[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 122 (Thursday, July 24, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7071-H7079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1115
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1367 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1367

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of Thursday, July 24, 2008, for the Speaker 
     to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     relating to the bill (H.R. 6578) to provide for the sale of 
     light grade petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     and its replacement with heavy grade petroleum.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1367 provides that it shall be in 
order on the legislative day of Thursday, July 24, 2008, for the 
Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to energy.
  Today, a barrel of oil costs $124. Last week it was $134. In June, it 
was over $140 a barrel. Congress is acting, and the market is reacting. 
Many factors, we know, contribute to the price of a barrel of oil: 
demand, supply, our economy, speculation, actions that Congress does or 
doesn't take. But make no mistake, the actions that this Congress has 
taken and will take are having an impact, a positive impact, to bring 
down the price of a barrel of oil.
  To just remind my colleagues what this Congress did, on May 13, we 
passed H.R. 6022, a bill I sponsored, to halt shipments to the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That bill was signed into law by the 
President.
  On June 26, we passed H.R. 6377 to squeeze speculation out of the 
market by directing that the CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, utilize its authority to better regulate the energy 
markets.
  On July 17, a strong majority of the House supported H.R. 6515, the 
DRILL Act. This bill would actually open up 22 million acres in Alaska 
for drilling and direct oil companies to either use the leases they 
have on the remaining 68 million acres, or lose them. They have the 
opportunity to increase production. We are asking them to do it.
  Every time the price of oil declines, consumers and businesses save 
money. Let me just give one example. The airline industry alone, it 
costs them $430 million every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up 
$1. In the past 20 days, the price of oil has come down nearly $20. 
That is approximately an $860 million savings for the airline industry 
and our traveling public.
  The energy crisis that we face is real, and it requires long-term 
action, but it also requires immediate action. And the actions that we 
can take to take the pressure off the price, we should take. Although 
the price has recently fallen, we have much more we can do, and we must 
today take this opportunity to provide the immediate relief that will 
occur by releasing 10 percent of the oil now in the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve into the market. That would get relief to the American 
consuming public within 2 weeks.
  Incidentally, this is not an unprecedented action by Congress. It is 
smart policy, it is nimble policy. It has been done in the past by 
Republican and by Democratic Presidents. A few examples: on January 16, 
1991, the first President Bush released fuel from the SPR. That was in 
conjunction with the start of the Gulf War. President Bush said this 
will send an important message to the American people that their $20 
million investment in an emergency supply of crude oil has produced a 
system that can respond rapidly.
  A second time, September 22, 2000, President Clinton released 30 
million barrels from the SPR into the market. President Clinton said, 
``This is the right thing to do. It is good energy policy. It is good 
national security policy, and good family policy.'' The market 
responded immediately with prices dropping 18.7 percent.
  Incidentally, when the first President Bush did it, the price went 
down 33 percent. Our own President Bush, August 31, 2005, he authorized 
a drawdown of crude oil from the SPR. This was after Hurricane Katrina. 
Prices dropped 9.1 percent.
  So what we have within our grasp is the opportunity to take an action 
recently taken by three Presidents that immediately resulted in the 
reduction of the price of gasoline. In one case 9 percent, in another 
case 18 percent, and in a third case 33 percent. This is a time-tested 
action that will help Americans now address the crippling cost of fuel.
  Many of my colleagues have joined together urging the President to 
use his authority to release fuel from the SPR. The President can do 
that with a stroke of the pen. But if the President refuses to act, 
Congress must act. We know, incidentally, Madam Speaker, that this bill 
will not solve our energy problems. It is going to take a long-term 
change in our energy policies to release ourselves from our addiction 
to oil. Releasing fuel from the SPR is not a substitute for a long-term 
policy, but it is a necessary action and a practical action to provide 
immediate relief now by using a resource that does belong to the 
American people.
  Let's keep in mind that we do need a change in direction on our 
energy policy. Our country has 2 percent of the proven reserves of 
energy in the world. We are about 4 percent of the population, and we 
are consuming 25 percent of the world's energy. That is not 
sustainable. It is not good for our long-term security. We know we can 
do better by having a policy that includes higher mileage standards for 
our vehicles, higher energy efficiency standards, tax incentives for 
clean energy alternatives, better construction designs, and restoration 
of mass transit and rail. By doing that, we can create jobs, improve 
our environment, develop affordable energy, and strengthen our national 
security. But let's take the immediate short-term actions that are 
within our grasp to take that will provide immediate relief to our 
airline industry, to our businesses, and to our consumers and American 
families. Take the actions that we can take, and take them now.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule which is a 
cynical attempt to cover political Members of this body who have chosen 
to elevate partisanship and politics above a real energy solution for 
American consumers and this economy.
  Let me start by answering my good friend regarding the issues that he 
brought up and the things that he said.
  First of all, the bottom line is that there could be 10 million acres 
or 20 or 50 million acres that could be, quote, ``given to or leased'' 
by oil companies. They don't want to drill every bit of acreage they 
have; they only want to drill where the oil is. Dry holes are not good 
for anybody.
  Secondly, when you look at what the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 
all about, it is there to protect this country. We should view that 
ANWR is also a strategic petroleum reserve here for the United States. 
There are 19 million acres in ANWR. Oil companies aren't after all 19 
million acres, they are only after 2,000, just 2,000. That's where the 
oil is.
  And perhaps number three, the gentleman needs to understand this, 
that energy companies are there to be in the business of providing 
energy. They are not there for any other reason. They are there to help 
the American consumer, to support our economy, and to

[[Page H7072]]

make sure that America is the greatest Nation on the face of this 
earth.
  I am proud that we have the largest economy in this world and we use 
energy to make us more successful. We should not apologize or say it is 
a mistake that America utilizes energy. We simply need to make sure 
that what we are doing is having a comprehensive, across-the-board 
view, and not allowing drilling here in America and offshore is a 
national security issue. That's the side of the story that my friend 
did not tell this morning. That's why this bill is something we should 
oppose.
  For the last 5 months, everyday consumers and our national economy 
have been suffering because of this Democrat majority's stubborn and 
mind-boggling unwillingness to increase the supply of domestically 
produced oil to reduce prices at the pump. And for over a year and a 
half, Republicans have been unified in a commonsense approach and a 
comprehensive approach to bringing down the price of gasoline for 
consumers, only to have that plan ignored by the new Democrat majority 
in favor of agenda that prioritizes scapegoats over solutions.
  Rather than taking this opportunity to work in a constructive, 
bipartisan way to address the real domestic energy supply issues, they 
have let sky-high energy prices stand and continue for consumers.
  Today, we are being asked outside of regular order and with no 
opportunity for Members to offer their own good ideas to bring down the 
price of gasoline, and we are spending only 40 minutes to debate a fig-
leaf piece of legislation that releases 3\1/2\ days' worth of oil from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  The gentleman is correct, when there is more oil supply that is 
available, the price does go down. The gentleman is correct, there have 
been previous orders by the President to reduce the supply that is in 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve directly for consumers. But 3 days' 
worth is all we are talking about. That is not a long-term fix. We need 
a strategic petroleum reserve that is called ANWR to make America 
competitive.
  So rather than doing something that would be long term, all they are 
trying to do is something that would be a political, short-term fix.
  Madam Speaker, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intended to deal 
with natural disasters and national security crises, not preventable, 
man-made political disasters like the short supply of energy that we 
have today in America because of the Democrat Party no-energy strategy.
  The world understands it. As a matter of fact, I was out on the west 
side of the Capitol just yesterday as Republicans were talking about 
our ability to go drill here in America and offshore. And whole loads, 
bus loads of Democrat staffers and others are out front saying, No 
drill, shame on the Republican Party. My gosh, I do understand that 
that is the policy of the new Democrat majority. We're working their 
plan. That's why gasoline is at $4 a gallon. We simply disagree in the 
Republican Party.
  However, there is one small bright spot associated with this 
legislation, and it is by bringing it to the House floor today, the 
Democrat leadership is finally admitting there is a supply-side 
component to addressing America's energy concerns. My colleague was 
very plain and forward when he said: When we dump oil into the 
marketplace, the price goes down. Unfortunately, seriousness of purpose 
in dealing with the problem has not accompanied this long-overdue 
revelation--which is why we are here debating this do-nothing cover 
vote today instead of real solutions to our problems.

                              {time}  1130

  Yesterday I joined my Republican colleagues when we proposed a smart, 
innovative and comprehensive approach to addressing our Nation's energy 
independence solution, a problem whose guiding philosophy can be summed 
up by one simple principle, use less and find more.
  Rather than just releasing over a weekend's worth of energy and 
calling it a day, like the Democrat proposal does, the Republican plan 
is to increase the supply of American-made energy in an environmentally 
sound way. This is what Republicans are pushing on the floor of the 
House of Representatives yet again today.
  We believe our deep-water oil resources, ocean resources, could 
provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day as well as 76 
trillion cubic square feet of natural gas. These are proven reserves. 
We should open the Arctic coastal plain, which could provide an 
additional 1 million barrels of oil a day. We should allow development 
of our Nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 
2.5 million barrels of oil per day, and we would increase the supply of 
gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that hinders the 
construction of new refineries.
  To improve energy conservation and efficiency, our legislation will 
provide tax incentives for businesses and families to purchase more 
efficient vehicles. It will provide tax incentives for businesses and 
homeowners who improve their energy efficiency. To promote alternative 
and renewable energy technologies, this legislation will spur the 
technology of alternative fuels through government contracting by 
repealing the section 526 prohibition on government purchasing of 
alternative energy and promotion of coal-to-liquids technology.
  We will establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues 
generated by exploration in deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain. 
We will extend permanently the tax credit for alternative energy 
production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, and we will eliminate 
barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production.
  Speaker Pelosi and this new Democrat majority have the power to bring 
these already-developed commonsense solutions up for a vote at any 
time. Trust me, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here to help. But 
what we want is real solutions. We want to drill now to save America.
  Speaker Pelosi should choose to be with Republicans in a bipartisan 
answer, but, instead, this Speaker is choosing to ignore the American 
public in favor of a radical environmentalist agenda. I will be giving 
every Member of this body the opportunity to show where they really 
stand on energy independence during the vote on the rule's previous 
question. I encourage every single Member who agrees with me that this 
country needs to increase its supply of safe and reliable American 
energy to force this Democrat leadership to finally act by rejecting 
the cynical rule and the meaningless underlying legislation so that 
this House and the American people will be prepared for real 
legislation that will have a real effect at the pump.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, Mr. Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
  Madam Speaker, we have on the floor right now for consideration 
legislation which will make it possible for American consumers, who are 
being tipped upside down at the gasoline pump every time they go in 
with their vehicle and having money shaken out of their pockets, to 
have immediate relief, to have the United States be on the side of the 
American consumer.
  Now what has been happening over the last couple of months is really 
unfortunate. The Republicans and President Bush have been arguing that 
the answer is to go and to drill up in the remotest parts of the 
Arctic, when their own Department of Energy is saying that it will take 
10 to 20 years for any of that oil to get to the gas pumps in the 
United States and, when it does, it will only offer insignificant 
relief to the American consumer.
  Meanwhile, the President went over to Saudi Arabia, just a month and 
a half ago, to beg the Saudi Arabians to please produce more oil that 
we can use right now, because that would drop the price in oil. The 
Saudis said, ``Well, we'll think about it. Maybe we'll produce another 
two or 300,000 barrels of oil, but you'll have to send back your 
Secretary of Energy in another 3 weeks for us to talk to him.''
  Well, you can either promise the American people something that 
doesn't happen 10 to 20 years from now,

[[Page H7073]]

which is what the Republicans have been doing, or you can use the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve right now, which is what our legislation 
will do, and it will say to the President, Mr. President, you must use 
10 percent of all the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right now, 
70 million barrels of oil, and you must use it over the next 5 or 6 
months. That would average out to about 500,000 barrels of oil a day. 
That's the signal that the marketplace would absolutely respond to, 
because it would send shivers up the spine of the speculators, of the 
manipulators, of the OPEC cartel that has been playing games with the 
American consumer.
  How do we know that this is going to work? We know it's going to work 
because when past Presidents have turned the spigot on the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, President Bush I, just before the first Persian Gulf 
war, the price dropped 33 percent for oil.
  In the year 2000 when Bill Clinton used it, it dropped 18 percent. 
And even when this President Bush used it right after the Katrina 
storm, it dropped 9 percent. We know this works.
  But what's going to happen? The Republican leadership is going to get 
on a plane and fly up to the Arctic wildlife refuge. Instead, they 
should get on a plane and fly down to Houston and take a look at the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and ask the President to just turn the 
spigot on and to send that oil right now, not 10 or 20 years from now, 
but 10 or 20 days from now so that Americans, who are enjoying their 
August vacations know that the American government is on their side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has from 
Massachusetts expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. MARKEY. The reason the Republicans won't use it, however, is that 
they argue that we're not in an emergency. I think that is not how the 
American people view where we are. $4 a gallon for gasoline. The price 
for home heating oil and natural gas this winter rising by the day. We 
have the airline industry in crisis. We have the trucking industry in 
crisis. We have food prices skyrocketing.
  The American people believe we are in an energy emergency. What we do 
in this bill is we say, Mr. President, it might not fit your definition 
of what an emergency is, but it fits the definition for the American 
people. We want you to deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve now. We 
want you to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to protect the 
American consumer now.
  We don't want you to wait, Mr. President, until after some war in 
Iran and deploy it then too, sir, but please do not wait until then. 
Please understand that Americans want their oil. They paid for this 
oil. They've paid $100 billion to put this oil in the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve in Houston, in Louisiana, in Mississippi. They want 
relief now.
  Vote ``aye'' on this legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, you know, I would love to cut a deal 
with the gentleman right now and say Republicans would be completely 
for this bill if you would do something for more than the 3 days' 
supply if we would really approach the emergency that the American 
people are talking about, and let's do something long term. We have 
already had President Clinton 12 years ago sign the pen that said we 
are not going to go after ANWR. We would have had that online now.
  Why do we assume that in 5 or 6 or 7 years we are not going to need 
this energy? We are going to need the energy.
  This new Democrat majority, to a Member, is withholding from the 
American people the opportunity to get prices down now. To say that we 
would raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 3 days' worth of 
gasoline is laughable. It's laughable because the American people 
understand that what this new Democrat majority is all about is having 
the energy prices stay where they are. They see that the Democrat plan 
evidently is working, the Democrat plan to squeeze American interests 
out and to send the money overseas.
  We have seen that now for 18 months. That's the Democrat majority's 
plan. They want to keep building Dubai. They want to keep giving the 
money to countries who do war against the United States and don't hold 
us in favor. They want the money and the business to be done overseas. 
They want the jobs to go overseas. That's really where this new 
Democrat majority is.
  If it were the Republican Party and reversed, it would be about all 
the special interests that we're trying to give. But in this case, it 
is about the American consumer that sees that their prices are at a 
high level simply to make sure that this Democrat majority sends the 
money overseas because they really don't like the energy companies here 
in America. That's anti-American.
  Madam Speaker, the Republican Party has great alternatives that are 
on the table today. We want a long-term comprehensive fix for energy, 
and we will continue to tell the American people, just as we are here 
telling our colleagues here today, that we recognize who has the 
capacity and the ability to bring a bill to the floor today to answer 
the problem. The problem is the lack of resources of supply in the 
gasoline marketplace, and it's extending also to high fuel prices that 
will be paid in the Northeast this winter, and it is the new Democrat 
majority that is responsible for that. This is their plan. They're 
getting what they wanted, and we will keep building Dubais and keep 
sending our money overseas as long as we cut off American jobs and 
American energy companies.
  I think it's a bad thing for policy for this country. That's why the 
Republican Party has an alternative. I wish that it would be heard 
today on the board to where we could vote for it.
  Madam Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington, a member of the committee on Energy and 
Commerce and a leader on energy issues in Congress, Mr. Inslee.
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Of course we need a long-term energy plan that can wean 
ourselves off this addiction to oil. President Bush said we are 
addicted to oil, and he turns around and says let's just get more 
addicted to oil.
  I don't understand why the Republicans then voted against our bill to 
call for new clean energy sources of electricity so we can electrify 
our car and not have to burn oil. I don't know why they voted against 
our tax package that would allow tax breaks for companies like the 
Sapphire Energy Company that's making biofuels out of algae. That's a 
long-term solution to this problem, but we have got to have a short-
term solution too.
  I will tell you this, listening to my Republican colleagues, if you 
run out of gas on a dusty rural road somewhere, you better hope it's 
not a Republican Congressman who pulls up and basically comes to your 
aid and says, I can't help you now, can't help you next week, can't 
help you next year. I'll be back around here in 10 years. Then maybe 
we'll do something about it. Because that is all they are suggesting, 
and that is a plan doomed for failure. We can't wait 10 years for 
solutions to this problem. We need solutions that will work.
  Let me suggest that the evidence is very, very clear about doing very 
small releases from the SPR, and I was shocked to learn how successful 
this can be. I went to a bipartisan war game at the war college last 
week with some of my colleagues, and we war gamed out what would happen 
if there was an interruption of our oil supplies due to overseas 
disruption.
  Let me tell you what I learned since then: Small releases from the 
SPR can have huge ramifications for the price of gasoline. Look what 
happened in 1990 during Desert Shield when the first President Bush 
allowed release. Here is what the Energy Department concluded:
  ``The rapid decision to release crude oil from government-controlled 
stocks in the United States and other OECD countries helped calm the 
global oil market, and prices began to moderate. When the 1991 SPR 
drawdown was announced in connection with Operation Desert Storm, the 
price of oil immediately dropped $8 a barrel.''
  Now why does this small less than 10 percent change in SPR, how can 
it have these enormous ramifications? The answer has to do with human 
psychology. These markets are driven by

[[Page H7074]]

psychology, and that's why the three times we have been done this 
before, all the last three Presidents, including this President, has 
achieved reductions from 5 to 30 percent within 30 days in the price of 
oil.
  Don't allow Americans to be told they have got to wait 10 years for 
relief. Let's act now in conjunction with the legislation we are going 
to pass eventually to tamp down speculation. Democrats have both a 
long-term and a short-term response. Pass this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, let me agree with the gentleman. 
Psychology does have a lot to do with this. That's why Republicans, 
instead of trying to fall victim for a 3-day fix or for a long-term 
fix--so let's get into the psychology for just a second.
  How about if somebody brought legislation to the floor that said, you 
know what? I think we ought to open up American deep-water oil 
resources, ocean resources, because we do understand there are war 
games that bipartisan Members of this House go attend to where we do 
understand that if international shipping where oil was concerned, if 
there was a bad mistake or a problem, that we would be in trouble.

                              {time}  1145

  So why don't we, as just a good idea, let's open up America's deep 
water ocean resources, which could provide an additional 3 million 
barrels of oil per day, but it doesn't end there, and 76 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas.
  Why don't we also bring to the table, let's open up the Arctic 
Coastal Plain, which could provide an additional 1 million barrels of 
oil a day. But there is more.
  How about allowing the development of America's shale oil resources 
for an additional 2.5 million barrels a day?
  So instead of having just a 3-day fix and arguing all these new 
issues that we bring up would take 10 to 20 years to bring to the 
consumer, not true. It can be done tomorrow. We could decide, and we 
should have decided 12 years ago. We should have decided last year. We 
should decide that today, what we want to do is to make available the 
resources of this country in the event, in the future, there really is 
a big problem.
  So the Republican Party is here on the floor today with real live 
answers to real live problems that are happening every day.
  And so once again, we will give this new Democrat majority credit. 
The energy prices are the way that the Democrat Party wants them to be. 
They do want prices to be high. They do not want a supply unless it is 
paid for by the government. And they are not for a long-term solution 
because it would mean that we would be using those big oil companies 
resources.
  My gosh. We are going to hold the American consumer hostage. We are 
going to hold people in the Northeast who use and need this oil this 
winter hostage, when, in fact, when it is 100 degrees outside, we are 
saying, do this now; let's prepare. Let's be prepared for the future.
  And instead, this new Democrat majority argues, time in and time out, 
not going to drill, not going to put any more supply in, and prices 
will simply continue to rise.
  Madam Speaker, somebody will have to face up to the day of reckoning, 
and that day of reckoning is going to be when American consumers, in 
the dead of winter, are not only paying high prices at the pump, but 
also high prices to heat their home.
  We are trying to do something today. We have been trying to do 
something for 18 months, and this new Democrat majority refuses, 
refuses to see the facts of the case.
  We reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, a man who serves on the select committee, Mr. 
Hall.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, I just would like to say to my 
friend across the aisle that I, as a member of the Democratic majority, 
consider the repeated, deliberate use of the phrase ``Democrat 
majority'' to be a pejorative use. That is not certainly what we call 
ourselves. And we could call you the Republic minority, but we don't. 
So, in the interest of bipartisanship and comity, I would suggest 
``Democratic majority'' is the normal term to use.
  I congratulate you on accepting and adopting most of the parts of 
your plan from our plan. The renewable energy and conservation 
components, which, by the way, the Vice President sneered at in 2002, I 
think it was, when he said that conservation may be a personal virtue, 
but it is no way to build a national energy policy.
  We have been working, in this Congress, in the last year and a half 
to pass the first increase in fuel mileage standards in 32 years, to 
provide record, billions of dollars to alternative fuels research and 
development, record billions of dollars for carbon sequestration so 
that we can use coal that we have in this country without releasing 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  We have been trying, and I might say that perhaps your friend or the 
colleague in the Republican Party in the other body, Senator Domenici, 
could use a little talking to, perhaps from you, to get him to drop his 
resistance to the renewable energy standard and to the extension of the 
renewable tax credits which we have been fighting for on this side and 
have been stymied in the Senate by a small number of Republicans who 
are holding that up.
  But allow me to go to what I was going to say, which is that in New 
York this morning, gas prices are over $4.25 and in some cases $4.50 
and have been this high for weeks. These sky high prices are squeezing 
families in my district right now. Today we are trying to give them 
relief using SPR oil to increase supply and bring down prices.
  A release of oil from the SPR is a proven method of calming markets 
and lowering prices. The last three Presidents have used it 
successfully. And I urge all my colleagues to support it to do the same 
thing today.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from using 
the second person and to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We reserve our time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the GOP, the Grand Old Oil Party, is up to it 
again. Now, it is as if the first six years of the Bush administration 
never existed. The Republicans controlled the House, the White House, 
and the United States Senate.
  Vice President Dick Cheney, at the President's behest, met secretly 
with the oil and gas industry and other energy producers and proposed 
an energy policy, a Republican energy policy. That policy was passed by 
the Republican House of Representatives, adopted by the Republican 
Senate, and signed by the Republican president. We have been living 
under it now for a couple of years, and it is having the predictable 
results. We are now more dependent upon foreign oil. And many of us who 
voted against that Republican energy policy said it was pushing the 
country in that direction. We are seeing prices jacked up to 
unbelievable levels. Many of us predicted at the time that the Bush/
Cheney Republican energy policy would have those results.
  They didn't mandate increases in fuel standards. They didn't mandate 
development of alternative fuels. They had a few pretend things about 
hydrogen which was far enough off in the future that it didn't upset 
their benefactors in the oil industry because they know hydrogen is 20, 
30 years off. But things that we could have been moving toward quickly 
they were against.
  Now suddenly they are all for action. They are all for action.
  What do we need? We need more leases on the Outer Continental Shelf. 
Well, what about the fact that the industry today is sitting on leases 
that can access 80 percent of the known reserves of oil and gas off the 
United States of America? But they are simply not developing them.
  Now, the industry says, well, they just don't have enough deep water 
drilling rigs and other things. But last year Enron, I mean--sorry. 
That is another guilty party here. But ExxonMobil made more money than 
any corporation in the history of the world, $40 billion. And what did 
they do with two thirds of their profit? Did they put it into new 
supply? Did they put it into new drilling equipment? Heck no. They 
bought back their own

[[Page H7075]]

stock to enrich their board and their execs. The president who retired 
got a $400 million retirement, and he bought an oil field in Africa 
with his retirement. Now that is where their profits and their money 
went.
  They are in no hurry to develop new resources. But they would like to 
lock up what might still be out there while Bush and Cheney are in the 
White House so that they can get sweetheart deals like the one proposed 
yesterday for oil shale, because these are their oilmen in the White 
House. Plain and simple. That's what this bum's rush is all about.
  The American people need short-term price relief. It isn't going to 
come through letting more leases in sensitive areas that the industry 
sits on. It would come from breaking the back of the speculators, 
something they don't want to do, closing the Enron loophole.
  Remember Ken Lay, head of Enron from Texas, the President's biggest 
political benefactor throughout his entire life?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has 
expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The Enron loophole was created for him to trade oil and 
gas off the books. Well, Ken Lay is dead, before he went to prison. 
Enron is bankrupt, and the loophole lives on, and that is the price we 
are paying at the pump today because of commodity speculation.
  Take on the speculators, break their back. Break their back any way 
you can. Re-regulate them or take oil out of the SPR. Break the back of 
the speculators. That will give us short-term price relief. Develop our 
resources in the midterm, and new energy future for the long term, not 
dependent upon oil and foreign oil.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You know, it's great to hear about this private meeting 
that took place in the year 2000, and to now learn about all the 
attributes of the meeting.
  I would speculate, since I am sure the gentleman did, that ANWR would 
have been in that list of things that the President of the United 
States would have wanted, the consumers want, that ANWR would have been 
on there, that every place that we would drill economically, and 
ecologically, in a sound way, that that would have been on the table 
too. That is exactly probably what the President had in mind and 
probably what the energy companies had in mind.
  Let's put American resources, jobs and national security to the 
advantage of the American people, instead of the plan to send all this 
money overseas to build Dubai. That is a mistake.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany .
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague 
from Texas for yielding time to me.
  You know, the collective wisdom of the American people is a force to 
be reckoned with. And the American people are speaking very, very 
loudly today about what we need. They are speaking about the need for a 
comprehensive energy policy; an energy policy that looks at all the 
possibilities that we have. And that is just, in fact, what House 
Republicans are offering, and I would venture to say a fair number of 
Democrats on the other side of the aisle want this. But this approach 
is being blocked by the Democratic leadership, unfortunately.
  Madam Speaker, I would urge that the Democratic leadership listen to 
the collective wisdom of the American public.
  Now this idea about drawing down out of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is incredibly irresponsible. We are on the verge of a new 
hurricane season where we may need that oil. We have geopolitical 
unrest around the world where we may need that oil. The current volume 
held in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is just over 700 million 
barrels, and at current usage of 20 million barrels a day in this 
country, that is 35 days. 35 days. That reserve, that Strategic Reserve 
was put in place for real, dire emergencies.
  Now, some would argue, yes, the price at the pump is really hurting 
American families, and I fully agree. I have spoken to many of my 
constituents who are feeling the pain at the pump today. But that is no 
excuse, that is no excuse for this Congress to shirk its responsibility 
to come forward with a comprehensive energy policy that focuses on 
production in an environmentally responsible way by opening the Outer 
Continental Shelf in Alaska, by investing in alternative and 
renewables, by looking into clean coal technology, shale oil, building 
out refining capacity to meet our needs, investing in nuclear energy. 
All of these things, all of the above is what this country demands and 
is what is necessary.
  So I would suggest it is time to quit this irresponsible posturing in 
this body, and let's move forward with a comprehensive energy policy.
  This is a national security issue. It is clearly a national security 
issue. Speak to any of our generals and our troops who are fighting in 
the Middle East. This is a national security issue. And I urge my 
colleagues to get serious about this issue. The American people have 
gotten serious about it. So why are we delaying? What is the reason for 
procrastination?

                              {time}  1200

  We can come to a reasonable compromise in this body to deal with all 
of it. And I would point out that exploration and production today can 
be done in a very environmentally sound way. My district in southwest 
Louisiana has been doing this. If you look at the oil and gas industry, 
in the aftermath of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina when 80 percent of it 
was out, we didn't have spillages in the Gulf of Mexico. Everything was 
done in a very sound and responsible way. The evacuation was carried 
out well, and this oil and gas production came back on line very 
quickly in the interest of the American people.
  And finally, I would add that by increasing responsible, 
environmentally sound American exploration and production, we're 
creating good, high-paying American jobs, also a very important 
stimulus to this economy.
  Clearly, what we need today is a comprehensive energy policy coupled 
with strengthening of the dollar, and I think we will work our way out 
of this economic crisis.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, could I please find out how much time is 
left on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 8 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Vermont has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I believe I heard the 
gentleman say he has no additional speakers; is that correct?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I would like to, with 
permission, recognize the chairman again, Mr. Markey, but only if there 
is no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we will reserve our time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Vermont.
  You know, this Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an incredible weapon to 
be used in order to protect the American consumer from being gouged at 
the pump right now. And the Republican Party and President Bush and 
Vice President Cheney are talking about anything but using the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to protect the American consumer 
at the pump today. And there's a good reason. Because the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve is to the oil industry what kryptonite is to 
Superman. It saps them of their strength immediately. It decreases 
dramatically their power over ordinary citizens across our country. And 
that's why they object to it.
  You're going to keep hearing from Republicans how they really want to 
help consumers 10 and 20 years from now. But you're not going to hear a 
word about their support for deploying 500,000 or 1 million barrels of 
oil a day right now into the marketplace that will drive down the price 
of oil, drive down the price of gasoline at the pump today.
  That's what we're going to continue to wait to hear them say.
  Now, they have plenty of time left in order to make that statement in 
this debate today, but you're not going to hear it. You're not going to 
hear them talking about immediate relief.

[[Page H7076]]

They're going to continually talk about oil that will come from 
drilling on our beaches 10 or 20 years from now. Well, that's fine 10 
and 20 years from now, but what are they going to do now? What are they 
going to do between now and Labor Day when Americans are driving all 
over the country? They're doing to say, We can't use the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. We can't drive down the price of oil now. We have to 
wait.
  This is going to be an important bill to give protection to the 
American consumers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Just so the gentleman from Massachusetts has an 
opportunity to call my bluff, I'll take him up on it. I'll take him up 
on it.
  We do believe there is something immediately that can be done, and 
we've been asking for this for years and years and years because the 
fact of the matter is, as we've already heard, there is a lot of 
psychology. The gentleman from the State of Washington talked about 
psychology just a few speakers ago. Well, here is the psychology. If 
you bring your own oil to the table, the other side sees what you're 
willing to do and their oil's worthless because they cannot hold you 
hostage.
  So what the Republican Party does want to talk about today is today, 
tomorrow, Labor Day, and moving forward. And that's why we're talking 
about bringing 3 million barrels of oil per day, 76 trillion cubic feet 
of natural gas, 1 million barrels of oil from the Arctic coastal plane, 
and 2.5 million barrels a day from the shale that's in this country. 
Darn right we want to talk about today.
  But the fact of the matter is that we've been talking about this for 
years, and now they make it seem like the debate just started today. 
The debate did not start today. The debate started back when President 
Clinton was in office. We asked for and passed a bill at that time, and 
the President said, ``No. You cannot have ANWR.''
  And now we get to today and they act like, ``Well, it just started. 
But Republicans don't want to talk about today.'' Darn right we want to 
talk about today. We want to talk about what has been talked about, 
that is the psychological effort as well as a today's efforts; and 
that's why the Republican Party is here yet another day.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, another day, another energy gimmick. 
It must be the 110th Congress.
  The American public, hammered by high fuel prices, is getting tired 
of the Democrats' Jed Clampett energy plan. You just can't shoot at a 
bunch of imaginary targets and hope that energy is going to come 
bubbling up from the ground. Today is another such gimmick. Depleting 
America's emergency oil nest egg at a time when the world is 
increasingly unstable in oil-producing nations like Nigeria, like 
Venezuela, and Iran, why, even a hillbilly like me doesn't think that 
makes much sense.
  Tapping our energy reserve for 3 measly days of energy, 3, 3 days of 
energy, that won't lower prices, nor does it send a signal to the world 
that America is serious about taking more responsibility for meeting 
our own daily energy needs.
  If this bill were to pass, and it will fail spectacularly today, but 
if it were to pass at the end of the drawdown, America would be more 
dependent on foreign oil than we are today. We would be more dependent 
on foreign oil than we are today. And how does that solve the problem?
  So here is the question: How high does gas have to get before 
Congress will act? How many families will be hurt? How many small 
businesses will go under? How hard will our economy be hit before our 
Speaker allows an up-or-down vote on producing more American-made 
energy?
  Congress has voted on conservation, we voted on renewable and passed 
them both. Why can't we get a vote on more exploration here at home 
with our resources? Speaker Pelosi to the Democrat leadership, I know 
that you have the right heart. Tell the special interests to step 
aside. Make room for the little guy who doesn't have a lobbyist, who 
hasn't contributed to your campaign. Let them have an up-or-down vote 
on this floor, a vote now for the American Energy Act so we can produce 
more American-made energy so we can get serious about lowering gas 
prices here in America.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time remains 
on my side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The gentleman from Texas 
has 3\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Vermont has 10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman from Vermont is 
through with his speakers and wishes to close.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
  I wanted to have a quote up here that was from Mr. Kanjorski. And 
this was in an interview that he was giving to one of the local 
newspapers or television stations. And he was talking about really the 
Democrats' promise to end the war in Iraq and bringing all of the 
troops home, but it relates to their energy policy, too, and what they 
promised when Speaker Pelosi, then-minority leader in April of 2006, 
says, ``We as Democrats have a commonsense plan to lower the 
skyrocketing price of gas.'' At the time it was about $2.10 a gallon.
  But Mr. Kanjorski said, ``We sort of stretched the truth and people 
ate it up.'' Well, there's been some truth stretching going on lately 
in this building, and I think what we've got to realize is that we need 
to do something to increase the supply other than taking out of our 
savings account.
  If you have a shortfall every month and you take out of your savings 
to make up for that shortfall or to increase the supply of money that 
you have, you're eventually going to run out of that. We would run out 
of oil, and we don't need to do that because then we would certainly be 
at the mercy of our enemies.
  This is Mr. DeFazio back on January 18 of 2007, Mr. Speaker, when the 
Democrats came out with their energy plan. He said, ``It is sad to see 
the Republicans come to this. Now they laughingly say this will lead 
the higher prices.'' At the time, gas was $2.10 a gallon. Today it's 
about $4.10 a gallon.
  We told the Democrats then that their energy plan was not going to 
work, that it was not going to help Americans lower the gas prices and 
the price to heat their homes. We're telling them the same thing today: 
by taking out of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase the supply 
is not the way to go. That's not the commonsense plan that Speaker 
Pelosi promised us back in April of 2006.
  We don't need to deplete our savings, the energy reserve that we have 
in cases of emergency like when we used it for the first Gulf war and 
when we used it for Katrina. We don't need to use our savings.
  And so with that, I want to say that this is another situation where, 
Mr. Speaker, the American people have heard the Republican idea of 
increasing supply, an all-of-the-above policy, and the Democrats are 
still doing things under suspension when they could do this under 
regular rule. They've got 218 votes. Mr. Speaker, the reason I think 
the majority party does not want to do it is because they know their 
energy plan is a failure. They want these bills to fail that they have 
under suspension.
  Let's bring about something to this floor that will let the duly 
elected people of this country vote on an energy policy that will bring 
relief to the Americans at the pump. And that policy is to increase our 
oil supply from our own natural resources.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, 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 the additional consideration of H.R. 6566, the American 
Energy Act.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and 
extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?

[[Page H7077]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a simple and 
straightforward opportunity for Congress to take an action taken by 
previous Presidents and Congresses to lower the price at the pump for 
the American consumer and for American businesses.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has over 700 million barrels of oil. 
That is an asset that was bought and paid for by the American taxpayer, 
it's an asset of the American taxpayer and citizen, and it's there to 
be used for the benefit of the American citizen and the American 
taxpayer.
  This legislation would direct that 10 percent of that reserve--10 
percent only; 70 million barrels--could be released. And what we've 
seen in history is that in the three most previous instances where, 
with a stroke of a pen, the President has used that authority to 
release this asset belonging to the American people, it's resulted in a 
reduction in the price at the pump of gasoline from 33 percent to 18 
percent to 9 percent. So it's a proven action that Presidents have 
taken to benefit the American consumer.
  It's also responsible. You know, 20 days ago, oil was over $140 a 
barrel. It's $124 a barrel today. And that means that when we are 
replenishing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it's going to cost less 
for the American taxpayer.
  There is a reason why so many interested parties who are affected by 
the high price of oil strongly support this. The Air Transport 
Association, National Farmers Union, American Truck Association, League 
of Conservation Voters, many Republican Members of Congress: Zach Wamp, 
Rodney Alexander, Heather Wilson, Senator Collins, Senator Hutchison, 
Senator Isakson. And the reason is that whatever we are going to do in 
the long term to change our energy policy, why would we not take the 
immediate action in the short term that can provide immediate benefit 
to the American consumer and to American businesses?

                              {time}  1215

  It just stands to reason that a responsible Congress is going to take 
those actions that can provide direct and immediate relief to the 
American consumer. That's what the release of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve will allow. Ten percent, not all of it. It's not robbing the 
savings bank. It's using an asset that belongs to the citizens of this 
country to provide help to the families of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the 
rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 1367 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:
       That it shall be in order at any time on the legislative 
     day of Thursday, July 24, 2008, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules relating to the bill 
     (H.R. 6566) to bring down energy prices by increasing safe, 
     domestic production, encouraging the development of 
     alternative and renewable energy, and promoting conservation.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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 on House 
Resolution 1367 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House 
Resolution 1367, if ordered; ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 1362; and adoption of House Resolution 1362, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 184, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 524]

                               YEAS--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     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
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     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
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger

[[Page H7078]]


     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     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)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     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
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     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--18

     Bishop (UT)
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cubin
     Dingell
     Gohmert
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hulshof
     LaHood
     McNerney
     Moran (VA)
     Ortiz
     Renzi
     Rogers (MI)
     Rush
     Waters


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1241

  Mr. BACHUS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. RAMSTAD and LoBIONDO changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 190, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 525]

                               YEAS--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     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
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     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
     Hill
     Hinchey
     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)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     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)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     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
     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
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     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--18

     Bishop (UT)
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Dingell
     Gohmert
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hulshof
     Kirk
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Miller, George
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Tiahrt


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1248

  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.

[[Page H7079]]

  Stated against:
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 525, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________