. Yes, it has led
to increased economic gain and the development of the western United
States. At the same time, it has had negative impact on our public
lands. As Members of Congress, we are stewards of this Federal land. We
have the responsibility to update our laws so that the mining industry
helps ensure that our public lands and natural resources are preserved
for future Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the
underlying legislation which imposes an 8 percent gross tax on all new
mining claims made on Federal lands and will cause a significant
reduction in domestic mineral production and future mining investments
in the United States of America.
I do appreciate the lip service that the Democrat majority regularly
pays to making America the top-ranked nation in the world on a number
of fronts. However, after managing over what will surely rank as the
least effective Congress in recent memory, I am surprised that there
isn't more disappointment on their side of the aisle with this
legislation because this bill fails to set new global standards for the
highest tax on mining on the planet; it merely matches Germany's, which
already holds the world record for the highest mining tax at 8 percent
of gross receipts. Once again we see the new Democrat majority trying
to equal what is done in the United Kingdom and across Europe,
including Germany.
In the Committee on Natural Resources hearing held on this matter on
October 2, James Cress testified: ``I am only aware of a single royalty
that is as high as the royalty proposed in this bill, just one in my 20
years of practice. An 8 percent royalty would really be ruinous.''
I suppose that neither Mr. Cress nor anyone watching this debate
should be surprised, though. In what will surely go down as the least-
productive Congress in recent history, this new Democrat majority has
failed for the first time since 1987 to even send a single
appropriations bill to the President for his approval by this point in
the year.
This is the same Democrat majority that recently set another record
of dubious distinction, a record for the most legislative ``busy work''
with the least amount to show for it. Since the beginning of this
Congress, Members of this House have voted on over 1,000 roll call
votes with just barely a tenth of those bills having been signed into
law.
And of the 106 bills that have actually made it to the President's
desk, 46 named post offices, courthouses or roads; 44 bills were
noncontroversial measures sponsored by Republicans or passed with
overwhelming GOP support; and 14 bills extended preexisting public laws
or laws passed during the Republican-led Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that with a track record as abysmal as
this, the Democrat majority is eager to put just about anything on the
floor in the hopes of claiming any kind of legislative victory.
Unfortunately, the policies included in this legislation are quite
simply wrong for America that will jeopardize the current and future
domestic sourcing of minerals that are critical to our Nation's
economic well-being and security.
In addition to imposing the world's highest royalty on mineral
production, this legislation would also retroactively levy a 4 percent
gross royalty on existing mines where business plans and investments
have already been made without accounting for this after-the-fact cost.
This provision, which is of doubtful legality but is doubtlessly
unfair, is the legislative equivalent of one party changing the terms
of a contract after it has already been signed. I believe that the
Federal Government abusing its power to change the negotiated terms of
these agreements is simply unfair, and I oppose it.
I also disagree with the inclusion of several provisions in this
legislation that would empower political appointees to stop new mining
projects even after these projects have met all applicable
environmental and legal requirements.
No industry can or should be expected to operate with such regulatory
uncertainty, and the net effect of all of these provisions will simply
be to encourage companies to take their business overseas.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation that
harms the domestic American mining industry.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa), the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
chairman.
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the Rules Committee for their
cooperation and assistance in bringing this bill to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are many reasons why we should support the
rule proposed for H.R. 2262. Most important among them is what I
believe is a sound, solid legislative process that has led to the
amended version of H.R. 2262 that we have before us today.
Now, with deference to my colleague who just spoke, let me be clear
that the process has worked. Proper order has been followed. We have
worked on this issue for most of the last 10 months with the
subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals on
Public Lands.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals on Public Lands has the
jurisdiction to provide a balance. This balance we talk about often in
the subcommittee. It is a challenging balance because on the one hand
we are to protect and preserve the natural heritage of our Nation's
public lands for all of our citizens to enjoy in perpetuity, and to
ensure that those public lands remain available for all generations of
future Americans to benefit from.
{time} 1030
There are many numerous ways in which we benefit from them. We know
historically that those public lands have played a very meaningful role
in our Nation's development, and it's that balance.
In this case, the subcommittee knows that the energy and the mineral
developments that took place in the 19th and the 20th century were key
and critical to the development, economically, of our Nation, and they
also had obviously a very important role in the social development as
well because if it were not for the discovery of gold in the 19th
century in California and the opportunities that discovery brought
forth, as in all the other minerals and energy that have been
discovered on public lands in the 19th and 20th century, we would not
have seen the opening of the West.
So, therefore, our subcommittee and the members on the subcommittee
are very mindful of the fact that we have this dual role: balancing the
resources that provide important energy and minerals to our Nation's
wealth and at the same time preserving and protecting those same public
lands to ensure that, in fact, they will be available for future
generations of Americans to come.
And, yes, one other thing, when those public lands are being used in
that dual role, since they belong to all Americans, that, in fact, all
Americans are able to derive some benefit of the wealth that is derived
from the utilization of those public lands for either mineral resource
or for energy development because, remember, these lands belong to all
Americans, unlike private holdings.
So when I took over the subcommittee chairmanship early this year,
this issue clearly was going to be one of the issues that Chairman
Rahall wanted to address. Why? Well, for two decades, Chairman Rahall
has attempted to reform this law. This is not a new issue. Let's be
clear about this. This is no rush to judgment of some issue for the
sake of having an issue on the floor.
The mining law that was put together in 1872, signed by then-
President Ulysses S. Grant, has not been changed, modified in shape or
form since President Ulysses Grant signed it into law in 1872.
Back in the late 1970s and 1980s, Chairman Rahall, Congressman Rahall
from West Virginia, a person who
[[Page H12391]]
has a great deal of mining that takes place in his own district, came
to this issue and wanted to make necessary changes for all the right
reasons. As I took over the subcommittee chairmanship early this year,
we decided we would build on that record and that effort of Chairman
Rahall.
In response to complaints, the minority has raised about having more
hearings on this measure, let me tell you about the good work that the
subcommittee and the committee has done.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals, we've held four hearings
this year on H.R. 2262, the 1872 mining law. Two of them, one in Elko,
Nevada, with Members of both parties well-represented and Senator Reid,
the other one in Tucson, Arizona, provided valuable opportunities for
local input from community citizens. In total, we have heard from over
33 witnesses in two field hearings and a multitude of hearings here in
our Nation's Capital. We have done what you're supposed to do in the
process. We've listened. We've made changes.
Those hearings led to significant improvements in the bill,
improvements supported by both the conservation community as well as
the mining industry. That's not to say that everybody has gotten
everything they want because, of course, that never happens in this
process. No bill will ever be perfect on all sides, but this is a bill
that has had thorough vetting and due, some would say past due, for all
the attention this matter has gotten over two decades.
I would also note that there's a long history as it relates to the
mining law reform, the history that really predates this legislation,
as I noted.
So I think it's important to understand that we have taken into
account over the last two decades hearings that have been held in the
following States: Nevada, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
Alaska, all States in which mining is of critical importance.
In short, the need for mining law reform is not a new issue. It's one
that has extensive legislative history. The flaws of the current law
are well-debated and analyzed.
I appreciate the leadership's interest in H.R. 2262 and Chairman
Rahall's leadership and look forward to the debate on the amendments
before us.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I come from northern Illinois, an area
that has over 2,500 factories. I've spent about three-fourths of my
time in Congress dealing with manufacturing issues and traveled the
world working on different projects that have different processes, and
this bill is really, really bad for people who are interested in
keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States. Therefore, I rise in
opposition to the rule governing the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation
Act of 2007.
Twenty-six amendments from both Democrats and Republicans were
submitted, but only seven were approved for the House for debate for 10
minutes apiece. The bill proposes to make huge changes to an important
sector of our economy, and the bill, therefore, deserves more than a
little over 2 hours of debate.
If the underlying bill is enacted as currently drafted, it poses an
unacceptable threat to the health of our manufacturing and defense
industrial base. Without agriculture, mining and manufacturing, we
become a Third World Nation.
U.S. mining operations provide approximately 50 percent of the metals
needed by American manufacturers. Everybody in Congress, Mr. Speaker,
interested in manufacturing needs to listen to this, because if this
bill passes, this makes us more dependent upon China to get our
minerals for manufacturing.
Many of these minerals, gold, silver, copper, platinum, molybdenum,
beryllium, titanium, zinc, magnesium and nickel are used in
manufacturing applications from industrial motors to satellites. Thus,
the core of our industrial minerals is what we're discussing today.
Over the past few years, the cost of these raw materials has gone
through the roof. We're putting the viability of our manufacturers in
America at stake.
When I chaired the Small Business Committee, I held two historic
hearings on the spike in metal prices and what it means for
manufacturers, both large and small. No one recommended at those
hearings that we should make it more difficult, and thus more
expensive, to mine in the United States.
Many of the alternative sources of these minerals are also located in
countries that are not close allies of us. Many of these minerals are
also critical for the production of defense equipment. I'm concerned
that we may find that just as America's energy security is largely
dependent on the goodwill of OPEC, our national security will be
largely dependent on China's goodwill as we compete for the metals and
rare Earth minerals that feed our defense industrial base.
Over half of the high-end magnet production that contains aluminum,
nickel, and cobalt comes from China, and 100 percent of the rare Earth
minerals used in magnets is found in China. The magnets are used in
advanced missile guidance systems such as JDAM.
I'm not aware of anybody that has claimed that the increased
regulatory burden, an 8 percent gross income royalty interest in new
production and a 4 percent increase on retroactive production, will
help to improve the domestic supply of minerals or help lower their
costs.
Our manufacturing workers are the best and most productive workers in
the world. They have been beset by cheap labor overseas, rising energy
costs, unfair trade practices. And now this Congress, this Congress,
Mr. Speaker, will make it more difficult for the American worker to
keep his job in manufacturing because this Congress will make the raw
materials so expensive that what will happen, the U.S. mining companies
may go out of business, and then we will be totally dependent on
foreign countries to keep up the mineral supply for our manufacturing
base.
This is an issue that if you vote ``yes'' on this rule, if you vote
``yes'' on the bill, it will destroy America's manufacturing jobs.
Maybe I get too passionate when it comes to protecting America's
manufacturing jobs. I've visited hundreds and hundreds of factories
throughout the world to make sure that the United States is way out
front in technology and innovation, and in fact, when I hear so much
talk going on on the other side of the aisle about innovation, about
competitiveness, then you come right back and the very feedstock for
American manufacturing you want to tax out of business.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill for American workers. This is a bad
bill for American workers. This is a bad bill for American workers
because it says let's just tax the minerals you need to make things
that go out the door out of business. You might as well put another tax
on natural gas. In fact, the Democrats did the same thing by taking
away the tax break for exploration of natural gas, which is 80 percent
of the feedstocks for plastics.
And so here we are again, this Congress destroying American
manufacturing jobs. Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Hardrock Mining Reclamation Act. Long overdue, the time for mining law
reform has finally arrived.
The 1872 mining law was enacted 40 years before Arizona was even a
State. At that time, it encouraged the development and the expansion of
the American West. My district of southern Arizona had a town of Bisbee
that during the turn of the century actually had its own stock exchange
and was the largest community from St. Louis to San Francisco. The
copper star on the State of Arizona's flag symbolized the importance
when we achieved statehood of the copper industry.
However, times have changed. Today's West now depends on the health,
as well as the conservation, of our fragile environment as much as it
relies on mining.
H.R. 2262 is a solid first step. It provides impact assistance to
mining communities and establishes a practical and a modern approach to
reclaiming and restoring the land as well as water resources.
As this legislation progresses, I further encourage Members to look
specifically at the royalty provisions. We
[[Page H12392]]
do not want to undermine the financial viability of U.S. mining. Our
modern, high-tech economy continues to depend on minerals, and this is
the importance of making sure that we have a hardrock mining industry
that is strong and able to supply all of these minerals.
I commend Chairman Rahall for his work. I commend Chairman Costa for
crafting a new mining law that reflects modern values, as well as goals
that benefit taxpayers, the public lands, as well as the mining
industry.
This is an important piece of legislation, long overdue; and I
encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to support it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, we hear it here again, every
single member of the new Democrat majority talking about their desire
to tax, a new tax of 8 percent on this industry which has been
described as the final death nail which will disseminate the remnants
of an already sadly diminished domestic mining industry, and here we
go, tax them at 8 percent, put the death nail in.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Heller).
{time} 1045
Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
rule for H.R. 2262.
The State of Nevada is the fourth largest gold producer in the world,
ranking behind South Africa, Australia and China.
But this bill is bad for Nevada, bad for this important industry, and
bad for the families that I represent. Who here doesn't think that
China wouldn't love to immediately see these jobs moved overseas? Who
doesn't think that South Africa would like to see these foreign
investments moved to their country, and who here in these Chambers
doesn't think that Australia would love to see mineral exploration move
from the United States to their country?
This legislation hurts, perhaps even kills, the domestic mining
industry and, with it, the towns and communities in northern Nevada and
western rural America.
The proposed royalty structure, this new tax, would levy a new 8
percent gross royalty payment to this industry, all this despite the
fact that not one witness testified before the House Natural Resources
Committee in favor of it. Let me repeat that. Not one witness came
before the committee to testify in favor of it.
This untried, untested, new tax would hardly bring funds to the
Federal Treasury, because when mining communities are decimated, there
will be no royalties to collect. Everybody knows that 8 percent of
nothing is still nothing.
I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee that was ruled out of
order because of fuzzy math that my colleagues used to enforce PAYGO.
That amendment replaced the 8 percent gross royalty tax with a more
modest 5 percent net proceeds of royalty. This amendment is good for
three reasons.
First, the net proceeds system is modeled after Nevada's proven and
successful program. Why reinvent the wheel and ignore a model that
encourages production rather than jeopardizes it?
Second, a net proceeds system provides flexibility for the mining
operation when commodity prices are down. This protects the good jobs
in rural communities like Elko, Eureka, Lander, Humboldt, White Pine
and other counties in Nevada.
Third, my amendment would help prevent significant revenue and job
losses for States. Their proposed 8 percent gross royalty, this new
tax, will cripple States like California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, in addition to exporting our jobs overseas.
But somehow, CBO scoring my amendment at zero somehow runs afoul of
PAYGO rules. The majority party seems to want to waive this in every
other circumstance.
This bill, this rule, is simply bad policy, unless you want the
mining industry to suffer. If passed into law, the effect will be to
hurt the mining industry in the same way we have hurt the automobile
industry, the same way we have hurt the steel industry, the same way we
have hurt the seafood industry in coastal regions or, perhaps, the
textile operations in the Southeast.
I urge my colleagues to oppose destroying State budgets, oppose job
loss in rural communities, and oppose the decimation of our domestic
mining industries.
Oppose the rule on H.R. 2262.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, having, as I said, held extensive hearings on
this issue over the last 10 months, I think it's important that we
respond to the comments that were made from my good friend, the
gentleman from Nevada.
We did have witnesses who testified on the issue of royalty. We had
several witnesses that indicated that an 8 percent royalty would not be
unreasonable, some even said perhaps too low.
Taxpayers for Common Sense actually urged a higher rate. James Otto,
a royalty consultant to governments around the world, stated that he
would normally counsel a country to impose a gross royalty of between 2
and 5 percent. However, he did say that a proposed 8 percent might not
necessarily be too high. Why? Because a depletion allowance, depletion
allowance, which is a tax break, enjoyed by the hardrock mining
industry in the United States is significant.
Mr. Otto pointed out that the depletion allowance works like a
negative royalty. Perhaps only four countries in the world offer such a
lucrative tax break, in this case, to our mining industry. This would
be offset by a potential 8 percent.
A Congressional Research Service witness indicated that royalties for
oil and gas and coal operators in the United States, and we want to
keep these oil and gas and coal operators doing their good work, is 8
percent and more in some cases. Therefore, the fact that no royalty is
charged, I think, needs to be taken into account. After all, these are
public lands. No one wants to put the hardrock mining industry out of
business. Nevada does a wonderful job, and we want to keep all those
operations that are good stewards of the land in business.
This is fair, it's equitable, and it's what's taking place in other
countries. I think it's important that we note that.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, day after day we come down to the floor
and we hear about all the new taxes, all the new rules and regulations,
all the things that have to take place by this new Democrat majority,
but I think we fail to recognize that what happens is that when you tax
something, you get less of it. When you put more rules and regulations
on something, less good things happen.
In this case, we are going to have an 8 percent tax on the industry;
4 percent tax on the new operations, 4 percent tax on the existing
operations. The overwhelming indication that we have is that it will
make us look more like Europe, and we are told that's a good thing, I
guess.
The bottom line is that we spend a lot of time gnashing our teeth
together trying to talk about jobs in country. Just yesterday, the
Rules Committee, after we had done this bill, we had a trade adjustment
assistance bill. We tried to bend over backwards, which some of it I do
support, trying to make sure that those workers who have lost their
jobs as a result of world competition in trade and manufacturing, that
we do all we can do to help these employees who lost their job.
Yet the very next bill is this bill that literally will decimate
workers' jobs in the West. I am sure what we will do is in a few years
we will come back and say, oh, my gosh, we just can't compete. Let's
now give them what we just did yesterday, trade adjustment assistance.
It just keeps going on and on and on.
I suggested yesterday, will suggest today, let's not tax this. Let's
not tax this industry for the benefit of the government. Let's let the
industry be healthy. Let's let the industry compete globally. Let's let
this industry provide those necessary and needed resources, precious
metals and precious resources to the development and the benefit of the
United States of America, including our United States military.
Let's not tax this at 8 percent so that we allow manufacturing not to
have to go overseas to get those precious, hard metal products that
they need to ensure that manufacturing is taken care
[[Page H12393]]
of in this country. Let's not tax this industry to where it decimates
it, to where there are no jobs in this country, to where America has to
seek these precious metals and hard metals overseas.
We believe that what you have got today is a circumstance where the
new Democrat majority can't wait to tax this industry at 8 percent,
which will see the industry go into demise. We think that is an obvious
plan that they have had. They didn't just pull this out. This is
something that they have had, been working on a long time.
The Republican Party opposes this new tax. We oppose the diminishment
of the industry. We oppose what will eventually happen as a result of
American manufacturers having to go overseas to seek new markets, many
times countries which are not close friends and allies of the United
States. We see a day when we will not only lose jobs but will be held
hostage for the precious minerals that we need, which will provide not
only our country the things it needs but perhaps the military and our
industrial complex with the things that will keep America strong.
We oppose this bill. I believe that what you have heard today is not
only Members state that equivocally, but we will continue to say to the
Members who are listening to this argument, please vote ``no'' on the
rule, and please vote ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia, chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. I first thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui)
and the Rules Committee for fashioning a rule today which provides for
a free and open debate on a historic measure, refining the Mining Law
of 1872.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) who has so ably
taken the reins of leadership on the Subcommittee on Mines and
Minerals, a subcommittee I once chaired over 20 years ago. We had
extensive hearings at that time across the country, including in
Alaska. And the gentleman from California has conducted himself in the
same fashion and with the same knowledge of this bill. I certainly
thank him for his help.
This legislation, it should be noted, is sponsored by, or, rather,
enjoys the support of a number of Members from both sides of the aisle
and from all political persuasions. It should be noted that Members
from mining States affected by this legislation support this bill,
including the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), who just spoke.
The rule does make a number of amendments sponsored by Members from
the other side of the aisle in order that touch upon key features of
the legislation. Indeed, the Rules Committee was very generous,
extremely generous to the other side.
We are going to have a vote on the amendment today that will continue
the 19th century practice, for example, of giving away mineral-rich
public lands, the deed of which lies with all American citizens, for
$2.50 an acre. That is an amendment that we will debate at the proper
time. I say to my colleagues that this is not a Democrat or a
Republican issue. It is a nonpartisan issue. It is bipartisan. Indeed,
similar legislation has passed this body, not this Congress, but
previous Congresses, by large, overwhelming margins.
We are dealing with a law that has been relatively unchanged that was
enacted when Ulysses S. Grant resided in the White House. Union troops
still occupied the South. The invention of the telephone and Custer's
stand at Little Bighorn were still 4 years away.
In 1872, Congress passed a law that allowed people to go on to public
lands in the West, stake mining claims, and if any gold or silver were
found, mine it for free or to purchase those claim mine lands for as
little as $2.50 an acre.
Let me speak for a moment on the process leading up to our
consideration of this matter; a fair process, I might add. The genesis
of H.R. 2262 dates back to 1879, 7 years after the enactment of the
mining law of 1872. At that time, Congress created the first major
public land commission to investigate land policy in the West. One of
its major recommendations included a thorough rewrite of the 1872 law,
which, even then, was believed by many to undermine efficient mineral
development.
Several decades later, in 1908, President Roosevelt created the
National Conservation Commission to study Federal land policy in the
West, and it, too, made a number of recommendations for reforming the
mining law.
Again, in 1921, a committee appointed by the Director of the Bureau
of Mines recommended a series of reforms developed in concert with
mining industry representatives interested in improving the mechanics
of the law. Following this effort, the next call for reform came at the
onset of World War II, when then Secretary of the Interior, Harold
Ickes, endorsed a leasing system for hardrock mining.
In 1949, the Hoover Commission recommended a series of changes to the
mining law. This effort was succeeded by the President's Materials
Policy Commission in 1952, which also recommended revisions, including
placing hardrock minerals under a leasing system.
Once again, the criticism centered on inefficiencies in mineral
development caused by the law. Beginning in 1964 and 1977, Congress
went through another period of debate on the mining law reform until
1977, when efforts collapsed.
In 1985, this gentleman from West Virginia became Chair of the
Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources, and delved into the
matter. I conducted a large number of hearings, including in four
western States. It was not until 1992 that I brought a bill to the
House floor for consideration.
Following that effort, on November 18, 1993, the House passed my bill
by a vote of 316-108. Unfortunately, during that 103rd Congress, a
House-Senate conference committee on mining law reform was unable to
reach a final agreement.
We were then shut out, locked down on the consideration of any
meaningful mining law reform during the 12 years of a Republican
majority in this body. This Congress, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Costa) became the chairman of the subcommittee that I once chaired
and took up the reform banner. He held a number of hearings, took
testimony from 33 witnesses, and subsequently, the Committee on Natural
Resources marked up H.R. 2262.
{time} 1100
Subsequently the Committee on Natural Resources marked up H.R. 2262
over one 2-day period and considered countless Republican amendments.
Nobody was denied their ability to offer amendments. I repeat: nobody
was denied their ability to offer amendments.
The legislation considered at the time was offered to Members and
their staffs well ahead of time for ample dissection. I will stack this
record up to anyone's with respect to the consideration of the bill by
this body. Again, I defend our process as fair, as accountable and as
transparent as a process can be in the House of Representatives, just
as this legislation is worked and drafted in the same manner.
I urge adoption of this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we understand this meaningful reform
that's going on, a new 8 percent tax on the industry. We get that. The
Republican Party understands that there will be a loss of jobs, loss of
manufacturing base in the United States of America. And we know that
that's part of the meaningful reform that the new Democrat majority
wants and expects. This is not a new subject: taxation, spending at
record levels that are taking place by this new Congress, combined with
an incredibly poor record on efficiency for the bills that will be
signed into law.
That's why the President of the United States has issued his
administrative policy from OMB that says they're not going to sign this
bill; they're not going to sign this into law because of the loss of
industry jobs, the lack of competitiveness that the United States of
America will have with hard metals, and the high taxation that would be
imposed that will kill the industry.
We get it. Perhaps that's meaningful reform to the Democrat Party.
That's loss of jobs, lack of ability for America to be competitive with
the world and high taxation. And that's not our idea of good reform.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the gentlewoman from
[[Page H12394]]
California that I have no additional speakers at this time, and so I
will reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for
H.R. 2262 and the underlying legislation in hopes of reforming the 1872
Mining Law.
Chairman Rahall has been working toward this goal for many years, and
I have tremendous respect for the expertise and dedication he has
brought to this effort. I offer this support, though, with some
reservations about the bill.
I favor cleaning up abandoned old mines, and we have more than our
fair share in Colorado. And we need funding to achieve this worthwhile
goal.
But I am concerned that generating this revenue by an 8 percent
royalty may defeat the purpose of the bill. If mining moves offshore,
which some economists tell us could happen, we won't have any mining
from which to collect the royalties.
And I'm also concerned about the thousands of jobs, of high-paying
manufacturing jobs, that are generated by mining.
We need to reform this old law. It's way overdue. I reiterate my
support for this legislation, which has many, many positive attributes
and is a good step towards reforming the law. But let's be sure we
don't create one problem while we are solving another.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to reserve our time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I'm the last speaker on this side, so if the
gentleman would like to close.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate not only the debate that's
taken place today, but also your demeanor in this wise consideration. I
appreciate the gentleman from New York very much.
Mr. Speaker, what we're debating here today is yet another
opportunity for the new Democrat majority to raise taxes in this
country, to put consumers at a disadvantage, and to raise more money
for their Big Government plans and programs that they have.
New taxation is not something that is new to the Democrat Party.
That's their mission: grow the size of government, to tax people.
What's interesting today is the debate that has taken place about the
words ``meaningful reform'' that were necessary to justify the taxation
that will take place.
The Republican Party opposes this bill. The Republican Party opposes
new taxation. The Republican Party recognizes again today that we know
that market forces will come into play yet again today, not only to
further diminish this industry, which, by and large, is located in the
west of our country, which means a loss of jobs in the west, which
means that it will diminish, not only the few jobs that remain, but
will make America in a less competitive circumstance as related to the
marketplace of the world.
But what we've heard today that has been just very interesting were
remarks by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) where he talked
about his knowledge of what the manufacturing base of this country
needs, and that is, many times, the hard minerals that are directly
affected by what this bill will do.
Raising taxes means that there will be less opportunity for people to
go and mine these operations because the cost efficiency as it relates
to the world marketplace will not be available to those companies. So
what will happen is there will be a new taxation, this 8 percent tax.
There will be a diminishment of the mining industry in America, and
then there will be those people who utilize those raw materials, they
still have a need to produce the products which they need, which many
times are not only in the best interest of the United States of
America, but also to produce products that will help the United States
military and our infrastructure who now will have to go overseas to do
business with countries that are not exactly our closest of friends and
buy their products.
So once again, what we see is a philosophy that is followed by the
Democrat Party, not just the new majority of the Democratic Party, but
an old philosophy that, let's go and find a way to reform an industry
and to tax them out of existence, to lose jobs in this country to where
we have to come down to the floor and beg for further government
assistance to take care of people, and then we whine and moan about the
jobs that have been lost overseas and how this had something to do with
trade.
Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, we had an
opportunity, the gentleman, Mr. Dreier from California; the gentleman,
Mr. Diaz-Balart from Florida; the gentleman, Mr. Hastings from
Washington; and myself and we said, why don't we do something that
would be proactive to keep jobs in this country. Like, let's not do
things that would put us at a disadvantage. Like, let's do things like
lower taxation, for instance, with depreciation policies, tax policies
that would allow us to be on an even footing with other countries who
we compete with.
That fell on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. It fell on deaf ears because,
really, what this is about is getting more money to run this Big
Government policy that the new Democratic majority wants to put in
place.
We recognize that what's happening is that at this time we have a log
jam of all these bills as they try and get to the President's desk.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question
so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation
with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees and move
forward on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
appropriations bill for 2008.
This week, a number of news publications, including the National
Journal, reported that the Democrat leadership intends to play
political games and to send a three-bill pile-up consisting of Labor-
HHS, Defense and Veterans funding bills to President Bush so that they
can try and leverage strong Republican support for the military and
veterans funding to sneak a bloated Labor-HHS bill that proposes an 8
percent increase in spending over current funding past President Bush
and this Congress. Once again, not just more taxation, more spending.
While the House Democrat leadership plays politics, however, our
Nation's veterans are paying the price. The Senate has already done its
work and appointed conferees for the Veterans appropriations bill. And
for every day that House Democrats allow the veterans funding to
languish without conferees for their own political advantage, our
Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million that could be put to bear to help
them for the intended reason why we're spending the money. That would
be used for veterans housing, veterans health care, and other important
veterans support activities.
The American Legion and the VFW have already made multiple requests,
along with Republican Members from this House, urged Speaker Pelosi and
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Reid to end their PR campaign and begin
work on this conference report for veterans funding. Unfortunately, it
appears as though all these commonsense requests have fallen on deaf
ears and our Nation's veterans are being forced to pay the price for
continued Democrat partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to defeat the
previous question so that we can put partisanship aside and move this
important legislation forward without any further games or gimmicks. I
know that this is a bold idea that hasn't yet been focused directly by
Democrat pollsters or agreed to by moveon.org, but I think our veterans
deserve nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to say that we are
discussing H.R. 2262, and it's about more than protecting water quality
and preserving the environment, which it does. It also takes into
account industry concerns and provides economic assistance from mining
communities. One-
[[Page H12395]]
third of the revenue created by this bill will go to a community
assistance fund to help mitigate the social and economic impacts of
this legislation.
Both the Rules and Natural Resources Committees held hearings on this
bill, during which time Republicans and Democrats were given the
opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. In fact, the Natural
Resources Committee held four hearings on this bill that stretched over
five different days. During this time, they adopted a bipartisan set of
amendments.
After the bill made its way through the legislative process and
maintained bipartisan support, the Rules Committee allowed for seven
amendments to be considered on the floor. These seven amendments
address major issues in the bill. This will give opponents the
opportunity to debate on the floor the merits of key issues of the
bill. Of the seven amendments allowed under this rule, more than half,
five, are Republican amendments.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that this bill is long overdue. It should
have been passed decades ago. But it's never too late to strengthen
current law so that it preserves the environment, protects communities,
and addresses public safety. This legislation does all three.
I commend Chairman Costa and Chairman Rahall on crafting a balanced
and bipartisan bill. This legislation is proof that we can reap the
benefits of our Nation's abundant natural resources while also
preserving them for future generations.
Metals like gold, silver and copper help make this country what it
is, Mr. Speaker. How we manage these resources going forward will make
us what we are in the future.
With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and
on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 780 Offered by Mr. Sessions
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the
bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by
the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees
immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of
rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader
prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees
otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees
instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional
legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous
question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on
adoption of H. Res. 780, if ordered; and approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 194, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 1027]
YEAS--221
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
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
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
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)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
[[Page H12396]]
NAYS--194
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
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
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
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
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
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
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Ackerman
Alexander
Berry
Butterfield
Buyer
Carnahan
Carson
Cubin
Gohmert
Hensarling
Hunter
Jindal
Moran (VA)
Paul
Skelton
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1140
Mr. KINGSTON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GUTIERREZ and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 195, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 1028]
AYES--224
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
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
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
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)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
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
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--195
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
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
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
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
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
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
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Ackerman
Alexander
Butterfield
Carnahan
Carson
Cubin
Gohmert
Hensarling
Jindal
Paul
Pence
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1149
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________