[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 186 (Thursday, December 6, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H14255-H14259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 6, ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 846 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 846
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6)
to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing
in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources,
promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing
greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy
Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative
energy, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of
rule XXI, a single motion offered by the Majority Leader or
his designee that the House concur in each of the Senate
amendments with the respective amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader
and the Minority Leader or their designees.
[[Page H14256]]
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand
for division of the question.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of the motion to
concur 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.
Point of Order
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against
consideration of the rule because the rule contains a waiver of all
points of order against the bill and its consideration. Therefore, it
is in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of
consideration.
The gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Vermont each will
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
After that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration,
to wit: ``Will the House now consider the resolution?''
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office says that
there are unfunded mandates in this bill, but we really don't know
what's there because we got this thousand-page bill, thousand-page
bill, just about 12 hours ago.
As we know, we have a House rule that says we are supposed to get a
bill like this 72 hours before instead of 12. Common practice has been
if you can't get 72 hours, then at least 24. We've cut that in half,
just 12. And most of that was during the time when most of us were
asleep. I can guarantee you that few, if any, in this body have read
this bill; yet we are voting on it, a billion dollar bill that
virtually nobody knows what's in it.
We do know, however, and that's the reason this point of order lies
against the bill, there are unfunded mandates in the bill.
We also have rules with regard to earmarks air-dropped in a bill like
this. It's not a conference report of an appropriation bill but an
actual bill where they are dropped in at the last minute. The truth is,
with a bill that's over a thousand pages long, we simply don't know
what's in there; yet we are being told we have got to pass it, we've
got to move this thing today. That's simply wrong.
I would like the assurance of those from the Rules Committee that
there are no unfunded mandates in the bill or there are no earmarks
that have been added to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, this point of order is really
essentially about whether or not we are going to consider the rule and,
ultimately, the Energy Independence and Security Act. In fact, I would
say that it may well be an effort by folks who are opposed to the
legislation to find a way to kill the legislation itself. We believe
that this legislation should proceed.
The fact is that the other side had absolute control in this body or
had a majority in this body for 12 years, enjoyed control in both
bodies and in the administration for the past 6, for most of that 6,
and did not come up with an energy policy that did anything other than
raise the cost of oil, home heating oil, gasoline, increase our
dependence on foreign oil, weaken our national security and contribute
to global warming. This legislation is about changing the direction of
American energy policy, and the issues that have been raised in this
legislation are ones that have been debated outside of this body for
several years.
The legislation now brings to this body for its consideration such
topics as increasing fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, green
buildings, cellulosic agriculture-based energy efforts that will be
vital to the farm sector and rural sectors of our economy.
So we believe that the House is going to have an opportunity to vote
on this point of order and reach its judgment about whether it wants to
proceed on the important question of changing the energy policy in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would gladly yield to the gentleman if he
will answer the question if there are any unfunded mandates in this
bill in violation of the rules, had the rules not been waived, or if
there are any earmarks in the bill.
Would the gentleman answer that question? Are there unfunded mandates
in the bill or any earmarks in the bill?
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am not aware of any earmarks in the bill. I'm
completely unaware of any earmarks in the bill. There is CBO
information suggesting that the unfunded mandates, which is a separate
one, is not within any of the rule provisions as it applies to the
public sector, maybe as it applies to the private sector.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
Let me read from the CBO: ``These provisions also contain several
private sector earmarks. CBO estimates that their aggregate costs would
well exceed the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act for private sector mandates, $131 million in 2007, adjusted
annually for inflation.
There is the answer to the question of unfunded mandates. They are in
the bill. We're waiving those points of order so we can get around
that.
I would suggest that at some point you've got to say, are we living
up to the promises that were made at the beginning of the year?
Now, the majority has made a habit, and I don't blame them, of saying
this is what you Republicans did while you were in the majority. That
is true. Many of us stood here and raised these same points of order
when our own party did it. I would love to see on the other side
somebody stand up and say this is the wrong thing to do. If it was
wrong when Republicans did it, it's wrong when Democrats do it.
With regard to earmarks in this legislation, nobody has been able to
do anything more than a cursory read of a thousand-page bill that we
got just 12 hours ago. But in the biofuels subtitle, we've found a
university-based research and development competitive grant program.
This grant will be for universities to conduct research and development
of renewable energy technologies for ``trees dying of disease or
insects infestation as a source of woody biomass.'' This grant is for
universities that are near ``trees dying of disease or insect
infestation as a source for woody biomass.'' That smells a lot like an
earmark to me. It sounds like there is probably just one university, a
particular university, or two that meet that qualification. That is
certainly an earmark. And that's why these rules were waived again to
get around that kind of thing.
The Democrats put in some good earmark rules at the beginning of the
year, but your rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce
them. And that's the problem here. We are not enforcing our own rules.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
gentleman, if he would be so kind, I have been reviewing the bill since
it was made available to us last night, and I was wondering, that
earmark that he referred to, if he has any idea where it would be.
Mr. FLAKE. I have no clue.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I will continue looking, then.
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I know it's a very difficult thing. That is a
very large bill.
That earmark is somewhere in here. We have no idea where. My guess is
there are a lot more of them.
Let me just talk about one other one. Another questionable provision
that looks like an earmark to me is a provision terminating the
remaining portions of the New York Liberty Zone tax incentives program.
The House-passed previous version of the energy bill gave New York a
tax credit of $2 billion to build a rail line from JFK to Lower
Manhattan.
{time} 1030
The bill now purports to reduce the cost of the New York tax
provision to $1.1 billion, but the result is only true thanks to some
very creative drafting.
[[Page H14257]]
In fact, passage of the bill would still let New York keep a total of
$2 billion of Federal taxpayer money, with at least $900 million of
that coming between the year 2018 and 2019.
Again, that creative drafting is somewhere in this document that we
got last night, 12 hours ago. And we're expected to go through this and
make sure that it complies with the rules. Why are we doing this? Why
are we doing this when we have very specific rules?
And as I mentioned, I was the first to commend the majority for
putting in some good transparency and accountability rules in January.
I felt they were better than what we did last year. But your rules are
only as good as your willingness to enforce them, and there seems to be
no willingness here. That's the problem.
So I would be glad to hear from the other side. I will retain my time
and hope to hear an explanation of whether or not there are actual
earmarks in the bill or unfunded mandates.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Vermont has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am going to yield to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor). But before I do, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Arizona; I would like to thank him for the good work
that he has done on earmarks that he did when he was a member of the
majority and now as a member of the minority.
But I would also remind the gentleman that, in fact, under the
leadership of the current Chair of the Appropriations Committee, there
has been a massive change in direction on earmarks. In fact, it's been
a reason why some of the budget bills took longer than last year
because there has been an exhaustive effort to go through and identify
anything that can be called an earmark to allow Members who wish to
address it to raise their points.
What I've said to the gentleman is that we are unaware of any
earmarks in this legislation. And I appreciate your late-night work at
finding provisions that, as you have presented them, you're
characterizing as possible earmarks. I am aware of absolutely no
earmarks.
The so-called unfunded mandate, there is language in a letter, Mr.
Speaker, from the CBO that suggests that there may be a slightly above
the threshold under the rule, but that's a decision that this body can
make and will make. It's incidental, not significant, to the overall
policy.
So having said that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida
(Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, and I rise
in support of the Energy Independence and Security Act and this rule.
Today, we break the stranglehold that Big Oil and the special
interests have had over Washington, D.C. and over our country's energy
policy.
We're going to hear many maneuvers today and protestations, delay,
resistance, points of order because this is a fundamental shift in the
Nation's energy policy.
The contrast between the policies of the past and our forward-looking
bill could not be more clear. Remember just 7 years ago when the
administration's Energy Task Force met behind closed doors? It
consisted of oil executives, and the administration fought to keep
everything secret. Renewable sources of energy were not a priority, the
Earth's climate change was not a priority, and the recommendations
involved more drilling, more mining, more of the same, which led to
record gas prices for our families, and record profits for oil
companies, and disastrous national security consequences.
In contrast, our ground-breaking effort today sets our country on a
path towards energy independence, particularly from the Middle East and
the most volatile parts of this world.
Better gas mileage for automobiles is the cornerstone of our bill.
That alone will save families from $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump,
and that is great news for our neighbors back home.
What has been missing is the political leadership and the political
will to make this happen in America. So today we will cast aside the
politics of the past and for the first time in decades set the right
priorities for America. This bill repeals the subsidies to the big oil
companies and instead invests in renewable energy and biofuels
technologies.
And to the folks back home in Florida, whom I have the privilege to
represent, we're going to demonstrate here today that there is no need
to put our tourism economy and beautiful beaches at risk to more oil
drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead, we're going to rely
on American ingenuity and resourcefulness.
The status quo in Washington is not acceptable anymore, and we will
chart a fundamental new direction on energy policy.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady's comments that we have
finally removed special interests from the energy field with this bill,
when you have a bill like this, I guarantee you it's full of special
interest provisions, many of which we haven't discovered yet.
I mentioned you have one earmark in here, a grant for universities
that are near ``trees dying of disease or insect infestation as a
source of woody biomass.'' I would suggest it's probably one particular
university in mind, or some special interest, that an earmark will be
going to. The New York Liberty Zone provision is another special
interest provision.
I would also make the point that this is technically not a conference
report; there wasn't a conference. This is a House amendment to a
Senate amendment to H.R. 6, if I'm not mistaken. What that means is the
point of order that I would have liked to have raised against the
provisions that may include earmarks in the bill doesn't lie against
the bill because it's not a conference report, because it's a House
amendment to a Senate amendment. That's another creative way to get
around the rules that the majority themselves have put in place.
If you say that there are no problems with this bill, why are we
waiving all points of order against it? Of course it's to hide things
in it. People should be skeptical whenever they see something a
thousand pages long, a thousand pages long that nobody, not anybody on
the Rules Committee, not anybody anywhere has had the opportunity to
read, 12 hours, 12 hours to read that. I don't think Evelyn Wood, with
a speed-reading course, or anybody could get through this. And when the
majority can simply say, We're not aware of anything, I mean, you can
take the Fifth, you can plead the Fifth in court, but I don't think you
can do it here. I don't think that that flies, certainly not outside of
the Beltway. Certainly people around here should be skeptical of a
multi-billion-dollar bill with special interest provisions rife
throughout it that we've had 12 hours to review before voting on.
When all the majority can tell us is, We're not aware of things in
there, let me remind the majority that we had an instance earlier this
year, or several instances, where the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee signed off on an appropriation bill saying, There are no
earmarks in this bill, which prevented us in the minority from actually
lodging a point of order against the bill, after Members had already
issued press releases claiming credits for their earmarks in the bill.
So clearly you can pass some good rules, which you have, but you have
got to enforce those rules, and they're not being enforced here. That's
why we should uphold this point of order and not move forward and
proceed with this bill. You cannot put a thousand-page bill, give it to
us with 12 hours to review, with problems rife throughout it, and not
have problems.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a long time coming. As a
freshman Member of this body, I am proud to rise in support of the rule
and this energy legislation that will make significant strides in our
effort to address global warming, save our families money on their
energy bills and at the pump, and bolster our national security by
mapping out a more energy-independent future for our country.
This energy bill includes a long overdue increase in CAFE standards
and improves vehicle efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by
2020, the first
[[Page H14258]]
increase of this kind since 1975. This significant increase in vehicle
emission standards will save American families between $700 and $1,000
per year at the pump, reduce oil consumption by 1.1 million gallons per
day by 2020, which is one-half of what we currently import from the
Persian Gulf. And these new standards will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions equivalent to taking 28 million of today's average cars and
trucks off the road.
Science tells us that CAFE increases are possible and necessary, and
we must implement them now. And while implementing necessary
environmental protections, this legislation will preserve tens of
thousands of American manufacturing jobs in places like Avon Lake,
Ohio, where my constituents produce passenger vans.
This bill will provide our auto manufacturers domestically with the
tools and incentives they need to produce the vehicles of tomorrow here
in the United States, keeping jobs at home, and allowing us to all move
forward together. Keeping high-paying auto manufacturing jobs in this
country will in turn help retain hundreds of thousands of related jobs
in the electronics, steel, textiles, glass, plastics and rubber, and
countless other sectors that produce auto parts, while also laying the
groundwork for jobs in the future.
The American people have spoken loud and clear that we cannot turn a
blind eye to the crisis of global warming and astonishing gas prices
squeezing the budgets for our working families.
I urge support for the rule and the bill.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. Let me just make one point with regard to special
interests, that they have been removed from this process. Because we
were trying to get copies of this legislation and couldn't yesterday,
we couldn't get it from the majority, so many of the Republicans were
actually getting excerpts and pieces of this legislation from firms
along K Street, from the special interests themselves. They seemed to
have copies before we in the majority did. There is something wrong
with this process. We only get it last night from the majority, but we
were getting it yesterday from special interests downtown who already
had copies of it, or portions, at least.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
we have remaining on our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of this
legislation, the bill, H.R. 6, and also on the rule.
H.R. 6, as you know, will lower energy costs, strengthen our national
security, and reduce global warming emissions, and create what I say
are ``green collar'' jobs. Major investments in renewable energy could
create over 3 million jobs in 10 years. It would also eliminate the
outsourcing of good-paying jobs.
Here I am in a classroom in East Los Angeles. If we have the
political will to do this now, why can't we put our money where our
mouth is and help the American public better understand that this new
technology, the greening of our country, should be made available to
everyone? Leave no one left behind, whether in the Bronx, whether in
East Los Angeles, across this country. There is a whole new wave of
emphasis and trust and hope that we here in the Congress are going to
do the right thing.
I don't have any earmarks. I know my staff has worked very diligently
with our committee and as a member of Energy and Commerce to see that
we do the right thing. We spent laborious hours working on this
legislation.
I ask for Members to support the bill and the rule.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his comments and his
arguments here on this point of order, and also for the work that he
has done.
I happen to believe that process does matter, but I also think
substance matters, and they have to go together. Ideally, when we're
working in a perfect world, they do. But one of the major reasons that
we don't have an actual conference committee report is because our
friends in the other body refused to go to conference, refused, refused
to go to conference to discuss our energy future, Mr. Speaker. How is
that right? Is that a proper use of process?
The reason we are here and the way that we're here is because there
has been a decision made by the majority of the American people that
they want a new energy policy, and the basic question for this body is
whether we want to give that new energy policy or we don't.
The best process is going to get the best bill, but it takes
cooperation on both sides. And if we have, in the other body, a refusal
to even go into conference, it leaves leadership in this body with a
single choice: do nothing and capitulate, or move ahead.
On this question of earmarks, we have given you as much assurance as
we can possibly give you that there are not earmarks in here. We have
the CBO letter about so-called unfunded mandates in the private sector.
That's going to be a decision for the body.
I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the question
of consideration will be followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the
rules and passing H.R. 3505.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 188, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 1134]
YEAS--214
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
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
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
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)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
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
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
[[Page H14259]]
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--188
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
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
Conaway
Crenshaw
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
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
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
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
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
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--29
Baird
Bishop (GA)
Carson
Clay
Cole (OK)
Cubin
Culberson
Engel
Fattah
Feeney
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Lynch
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Myrick
Nunes
Oberstar
Ortiz
Paul
Platts
Souder
Weiner
Young (AK)
{time} 1107
Messrs. GILCHREST, BURTON of Indiana and McHENRY changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________