[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.
____________________