[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 194 (Tuesday, December 18, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H16651-H16658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO 
  SENATE AMENDMENT 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 877 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 877

       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 move the United States toward greater energy independence 
     and security, to increase the production of clean renewable 
     fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of 
     products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and 
     deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to 
     improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and 
     for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House 
     amendment to the Senate amendment to the text, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a 
     motion offered by the Majority Leader or his designee that 
     the House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate 
     amendment 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. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
     motion.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of the motion to concur 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the motion to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3. On the first legislative day of the second session 
     of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, the House shall not 
     conduct organizational or legislative business.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. 
Res. 877.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H. Res. 877 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, to move the 
United States toward greater energy independence and security, to 
increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, 
to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, and to 
promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage 
options. In short, it's a comprehensive energy bill.
  The rule makes in order a motion by the majority leader that the 
House concur in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of 
order against the motion except clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule 
provides 1 hour of debate, controlled by the majority leader and the 
minority leader.
  Mr. Speaker, this is historic legislation. Today, we will move from a 
policy of dependence on foreign oil, a policy of endless drilling, to a 
policy of independence and efficiency. It's a policy that is overdue. 
It's overdue for the health of the American economy, the health of the 
world environment, and for the strengthening of our foreign policy 
options.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the American economy is being hit very hard 
by spiraling fuel prices. Around the country, families are sitting 
around their kitchen tables wondering how they are going to afford 
their fuel bills this winter. In December of 2002, just a few years 
ago, the price of a gallon of gas was $1.48. It's now $3.09. Five years 
ago, in Vermont it cost a family about $600 to heat their homes. Now, 
it's about $1,500.
  Our current energy policy of spiraling costs, environmental 
degradation, and increasing dependence on people who are not 
particularly our friends is weakening America, harming our environment, 
and stretching the budgets of our families.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses each and every one of these 
problems. It's fiscally responsible. It starts by repealing some, but 
not all, of the big oil and gas tax giveaways and reinvests that money 
to ensure energy independence. It increases fuel efficiency standards, 
and this is probably the single most important provision of this bill. 
The last time this Congress increased fuel efficiency standards was 32 
years ago, and since that time the American auto industry has lost 
market share. The cost of operating a car has increased. What this bill 
does, which is historic, is increase the mileage standards by 40 
percent so that the fleet-wide average in 2020 will be 35 miles per 
gallon.
  That is the first real step toward fuel efficiency in those 32 years. 
It's going to save American families $700 to $1,000 at the pump; it's 
going to produce $22 billion in net annual savings for consumers by 
2020; and through the application in this legislation of efficiency 
standards, which essentially is that you make a toaster that uses less 
rather than more energy, and other appliances the same, it's going to 
save consumers $400 billion through 2030.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue, and it is a declaration of 
independence from the old energy policy that had us relying on people 
who were not our friends to supply us oil that we were addicted to, at 
prices that we could no longer afford. Today, we are going to turn the 
corner, and the American people are going to see direct results in our 
economy, in our environment, and in our security as a result of this 
landmark legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the time, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  It is our duty to do all we can to provide future generations a 
better world in which to live. Our Nation has made great strides in 
protecting human health and the environment, but there is still much 
more to do. We must continue to decrease carbon emissions and invest in 
multiple forms of energy-efficient technologies to help preserve the 
environment and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources.
  For our national security, we must make investments to increase clean 
energy sources and increase domestic energy supplies. From 2001 to 
2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12

[[Page H16652]]

billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable domestic energy 
sources. They included the development of biofuels such as cellulosic 
ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle 
technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, 
clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.
  The underlying legislation, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection 
and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, further promotes research and 
development into next-generation energy resources such as solar, wind, 
geothermal and marine energy. Furthermore, it authorizes almost $3 
billion for energy storage and development programs to make renewable 
energy sources more effective. But we must keep in mind that right now, 
alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy 
sources, and without additional supply, the tight market conditions 
that have put pressure on prices are going to persist.
  I am pleased that incentives for the domestic production of oil and 
gas have been retained in this final legislation. These incentives are 
aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging 
domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Removal of 
these incentives, which were included in earlier versions of this 
legislation, would have driven up the costs of oil and natural gas to 
American consumers even further and increased our dependence on foreign 
suppliers such as the strongman/clown in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.
  I am also pleased that a provision that would have taxed domestic oil 
companies at higher rates than the Chavez-controlled oil company was 
removed.
  This legislation also provides for the H-Prize. The H-Prize will 
award cash prices to individuals, universities and businesses making 
significant advances in the field of hydrogen energy. Hydrogen is a 
clean domestic energy source that produces no emissions other than 
water. The use of hydrogen as an energy source will simultaneously 
reduce dependence on foreign oil and emissions of greenhouse gases and 
other pollutants.
  Unfortunately, this bill has taken almost a year to make it to the 
President's desk because the majority decided to shut out the minority 
from deliberations for much of the year. When this bill first came 
before the House in the opening days of the 110th Congress, the 
majority blocked all amendments with a closed rule. In August when we 
considered H.R. 3221, the majority shut out over 90 amendments and 
allowed only five minority amendments out of 23 amendments. Just last 
week, we considered Senate amendments to H.R. 6, and once again the 
majority blocked the minority from providing amendments. If the 
majority had just decided to follow its campaign promise and allow the 
minority to participate in the formulation of this legislation, this 
bill could have been signed into law months ago.
  I would also point out that the majority brings this legislation to 
the floor as a Senate amendment instead of as a conference report. As 
such, it fits into one of the loopholes of the majority's earmark rule, 
just as it did last week. Because the earmark rule did not apply to the 
legislation last week, it wasn't possible to find out that the bill 
contained earmarks until after the bill passed the House. So we wonder 
if the legislation we are considering today also contains earmarks. 
Unfortunately, we will not know, because the legislation is not subject 
to the earmark rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Today, I rise in strong support of the rule and H.R. 6. H.R. 6 will 
lower energy costs, strengthen our national security, reduce global 
warming emissions and create green collar jobs. The bill recognizes 
that energy policy is not only about improving the infrastructure, but 
also about creating economic opportunities for all.
  Major investment in renewable energy could create 3 million green 
jobs over the course of 10 years. These jobs can lead to self-
sufficiency, prosperity, higher wages and access to benefits and better 
career choices. These jobs will stay in the U.S. and will not be 
outsourced.
  I am proud that the bill authorizes $125 million for workforce 
training and green collar jobs which includes Pathways Out of Poverty 
grants, so that as Silicon Valley advances, so will people in East Los 
Angeles, the Bronx and the Midwest.
  The bill says to American workers, particularly urban and rural 
workers, there is a place for you in the green economy. I urge passage 
of the rule and passage of H.R. 6.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote ``no'' on this rule as well as the 
underlying bill, and I want my reasons for doing so to be a matter of 
public record, because I believe that this vote will come back to haunt 
many Members, maybe in 3 years, maybe in 5, maybe in 10, but at some 
point.
  This is actually not an energy bill, it is simply a CAFE bill, and so 
it should rightly be called the ``how Congress destroyed the domestic 
auto industry bill.''
  Let's consider for a moment that the domestic auto industry is the 
only carbon-restricted industry in our Nation, and this bill certainly 
continues that unfairness. In fact, under this legislation, the 
domestic auto industry will almost entirely shoulder the burden for 
this Congress so that we can say we are reducing CO2 
emissions, even though the auto industry is responsible for less than 
20 percent of that.
  This bill attacks the domestic auto industry because they are a very 
easy target. In fact, it is just the ``weak chicken'' scenario, and all 
the other chickens in the barnyard, including the oil industry and the 
natural gas and the utilities and coal, are all pecking the domestic 
auto industry to death, because by doing so they can avert any such 
government sanctions against themselves. And I mean that literally, 
because it is estimated that the cost to comply with this energy bill 
with these new CAFE mandates, it is going to cost the domestic auto 
industry $85 billion. $85 billion from an industry that is struggling 
just to survive right now with all the unfair trade practices and the 
legacy costs that they face. And if you don't believe me, just read the 
Detroit papers today to get a clear vision of exactly what is happening 
in the domestic auto industry.
  But instead of spending all of those dollars on R&D and manufacturing 
vehicles that will truly reduce our addiction on foreign oil, like 
lithium ion batteries, or flex-fuel or hydrogen fuel cells, we are 
going to mandate higher CAFE standards, continuing to use an antiquated 
approach and an antiquated model that we started in the 1970s. The 
result of that has actually been that our consumption of oil since we 
have had these CAFE standards has doubled. It is very hard to say the 
CAFE mandates have been a success. Really, so what if thousands of jobs 
are lost in the domestic auto industry? Some in this Congress would say 
that we did it to ourselves.
  And this bill will allow some to thump their chest. But, Mr. Speaker, 
it is a very hollow thumping, just to say they are green, because we 
should remember the entire history of the domestic auto industry and 
what it has meant for this country. Not just because it created the 
middle class in a State like Michigan, or because after 
9/11 when the domestic auto manufacturers immediately offered zero-
interest financing to keep the plants running and people buying cars so 
that our national economy would not succumb to the terrorists as they 
had hoped. But also because during World War II, Michigan was known as 
the ``arsenal of democracy,'' because we had the manufacturing 
capability to build the armaments that literally led the world to peace 
and to keep our Nation free.

                              {time}  1045

  We didn't even build cars for 2 years then because we were so busy 
building tanks and planes and Jeeps. We were totally engaged in the war 
effort and protecting freedom and liberty and democracy. And in the 
future when our

[[Page H16653]]

country needs that capacity again, and we will, we will find that we 
will be at the mercy of countries who either manufacture their vehicles 
cheaply in their own countries and import them to us, or they will 
build their product here but, the company's ownership is foreign, 
countries like Japan or Korea or China. And will our national interests 
match theirs? We had better hope so.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on 
the underlying energy bill.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  I listened to my friend from Michigan, and in one respect I think she 
is right: there will be people who will be haunted by the bill that we 
are voting on here today, but not because it goes too far, but because 
it doesn't go far enough. I am confident, under the leadership of 
Speaker Pelosi and the commitment that we have by the American people, 
that we will go back to the comprehensive energy bill that we had a few 
moments ago.
  I find it ironic talking about the CAFE standards and the problems. 
Now we see the American auto industry is reluctantly accepting to do in 
this country what they are already doing in Europe. And, frankly, if 
they don't get it right in terms of fuel efficiency, there is nothing 
that we are going to be able to do to bail them out, and they will 
continue to lose market share to foreign companies that are more energy 
efficient.
  I am pleased that this bill contains provisions I have worked on to 
align the interests of the natural gas companies to promote energy 
efficiency rather than penalizing them for conservation. I am pleased 
that we are going to have increased energy efficiency for light bulbs, 
appliances, buildings, and government agencies. All of these are 
starting to lay the foundation for legislation that is long overdue.
  I am sad that it does not include the renewable energy portfolio 
standard which half American States, and the public is already 
represented by States that have galloped ahead of us, and it is 
unfortunate that the Senate could not deal with the tax provisions that 
would have put government subsidies for emerging renewable technologies 
that need that government support to turn a profit and come to scale, 
and instead continue to lavish subsidies on the petroleum industry that 
frankly doesn't need it to turn a profit. But these we will return and 
address.
  I am pleased that this is an important step in the right direction 
and urge support of the rule and the legislation today.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It is my pleasure to yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to, I hope, 
bring some balance to this debate. I was stunned in my office listening 
to the opening comments that it is going to be a new era in America on 
energy prices.
  Americans are struggling to heat their homes. Americans are 
struggling to have fuel to drive their cars affordably. Companies all 
across this country are struggling to make a profit because of energy 
prices. And the bill before us will not change that in the next 3 to 5 
years.
  I don't oppose better CAFE standards. It takes 2 or 3 years to design 
new cars, other years to build them. You are 4 to 5 years away from 
people. And the poorest among us seldom ever own a new car with high 
efficiency standards, the poorest among us.
  Folks, America needs more affordable energy. We have the highest 
energy prices in the world because of this Congress, because we have 
locked up natural gas reserves, we have locked up oil reserves. We have 
not allowed the movement that should be in coal-to-liquids and coal-to-
gas, and there has been resistance to expanding nuclear which provides 
the vast majority of America's energy. I hope renewables become a major 
force, but it will be years if not decades.
  Today, Americans need affordable gasoline. They need affordable 
diesel fuel to fuel our trucks. They need affordable home heating fuel 
to heat their homes. They need affordable natural gas. And this bill 
does nothing for any of those.
  The ethanol, biofuels, the second part of this bill, it is 
futuristic. We now have 7 billion gallons; that mandates 36 billion. It 
limits 15 to corn. And we know that corn was $1.80 when it started; it 
is $4.37 today, and rising. It is going to raise food prices. God 
forbid we get dependent on corn and we have a bad crop year. We will 
have high-cost food and unaffordable energy.
  Now, I am not saying we shouldn't do that, but we should do it 
carefully. But we can't build America's energy future on CAFE 
standards. I am all for the fuel efficiency appliances. It takes years 
for that to happen. Americans today expect more from this Congress. 
High oil prices on the backs of Congress because we locked it up. Clean 
green natural gas, the affordable fuels that Americans should be using 
in greater quantities if it were affordable. $11.37, it spiked a couple 
bucks in the last couple days because it is cold and we are starting to 
use a lot of gas. Natural gas is used in heavy amounts to make ethanol, 
almost an even swap. Natural gas is what will be the hydrogen car if we 
get there.
  Folks, we need affordable energy that runs 90-some percent of this 
country's energy needs, and we are ignoring it. This bill does nothing. 
The big bill that we voted on last week did nothing. Natural gas 
supplies need to be increased; oil supplies need to be increased in 
this country so we are not buying it from foreign countries. Coal-to-
liquid, coal-to-gas needs to be advanced like we are force-feeding 
cellulosic ethanol. I am not against cellulosic ethanol. It is being 
sold to do most of the 36 billion gallons, and it is still in the 
laboratory, folks. I hope it comes out. I hope we build a successful 
plant. But it won't be this year; it won't be next year. It will be 
down the road.
  People are struggling here in 2007, and 2008 coming, to heat their 
homes; and they are going to struggle in rural America to drive their 
car a long distance because they have to drive everywhere, they don't 
have mass transit. They need money to run their families, and energy 
costs are robbing them of their ability. Fifty-eight degrees was common 
for seniors in my district. That is because they couldn't afford more 
energy.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I feel passionately enough about renewable 
energy to have spent most of my career developing it, and I know 
firsthand that clean energy is an economic reality. Because of this, I 
will continue to fight for renewable energy standards and important tax 
incentives that are not included, but should be included, in this bill. 
However, I believe that H.R. 6 will create jobs here at home and is an 
important first step for greater energy independence and a green 
future.
  H.R. 6 raises our fuel economy standards, stimulates energy 
efficiency, and allows the development of exciting clean energy 
technologies, such as the language I wrote to stimulate the development 
of geothermal energy technologies. New geothermal energy technologies 
have the potential to generate vast amounts of clean, domestically 
produced electricity, and we should begin research immediately. I 
support H.R. 6.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, we are starting a clean energy revolution 
today. It is not the end of that revolution, it is not perhaps even the 
beginning of the end of that clean energy revolution, but it is the end 
of the beginning for two important points.
  First, we are starting a revolution in transportation today in the 
United States, and exhibit A in that regard is the GM Volt. The GM 
Volt, which GM hopes to have in mass production, is a plug-in hybrid 
car. You plug it in at night, you drive it for 40 miles just on 
electricity, zero gasoline, and after 40 miles you use a hybrid train 
with gasoline and someday cellulosic ethanol for the remaining part of 
your range.
  Our corporate average fuel economy standards, which we make the first

[[Page H16654]]

strides in in three decades, will enhance the opportunity for Americans 
to have not just a few miles here or there per gallon, but a revolution 
in transportation.
  This car will get over 100 miles per gallon of gasoline. This car 
will operate all on electricity for the first 40 miles. It is this 
revolutionary attitude that we need to have in America, and we make the 
first steps, and the first shots in that revolution are fired today.
  But it is not the end of that revolution, because we have much more 
to do. We did not succeed this week in advancing renewable energy to 
have 15 percent of renewables. We did not succeed this week to advance 
tax relief for those emerging new businesses.
  But exhibit A, on the renewable energy front, is a picture of the 
solar thermal array produced by the Austra Energy Company. This company 
this last month signed enough contracts for 500,000 homes to be heated 
by solar thermal energy which, within the decade, will be price 
competitive with coal-based energy if we succeed in our next steps in 
this clean energy revolution. That is why we will be back next year to 
have the true clean energy revolution America deserves.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for 
yielding. I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 
6, the Energy Independence and Security Act. This legislation 
represents an historic opportunity to move our country towards a secure 
future. The bill marks a turning point in this Nation's history and 
moves us towards energy independence.
  Energy security is something that my constituents in New Hampshire 
take very seriously. And although this legislation is not perfect, 
because it doesn't go far enough, we need a renewable portfolio 
standard that is a national standard. Industry recognizes that. The 
voters and the markets are ahead of the politicians on this. This bill 
is the start of a 21st-century energy policy for America.
  With this bill, Mr. Speaker, we take a firm stand for real security, 
for healthy families, for a thriving economy in a competitive global 
market, and for a sustainable future for our planet.
  Energy policy is the key to our national security. Our real security 
requires energy independence. We require new green jobs and an 
aggressive program to deal with global warming. We need this bill to 
start to protect our country and strengthen our economy. I ask all of 
my colleagues to cast their vote with America's future in mind.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming, Mr. Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Vermont.
  Ladies and gentlemen, today is an historic day. It is the day when we 
begin to take seriously the issue of energy dependency and the issue of 
global warming.
  The legislation that we have before us today is the culmination of a 
vision which Speaker Pelosi had as she was sworn in almost 1 year ago. 
She announced at that time that her goal was to make a huge down 
payment on the issue of energy independence and global warming. Today, 
we vote to pass the legislation which will send a signal not only to 
the citizens of our country but to the citizens of the world that our 
Nation is now serious about these issues.

                              {time}  1100

  I want to compliment Chairman John Dingell of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee for his statesmanship and leadership on these issues 
throughout this year.
  I want to compliment all of the Members on both sides who have worked 
so hard to bring us to this point. It has not been easy.
  For this decade, I have worked very hard in order to raise by 10 
miles per gallon the fuel economy standard of the vehicles of our 
country. Back in 1985 we reached a peak of about 27 miles per gallon. 
Since that time, we have gone backwards. In fact, during that period of 
time we have actually seen an increase in America's dependence on 
imported oil go from 27 percent of the oil which we consume in our 
country to 61 percent of the oil that we consume in our country. That 
is since 1985. And that has sent the wrong signal to OPEC and to the 
rest of the world.
  Today, in this legislation, we increase to 35 miles per gallon the 
fuel economy standard of the vehicles that we are going to drive by the 
year 2020. In conjunction with the cellulosic fuel component, the 
biofuel component that is built into this legislation, by the year 2030 
this bill will back out the equivalent of twice the amount of oil which 
we import from the Persian Gulf today.
  What we have today, is this whirlpool within which the United States 
has caught itself where we send nearly $150 million a day to the 
Persian Gulf to purchase the 2.2 million barrels per day that we import 
out of the Persian Gulf to bring to the United States. That is $55 to 
$60 billion a year that we are sending over to parts of the world which 
we should have no business in. And caught in that whirlpool are our 
young men and women in our military who are over in the Middle East 
protecting this oil supply so it can come to our country.
  And for the first time the American people are now going to be made 
part of this effort. We no longer are going to pretend that the 
efficiency of the vehicles which Americans drive has no relationship to 
this amount of money that we send to the Middle East and the number of 
troops that we have to send to the Middle East.
  So this is going to be a very powerful message: 2.7 million barrels 
of oil a day from the Middle East not having to be imported by the year 
2030 because of the increase in fuel economy standards; 1.8 million 
barrels of oil per day in equivalence of oil in now biofuels, 
cellulosic fuels, that will substitute for the oil that we otherwise 
would have to import from the Middle East.
  Together that is over 4 million barrels of oil a day equivalent. What 
a tremendous victory for the American people here today. Everyone in 
our country will now be part of it. Rather than in the Middle East, we 
will produce the fuels in the Middle West in our country and stop 
pretending that we can't improve the efficiency of the vehicles we 
drive.
  Secondly, this legislation will in fact reduce by nearly a quarter 
all of the greenhouse gases that the United States has to meet as a 
goal by the year 2030. So on climate change, energy efficiency will 
play a huge role in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that the 
United States sends up into the atmosphere. The buildings will be 
greener. The lighting and appliances will be better. And because of 
fuel efficiency and renewable fuels, we will reduce by the amount of 
100 coal-fired plants the amount of greenhouse gases we will send up 
into the atmosphere. What a victory. What a day the United States 
Congress will enjoy today.
  I congratulate Speaker Pelosi for her work on this legislation. I 
congratulate my colleague Todd Platts, and all of the Members who have 
worked on it. I salute President Bush for saying that he will sign this 
legislation. It is an historic signal. And I urge all of the Members 
who are here to realize that this is a moment that will be remembered 
forever as the energy revolution day, as the climate change 
revolutionary day where we changed course and sent a signal to the 
world that we mean business.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, please today vote ``aye'' and join with 
Speaker Pelosi, with Harry Reid and President Bush in this effort to 
change the direction of our country. It is a monumental day.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague from the Rules 
Committee for allowing me to speak.
  I have to admit, it is not very often I follow my colleague from 
Massachusetts and support a lot of what he said. The legislation before 
us today is the result of almost a year of hard work

[[Page H16655]]

and negotiation to compromise by the new majority to produce an energy 
bill that helps address the serious concern of climate change in our 
Nation.
  For the first time in over 30 years, Democrats increase the fuel 
economy standards by 40 percent, as well as increase energy efficiency 
requirements and promote research and development of alternative 
sources of energy.
  Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Chairman Dingell deserve 
special praise for their work in crafting this historic legislation.
  Almost as important as what is included is what is not included. H.R. 
6 omitted provisions from the previous energy bills that I feared could 
raise the cost of energy for consumers, including a Federal renewable 
electricity standard, new taxes on the energy industry outside of those 
carefully negotiated in the original H.R. 6 from January of this year 
that could tilt the competitive playing field against U.S. companies, 
and provisions that could hamper domestic oil and natural gas 
production. These changes are commendable and represent a more balanced 
proposal which I support.
  What was unfortunately omitted was the opportunity to create a 
balanced energy policy that invests in our energy future without 
ignoring America's energy needs today. Energy security cannot be 
achieved by alternative energy and conservation alone.
  The Energy Information Administration predicts that natural gas, oil, 
and coal will comprise approximately the same share of our total energy 
supply in 2030 as they did in 2005, even with new investments in 
renewable sources of energy.
  Comprehensive energy legislation must be enacted that will increase 
America's domestic energy supply, particularly clean-burning natural 
gas which will play a critical role in reducing our greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  What's also lacking was the debate on renewable fuel standards, RFS, 
a provision not moved through the regular process of the House and that 
lacks a clear mechanism to reduce the mandate prior to taking effect in 
the case of environmental challenges, technological, feasibility or 
supply issues, or other adverse consequences.
  There is no shortage of literature detailing the negative 
environmental impacts of corn-based ethanol, its questionable 
greenhouse gas emission reductions, its reduced fuel efficiency, and 
its effect on food and energy prices.
  I hope in a few years down the road we don't find ourselves asking 
whether the supposed cure for our oil addiction is not worse than the 
disease.
  In closing, I believe as Democrats we can craft a sensible energy 
policy that actually enhances our energy security. I hope our House 
leadership will continue to try to work with Democrats and Republicans 
together to address America's need to produce additional domestic 
energy, both conventional and renewable, and to ensure the reliability 
and affordability of our Nation's critical energy supplies.

               [From the Houston Chronicle, Dec. 8, 2007]

                             Energy Policy

       The energy bill passed by the U.S. House last week is more 
     a political statement than a blueprint for U.S. energy 
     policy. Titled the Energy Independence and Security Act, it 
     misses many chances to attain those goals.
       The bill's best feature is the requirement that automakers 
     have a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. The measure's 
     proponents say the higher mileage standard would save the 
     United States 1.1 million barrels of oil per day--about half 
     of what the country imports from the Persian Gulf. With 
     populations and demand for energy growing, more efficient 
     cars and SUVs are essential.
       The bill's reliance on the use of ethanol to cut crude 
     imports is suspect, however. Most ethanol here is made from 
     corn. The present mandate for gasoline blenders to use 
     ethanol has driven up food prices, but the nation hasn't 
     enjoyed a significant net gain in energy. The bill aims to 
     force the development of efficient cellulosic ethanol, but 
     the technology might be slow in coming. If House Democrats 
     wanted to increase use of efficiently made ethanol, they 
     would eliminate the tariff on imported ethanol made from 
     sugar cane.
       A requirement that utilities produce 15 percent of their 
     electricity from renewable sources is arbitrary and does not 
     suit every locality, but it would prompt market solutions. 
     Texas, one of the leading producers of wind power, has a 5 
     percent renewable requirement, and the state's economy and 
     consumers have benefited.
       President Bush has voiced objection to the bill's new taxes 
     applied to the oil industry, and he has good reason. Does it 
     make sense to raise the tax burden on the companies that 
     produce and distribute the energy the nation's prosperity 
     rests on? The oil industry should be taxed as near as 
     possible in the same manner as other corporations.
       If Congress wanted to increase domestic oil and gas 
     production, as it should, it would allow responsible drilling 
     on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. There is no reason the 
     Gulf of Mexico should bear the strain of providing the 
     nation's only offshore energy.
       Perhaps one day the Democrats and Republicans in the House 
     and Senate will agree on a compromise that would enhance 
     efficiency and the nation's energy supply. For that to 
     happen, both parties must decide policy based on the common 
     good rather than on narrow competing interests.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that the well 
is to remain clear while another Member is speaking.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the CAFE standards. 
Most of us think they are a good idea and that that will help us 
conserve more energy.
  But the truth is we shouldn't be paying the highest natural gas 
prices in the world when we have perhaps the first but at least the 
second most generous deposits of natural gas in the world. We have 
perhaps the most coal in the world, and we could be using it. We could 
be driving down the cost of energy if it were not for the policies that 
were put in place this year.
  Now, this bill doesn't help that. In fact, it drives prices the other 
way. I understand, I have some colleagues in here who believe that if 
we can drive the price of gasoline high enough, drive the price of 
carbon energy high enough, then the alternatives become the way to go 
and everybody goes to them more quickly. I understand that.
  Some of us, though, like me, believe that a free market will drive 
the prices and drive the market in the right direction. So as the price 
of energy becomes higher, as we use more of our own God-given deposits 
in this country and use them wisely, have zero emissions, that the 
alternatives will come in naturally without this artificial demand to 
drive it there.
  The point is a lot of this legislation will end up, in conjunction 
with what we have already done this year, driving the price of gasoline 
to $5 a gallon. That is what happens when you interfere to the extent 
we are interfering with this legislation and others this year.
  The thing I would ask is that as the price of gasoline is driven to 
$5 a gallon with legislative interests that is being pushed this year 
and next that, please, the people that have pushed it come down here to 
the well, to the floor and say, ``That's right, gas is $5 a gallon. We 
think in the long run you'll be better off and we are so proud that we 
made your gasoline $5 a gallon.'' That's where we're headed. Let's be 
honest about it, and then those who did it take credit for it when it 
gets there.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for 
a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and 
allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to 
restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule, while 
closing the loopholes we have found over the last few months.
  Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of 
jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill 
or a report or a statement there are no earmarks, no point of order 
lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last 
Congress.
  However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican 
majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not 
available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a 
question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee 
specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, 
they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks 
on the rule or on the bill.
  The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a 
procedure to accept ``amendments between the Houses'' such as they plan 
to do with the underlying legislation. Because the energy bill is not a 
conference report,

[[Page H16656]]

the bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark 
rule and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of 
earmarks that will be contained in the legislation.
  I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House 
Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, recently sent to House Rules Committee 
Chairwoman Slaughter which confirms what we have been saying since 
January that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his 
letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the 
Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all 
legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.
     Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
     Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of 
     October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on 
     how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have 
     advised the committee that language waiving all points of 
     order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI'' 
     should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules, 
     notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to 
     recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure 
     requirements of clause 9.
       In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order 
     against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause 
     9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that 
     waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the 
     rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI 
     does not comprehensively apply to all legislative 
     propositions at all stages of the legislative process.
       Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill 
     or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or 
     joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment'' 
     to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--
     whether they be floor amendments during initial House 
     consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not 
     covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule 
     felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to 
     immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations 
     about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one 
     offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a 
     member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of 
     a special rule.)
       The question of order on September 25 involved a special 
     rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment 
     between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It 
     had no application to the motion in the first instance. 
     Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special 
     rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). 
     The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule 
     providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered 
     as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same 
     rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no 
     application to the amendment in the first instance, the 
     special rule had no tendency to waive any application of 
     clause 9(a).
       The same would be true in the more common case of a 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text for the purpose of further amendment. 
     Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.
       In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding 
     officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a 
     particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule 
     XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability 
     of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure 
     requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object 
     of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the 
     question whether a special rule waives the application of 
     clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any 
     application.
       In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no 
     application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all 
     points of order except those arising under that rule--when 
     none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its 
     negative implication would be that such a point of order 
     might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all 
     points of order against provisions of an authorization bill 
     except those that can only arise in the case of a general 
     appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this 
     area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use 
     language that yields a misleading implication.
       I appreciate your consideration and trust that this 
     response is to be shared among all members of the committee. 
     Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John V. Sullivan,
                                                  Parliamentarian.

  This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of 
the earmark rule. I urge my colleagues to close this loophole in the 
earmark rule by opposing the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas was 
expressing his concern about the impact on American families with the 
ever-escalating cost of gasoline, the ever-escalating cost of home 
heating fuel. Certainly you are no stranger in your job to the impact 
of that on our budget, trying to find money for the low-income heating 
assistance program. All of us have constituents that experience the 
kind of pain the gentleman from Texas is describing.
  The problem is the policy we have pursued has resulted in endless 
consumption, endless escalation of prices, and constant dependence on 
the Persian Gulf folks who are not really our friends. If there is a 
metaphor for what has been the American energy policy through many 
administrations, one of dependence, of drilling and drilling, 
consumption and wastefulness, it was a photograph that appeared in the 
New York Times in April of 2005.

                              {time}  1115

  At that time there was an emerging sense that the cost of energy was 
having an enormously negative impact on our families. The cost of 
gasoline had risen over $2 a gallon. That price now seems quite 
wonderful; but in an effort to deal with it, the President of the 
United States invited the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Crawford and 
invited him there for discussions. And the picture on the front page of 
the paper was of the President of the United States and the Crown 
Prince holding hands going into the President's home to discuss energy 
policy. And the request by the President on behalf of the American 
people to the Crown Prince was that they raise production, in order, 
theoretically, to lower prices. Well, you know what? That's the same 
policy that we've pursued for generations, raise production, drill 
more, leave control in the hands, many times, of foreign countries that 
have very little regard for the long-term interests of the American 
people.
  It's a policy that has not worked and is running into the dead-end 
reality that there are limits on how much fossil fuels we can drill. 
There's damage to the environment, and the cost is ever escalating as 
the demand for this commodity increases with the growth in economies in 
India, China, and the rest of the emerging world.
  That was a photograph of dependence. This energy bill is about 
turning the corner and being the self-confident Nation that we should 
be, that within our own borders, with the resources and technical 
skills of our people, with what can be done in the agriculture sector, 
the engineering sector, that we can actually take resources that are 
immediately available to us, that are renewable, and we can transform 
them into the energy that our families need to drive their cars to and 
from day care, to get to and from work; that we can transform that into 
the energy that our industries need in order to produce, manufacture, 
and create jobs for the American people.
  And the side benefit, and a central goal, is that it can, as it must, 
dramatically reduce the carbon emissions that are polluting this world 
and threatening our planetary future. That is a real crisis that 
requires immediate action.
  We have a responsibility to the families that the gentleman from 
Texas mentioned to do everything that we can to make it affordable for 
them to do what they have to do to raise their families, to get to 
work. And we all jointly have a responsibility to the environment 
because it is our obligation, very simply, that we leave this planet as 
clean, hopefully cleaner than, as when we found it. The path that we're 
on has been one of further degradation. The path we're choosing is one 
of renewal and redemption. This is good for jobs. It's good for the 
environment. It's good for securing America's foreign policy 
independence.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

[[Page H16657]]

                        Amendment to H. Res. 877

             Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
     enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives. The resolution shall he considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 5, 
     if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order or demand for division of the question, shall he 
     considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 
     forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as 
     follows:
       Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:
       (1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or'' 
     at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the 
     end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding 
     the following at the end:
       ``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between 
     the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to 
     an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his 
     designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited 
     tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and 
     amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective 
     item in such list) or a statement that the proposition 
     contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
     limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional 
     Record prior to its consideration.''.
       (2) Clause 9(c) of rule XXI is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph 
     (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the proposition. The question of consideration 
     shall he debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating 
     the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but 
     shall otherwise he decided without intervening motion except 
     one that the House adjourn.''.
                                  ____

       (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.

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 877, if ordered; and 
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 3793.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 187, not voting 25, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1174]

                               YEAS--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     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
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     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
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     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
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     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 (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     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
     Feeney
     Ferguson

[[Page H16658]]


     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     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
     Latta
     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)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     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 (KY)
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bishop (UT)
     Broun (GA)
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Miller, Gary
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Thompson (CA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1142

  Messrs. TERRY, GINGREY and JOHNSON of Illinois changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 190, not voting 27, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1175]

                               YEAS--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     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
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     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
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     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
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     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
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     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
     Cohen
     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
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     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
     Latta
     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)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     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
     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 (KY)
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Bachus
     Cleaver
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Miller, Gary
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Perlmutter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Shimkus
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1148

  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.

                          ____________________