Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 91 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H4927-H4935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3021, 21ST CENTURY GREEN HIGH-
PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1234 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1234

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3021) to direct the Secretary of Education to
make grants and low-interest loans to local educational
agencies for the construction, modernization, or repair of
public kindergarten, elementary, and secondary educational
facilities, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now
printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3021
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for
1 hour.
Ms. SUTTON. 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.
I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks on H. Res. 1234.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1234 provides for consideration of
H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Facilities
Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general
debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule
makes in order eight amendments which are printed in the Rules
Committee report. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with
or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in strong support of H.R. 3021,
the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facilities Act.
This legislation is important and groundbreaking because it
simultaneously addresses important issues confronting our Nation in the
21st century, improving our education system, modernizing our buildings
and infrastructures to be environmentally sustainable, and creating
jobs to grow our economy.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation's school districts are struggling to make
essential improvements during these lean economic times. According to
recent estimates, America's schools are hundreds of billions of dollars
short of the funding needed to ensure that every student attends a high
quality facility. Too many parents across this country are forced to
drop off their children at schools that are falling apart, schools with
leaking roofs and faulty electrical systems, schools with outdated
technology which compromises their ability to achieve and succeed.
Our bill provides $33.2 billion over 5 years for schools across the
country for projects to modernize, renovate, and repair their
facilities. This funding is crucial to improve our schools so that

[[Page H4928]]

the students have a healthy and safe environment in which to learn and
develop the knowledge and the skills necessary to compete in today's
workforce.
H.R. 3021 also addresses disparities in school facilities funding. It
directs the Secretary of Education to distribute funds to school
districts according to the same need-based formula used under title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which provides funding
for low income school districts. Funding provided in this bill can be
used for energy efficiency and technology improvements, asbestos
removal and lead abatement, and for ensuring that schools are prepared
for emergencies. The funding is provided with few restrictions, which
will allow individual schools to satisfy their individual needs.
Renovating schools so that they are environmentally sustainable will
provide numerous health and educational benefits for students.
Increasing air quality and lighting will enhance our students' ability
to focus and learn, while reducing student sick days and improving the
health of students with asthma and other respiratory problems.

{time} 1500

Green schools also cost about 2 percent less than conventional
schools, while providing financial benefits that are 20 times as large,
utilizing 33 percent less energy and 32 percent less water than
traditional schools.
Enabling students to attend environmentally sustainable schools not
only insures a healthy learning environment. It will also naturally
facilitate environmental literacy in our youth. This will help our
children grow into stewards of our environment and natural resources
that we must treasure and preserve for future generations.
Unfortunately, many schools in my district and across the Nation are
also forced to address difficult security challenges. For example,
Brunswick High School in my district is the largest single-level high
school building in Ohio, stretching a quarter of a mile from end to end
with 60 entrances. As you can imagine, this presents a formidable
security challenge for teachers and administrators.
For these reasons, Congresswoman McCarthy and I have worked to
include a provision in the manager's amendment for this legislation
that will allow schools to improve building infrastructure to
accommodate security measures and security doors.
This bill authorizes $100 million a year through 2013 specifically
for public schools in the gulf coast that are still working to rebuild
from the devastation that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wrought three
years ago.
Families in the gulf coast are still fighting to recover and to put
their lives back together. Mr. Speaker, we must continue to devote
extra resources so that those schools and those communities can
rebuild.
School modernization is the central purpose of 3021. Equally
important and necessary is the essential economic stimulus that this
bill will provide by creating more than 100,000 new jobs for American
workers who design and build schools, from roofing contractors,
construction workers and electricians, to architects and engineers.
It's estimated that this bill will result in the creation of nearly
4,000 jobs in my home State of Ohio in 2009 alone.
Mr. Speaker, in these challenging economic times, important and
innovative legislation such as this bill will go a long way to creating
new opportunities for America's workforce. Passing this bill will
enable school districts to upgrade their facilities and lead our
Nation's students towards a brighter and healthier future while
addressing the job crisis we face today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the time, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Today, the House is set to consider H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green
High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill will direct the
Secretary of Education to make grants and loans to local educational
agencies for the construction, modernization or repair of public
educational facilities. It also would require the funds to be used only
for projects that meet certain green standards such as Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star, or an equivalent State or
local standard.
Tomorrow, we are scheduled to consider H.R. 5540, to reauthorize the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network.
I spent last week, Mr. Speaker, meeting and speaking with
constituents in my district about the issues that matter to them, and
no one mentioned anything closely related to these two bills. Both of
these bills may be important in their own right, but I believe there
are other issues that are much more pressing, issues we should be
debating.
When Americans are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, we should be
working on legislation to lower the cost of gasoline, increasing
domestic energy exploration, reducing our reliance on unstable foreign
energy.
France produces over 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear
power, and there's a strong environmental movement in France. And yet
the United States hasn't built a nuclear power plant in 30 years.
When our military forces are running out of personnel, operation and
maintenance funds, we should be working to bring bipartisan legislation
to the President's desk that he can quickly sign and fund the troops.
When the intelligence community is stripped of one of their key tools
in the fight against international terrorism because the majority let
the Protect America Act expire, we should be working to give our
intelligence officials the tools they need to stop terrorist attacks.
Instead, the majority has decided to work on a green schools bill and
a water trails network reauthorization. These are not exactly the
pressing issues facing Americans every day. These are not the issues
our constituents want us working on today.
One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006, Mr.
Speaker, was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan
manner. On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi,
reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``we promised the American
people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we
will.''
However, that promise has yet to come to fruition as the majority has
consistently blocked an open process through the Rules Committee. A
prime example of how they've consistently stymied openness and
bipartisanship is by the number of open rules that they've allowed in
the 110th Congress. We're three-quarters of the way through the 110th
Congress, and so far the majority has allowed only one open rule. One
open rule, Mr. Speaker, in 18 months.
They had a chance to double to two the open rules last night, but by
a party line vote they decided that they would once again use a
restrictive rule process in making only four Republican amendments in
order. They struck down 15 Republican amendments that had been
introduced, including one from the ranking member of the Education and
Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon. So much for the open process they
promised.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this point I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee
on Education and Labor, Mr. Miller.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my
colleague from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for agreeing to handle this rule on
this piece of legislation, and for her strong support of this
legislation to provide for green high-performing public schools and the
facilities in which our children learn.
This legislation comes along at a time when the record is very clear
that in far too many instances our Nation's school buildings are
literally crumbling around the students that we send to them every day.
They're in desperate need of renovation; they're in desperate need of
remodeling; they're in desperate need of modernization, so that our
students who attend those schools every day can have a safe learning
environment.
Not only will this bill help improve student achievement by providing
students and teachers with modern, clean,

[[Page H4929]]

safe and healthy learning environment, but it will also give a boost to
our economy and help make schools a part of the solution to the global
warming crisis.
It is this kind of forward thinking and innovative policy that is
needed to strengthen our Nation and help build a brighter future. By
addressing a number of key challenges at once, this bill is a clear win
for our children, for the workers and for our planet.
I would like to thank my colleagues who were instrumental in drafting
this legislation and working on it many years. I want to thank
Congressman Ben Chandler, the author of this bill, for the hard work
and dedication of moving this legislation through the House.
I would also like to thank Congressman Dale Kildee, the Chair of the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education for
his work on this bill. Mr. Kildee has been a longtime champion of
efforts to improve the physical conditions of our Nation's schools, and
he deserves great credit for his leadership in this area.
I also want to thank Congressman Dave Loebsack, who joined the fight
the moment he stepped foot into the Congress. Like Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Loebsack is a former teacher, and he understands firsthand the
difference that a top-notch facility, that a modern facility, that a
safe facility, that a clean facility can mean to a child's education.
That's the promise of this legislation.
And I would like to recognize the efforts of Congressmen Rush Holt,
Charlie Rangel, Bob Etheridge and Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, who is
the head of the Green Schools Caucus.
As study after study has told us, we don't have a choice when it
comes to rebuilding our schools. We simply won't be able to provide
every child with the world-class education they need and deserve unless
we're willing to help the States and school districts improve the
conditions of these buildings and facilities. It's not a question of if
we should modernize and repair our Nation's schools; it's a matter of
when. It's simply a decision that we have to make and we can make it
today.
Today we have that opportunity to begin this investment, an
investment that will yield great results for our children, our economy
and our future.
Finally, I want to thank all of the members of the Rules Committee
for the consideration of this rule, for the reporting of this rule, and
to Chairwoman Slaughter for her diligence in making sure that this rule
came to the floor.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from
Florida for yielding me the time.
I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee voted along party lines
to not allow the U.S. House of Representatives, this body, to even
consider two amendments that I offered that would have helped school
districts whose tax bases are significantly reduced by the presence of
tax-exempt Federal lands.
This bill would drastically expand the Federal Government's role in
school construction and maintenance, activities historically funded at
the State and local level before. But they're doing this before the
Federal Government meets its existing responsibilities to schools that
are impacted by Federal land ownership.
Mr. Speaker, over 33 percent of my district in Central Washington is
owned by the Federal Government; making 11 school districts eligible
for Impact Aid programs. I know all too well the consequences of
Federal land ownership and the impact it has on the ability of schools
to make needed improvements.
In the Grand Coulee Dam area in my district, students attend classes
in buildings that are more than half a century old and that are
literally falling apart. While the local residents in those districts
have agreed to pay one of the highest school levies to maintain current
levels in the State of Washington, the school district remains unable
to secure a bond to make improvements on physical facilities because
the community is surrounded by Federal lands and, therefore, has a
limited tax base.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that no child's
education is shortchanged because of Federal land ownership. And, in my
view, it's only fair that the Federal Government take care of federally
impacted schools before launching a brand new spending program costing
billions of dollars that's aimed at schools that aren't federally
impacted.
I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee. The first would have
required that our commitment to federally impacted schools be met
through full funding in the Impact Aid program before funding is spent
on new Federal spending in this bill.
My second amendment, which I offered along with my colleague, Robin
Hayes of North Carolina, would have simply given preference,
preference, to federally impacted schools as the new construction and
maintenance funds were distributed.
Unfortunately, Democrat leadership blocked both of my amendments from
being debated or voted on today on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, if the Federal Government cannot meet its current
responsibilities to federally impacted schools, then it certainly has
no business creating a brand new $20 billion spending program for other
schools. Rather than passing this massive expansion of the Federal
Government's role in school construction, we should refocus our efforts
on fulfilling existing obligations to schools and children impacted by
Federal actions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and against the underlying bill.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on the bill, the work that is done by the Rules Committee
in bringing this legislation before us. I am enthusiastically
supportive of the rule and the underlying bill.
An opportunity to integrate sustainability into the neighborhood
school, the building block of communities, is a double win. In the long
run, this is going to save significant amounts of money at a time of
skyrocketing energy prices. And the evidence is that at the green
schools I've seen in my community, there's actually better performance.
There's better performance on the part of the students, higher job
satisfaction with the staff, and as I have seen in communities around
the country where these principles are integrated into the school
construction, it is a valuable learning experience for the children
themselves.
I am particularly pleased in elements dealing with the
transportation, allowing some of the facilities work to be done to help
our children get to school safely on foot or cycling.

{time} 1515

In 1969, so long ago that I was still in school, over half of
America's children were able to get to school on their own walking or
biking. By 2001, that percentage had fallen to 15 percent, and I
routinely do work in other parts of the country where that percentage
is under 10 percent where children can safely get to school on their
own.
This poses an inordinate problem in terms of the costs for
transportation for school districts. We're all familiar in our own
communities with schools that have a rush hour around the start of
school, and then there's the rush hour to commuting. It complicates
lives for families, it's a problem of congestion and pollution, and
with energy prices projected to continue to remain high, it costs
money.
But with the provisions of this legislation, we're going to have
resources available that compliment our Safe Routes to School
legislation in the last transportation reauthorization to be able to
help, once again, children to be able to walk and bike safely to
school.
At a time when we are looking at 10 million young people of school
age who are overweight, and when the projection is that by 2010, 20
percent of the school-age population will be obese, this is an
opportunity to help children, particularly when one of the failures of
No Child Left Behind is that there isn't a provision for physical
education in our schools.

[[Page H4930]]

This is a triple win. I strongly urge support.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding, and I do rise in opposition to the rule and the bill. I don't
think in my entire time in Congress I have ever opposed anything that
provides additional funding for education, but I think this bill has
many underlying elements we have to pay some attention to.
I don't disagree with virtually anything I've heard from the other
side of the aisle in terms of what this might do. There is, as Mr.
Miller indicated, a desperate need for rebonding and renovation. We do
need good schools. I think it would help our children. I'm in full
agreement with all of that.
I'm also in full agreement with the gentlewoman from Ohio who said
there's hundreds of billions of dollars of these kinds of renovations
which are needed out there in the referenda for many of those things
which are going on.
The issue is what else is needed to be done in education and what can
we afford to do at the public government level.
If you look carefully at this bill and analyze the bottom-line
expenditures, it's $6.4 billion for the first year of fiscal year 2009.
It sets some thereafter for the basic renovations. There's $100 million
for each of 5 years for emergency help in those States which were so
devastated by storms which perhaps could be done separately, and I
would have no problems with them, Louisiana, Mississippi, et cetera.
The title III provision is the green provision which calls for a
percentage of this money to be spent for green aspects of our schools,
as we should be doing. This is something the Federal Government has not
done heretofore. We have had certain responsibilities either assigned
to us or done by statute in some way or another, and one of those is an
amendment which I introduced saying that before we do this, we should
fully fund the authorization of title I. It is very arguable that if we
have good schools, our students will do better. I think it's even more
arguable that if we have the necessary teachers and other personnel to
make absolutely sure the kids are going to be well-educated, they will
do even better than that.
In title I last year, we appropriated $13.9 billion, but we have
authorized $25 billion for title I. IDEA is not a part of this bill in
particular, but again, we're not up to the statutory mandate of that
which is up to 40 percent of contribution by the Federal Government;
and if we were to add the $6.4 billion to that, we would get very close
to that number which would be $17.3 billion.
This is money that we should be spending, and we can't afford to for
one reason or another. I've heard the old saw about spending on the
war, or whatever it may be. But the bottom line is there's going to be
so much spending on education and other resources this year, and my
judgment is that we are really opening the door here. If we open this
door at $6.4 billion without hundreds of billions of dollars that are
needed, we're going to find that that's going to double almost
overnight when they find out there is a Federal resource for it.
The pressure in this place to take that up to $10 billion, $15, $20
billion a year is going to be overwhelming, and all of a sudden, the
education programs which we have a responsibility to be funding, which
was so important to the basic instruction of kids, will fall by the
wayside.
I would urge all of the Members oppose this rule.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to both this restrictive rule and the
underlying bill brought forward today by the Democratic majority.
As a former chairman of the Marietta City School Board in my
district, I strongly believe that there needs to be more of an emphasis
on public school construction but at the State and local level.
However, H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public
School Facilities Act, sends the wrong message of how the Federal
Government should be involved in local education decisions.
With limited exception in the 1930s and 1940s, the Federal Government
has rightly left the responsibility of public school construction up to
the State and local governments. State and local governments know the
construction needs in schools much better than bureaucrats in
Washington. And the Federal Government has promoted the autonomy and
flexibility of local control over education in this matter. However,
this bill would negate much of this work and would only expand the size
and scope of the Federal Government, as my good friend from Delaware,
Mr. Castle, just pointed out.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3021 would cost $20 billion over 5
years for a brand new Federal program to compete for the already
precious Federal assistance dollars for education. Currently these
funds are focused on the curriculum needs of States through our title I
grants to provide assistance to low-income and disadvantaged students,
as well as funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act,
IDEA, for special education.
Mr. Speaker, I can remember when I was on the Education and Workforce
Committee in the 108th Congress when we were in the majority. There was
this outcry constantly from the Democrats about not funding fully to
the 40 percent level of IDEA, and of course the trajectory of spending
in the Bush administration under Republican majority was a geometric
progression. We spent much more money than the Democrats have spent in
the previous 10 or 12 years when they were in control.
But now we're going to take this money that should be spent on these
programs like title I and IDEA and create a whole new program. It makes
no sense. If enacted, it will create abundant squeeze, make it less
likely the Federal Government will be able to fulfill financial
commitments that have already been made for student achievement.
Mr. Speaker, we need to continue promoting local control over
education decisions while providing Federal assistance for student
achievements. The best and most immediate way that we can do that is by
defeating the previous question and the rule for H.R. 3021. For these
reasons, I ask that all of my colleagues oppose the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve my time until the
gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished lady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, as the author of an amendment that was
not made in order under this rule, I rise in opposition to this rule.
My amendment would have prohibited taxpayer funds authorized by this
bill from being used to purchase mercury-laden compact fluorescent
light bulbs, also known as the CFL.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take the choice away from
public schools as to how to meet their lighting needs. In fact, I
believe that Congress already makes, too often, decisions for our
citizens. But it is Congress' single-minded dangerous pursuit of this
environmental fad that has gotten us all to this point of silliness
today.
Congress must ensure that mercury-laden light bulbs are safe before
we encourage their use in our child's classrooms. There are very
serious health concerns about these light bulbs that are filled with
mercury. They pose problems to humans precisely because of their high
mercury content, and we must be sure of their safety before we force
them on our public school children through this ill-conceived law.
When mercury light bulbs break, let's remember, extensive cleanup is
needed. That's what these regulations show us. This is very highly
selective and very detailed clean-up regulations.
What does this mean for school children that could be exposed to
light bulbs of the broken mercury latent light bulbs? On the EPA's own
Web site

[[Page H4931]]

are these eight pages of instructions about how to deal with a mercury
spill, specifically including spills due to broken mercury light bulbs.
Let me run you through just some of the steps for cleaning up just
one broken mercury light bulb.
Before the clean-up ever begins, people must leave the room for 15
minutes as the room airs out putting a halt to the learning that's
taking place in the classroom. The school then is told to shut off
their central air-conditioning system, or, in Minnesota's case, central
heating system, and then they're told not to use a broom to sweep up
the broken light bulb as they could come in contact with mercury at a
later time.
This should give Congress pause to think about this next rule that
says if clothing comes in contact with a broken light bulb and the
mercury, it must be disposed of immediately. Imagine that. Children or
teachers or the janitorial staff would have to remove their clothing
immediately, and we're told that you are not allowed to wash your
clothes. That's what the EPA rules say. You're not allowed to wash your
clothes. That won't do the trick because mercury fragments in the
clothing might contaminate the washing machine and also pollute sewage.
Let's get this straight. Congress is worried about harming sewage and
yet we're rushing to place these mercury light bulbs in our classrooms
next to our children. That step alone should be a warning to the
dangers of mercury-laden light bulbs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman 1
additional minute.
Mrs. BACHMANN. But the kicker of them all is the disposal process.
Immediately a person must place all of the clean-up materials in an
outdoor trash can or protected area for normal trash pickup. But make
sure that you check with your local government.
In Minnesota, my home State, it does not allow for normal trash
disposal for mercury. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken
mercury bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.
There are so many rules that are contained on the EPA Web site that I
don't have time to address them all, but while these clean-up
guidelines are important and should be followed, the harm that just one
broken light bulb can have on a child, senior citizen, or an animal is
very real, which is why Congress should not embark on these fads.
I hope none of us will have to respond to the news story of a girl or
a boy or a senior citizen or an animal who is poisoned by a broken
mercury-ladened light bulb. That would be horrible.
I speak today to alert this body and the American people of this yet
considerable loss of liberty.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member from California
(Mr. McKeon).

{time} 1530

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I rise in
opposition to this rule.
Schools around the Nation are facing an immediate funding shortfall,
but it's not a lack of funds for green facilities maintenance. Mr.
Speaker, like the rest of us, they're struggling with gasoline prices.
For local school systems, energy represents a significant share of
their budget. They pay for the fuel to operate the buses that drive
children to and from school. They pay to heat their schools in the
winter and cool them in the summer. They pay for electricity to light
their classrooms and power their computers. And with the national
average for a gallon of regular gasoline reaching $3.98 today--now,
that might have been at the start of debate. It could be $3.99 or $4
now the way it's going up. In California, it's much higher than this
already--these energy costs are consuming an increasing share of
overall school budgets.
For schools, rising energy costs don't stop with school buses and
utilities. The cost of fuel makes almost everything more expensive,
from books and supplies to the food that goes into school lunches. So,
yes, our schools do have an immediate need, and we ought to be on the
floor addressing that need today. We should be taking action on
comprehensive energy legislation that will increase production, drive
innovation, and promote conservation. Unfortunately, that's not what
we're going to do today.
Instead, the House will consider a bill that fundamentally changes
the Federal role in education. I'm talking about legislation that
begins the process of Federalizing the building and maintenance of
individual schools in communities across this Nation. Agree or disagree
with what this bill is trying to accomplish, no one can deny that
what's being proposed is a significant, perhaps even monumental, shift
in education policy.
In keeping with the pattern established by the majority, it is no
surprise then that this bill is being brought up with limited
opportunity for debate and amendment, after being rushed through an
abbreviated committee process.
Of the 20 amendments submitted by Republicans, just four were made in
order. That's one in five.
Not surprisingly, members of the majority party fared a little
better. Of the eight amendments they offered and did not withdraw,
fully half of them were made in order. Several others were combined
with amendments that were accepted or added to the manager's amendment,
making sure that in the end virtually all of their concerns are going
to be addressed.
We can do better than this. We should do better than this, but after
a year-and-a-half under this iron-fisted majority, I know better than
to expect better.
So much for the most open Congress in history. I urge a ``no'' vote
on the rule.
Ms. SUTTON. I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend from Florida for his
leadership on this issue and so many others.
Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor today. I wanted to talk about the
amendments that I had offered to this bill that would have provided
some accountability to the spending that's incorporated in this bill,
but as we have heard, those amendments weren't made in order.
So, in addition to the majority not wanting to have accountability
for the bill that we're talking about on school construction, the first
time Federal moneys have been used for school construction, no
accountability, what I thought I would do then is address the issue
that we ought to be talking about today. That's the issue that we all
heard about last week when we went home.
When I went home, what did I hear from my constituents? I didn't hear
about school construction. I heard about gas prices. And I heard that
people are tired, sick and tired, and fed up with inaction in
Washington. They want solutions.
Mr. Speaker, there are three ways to address this issue. One is
conservation, and we all can do more.
The second is to make certain that we put appropriate incentives in
place for alternative fuels so that we can bridge to the next
generation and American genius can be unleashed. This majority isn't
doing anything about that.
But the way that we bridge to the next generation is to increase
supply, and so I asked some folks on our side of the aisle to get the
information that said what has the majority party, what have the
Democrats, done in order to increase supply of American energy.
It won't surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to know that 91 percent of the
folks on our side of the aisle, 91 percent, supported exploration in
Alaska over the last 15 years; 86 percent on the other side opposed it
to increase supply.
Coal-to-liquid technology, 97 percent on our side of the aisle
supported increasing supply in coal-to-liquid technology; 78 percent on
the other side opposed it.
How about oil shale exploration? Ninety percent on our side of the
aisle support oil shale exploration increasing supply; 86 oppose it on
the other side.
Deep sea exploration, Mr. Speaker, 81 percent on our side support it;
83 percent on the other side oppose it.

[[Page H4932]]

How about increasing refining capacity? There hasn't been a new
refinery built in this Nation in over 30 years. Ninety-seven percent on
this side of the aisle support it; 96 percent on the majority side
oppose increasing refining capacity in vote after vote after vote.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I know Americans across this Nation
are sick and tired, sick and tired of a majority that's keeping us
dependent on Middle Eastern oil. So I call on this majority and I call
on the Speaker to bring forward a positive bill that will increase
conservation, increase incentives for alternative fuel, and make
certain that we can use American resources, American energy for
Americans.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues who may be
listening to this debate that this rule and this bill are about
repairing and improving our Nation's schools.
I also want to remind the people at home that, of course, those who
are railing now about the effects of energy policy over the past 6 or
so or 8 or 10 years were in charge, most of that time with a Republican
President, and this is what we get.
So this Congress, of course, is a new majority, and we have taken
bold steps to put incentives in place that will lead to historic change
and will turn the corner to renewable sources of energy in this country
being developed.
We have 30 million acres on which oil drilling can take place right
now, and those are just sitting idle. Those on the other side of the
aisle don't tell us the whole story when they're talking about these
issues.
But I just want to repeat, I want to remind my colleagues who may be
listening to this debate, that this rule and this bill is about the
very important business of repairing and improving our Nation's
schools.
With that, I reserve my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first it's important
to set the record straight. Ten years ago, this Congress passed
drilling in the ANWR, and it faced a Presidential veto by then-
President Clinton, and imagine if it hadn't faced a veto how much of a
difference we would have been able to make.
Now we're seeing the consequences of that, as Mr. Price of Georgia
pointed out. Effort after effort that we've engaged in to try to
increase the production of energy, the supply of energy has been
opposed by the other side of the aisle and I think nowhere more
dramatically than when we were able to pass legislation to have
production in Alaska, and it was vetoed by the last President, a
Democratic President.
So these things have to be put on the record, Mr. Speaker, because
now with $4 gas the record counts, and the record is of interest to all
Americans, and it will be more and more of interest every day.
Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, just over 2 years ago, now-
Speaker Pelosi issued the following statement:
``With skyrocketing gas prices it is clear that the American people
can no longer afford the Republican rubber stamp Congress and its
failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies.
Americans are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33
cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President
Bush first came into office.''
Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91
a gallon today. Yet here we are this week debating bills on green
schools and watertrails network instead of working on legislation to
reduce the price of gasoline and increase supply. Now, the price of
gasoline is at $4 gallon now.
Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront that
issue, just over a month ago the newspaper Investors Business Daily in
an editorial said that this Congress ``is possibly the most
irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes
to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]

Congress Vs. You

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress
is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is
especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional
energy policy.
The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its
failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an
ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from
understanding how free markets and supply and demand really
work. Sad, but true.
So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling
out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-
ranging press conference Tuesday.
``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues
affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to
mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to
their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,
on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''
Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just
generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of
congressional energy inaction, including:
Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,
estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from
this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and
diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of
the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so
your representative can raise campaign cash.
Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one
since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''
fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem
at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price
spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.
Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with
advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems
have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--
the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total
energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their
power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are
expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at
$1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural
gas.
Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic
understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and
needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.
So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy
companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy
situation worse.
These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all
while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add
more than a million barrels of new demand each and every
year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand
growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.
Americans who are worried about the direction of their
country, including runaway energy and food prices, should
keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing
a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.
The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker
who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two
years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and
irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

Today, I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I
will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any
amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for
consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, which would give commuters
a tax break on their commuting expenses and require the Speaker of the
House to submit a plan to lower gas prices.
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. I am so pleased that our
colleague Dr. Price pointed out on issue after issue, whether it's ANWR
exploration or coal-to-liquid or oil shale exploration or refinery
increased capacity or on the issue of nuclear power. There is a strong
environmental movement in France, but over 80 percent of their
electricity is generated from nuclear power. Yet we haven't built a
nuclear power plant in this country in over 30 years.
It's time to face the issue of energy independence in this country.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House,
it's interesting that my colleagues on the other side railed against
this legislation in the name of energy.
It doesn't do a lot of good to pump more energy into these schools,
more air conditioning into these schools, more heat into these schools
when the schools are such inefficient users of energy. It makes no
sense to pump more and more electricity into the schools, to use
lighting that's outdated, outmoded, harmful to the learning of these
children.

[[Page H4933]]

The purpose of this legislation is to take a major institution in our
country, our elementary secondary education system, and have the
Federal Government lend some support to local efforts that are
struggling now, trying to accelerate their programs to cut their energy
costs in the running of their schools.
That's what this bill allows us to do. It allows us to put in place
as they renovate, as they repair, as they remodel these schools, trying
to recover, as all businesses are all across the country, as homeowners
are all across the country, to reduce their energy costs. It allows us
to partner up with them and to provide some assistance in doing that.
It's rather interesting that all they can talk about on the other
side is somehow that they didn't get to go to Alaska. If they'd gone to
Alaska, it probably would have made a penny or 2 cents or 3 cents a
difference in a gallon of gasoline today.
But the fact of the matter is why would you go to Alaska and put it
into cars that are getting 12 and 13 miles a gallon? But you never went
to the question of efficiencies. You never went to the question of
better automobiles.
We did. The first time in 30 years, this Congress improved the
mileage standard for automobiles. Just think if we had done it when
George Bush said he wanted it done. Today, it would have been an entire
different industry.
But no, you listened to the oil industry and you listened to the
automobile industry. Well, listen to them today as the chairman of
General Motors has to admit that they didn't see it coming, they didn't
see it was going to happen. They laid off 20,000 workers. They shut
down four plants making SUVs and trucks. Why are we listening to those
people?
If we continue to listen to them, we'll be the only people in the
world that are listening to them. They've made one bad business
decision, one bad energy decision after another for the last two
decades, and it cost them almost 450,000 jobs to the workers. It cost
them market share, it cost them productivity, it cost them profit. Now
what are they doing? They're trying to play catch-up.
Well, we don't think the school districts in this country should play
catch-up like General Motors. We think the school districts in this
country ought to have an opportunity to make these facilities more
efficient in the use of the energy, more efficient in the conservation
of energy so that they can come into the modern age and they can make
the changes that all of the studies indicate to us not only will save
them energy, not only will make the facilities safer, cleaner and
better for the learning environment that these children need, it will
also dramatically change the cost of running these school districts.
It's happening, but too many school districts in too many areas don't
have sufficient funds. We think the Federal Government ought to put its
shoulder to the wheel and help these school districts conserve their
energy.

{time} 1545

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to speak against this rule and
against this bill in itself.
First off, this is not a Federal responsibility, this is a State and
local responsibility. And to the extent that we spend Federal taxpayer
dollars, this isn't the Federal Government doing this, there is no such
thing as the Federal Government doing this; this is the Federal
taxpayer doing this. So you've got taxpayers on one hand funding their
local schools; you've got Federal taxpayers funding those same local
schools. This is a wreck of bureaucratic nightmare. This should not
happen.
We're not fully funding IDEA, we're not fully funding title I; this
is just something new. So it's because it's new that we can get away
with acting like this is something that's good, and it's not because
we're not fully funding what we should be.
Electrical costs in our schools are very high, no doubt about it. And
the truth of the matter is we can't conserve our way into lowering
those electricity costs because electricity cost generation is going to
continue to go up. And as this majority continues to restrict the
growth in clean coal burning technology, as they continue to restrict
the growth in nuclear power plants, they're going to continue to drive
electricity costs higher and higher.
Now we all like wind, we all like solar, but the truth of the matter
is growth in those alternatives cannot even keep up with the growth in
the demand for electricity. As schools begin to quit going to field
trips, as they begin to quit going to football games and quit going to
things they're already telling us they're going to do because of
gasoline costs and diesel costs being higher because of lack of supply,
it's our responsibility to address the broader issue of energy and not
school buildings, which is a local and State issue.
Mr. Speaker, I speak against this rule and against this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONAWAY. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. What would you prefer that they do,
have the schools do nothing when they know that they have a waiver?
Every business in America is investing in energy conservation.
Mr. CONAWAY. Reclaiming my time, what I would have them do is take
the local responsibility of making these decisions on their own.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This doesn't take anything away from
local responsibility.
Mr. CONAWAY. Reclaiming my time, what I would have them do is take
the responsibility themselves to make these very good decisions to
create energy-efficient facilities. But it's their job, not the Federal
taxpayer's job.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, Mr. Speaker, we're asking
for a ``no'' vote on the previous question to be able to address the
energy issue. If we're ever going to address it, it's time to start
doing so with $4 a gallon gasoline.
Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and insist that the
energy issue be addressed seriously by voting ``no'' on the previous
question. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, as we lead this country in the 21st century,
we must work creatively to form policies that address the intertwining
nature of the challenges we face.
I've heard that this isn't important legislation from the other side
of the aisle, and that is concerning to me because safe and healthy
schools are important. Environmentally sustainable schools are
important. Creating 100,000 jobs in this country is important. Acting
to instill environmental stewardship in students and our youth is
important.
One out of five Americans attends school each day. A 2006 report
concluded that, despite significant State and local expenditures on
school construction and renovation from 1996 to 2004, there continues
to be millions of students in substandard and overcrowded school
conditions. This bill will set our 60 million school children on a path
to a better education and a healthier future by providing a Federal
investment to help renovate, prepare, and modernize thousands of public
schools.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we are tasked with finding solutions that
are innovative and multifaceted, to secure a better future for America.
Part of that responsibility is ensuring that young Americans have
access to safe, constructive environments to learn in.
H.R. 3021 will help give our children and grandchildren the sound,
healthy classrooms they need and deserve. It is clear that our schools
are aging and in need of repairs . . . repairs that must be made to
allow students to focus on learning and reaching their full potential.
Not only will we be investing in future generations of Americans, we
will provide thousands of much-needed, high-quality jobs.
With the bill before us today, we are taking steps that will help
address so many of the challenges we face.
The improvements made to schools will encourage green building
techniques and help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. These
standards will save school districts money on utilities for years to
come.

[[Page H4934]]

In my district, the Natomas Unified School District, the state's only
``Climate Action Leader,'' recently received the Clean Air ``Government
Award'' for its dedication to air quality and energy-saving techniques.
It is innovative approaches like this that H.R. 3021 will encourage
across the country.
I cannot help but think of my grandchildren, Anna and Robby; they are
approaching school age, and I want them to be in a healthy environment
that will enable them to reach their full potential.
I ask my colleagues to support the Rule and final passage of H.R.
3021.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1234 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution or the operation of the previous question, it
shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which
the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of
lowering the national average price per gallon of regular
unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For
purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a
statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record
by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration
shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. SUTTON. 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 adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 1343 and H.R. 5669.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 196, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 370]

YEAS--221

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
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
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--196

[[Page H4935]]

McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Scalise
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)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Andrews
Baca
Cardoza
Chabot
Filner
Gallegly
Gillibrand
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lewis (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Saxton
Shuler
Udall (NM)
Wilson (NM)

{time} 1614

Mrs. SCHMIDT and Mr. PEARCE changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 370, I was unable to vote
because of pressing business with my constituents in my home district.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). 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 is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 193, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 371]

YEAS--223

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
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
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--193

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
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
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
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)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
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
Scalise
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)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Andrews
Baca
Cardoza
Chabot
Filner
Gallegly
Gillibrand
Gordon
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lewis (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Saxton
Shuler
Udall (NM)
Wilson (NM)

{time} 1622

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.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 371, I was unable to vote
because of pressing business with my constituents in my home district.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________