[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 107 (Thursday, June 26, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6094-H6102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6052, SAVING ENERGY THROUGH PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2008
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1304 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1304
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. 6052) to promote increased public
transportation use, to promote increased use of alternative
fuels in providing public transportation, 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
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
bill 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
[[Page H6095]]
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. 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. 6052
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.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of Thursday, June 26, 2008, for the Speaker
to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules
relating to:
(a) a measure concerning the Commodity Exchange Act and
energy markets; and
(b) a measure concerning the issuance of oil and gas leases
on Federal lands or waters.
{time} 1030
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to
my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart of
Florida. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
General Leave
Ms. CASTOR. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to
insert extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1304 provides a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public
Transportation Act of 2008. The resolution provides for 1 hour of
general debate controlled by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and makes in order five amendments submitted for
consideration.
The rule also permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the
rules relating to two important measures: one, a measure concerning the
Commodity Exchange Act and energy markets; and two, a measure
concerning the issuance of oil and gas leases on Federal lands or
waters. This authority is needed because House rules allow for bills to
be considered under suspension only on Mondays, Tuesdays, and
Wednesdays. In order for the House to consider the bill today on
Thursday or on any other day, the House must adopt a rule granting
specific permission.
Madam Speaker, hardworking Americans all across this great country
are being squeezed by this painful Bush economy that has brought on
increased costs for housing and for health care. My colleague from
Florida can attest to the rising costs of property insurance for
Floridians and other Americans, and of course, gas prices are socking
it to our neighbors back home.
Now, many of the reformers here in Congress have been standing up to
the White House and have been urging them for years to change direction
and to focus on long-term solutions to our energy challenges. But the
oil men at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and their Big Oil
allies have had a stranglehold over our country's energy policy, and
unfortunately, families and businesses across America are paying the
price.
Now, some bipartisan progress has been made here in our new-direction
Congress over the past year and a half. One of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
first initiatives was to establish a new bipartisan Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Climate Change, which has been extremely
productive. Democratic reformers also pushed through a historic
increase in the required gas mileage of 35 miles per gallon for our
cars. Now, better gas mileage for our cars alone should save families
from $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump and should slash consumption
in America by 4 million gallons per day, but it cannot happen soon
enough. The sad thing is this technology has existed for years. Cars in
Japan travel almost twice as far on a gallon of gas.
What has been missing here in our country is the political leadership
to make these necessary changes. So many of the changes we have been
fighting for have been blocked by the White House and by their Big Oil
allies.
Remember, just 7 years ago, the administration's Energy Task Force
met behind closed doors, and it consisted of former oil company
executives and of other oil executives, like Ken Lay of Enron. The
administration also fought to keep the other identities secret. Saving
American families money through innovation was not a priority.
Conservation was not a priority--the Vice President made that clear--
and public transit and public transportation were not priorities. They
were stuck in the past then, and they still are today because what has
been their answer to high gas prices? Their recommendations today are
the same as they were 7 years ago: More drilling; more of the same.
Now, as the reformers in this Congress continue to fight for a new
direction in energy policy, inexplicably, the White House announced
yesterday that it opposes today's public transit bill, the Saving
Energy Through Public Transportation Act. What a shame on the White
House, because expanding public transportation use is one of the most
promising ways to reduce energy consumption and reliance on foreign
oil.
Now, with the White House's $4-per-gallon premium, even more
commuters are choosing to ride the train and to bus to work rather than
to ride alone in their cars. According to two recent studies, America
already saves up to 1\1/2\ to 4 billion gallons of gasoline annually.
That's more than 11 million gallons of gasoline per day due to public
transit.
Ridership across America is way up. 2007 was the highest ridership in
public transportation in 50 years. Light rail riders are way up in
Denver, Seattle, Portland, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Francisco,
Charlotte, and in many other communities. And my colleague from Miami
will be pleased to hear that South Florida posted a 20 percent increase
over last year in ridership in March and April. Transit agencies are
also using more alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that
improve the air we breathe and that aid America's energy independence.
Our transit bill on the floor today and under this rule will lower
fares and will expand routes and frequency so public transit is an even
more attractive alternative during this time of high gas prices.
So I urge my colleagues to continue to stand up to the White House,
to support this rule and our first bill today, the Saving Energy
Through Public Transportation Act.
Madam Speaker, our second bill today under this rule is entitled
``Use It or Lose It.'' In the bill, we are calling the bluff of the
White House, of Big Oil, and of other prominent Republicans who claim
that oil companies are being blocked from drilling for oil and gas and
that that is somehow related to gas prices. Well, after the White House
announced that policy last week, one commentator called it a massive
fraudulent and pathetic excuse for an energy policy.
You see, 68 million acres are already leased and have the potential
to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 4.7 billion
cubic feet of natural gas each day. Now, if 68 million acres are
already open to drilling, please do not insult the intelligence of the
American people by claiming that the oil companies need more.
The truth about America's energy policy and the White House policy is
that Big Oil has stockpiled supplies and has pocketed profits. A report
has been generated by the Committee on Natural Resources, entitled
``The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and
Pockets Profits'' of June 2008. If American families and businesses are
interested, they can obtain this report on the Internet at
resourcescommittee.house.gov.
The chairman of the Natural Resources Committee is Nick Rahall of
West Virginia. It's his bill. The bill forces oil and gas companies to
either produce, to use it or to release the leases, to lose them, the
leases they've been stockpiling. These companies can't obtain new ones
unless they can demonstrate that they are diligently using the ones
that they already have.
Now, what was particularly interesting, Madam Speaker, is that, last
[[Page H6096]]
year, the administration's own energy department, the Energy
Information Administration, issued a report that determined that
opening more areas would not have a significant impact on gas prices.
The 2007 report of the administration's Energy Information
Administration, titled ``Annual Energy Outlook 2007, with Projections
to 2030'' can be found at www.eia.doe.gov/oaif/aeo/.
In fact, Madam Speaker, just yesterday, the director of the EIA
reconfirmed the 2007 report and noted that expanded offshore drilling
in the U.S. will not affect oil and natural gas prices very much at
all.
I would like to submit yesterday's reconfirmation by the EIA director
of the 2007 report.
[From Bloomberg.com, June 25, 2008]
Offshore Drilling Won't Affect Prices Much, EIA Says
(By Tina Seeley)
Expanded offshore drilling in the U.S. won't affect oil and
natural-gas prices much, the head of the Energy Information
Administration said.
Guy Caruso, speaking today at a press conference in
Washington, said his agency had considered the effect of more
drilling in a 2007 report. Higher energy prices this year
might change the results, although the time needed for
resource development would damp any outcome, he said.
``It does take a long time to develop those resources,''
Caruso said. ``Therefore the price impact is muted by that.''
President George W. Bush last week proposed expanded
drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and development of
energy sources in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as
a response to record prices. Crude-oil futures hit a record
$139.89 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange on June
16.
Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
presidential nominee, has expressed support for more
drilling. His potential Democratic opponent, Senator Barack
Obama of Illinois, opposes more drilling.
``The projections in the OCS access case indicate that
access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions
would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and
natural gas production or prices before 2030,'' the agency
said in its 2007 report.
The Energy Information Administration is the statistical
arm of the U.S. Energy Department.
Madam Speaker, this sounds all too familiar: the Bush administration
ignoring information generated by its own agencies. They've been
downplaying, ignoring climate change, possibly intelligence, and now it
comes as no surprise that they're playing games on energy policy as
well. Thanks to the administration's years of inaction and
incompetence, America is left with record prices for consumers and with
record profits for oil companies with disastrous national security
consequences.
Now, the third bill we will consider today as part of our energy
package is a direction to the administration, encouragement, as we
continue to stand up to the misguided policies of this White House.
Our third bill today encourages the White House to take more
aggressive action in regulating the energy futures market. This is our
first step in tackling the outrageous speculation that is occurring
that many experts have noted could help reduce the price of gas at the
pump.
This is our package today. We look forward to the debate.
At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend
from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
With gas prices averaging over $4 a gallon, more and more Americans
are using public transportation for their commuting needs. Reports from
Metropolitan transit systems throughout the country are showing a
significant increase in ridership, in some cases as much as 15
percent--and perhaps even higher--over last year's figures. At the same
time, highway vehicle miles traveled declined by 2 percent.
{time} 1045
Meeting this increased demand for public transportation is causing a
burden on local transit agencies which, just like commuters, must pay
record fuel prices to pay for buses and subway trains and light rail.
To help meet this increased demand for public transportation, the
underlying legislation, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation
Act, would provide $1.7 billion in funding to increase public
transportation use across the United States. Transit agencies would be
able to use those funds to reduce transit fares or expand transit
services.
I think this funding is important for communities throughout the
country, certainly the community I'm honored to represent. Recently,
Miami-Dade County, the 12th largest public transit agency in the
country, announced that bus routes would be cut and others adjusted due
to the rising cost of fuel. So this at a time when more and more
commuters are looking to use public transportation, but public
transportation systems are definitely being affected by the rise in
energy costs. So it is my hope that the $36 million this legislation
would provide South Florida would help reestablish some of the routes
that were cut and would expand others so that commuters would have a
more reliable public transportation system.
To further promote the use of public transportation, the legislation
establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and
requires all Federal agencies to offer transit passes to Federal
employees working in urbanized areas with fixed route transit systems.
To help alleviate the reliance on gasoline to power our transit
systems, the bill will increase the Federal share for clean and
alternative fuel transit projects. This will also have the beneficial
effect of reducing transportation-related emissions.
I would like to congratulate Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member
Mica for working together to draft a bipartisan bill that both sides of
the aisle can support. This legislation, the underlying legislation,
will be a great benefit to transit systems throughout the country at a
time when they are needing additional funding.
Madam Speaker, once again, the bipartisan spirit of the bill, the
underlying legislation, never made it past the doors of the Rules
Committee. Yesterday, the majority in the Rules Committee only allowed
one minority amendment to be debated today, while allowing three
amendments from the majority.
Before the new majority took control of the House in January of 2007,
they published a document called ``A New Direction for America,'' which
set out their promises to the American people. Page 24 of that document
says, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that
allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment
process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative,
including a substitute.''
Yet here we are today with a process that, contrary to their promise
to the American people, blocks a full and fair debate and allows only
one minority amendment. Actually, this one minority amendment is the
only one the majority has allowed the minority to offer all week. Four
bills, one amendment.
Actually, it is more like six bills, one amendment, because this rule
will allow the House to debate two additional bills under suspension of
the rules, one against speculation in the oil market, and we have to
speculate on what it says because we haven't seen it. And the
majority's bringing those bills to floor without allowing the minority
to offer any amendments or a motion to recommit.
So, at a time when gas prices are hitting almost daily records, the
majority should be offering a ``full and fair debate'' on this critical
issue, a debate that considers ideas from both sides of the aisle, of
all Members of this House, to help reduce gasoline prices.
Polls across the country are consistent with a recent poll that I saw
that said 71 percent want their elected leaders in Washington to focus
on ``increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering
the cost of gasoline and electricity.'' But instead, the majority is
offering no-new-energy legislation, obstructing debate, and impeding
solutions to the energy crisis, contrary to what the American people
wish.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule, which
continues to block the minority from offering more than one amendment
and blocks a thorough debate on the critical energy situation facing
the Nation.
At this time, I reserve.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
[[Page H6097]]
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's
courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule as I rise in support of
this integral part of a comprehensive approach that has been offered by
the majority party to deal with the energy challenges we face today.
It is important that we think of this in a comprehensive fashion
because there isn't one silver bullet that's going to solve America's
energy challenges, especially when it has taken years to paint us into
this corner.
It should be made clear that, first and foremost, this is not just
more about increasing supply, not just more drilling. Some of my
Republican friends are talking about draining America dry and turning
the rest of our energy future over to large oil companies who already,
as the gentlewoman from Florida points out, control 68 million acres of
land that is available for exploitation. Just ExxonMobil alone had $40
billion of profit. Were they spending it on existing leases to increase
supply? They spent $36 billion buying back their stock and found, what
was it, $10 million to invest in alternative energy. Significant irony
here, I think.
One of the items that we've been involved with in the last 18 months
is to work to give Americans more choices for their energy, to beef up
opportunities for wind, solar, and tidal, in addition to those 68
million acres already available.
We're working on new technology. Three times the House has passed
legislation, I'm pleased to say, that has included my provision to
close the Hummer loophole that actually subsidizes the purchase of the
largest, most energy inefficient, expensive vehicles like the Hummer
and, instead, would spend that money to encourage alternatives like
hybrid technology.
We need to be serious about not wasting more oil than any country in
the world. You know, it's ironic, after the Democrats seized control of
Congress we had to fight with this administration and our friends on
the other side of the aisle to just increase fuel efficiency standards
to 35 miles a gallon, that basically remained unchanged for 35 years.
Our Republican friends, when they were in control, actually made it
illegal to even study increasing fuel efficiency standards. It is
stunning when we think today of the price Americans are paying at $4 a
gallon that they refused to allow us to even study making cars more
gasoline efficient.
Well, we broke through that. The irony is now George Bush is claiming
credit for something that he resisted, but even if we give George Bush
credit for what we forced him to do, it took George Bush longer to get
to 35 miles to a gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to
the moon.
We hear about now, all of the sudden, they're flip-flopping and
interested in more offshore drilling. This is interesting. George Bush,
the first, put in place an executive order that prohibited it. George
Bush, the second, reaffirmed it at the insistence of his brother, Jeb
Bush, as my friend from Florida well knows. The President could now
overturn that executive order if he wished. The Governor of Florida,
since Florida controls the first three miles of State land, could start
drilling 3 miles off the Florida coast if they were really excited
about doing it.
Well, it's important that we've got this legislation today about
using or losing oil leases. I strongly support the part of the puzzle
that deals with conservation, because with less than 3 percent of the
world's oil reserves we'll never be able to drill our way out of this.
The irony is that even if we started drilling more today, every expert,
every expert agrees that it will take 7 to 10 years for any of this oil
to trickle into the system.
In this legislation, we are putting more resources to help mass
transit, putting more resources to give consumers choices.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. CASTOR. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is part of a comprehensive approach. Democrats
have been working since we returned to power to increase fuel
efficiency and with other alternatives for energy.
I welcome a broad, far-ranging debate about what Republicans did when
they were in control for a dozen years in the House, especially the 6
years of the Bush administration, they were in complete control, their
energy bill of 2005 when they were running the show, in contrast with
what we've already been able to accomplish with just the last 18 months
and what we propose to do in the future.
Support the rule. Support the underlying bill. I look forward to that
debate.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes
to my good friend from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
Congratulating the Fresno State Bulldogs
I'd like to rise in opposition to this rule, but before I do that,
I'd like to take just a moment to recognize the accomplishments of the
Diamond Dogs of Fresno State. The Central Valley's own Fresno State
Bulldogs entered the College World Series and left as world champions.
The Bulldogs, who barreled into the College World Series with nothing
more than the burden of proof on their side, showed not only that they
belonged in the series but that they were nothing less than the best
team in the Nation.
The Fresno State Bulldogs have triumphed in the face of adversity and
have achieved the greatest victory in College World Series history.
Their achievement has spoken louder than words and will become a
testament to all those who seek to be better, to reach further, and to
soar higher than ever before.
I share this, not only because of the great sense of pride I feel
from the Fresno State Bulldogs' outstanding accomplishment, but because
I believe their story is truly an inspiration for all. Our Fresno State
Bulldogs' story is not one of miracles. It is a testimony of the
strength of the human spirit. It is a force that can overcome any
obstacle, even when faced with seemingly insurmountable odds.
Congratulations to the Fresno State Bulldogs.
Now, Madam Speaker, I was sitting here, waiting to congratulate the
Fresno State Bulldogs, and unfortunately, we ran out of time on that.
But I had the opportunity to be able to listen to the other side of the
aisle's arguments, and I can't help but think back to 2006, because
there's a lot of hot air here in Washington, as we know, but in 2006
the Democrats said, if you put us in power, we're going to get our
troops out of Iraq, we're going to surrender in Iraq, and we're going
to just turn it over to the terrorists in Iraq.
Two years later, we're still in Iraq, Madam Speaker, because the
Republicans stood up to the Democrat majority and said we're going to
try to win and achieve victory in Iraq. We're still trying to do that,
and it's very difficult.
The other thing that the Democrats also promised in 2006 is that they
had a real plan to lower gas prices. Well, in 2 years, we have managed
to double the price of gasoline, and in California, we're getting close
to paying $5 a gallon. So I'm assuming that today's rule is the
unveiling of this plan to lower gas prices.
However, the plan that you have before us and all that we continue to
hear is that we blame the Texas oil men in the White House. Give me a
break. You must have better legislation than that today. If this is
your plan, to blame the White House, to blame oil speculators, to blame
oil companies, American oil companies don't control the world's oil
supply. The world's oil supply is controlled by foreign governments
that, for the most part, are hostile towards us.
{time} 1100
So if you have a plan to deal with these foreign governments,
hopefully, we can see it today. If you have a plan that's going to
somehow miraculously lower oil prices, maybe we're going to see that
today because, right now, your plan is not working real well.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 2
additional minutes.
[[Page H6098]]
Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, today, the price of gas is $5 a gallon, and
we would like to see the plan today, Madam Speaker. I hope that this
rule will unveil this plan, but unfortunately, the legislation that's
before us today is a scam. It's a complete and total scam.
The longer that we continue to blame the White House, the longer that
we continue to blame the oil companies, the longer that we continue to
blame everyone else but ourselves--we ourselves are to blame; we should
look in the mirror. This Congress should take dramatic steps to open up
supply that would bridge ourselves to the next generation of energy,
Madam Speaker. That's what we should be doing here today.
The American people aren't going to buy these arguments, but they are
going to continue to be buying $5 gas until we decide, as a Congress,
to do something about it.
With that, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland, a leader on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I just want to take a moment to make it clear that I support H. Res.
1304. It provides for a structured rule, and I fully support the rule.
As I was sitting here, I had to change my remarks in my head because,
as I was listening to Mr. Nunes, I could not help but think about the
people in my district of Baltimore, only 40 miles away from here, who
aren't worried about whose fault it is. What they are concerned about
are solutions to their problems so they can get back and forth to work,
so that they can go shopping, so that they can do the things that they
would normally do. I think that this rule and then this bill are a
major step in the right direction in trying to help them.
In a sense, I kind of agree with Mr. Nunes. I'm not anxious to do a
lot of blaming because the people I represent get tired of watching C-
SPAN; they get tired of the back and forth, and they simply want the
Congress to come together to find solutions to their problems.
Yes, it is true that gas prices have risen to more than $4 per
gallon. The Joint Economic Committee, on which I also serve, has
reported that households can expect to spend as much as 25 percent more
on gasoline this year than last year. This is a tremendous burden for
the many households that I represent, and they simply cannot bear it.
If, as I fear, these prices represent a new paradigm, we, as a nation,
must urgently assess how we can adjust to ensure our economy can
continue to grow while we conserve energy.
I believe that one of the best adjustments we can make is to support
the increased use of public transit, which already saves the United
States the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline per year.
Unfortunately, in many areas, such as my hometown of Baltimore where
public transportation already provides more than 93 million annual
trips, transit agencies face budget constraints that are limiting their
ability to grow to meet the new demand.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the Federal
contribution to public transit services totals less than 20 percent of
all revenue accruing to these services. Local governments contribute
nearly half of the revenue needed to provide public transit, but these
governments are facing funding constraints.
H.R. 6052 would provide an additional $1.7 billion in Federal funding
for public transportation in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, funding that
is essential to ensure that we can keep our Nation moving while
conserving fuel.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill that
increases Federal investments in public transit.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It is my privilege to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished lady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, today, the national average for a gallon
of gas has reached $4.07. With your average vehicle tank holding 18
gallons, that translates to $75 to fill your tank. This is on top of
skyrocketing food costs and, now, increases in both our natural gas and
electricity bills at home.
Many American families simply cannot afford these prices. Yet we
stand on this floor without allowing debate on a comprehensive solution
for the American people. This country is tired of partisan maneuvering
and is tired of Congress just saying ``no.''
Madam Speaker, Americans are downright mad. Some may argue that high
gas prices are an incentive to make Americans drive less or that high
energy costs are an incentive for businesses and homeowners to utilize
more green practices. High energy and gas prices also cause businesses
and jobs to move offshore where natural gas is cheaper.
I firmly believe in investing in technology that will move us away
from our Nation's dependence on petroleum, but during this transitional
period, we must also increase our domestic supply and fuel our economy.
No one can deny that energy is something that we all use and need.
Americans expect this Congress to do everything within our power to
address these high gas and energy prices.
Madam Speaker, we should not leave here for the Fourth of July recess
without increasing our own natural resources. Bring relief to the
American people. Keep our Nation competitive and open for business.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from Vermont, a member of the powerful Rules Committee, Mr.
Welch.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my colleague from Florida, and I admire
her leadership on energy issues, among many other issues.
Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about two things. One is an
amendment that I offered to this bill that's been incorporated into the
manager's amendment.
This bill recognizes that one of the steps that we have to take, long
overdue, is to build up our public transportation system. It's going to
provide relief to commuters; it's going to help our environment; it's
going to create jobs.
The amendment that I offered and that Mr. Oberstar incorporated into
the manager's amendment would allow funds to be used by local
transportation authorities, like the Chittenden County Transportation
Authority, to retrofit their equipment and facilities in order to
improve energy efficiency and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Those
would be specific purposes for which authorized funds may be used.
Specifically, it means that an organization like the Chittenden
County Transit Authority in the Burlington area could retrofit their
buses and be more fuel efficient. They've been trying to do that. A
shortage of funds has kept them from achieving all of their goals. It
would also allow the transportation authority in that State and in
other States to build a natural gas pump station locally. This, we
believe, is a very important part of the legislation presented to you.
Second, we're having, in the process of this debate, an ongoing
discussion about energy. The fact is--and I think we all know this--in
the past when we've had crises around energy, it has never produced a
lasting and durable response. There has been an immediate response but
nothing lasting, whether it was after the OPEC organization in the
early '70s, after the Gulf war or after Katrina. Usually, a crisis does
produce a response. It hasn't. We know the time has passed as to when
we can look the other way.
What accounts for the high cost of energy? The reality is there are a
number of factors. The weak dollar is one, because of our current
account deficit. Speculation is another. There has been a massive
increase in speculation in the commodities markets in general, in oil
in particular, where it's gone from folks who are delivering the
product or who are receiving the product, to financial speculators who
see that there is money in playing that game.
There has also been an increased demand with globalization. China and
India are building their economies. They're using more energy. But
there has also been a significant failure of leadership to move us away
from an oil-dependent economy. The reality is, what we need to be doing
here in Congress is addressing both the short-term
[[Page H6099]]
steps that we can take as well as the long-term need for a new energy
policy.
So what are the specific things that we can do in the short term?
One, we can stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and
diminish demand. We've done that. That will have a positive impact in
reducing demand. Second, we can limit speculation. We should be putting
limits on how much the speculative players can influence price, not
only because there is significant expert testimony that that is adding
a premium to the cost of a gallon of gas or to a gallon of home heating
fuel, but that it also is creating a potential bubble where innocent
participants and pension funds may see the value of their assets
suddenly diminish when the market goes south. So we will be considering
later anti-speculation legislation that will be helpful as well.
Third, the ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation. Our friends on the
other side have been making a big argument about the need to increase
production. You know, there is not any disagreement here that part of
our transition from an oil-based economy to a carbon-free economy has
to include the continued production and use of carbon-based fuels,
including oil. No question about it. The issue here is whether or not
we need to increase lands that are available when we have 68 million
acres already under lease, permitted, where all the oil companies need
to do in order to produce more oil is to put metal to the Earth. This
is 68 million acres, Madam Speaker, as you know, that is both onshore
and offshore.
So the argument is that we need to be opening up a national park and
starting to drill there or into other coastal areas when we have 68
million acres already available, but for reasons that only the oil
companies--the leaseholders--are aware, those are not producing needed
oil and natural gas for our citizens. It's estimated that the amount of
oil that's available under those 68 million acres is 4.8 million
barrels.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. CASTOR. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. So what we need to do that also is a long-term
energy policy is to increase mileage standards and take away the tax
breaks that are going to the oil companies and steer them to
alternative agency. Incidentally, ExxonMobil, which made $40 billion
this year, spent $32 billion buying its stock back rather than
producing oil on these leaseholds.
We also have to have a new energy policy so we can keep our money at
home. We're sending $1 trillion to the oil-producing states like
Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, not particularly our friends. If we
keep that money at home, we're going to strengthen our economy.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes
to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, due to higher fuel costs, the two largest
utility companies in Oklahoma recently announced a monthly rate
increase of $16 on average, with more increases expected this fall.
This is just the latest example of how the pain at the pump is
spreading to the other necessities of life. This added expense for fuel
in business is being passed along to consumers, who are now being hit
with a double dose of soaring prices.
However, when given the opportunity to pass meaningful energy
legislation, this majority has chosen to introduce the ``Bus Fares for
Bureaucrats'' bill, which will spend $1.7 billion in tax revenues to
reduce fares in public transportation systems. While I'm sure this will
benefit the bureaucrats in D.C. who write these laws, I'm more
concerned about the farmers in western Oklahoma, where there is no
public transportation system to speak of.
As of today, my constituents are paying upwards of $4 a gallon for
gasoline to fill their cars and $4.66 a gallon for diesel to fill their
tractors and trucks. Are we to tell them that they not only have to pay
higher prices for gas and electricity but that now they have to
subsidize people in big cities with the luxury of access to public
transportation?
As long as demand continues to rise, the price for oil will continue
to climb without increasing supply. The answer to this problem is
clear: We must increase our domestic supply of oil by allowing the
exploration of new oil reserves and by increasing the capacity of our
refineries.
A recent Los Angeles Times Bloomberg poll stated that 68 percent of
registered voters support opening up more land for oil and gas
drilling, including off the Nation's coast. It's time for this majority
to start listening to the demands of the American people and to open up
more land for oil exploration.
It's also necessary to encourage the development of alternative
energy, such as wind or nuclear power. Oklahoma is currently the number
nine generator of wind power in this country, producing 689 megawatts
per year. There are other States that have the potential to produce
more wind power than that but that choose not to install wind turbines
because they consider them unsightly.
However, I guarantee you that any Oklahoma wheat farmer who earns
money from both his crops and the wind turbines on his land will tell
you his wind turbines are beautiful.
{time} 1115
Right now, America produces 20 percent of its energy needs from
nuclear power while France produces 78 percent, 78 percent. That's 78
percent less energy they need to import from other countries. So, not
only are they able to produce more than three-quarters of their
electricity needs in France, they are able to do so in a clean,
efficient manner with minimal harmful emissions.
This leads me to my most important point. If electricity that lights
your house or the gas that powers your car is produced in America, new
jobs are created, and we are becoming less dependent on foreign oil.
It's time for America to get back in the business of energy production.
I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition on H.R. 5656, ``To
Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels Act,'' so we can bring
this essential piece of legislation to the House floor for a vote. The
rising cost of gasoline is the single biggest challenge we face in this
country, as every American who has been to the pump in the last few
months knows, and it's time for Congress to rise to the challenge to
come up with real solutions.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes
to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you for yielding time.
It's interesting that we stand here and talk about public
transportation. I represent northeast Tennessee, a rural area, and I
tell you the people who live in northeast Tennessee don't have access
to public transportation.
People in rural America are hurting. Young families are hurting.
Senior adults are hurting. Small businesses are hurting. Sheriffs'
departments and police departments are hurting.
Let me tell you about two groups. The first is Vern Long. Vern lives
in Jefferson County, Tennessee. I met with him last Saturday when I was
back home in the district. Vern is an Iraqi war veteran. He has a wife
and a child. He lives in Jefferson County and drives to Knoxville,
Tennessee to work every day. He makes $8 an hour. He's an apprentice
electrician. He wants to go on to be an electrician. He has to drive
into Knoxville, and it costs him $90 a week, $90 a week to fill up his
tank. He told me, ``Congressman, if the Congress doesn't pass an energy
bill to bring these gas prices down, I may have to go on welfare and
quit my job. And I want to protect my family. I want to be there to
protect my future.''
Let me tell you about Sheriff Steve Burns. Sheriff Burns is from
Greene County, Tennessee. I met with him last Saturday. He told me he
put his budget together for Greene County this past February and March.
He said, if it passes in the county commission as he presented it, he
will be $50,000 in the hole because of high gas prices.
Public transportation bills to send bureaucrats to work in Washington
will not help rural America. America is hurting. We need an energy
policy. We don't need more excuses, and we don't need more bills that
make it sound good and look like we're trying to do something here. We
need an energy that actually uses American oil, natural gas, coal-to-
liquid technology,
[[Page H6100]]
clean coal technology. We need to use nuclear power. Yes, we need green
energy. We need all of the above. The American people are demanding
action, real action, not excuses from Washington.
Please, I beg the majority. Let's take this burden of high gas prices
off of people like Vern Long and off of sheriffs' departments like
Sheriff Steve Burns'. Let's pass some real energy legislation. No more
excuses.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that, under the
underlying bill, we provide extensive assistance to rural America. It
is clear that folks in rural America oftentimes bear the brunt of high
gas prices brought on by this unfortunate Bush economy and by the
failure of leadership over the past 6 to 8 years. The underlying bill
provides over $100 million for rural America to expand the alternative
use through public transportation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
I thank again my distinguished friend for having yielded me the time
this morning, and I thank all of those who have come to debate on this
important legislation.
Madam Speaker, the problem is, when the process by which legislation
is brought to the floor is unfair, especially when the issue being
dealt with by the legislation is as important as is the issue today,
many Members' ideas are shut out, oftentimes ideas on which they have
worked for months or years, and in this instance, they are ideas and
proposals to bring down the cost of energy and the cost of gasoline.
That's why process, something that may sound often theoretical, can
have a significant impact on policy. In this instance, an unfair
process is denying Members the opportunity to bring concrete ideas to
the floor, for debate, to lower the price of energy. That's one of the
reasons we are so disturbed, why we think it's so unfortunate that the
process on an issue as important as this that the majority has chosen
to utilize to bring this legislation to the floor is so unfair.
On almost a daily basis, Madam Speaker, the cost of gasoline is
breaking new records. Americans are now paying over $4 a gallon for
gasoline. Yet the majority fails to bring legislation to the floor that
will actually lower gas prices or decrease our dependence on foreign
sources of energy.
We believe it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering
prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing cost of
gasoline. So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the
previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to
rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move
to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, which would
repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternatives fuels, introduced by
Mr. Hensarling of Texas. This legislation would reduce the price of
gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced
alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar
sands, and coal-to-liquid technology.
Madam 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. Madam Speaker, by voting ``no''
on the previous question, Members can take a stand against high fuel
prices and in favor of debating legislation to actually deal with that
crisis. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this previous question.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The reformers in this Congress are working for solutions and are
casting aside the politics of the past, and for the first time in a
decade, they are setting the right priorities for American families.
See, American families are caught in this very unfortunate Bush economy
that is squeezing them, whether it's health care, the rising cost of
housing, and, of course, gas prices.
This New Direction Congress, led by Democrats, is on the side of
middle class families, and we are responding to their call for change
in the direction of this country. But, Madam Speaker, it has not been
easy. It has not been easy in these final years of the Bush
administration. A number of times we have stood up to the
administration to repeal the massive subsidies to the big oil companies
and instead take that money and invest it in new renewable energies and
biofuel technologies because one of the most promising ways to end our
dependence on foreign oil is in the creation of renewable energy
sources. But we were blocked by the White House and Big Oil.
But we are not going to give up. If we had given up, the reformers in
this Congress would not have been able to push through the first
increase in fuel economy standards in over 30 years. The increase of 35
miles per gallon for each automobile will save American families $700
to $1,000 at the pump when fully implemented.
American families are clamoring for a bold, new direction in energy
policy. It is vital to their family budgets, and we know now, as,
unfortunately, the leaders of the country have had to traipse over to
Saudi Arabia and ask for more oil, that this is vital to our national
security. So the contrast between the policies of the past and our
forward-looking efforts could not be more clear.
But, Madam Speaker, it is so easy to be frustrated by the misguided
policies of this administration over the past 8 years and by their
political gimmicks where they pretend that drilling for oil in new
areas is the answer to high gas prices when their very own Energy
Department dismisses the idea as untrue. After all, there are 68
million acres already open and currently leased to oil and gas
companies. So why here at the end of this administration would we give
Big Oil even more?
Madam Speaker, American families are counting on us. So I ask my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to back up your rhetoric with
support for our bipartisan bills today, to provide American families
with greater opportunities to use public transit by lowering fares and
by increasing the frequency of buses and trains in their neighborhoods.
Reject the oil drilling gimmick for what it is, and urge this President
to address the oil speculators that are causing a run-up in high gas
prices. My colleagues, stand up to the powerful interests, and end the
practice of using energy policy as a way to support Big Oil. Instead,
help our families; help our communities; enable researchers and
innovators to lead us to a cleaner, safer, and more affordable future.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and of the
underlying legislation. Chart a new direction for America on energy. 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:
Amendment to H. Res. 1304 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5656) to repeal a
requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition
of alternative fuels. All points of order against the bill
are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on House Oversight and Government
Reform; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if
offered by Representative Waxman, which shall be considered
as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____
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
[[Page H6101]]
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 form 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. CASTOR. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
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
suspending the rules with regard to H. Res. 1291.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 198, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 462]
YEAS--228
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
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
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)
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
Reichert
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
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--198
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
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
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)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
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 (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Burgess
Cannon
Davis, Lincoln
Forbes
McDermott
Rush
Space
Stupak
{time} 1152
Messrs. ADERHOLT, BONNER and DONNELLY 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. 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. Madam 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 230,
nays 196, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 463]
YEAS--230
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
[[Page H6102]]
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
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 (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
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)
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
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
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
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)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
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
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
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
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
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 (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Cannon
Forbes
McDermott
Price (GA)
Rangel
Rush
Space
Taylor
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1202
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.
____________________