[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 149 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H8406-H8413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H8406]]
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6604, COMMODITY MARKETS 
              TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2008

  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1449 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1449

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     6604) to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bring greater 
     transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 6604 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

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


                             General Leave

  Ms. SUTTON. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1449.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SUTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1449 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 6604, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act. 
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on 
Agriculture and provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  The rule makes in order as base text an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the Rules Committee report. The text of this 
substitute amendment is almost identical to the version of the bill 
that was considered under suspension of the rules on July 30. That bill 
received 276 votes from both sides of the aisle.
  Madam Speaker, since this bill was last on the House floor in July, 
the American people and our economy continue to struggle with high food 
and energy prices and a weak job market. From the subprime mortgage 
crisis and the financial meltdown, to the unethical behavior of the 
Minerals Management Service, the necessary and proper oversight has 
clearly not been taking place. In some cases laws may have been broken, 
and as a result homes have been taken through foreclosure. Savings have 
been lost. Dreams of the American people in many cases have been 
shattered.
  Madam Speaker, we are fighting to stop the pain that the American 
people are feeling, to restore their trust in government, and 
revitalize our communities.
  We must take action and we must take action now. For many years now, 
too many Americans have felt that their government is working not with 
them but against them. But this Democratic Congress is working to take 
our Nation in a new direction. On Tuesday we passed a comprehensive 
energy bill that will lower gas prices for American families, invest in 
renewable and alternative energy, and responsibly expand exploration in 
the Outer Continental Shelf.

                              {time}  1100

  But Madam Speaker, speculators continue to enjoy free rein at the 
expense of our pocketbooks. And that is unacceptable.
  We have all seen the recent headlines and reports identifying that 
oil speculators are out of control. One of the newspapers serving my 
congressional district, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, printed an article 
last Thursday on this very issue. The headline read, ``More scrutiny of 
oil speculators. Evidence shows they operated in `dark markets' to hide 
prices.''
  The article goes on to state that ``unregulated markets account for 
about two-thirds of oil trading, and that they can be used to 
manipulate oil prices.''
  Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, the American people simply want a 
government that works for them instead of against them. Today, we will 
pass the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act so that 
our commodity markets will, once again, work the way they were intended 
to work.
  Our bill provides the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the 
CFTC, with new resources to improve enforcement, prevent manipulation 
and prosecute fraud. It provides the CFTC with the authority and 
direction to address excessive speculation which has undermined the 
basic principles of supply and demand. It has artificially inflated the 
price of oil and, in the process, has hurt families in Ohio and all 
across this great Nation. This bill will work for the people, instead 
of working for those who look to exploit loopholes and seek to 
manipulate the market.
  Now we all know that Wall Street has found exotic ways to create 
their own markets, and with this bill, we will fix the London Loophole. 
And why is that important?
  The London Loophole currently allows traders to circumvent U.S. laws 
and trading rules by working through foreign boards of trade. This bill 
requires foreign boards of trade that offer electronic access to U.S. 
traders to adopt similar speculative limits and regulations. The 
foreign boards of trade will also now be required to share large trader 
reporting data with the CFTC.
  Additionally, H.R. 6604 requires that the CFTC set standards for all 
energy and agricultural futures markets. This is critically important, 
as it will limit traders' ability to distort the market.
  Our bill will also require the CFTC to have a complete picture now of 
the swaps markets. Index traders and swap dealers will be subject to 
strict reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
  And lastly, under this bill, position reporting will become mandatory 
for over-the-counter trading in agricultural and energy contracts.
  Now, Madam Speaker, some of what I've said sounds very technical, and 
it may be a little bit difficult to understand because of that 
technicality. But to put it very simply, our actions here today will 
add the necessary oversight and transparency to shed light on the 
``dark markets.''
  With the recent revelations on Wall Street and the run-up on oil 
prices under the Bush administration's failed energy policy, these 
changes are long overdue.
  But there are some, Madam Speaker, who may not want us to make the 
changes in our market system so that we can bring relief to the 
American people. There are some who may try to say that we're adding 
too much regulation.
  But the recent collapse of certain financial giants has only further 
illustrated the great need to revisit these issues and ensure that the 
voices of the people are being heard, and that they are being 
protected.
  There are some who may try to say that we're restricting the ability 
of hedgers, those who trade in futures, to offset their price risk. But 
they are misinformed. This bill provides exemptions for bona fide 
hedgers. They are the ones that the commodity markets were designed to 
work with.
  But we know that unscrupulous speculators can interfere with the 
ability of producers and processors who use these markets for 
legitimate purposes. On Tuesday, as speculators dumped oil for cash, 
oil closed at just over $91 a barrel, a nearly 38 percent drop since 
the record high of $147 in July. But just yesterday, oil prices shot up 
$6 a barrel as, ``fears of a spreading crisis in the U.S. financial 
sector sent skittish investors scrambling out of stocks,'' according to 
the AP.
  Madam Speaker, our commodities should not be treated as a 
speculator's safety net. We cannot allow speculators to continue to 
drive prices of our

[[Page H8407]]

commodities beyond the normal ebb and flow of supply and demand.
  Families in my district and all across our great country want 
commonsense policies that will work for them, instead of rewarding a 
select few. This is the new direction that the American people have 
called for, one that puts the voices of the people ahead of the special 
interests.
  I hope that all of our colleagues will join us in taking this step 
today to pass this bill that, as I mentioned, has previously passed 
with a bipartisan majority in July, but not the two-thirds majority 
that was necessary under suspension. But we can get it done.
  Madam Speaker, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability 
Act will increase oversight and transparency, and will prevent oil 
prices from being artificially inflated.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1449 and this 
incredibly important underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, my 
friend from Ohio, for extending the time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this once again closed rule, 
and to the underlying previously failed legislation that this Democrat 
majority is bringing to the House floor, without having made any 
substantive improvements to it since it last failed on this House on 
July 30, and despite an agreement during that time that they would work 
with members of the Republican Party to try and better the bill.
  Like every other Member of this House, I'm concerned about the 
crushing economic impact that rising food and fuel prices are having on 
American families. That is why I strongly support the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission's recent steps to increase transparency in the oil 
futures market and their continued vigor in enforcing existing laws 
governing U.S. futures markets, including the long-time prohibition 
against market manipulation.
  My concern for the economic and retirement security of American 
families is also why I do support certain parts of this bill, including 
its increased data reporting requirements, and its authorization of at 
least 100 new full-time employees to increase the public transparency 
of operations in agriculture and energy markets, and otherwise monitor 
price manipulation and commodities futures market.
  However, it is this same concern for American families and our 
American economy that forces me to oppose a bill that has the potential 
to destabilize commodity prices and dry up market liquidity at a 
particularly vulnerable time for our entire economy, instead of simply 
increasing transparency and improving enforcement.
  While I disagree with his approach to improving our Nation's 
commodities market, the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture 
and I do agree about several things. First, yesterday evening in the 
Rules Committee, my friend, Collin Peterson, chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, testified that he was not, was not bringing this 
bill to the floor because he thought that it would bring down the price 
of energy at the pump for American families. He does not believe it 
will. I don't believe it will bring down prices at the pump. And he's 
exactly correct.
  This bill, like the no-energy sham legislation that the Democrat 
majority brought to the floor just earlier this week, this bill will do 
absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to increase the supply of 
American-made energy that is the root of the high energy prices that 
are taking an enormous toll on American families and businesses.
  Second, I agree with Chairman Peterson's assertion in his testimony 
yesterday to the Rules Committee that he did not believe this bill 
would actually become law.
  So here we are, taking time on the House floor, when the American 
people need action by this Congress to do something about energy 
legislation that will be signed into law, that will include doing 
something about the price at the pump. And instead, Chairman Peterson 
said, I don't even think this bill's going to become law. We're not 
going to agree to this.
  Like him, I do not think that this bill represents a serious attempt, 
which is what Congress should be about, especially as we near the end 
of the session, a serious attempt at providing legislative solutions to 
the very serious problems facing our economy, and that it is little 
more than a second opportunity this week for Members to claim, ah, but 
we're up there doing something, up there working 5-day workweeks.
  We need to be doing something about addressing the high cost of 
energy. Without taking real and meaningful action to open up energy 
reserves, it simply will not happen. That's what the economy needs. We 
need to do something about the high price of energy.
  If this were a serious attempt to solve our Nation's problems, 
Democrat leadership forcing this bill onto the floor would have made 
more than technical changes to the bill that failed just last time it 
was here, July 30, changes like the one proposed by my good friend and 
former CPA, Mike Conaway of Texas, where he, in a colloquy with 
Chairman Peterson, talked about the need to create a common 
understanding of risk management needs which market participants should 
be eligible for in a bona fide hedge exemption.
  Of course there was an agreement on the floor, talk is cheap, about, 
yes, we'll work with you. And, in fact, that never happened. Never 
happened.
  And then last night, given an opportunity in the Rules Committee, the 
Rules Committee, once again, even seeing the agreement that was made 
and that the offer was not accepted, did not even want to make Mr. 
Conaway's amendment in order. A real shame. A real shame for a House 
where there was a promise of the most open, honest and ethical Congress 
in history.
  Instead, this House is getting something that is even worse than 
nothing, a bill that the Democrat majority didn't even see fit to 
include in its first so-called energy bill this week, which is also 
bringing to the floor its record-shattering 61st closed rule for this 
Congress.
  Open. Honest. Ethical.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday we had a chance to help just correct that 
just a little bit and level the playing field. Mr. Conaway was slam 
dunked in the Rules Committee again, despite what was said on this 
floor about working with members of the Republican Party. Better idea, 
a better way to make the bill happen.
  Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this kind of closed process and this 
kind of cynical, political motivated work product has become 
characteristic of what we have seen now for almost 20 months. The most 
honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history, as promised by 
Speaker Pelosi back in 2006, and it's no wonder that the American 
people are giving Congress historic low, record low ratings on 
approvals for the job that Congress is trying to do.
  I think we ought to be serious about our work. I think we should not 
bring bills to the floor where the committee chairman, at the time he 
presents his bill to the Rules Committee, admits this is never going to 
become law. It's a shame.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this rule 
and the underlying legislation which the Democrats don't believe will 
bring down energy prices when they crafted this supposedly 
comprehensive energy package earlier this week, and which the chairman 
of jurisdiction does not believe is a good reason for doing so now.
  The American people are hurting. Our economy is hurting. People back 
home want leadership in Washington, and once again, the majority party 
has failed.
  I think we should deserve more from the leadership. I believe that 
the Democrat Party should not have a closed process. I believe running 
for political cover for a vote that will go nowhere is a mistake. But I 
do know it's for their vulnerable Members, Members who want to pretend 
that they're doing something. What a shame.
  I oppose this process. I oppose this rule. I oppose the underlying 
legislation, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, it's my honor at this time to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota

[[Page H8408]]

(Mr. Peterson), the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentlelady.
  With all due respect to my good friend from Texas, I take a little 
bit of offense saying that the Agriculture Committee was not serious in 
what we were doing here. We take very seriously our responsibility in 
overseeing the CFTC, and this bill is, without a doubt, the most 
responsible bill that's been put together in this area in this 
Congress.
  The reasons we're bringing it up is not because of the reasons that 
were iterated by Mr. Sessions, it's because we're doing our job. And 
maybe there's problems over in the Senate, but I can't control that. I 
just want to make sure that we don't have the same kind of problems 
happening on Wall Street in the CFTC that we see going on in these 
other areas where they have all of these crazy derivatives and 
everything else that they've dreamed up on Wall Street.
  What they've done is they've created investment in the commodity 
market that, in my opinion, has no business being in there. This was 
something that was never intended. They're using the regulated market 
outside the position limits to offset that risk, which I think we've 
decided is wrong. And so we're fixing that.
  This bill is supported by Mr. Goodlatte. We passed this out of the Ag 
Committee. There were no Republican amendments offered in the 
committee, and on the floor of the House we had 291 votes, we had a 
two-thirds vote until the leadership came up and started twisting arms 
and it went down to 275.
  So what we're doing is our job, and I guess I take offense when 
somebody criticizes us for doing our job.
  Now in the case of Mr. Conaway, I apologized to him personally last 
night. I think I made it clear in the committee. I had a personal 
situation last week. I wasn't here. This happened, the bill failed 
right before the August recess, nobody was around. I think he has a 
legitimate point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SUTTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I think he has a legitimate point. But 
some of the folks that we were working on on this bill have not come to 
that conclusion at this point. I think we can work through this, and we 
have reached out as of this morning to Mr. Conaway's staff and we're 
going to get together yet this week and next week to try to resolve 
this issue and try to get everybody on the same page.
  So if we can get this bill out of the House, if the Senate moves, 
we're going to have a conference committee. And I told Mr. Conaway last 
night that this is an issue that we can deal with at that time.
  We have issues on our side that we have people upset about that we 
took out of the bill to make sure it was all within our jurisdiction 
that we're also going to have to deal with.
  So I apologize for being too busy when I got back to contact Mr. 
Conaway, but it was for no purposeful reason that I did that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I would yield.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Can you please tell us when the majority leader gave an 
announcement to this Congress that this bill would be considered? 
That's fair game.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I don't know exactly.
  Here is my point. At the time this bill failed after it had passed, I 
talked to our leadership and they assured me that they would bring it 
back under a rule in September. If I would have been here last week, 
Mr. Conaway and I would have had these discussions and we wouldn't be 
in that part of things. But this was always the intention to bring this 
back, and we don't have a lot of time. We can't wait until next week to 
bring this up. We're going to run out of time.
  I told the leadership that I wanted this bill brought up. They have 
brought it up, and I'm glad they did.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I would yield.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Is the gentleman aware that Republicans and others in 
this House were given less than 3 hours' notice for the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to extend to the gentleman 3 additional 
minutes.
  The Republican Members in this body and the rest of the Members were 
given 3 hours' notice that this bill would be on the floor.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Well, that was not my decision.
  What we're doing is the work of the Agriculture Committee. We asked 
them to bring this bill up so that we could get it passed. So that 
we're doing our work. We're doing our part.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Do you believe that 3 hours' notice--you had indicated 
there were no Republican amendments--would be enough time for a Member 
that's a Republican to go down to Leg Counsel to get an amendment 
that's prepared to get it to Rules Committee? Do you believe that could 
be done? Because what you're saying is, well, no Republican even 
submitted an amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Well, I'm sure that there's been a lot of 
cases around here where we would have liked more time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
  I would also like to ask the gentleman, was the gentleman aware that 
the gentleman, Mr. Conaway, had asked on this floor of the House of 
Representatives and was given, through your words of support, that you 
would work with him before the bill came back to the floor?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I don't think that's exactly what we said.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Can you please tell me exactly what you think it was?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. He and I had discussions about this issue. 
I think he and I were in agreement. The problem was the other folks 
that had bills that we had incorporated into the overall bill were not 
in agreement, and they're still not in agreement. And I think even if 
we would have worked on this last week, I'm not sure we would have come 
to an agreement by today.
  I apologize. I was on a personal situation last week so I wasn't 
here. When I got back, we had a blowup on country of origin labeling 
and some other issues.
  So I think if Mr. Conaway would--we had discussions last night, and I 
think we've got a way to move forward. But I'm not sure we're going to 
come to a resolution that's going to be agreeable to everybody. We may 
still have to have some kind of a, I don't know, process to try to work 
this out because there's people that think what Mr. Conaway is doing is 
opening up too big of a hole, if you will, in the hedge exemption. And 
so we've got to work through that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, the gentleman 
who's chairman of the committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has 
again expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I extend myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is why last night or yesterday afternoon in the 
Rules Committee there was a very polite discussion and a request made 
by Republicans in the committee once we recognized that there were some 
problems that took place that were unavoidable on behalf of the 
chairman of the committee, on behalf of notice to Republicans, on 
behalf of a colloquy that engaged Members on this floor where we 
realized, Oh, I'm sorry. That just didn't happen. And we will not say 
it was anybody's fault, but there was agreement that there was a 
problem.
  This is where the Rules Committee comes into play. The Rules 
Committee is a body that should have the ability to look fairly and 
equitably at an issue and then make a decision.
  I had a discussion with the committee. I have only served on the 
committee 10 years. But I have seen people bring legislation to the 
committee and ask for relief and receive relief. Normally, if we were 
in January, February, March, April, May, some other time, open rules 
are not always allowed or amendments aren't always allowed

[[Page H8409]]

because they seem to open up all other issues and ideas.
  This was a very specific idea. This was an idea that was agreed upon 
that there would be a discussion, and the Rules Committee slam dunked 
the gentleman from Texas as well as Republican Members after hearing 
positive testimony from both sides, not even giving relief.
  This is exactly what Republicans are talking about, and I believe the 
American people, that this Democrat majority and the Rules Committee, 
which set a record-shattering 61 closed rules--for any Congress a 
record--simply is so flatlined upon doing politically what they choose 
to do and by showing their power that there is not even a voice that's 
open.
  What the gentleman has suggested to us today is that he knew of no 
other process for the gentleman to go through. Well, it's called an 
amendment that would be on the floor of the House of Representatives 
where our colleagues cannot only hear the issue but then get a chance 
to vote on it.
  So today we're here without the ability to vote on it, but we have 
the gentleman, Mr. Conaway, and I would like to yield him 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Before I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont, I would 
like to yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for 
coming forward and talking about this issue here today and for making 
the point that this bill is a bill that is virtually identical to a 
bill that was passed in July, as I said, on a very big bipartisan vote; 
61 of our friends, the Republicans, voted for it, including Mr. 
Conaway. That bill was the result of multiple hearings in the 
Agriculture Committee, and no Republicans during that period of time 
offered up any amendments in the Ag Committee markup.
  Chairman Peterson graciously made it very clear here today that this 
bill continues through the process and that he is absolutely willing to 
work with Mr. Conaway as we move forward on this very, very important 
legislation.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio.
  Madam Speaker, this bill, I think, brings in sharp relief a major 
question that this Congress is now having to contend with.
  Our economy has been hijacked by speculation. Institutions that have 
served average American families, average American farmers, average 
American businesses very well have become casino chips on Wall Street. 
A couple of examples: One, mortgages. Folks were able to get a mortgage 
when they had enough savings and could get one that they could afford 
and they would buy a home. Mortgages were turned into subprimes that 
became investment vehicles by Wall Street, and now we're seeing the 
collapse.
  A second institution, and this is why the Agriculture Committee is so 
involved, is the futures market. The purpose of the futures market was 
to give some price stability to our farmers, to our fuel dealers, to 
our airlines, folks who absolutely had a need for some price stability, 
some price discovery with the commodity they were producing.
  And how did we get to this situation where it's been taken over by 
Wall Street? We can thank Enron for that. And it is important to 
understand historically how we got here.
  Enron came into this Congress in 2001 and asked, literally, for a 
loophole, and they got it; and that was to allow speculative trading in 
the futures market. What that has resulted in is a vast increase in 
speculative activity in the energy market and the futures market for 
commodities by financial players as opposed to by farmers, by fuel 
dealers, by airlines.
  We saw what happened with the subprime mess, and now we're seeing 
what has happened in the commodity futures trading market and why it's 
so essential that we get control on this and restore the futures market 
and restore it to what its original intention was, that is, something 
that's going to help the American consumer, the American farmer, the 
American small business.
  This committee bill is bipartisan. The Agriculture Committee probably 
has the two most bipartisan leaders in the House with Chairman Peterson 
and Representative Goodlatte. And what they've done is made a decision 
in this committee to bring a bill that restores the commodity futures 
trading market to its original purpose, and that is having as its focus 
helping our farmers, our consumers, and small businesses and saying 
``no'' to Wall Street; this is not one of your toys for speculation and 
enrichment.
  So this is absolutely essential not just for the farmers and the 
small businesses, the fuel dealers, the airlines, but for capitalism 
itself. If we don't have mechanisms that reward work as opposed to just 
speculation, we're not going to have an economy that works.
  So this bipartisan legislation recognizes the fundamental requirement 
that we have institutions that work to reward and help our farmers and 
our small businesses.
  Today, the House will take up H.R. 6604, the Commodity Market 
Transparency and Accountability Act. This bill will take crucial steps 
to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures markets.
  Each weekend I hear the same thing from Vermonters: increasing 
expenses for fuel, child care, health care, and education are making it 
harder and harder for working families to make ends meet. Energy costs 
are an enormous driver of this crisis. The average U.S. heating oil 
bill is expected to be a record $3,500 for the upcoming winter, up 76 
percent from two winters ago. This is not sustainable. Based on the 
current state of the market, speculation is a large contributing factor 
to the astronomical spikes we have had in just the past 12 to 18 
months.
  In 2000, Enron and several large energy companies successfully 
lobbied the (Republican-led Congress to exempt energy markets from 
government regulation. This lack of oversight has resulted in multi-
billion dollar price manipulation and excessive speculation by traders. 
This special interest loophole is allowing energy traders to rip off 
Americans who are already struggling every winter to heat their homes. 
The previous Congress sold us out to Enron, creating a Wild West in the 
energy markets at the public's expense. It's time to end this rip off.
  Last November I introduced H.R. 4066, the ``Close the Enron 
Loophole'' bill. My bill and the bill we will vote on later today calls 
into question the excessive speculation occurring in the marketplace. 
Are we going to allow the oil futures market to continue to profit from 
ripping-off our hardworking constituents, or are we to pass and enforce 
responsible regulations on energy futures trading? Families who already 
struggle to pay fuel bills, should not be forced to choose between 
putting food on the table and keeping their house warm as energy 
traders continue to line their pockets.
  This bill will not solve our energy problems. Forcing speculation out 
of the market is not a substitute for real commitment to a long term 
energy policy. As a nation that possesses less than 2 percent of the 
world's oil reserves, but uses 25 percent of the world's oil, we must 
adopt new policies--higher mileage standards for our vehicles, higher 
energy efficiency standards, tax incentives for clean energy 
alternatives, better construction designs, restoration of mass transit 
and rail--we can create jobs, improve our environment, develop 
affordable energy, and strengthen our national security.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I really agree a lot with the gentleman 
from Vermont. What I disagree with and believe the problem is that we 
don't have enough oil that's available to the marketplace, and that's 
where Republicans are trying to bring more oil where we don't have to 
have speculation for people who absolutely, positively must have the 
oil available.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I want to set the record straight, or at least set a record that says 
I have complete trust in the chairman of the Ag Committee. Collin 
Peterson is an honorable man, and when he makes commitments, I think he 
intends fully to make those commitments.
  I think we're under a circumstance where he was not allowed to make a 
commitment that, were it his decision

[[Page H8410]]

alone, that we would have a resolution of this issue that would be 
satisfactory I think across the spectrum.
  I'm a CPA, as is my good colleague from Minnesota, my chairman. One 
of the things you look for as an auditor in financial statements is 
consistent application of accounting rules.
  I want to congratulate this Rules Committee on consistently applying 
their position of having closed rules on everything of importance that 
comes down here. It's as if every bill that comes out of the Speaker's 
office is perfect, and I would argue that no one in their right mind 
thinks every bill that passes this House, whether it's a Republican 
bill or a Democrat bill, is perfect.
  There should be the opportunity to say here's an area in a bill that 
needs further work. I don't think anybody on the other side of this 
aisle would say this is the perfect fix to the commodities futures 
market; it's the perfect fix to make sure that the only thing going on 
in these futures markets is price discovery, and once this is passed 
and signed by the President we will never have another problem with it. 
I don't think anybody's arguing that.
  So it's twisted, in my view, to say on the one hand, well, it's not a 
perfect bill and it could be improved, there could be some issues be 
addressed, and one I'd like to talk about in a second. And yet this 
Rules Committee, dominated by the Speaker I believe, Madam Speaker, is 
consistently applying the closed rule concept that prevents other 
voices, whether they're Republican or Democrat, to come to this floor 
and say I might have a little bit better idea or better take on 
something, the will of the House will happen, but let my voice be 
heard.
  The process yesterday on this bill that came forth was anything but 
open. It was very quick. They've not laid a predicate for why it needs 
to be instantly done today, why we couldn't have been allowed an 
opportunity to present a motion that would have said we need hedgers in 
the markets, in this commodity futures trading arena, in order to make 
this thing work.
  One of the risks of this bill is that it will exclude traditional 
hedging operators from being able to provide hedging services to small 
businesses. Putting these hedge positions in place, if you're a long 
commodity, is expensive, and you need size and volume to get the 
transaction costs down. So there's an arena of folks in the market who 
provide these services on behalf of folks who need to hedge. I think 
this bill overreaches in its attempt to make sure we don't have undue 
speculation in the market.
  That's simply what I'm trying to do, and I've got I think a 
commitment from the chairman to work on this. I visited with him last 
night, and I believe he is sincere when he said he wanted to keep this 
commitment that he and I made on this floor back in the end of July to 
address this issue.
  This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an issue that we 
all should be able to have an independent view on.
  The previous speaker mentioned the fact that I voted for the bill, 
and she's absolutely correct. But I voted for the bill because I made a 
commitment. I made a commitment with my chairman that said, Madam 
Speaker, if you will work with me on this, then I will vote for this 
bill. And so I put my green vote up that afternoon, and I can assure 
you I had no shortage of the 151 Republicans who voted against this 
bill come to me and say, Conaway, have you lost your mind? What are you 
doing? This is not a normal position that you would take. And I said, 
Well, I made a commitment to the chairman that I would support working 
forward in this bill as it moved through the process, either through a 
conference report or whatever, to address the issues that I'm concerned 
about, and I committed to him that I was going to vote for it. I kept 
my commitment.
  And I don't think the chairman was allowed to keep the commitment he 
made back to me, and that's an unfortunate circumstance, because we 
only have our word in this arena, and I believe he kept his word as 
best he could, but I don't think the Speaker and the dominated Rules 
Committee allowed him to do something that he should have been able to 
do and I should have been able to make an amendment here to say here's 
what I think is going on, have the discussion, have the folks who 
disagree with me come down here and talk about that. That's the way the 
system is supposed to work. Certainly the way that every high school 
civics class in the world would argue that the way this floor works is 
you have an idea and you have folks for it and folks against it and you 
come down here and challenge it.
  This closed rule one more time, consistently applied by this 
dominated Rules Committee, is wrong. It's just not the way to do it. 
There is no immediate urgency that we've got to get this passed today 
or tomorrow. It could have come on the agenda tomorrow, and we would 
have had time to bring this amendment down here.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and against this bill. 
The process is flawed. It does nothing to support energy production in 
this country, nor will it work.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from 
Texas if he has any additional speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to advise the gentlewoman that I do have 
an additional speaker.
  Ms. SUTTON. Then I will reserve my time. I'm the last speaker on this 
side. I will reserve my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, last night on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, the gentleman, Zach Wamp, came down to make a 
thoughtful argument about the predicament that this country is in with 
not having enough energy available at the gas pumps and that that has 
caused prices to rise very dramatically and that there really is an 
answer and something that can be done. I'm pleased to welcome the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and I'd like to extend him 4 
minutes.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman.
  I voted for this bill when it came to the floor earlier. I'm likely 
to vote for it again today. I'm concerned about speculation. I'm also 
concerned about price gouging in east Tennessee. Monday following Ike, 
gas was $4.99 a gallon. Over 500 complaints were filed with our State 
and the regulators there over price gouging allegations. I'm concerned 
about these issues as well.
  But I've got to tell you, I'm a little puzzled why the quick rush to 
get to the floor on this bill again this week, less than 36 hours from 
the time that we saw an unbelievable event happen on the floor this 
week. And I'm not one in the last 14 years here to complain or to 
blame, but I've got to tell you what happened here was they convinced 
Members of their own party to vote against a bill that they had 
cosponsored to bring new oil and gas supplies on to our country in 
order to defeat any reasonable new capacity energy bill and immediately 
then went to change the subject, refocus the debate on speculation 
instead of oil and gas supplies, which will bring down prices.
  It's frankly a diversion, it's a distraction, and I would have to 
wonder if it's intentional, listening to the rule debate over how this 
whole process came about. That's what I wonder is exactly what caused 
the rush to the floor. Was it AIG, so you want to focus back on the 
markets and Wall Street and speculation and these kind of issues? Or 
was it quickly change the subject away from the very unfortunate, very 
watered down, weak energy alternative that they jammed through the 
House without a lot of debate--well, there were 3 hours of debate--but 
without amendments, without alternatives, except for the one bipartisan 
bill that they then encouraged dozens of their own Members to vote 
against even though they were cosponsors and bragged about having 
written that bill?
  Now that's wrong. That's wrong, and I come here today to say it and 
wonder just exactly why this has come up this quick again on the floor, 
change the subject and get out of town. I think that's what's going on. 
The American people shouldn't like it. They should demand better. We 
can do better.
  We should be here debating. If you want to debate something in the 
markets in speculation today, how about the accounting rules that 
caused the AIG bailout? Maybe we could bring that up real quick so we 
can address some of these problems. That ought to be debated today 
instead of speculation, so you can change the subject away from oil and 
gas supplies because you really let the American people

[[Page H8411]]

down this week on the floor of the House.
  Nothing's going to happen in terms of bringing down the cost of oil 
and gas before the election, and it could have.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
his thoughtful comments.
  Madam Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat 
Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address the 
domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas, diesel, and 
energy costs the American families are facing. We heard the gentleman, 
Mr. Wamp, talk about how there were good ideas that should have been 
available, including a bipartisan working group and bipartisan 
legislation that, when it really came down to it, somebody put pressure 
on a whole bunch of our friends in the Democrat Party to then vote 
against even their own bill so that it was not bipartisan.
  By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August, while I and 138 other 
of my Republican colleagues stayed in this body on this floor to talk 
about real energy solutions with American families, this Democrat 
majority has proved that they do not believe that the energy crisis 
facing American families and businesses is important enough to cancel 
their summer beach plans or book tours. They claimed they were going to 
come back and do something about it. However, enough of their Members 
must have heard from frustrated constituents over August who were tired 
of this shell game that the Democrat political leadership is pushing 
off on the American people.
  We would think that it should warrant some kind of action. Because 
today we are considering yet another measure to provide their Members 
with political cover, we're going to see that there will be nothing 
that will be done. Even their own chairman of the committee said this 
isn't going to become law. It's not going to pass. We didn't even 
really know it was going to come up. No notice was given to Republicans 
till 3 hours before it was going to come to the Rules Committee, and 
perhaps worse than that, then people said, and Republicans didn't even 
present any amendments.
  So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend 
the rule to allow this House so that we can take up the measure that 
prevents Members from going home to campaign for reelection without 
actually passing an energy bill that will be signed into law.
  Madam Speaker, we should do better. We should allow States to expand 
the exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer 
Continental Shelf. We should open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
and oil shale reserves in this country, and we can do it in 
environmentally sensitive and prudent ways. We should extend expiring 
renewable energy incentives. We should encourage the streamlined 
approval of new refining capacity and nuclear power facilities. My 
gosh, if France can have 82 percent of their power from nuclear, why 
can't the United States get above where we are?
  We should encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, 
coal-to-liquid, and carbon technologies, and perhaps more importantly, 
which is the sham about the entire Democrat leadership's bill is, we 
should do something about stopping the lawsuits which are creating a 
circumstance in courts to where none of these leases are able to move 
forward for production because they're in lawsuits, and the Democrat 
leadership did not even address this. It's simple. Consolidate and 
expedite the drawn-out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or 
prevent actual domestic energy production.
  Why wouldn't we want, if we're going to pass this bill, to make sure 
that it would happen, when in fact every Member of this body knows that 
for every single, 100 percent, of all the leases that have been agreed 
to are wrapped up in court right now, in Federal court right now. Why 
not do something that would give relief to the American people? Why not 
say let's at least one of these opportunities take place for drilling, 
just one? How about 10 percent? No, it's got to be 100 percent, and the 
American people are going to learn what the Democrat Party already 
knows, and that is, that the Democrat leadership does not want any 
drilling. They want no drilling.
  Senator Obama, I'm sure was correct. He is opposed to drilling so 
that America can be competitive with the world.

                              {time}  1145

  This requirement would finally force the Democrat leadership to take 
meaningful action.
  If we were going to get what I just talked about, that would mean 
somebody who's in control of both Houses of Congress wanting to do 
something. And we stand here today, the Republican Party, once again, 
as we did all of August, asking for us to do something that will work 
to bring relief. It's a supply side issue.
  So, Madam Speaker, here we go. A shell game, a Rules Committee that 
allows no good ideas--except their own that the Democrat leadership 
has; agreements, which were talked about on the floor, which, when it 
really came down to it, not sure we really want to live up to at all. 
There is always a bigger problem. Well, that's not what this floor of 
the House is for, that's not really what the Rules Committee is for. 
That's not what Congress is for. Congress should be about, especially 
in a crisis, coming to an agreement and working together.
  I think we can do better. I think it's going to be something that the 
American people are going to have to decide what the tie is between 
Republicans and Democrats. I guess it's going to come to an election, 
where the American people are going to be told the facts of the case, 
and they will see what kind of action is necessary in Washington, D.C.
  Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is again on giving the American 
people and this body notice that the Republican Party is for us doing 
the things which will bring down the price of energy, which will create 
long-term economic stimulus and opportunity for this country. Because 
we recognize that energy prices are too high and it impacts every 
sector of our economy--trucking, the food that's made, produced, the 
food that gets to marketplace, the opportunities for school systems to 
operate within their budget, the chance for American families who have 
to go to their job, many times who have to commute.
  We need real action, not a slam-dunk Rules Committee that will set a 
record every time they go to meet for a new closed rule, not offering 
new ideas, not listening to the American people about the ability that 
we need to have to bring to bear American energy products. Instead, we 
get the same worn-out message of what's happened over the last 2 years 
where America has lost 14 percent more of market shares, where we have 
to go overseas to those countries that will produce and will drill.
  The American people look up and find out now that this Congress says 
no, no drilling in Florida, and so other countries will come off our 
shores and take our energy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material 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?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. The Republican Party 
and my good friend from Texas, they had 12 years to put forward a 
comprehensive energy policy for the future, and they failed to do so. 
And for 12 years, they had the opportunity to provide accountability 
and oversight in our commodities market, and they failed to do so.
  Earlier this week, we took steps to pass a comprehensive energy bill 
that's going to lower prices for consumers, protect taxpayers, expand 
responsible offshore domestic drilling, expand renewable sources of 
energy, increase our security by freeing America from the grip of 
foreign oil, and require Big Oil to pay what it owes to America's 
taxpayers. And we're going to create good-paying jobs as we move 
forward on this forward-thinking energy policy.
  Today, Madam Speaker, we pass an equally important measure. All of 
those out there who have been held hostage by the greed of some of our 
speculators who treat our commodities

[[Page H8412]]

as a safety net, well, the party is over. This bill will strengthen the 
CFTC's enforcement resources. In recent days, trading volume has 
increased 8,000 percent since the CFTC was created, but the agency is 
operating at its lowest staffing level since 1974. This bill calls for 
a minimum of 100 full-time CFTC employees to enforce manipulation and 
fraud regulation.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is about protecting and strengthening the 
economy for the people in Ohio and across America, not a select few on 
Wall Street and abroad. It's time that we get it done. It's about 
ensuring that the loopholes are closed to prevent another historic run-
up in the price of oil. It's about providing the tools and having the 
political will to prevent potential price distortions caused by 
excessive speculative trading.
  Madam Speaker, this bill was passed by the Agriculture Committee by a 
voice vote in a bipartisan manner in July. So no matter what we hear 
from those who may oppose what we are trying to do, we need to pass 
this bill. It's the right thing to do for our country, it's the right 
thing to do for our constituents.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 1449 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 3. It shall not be in order in the House to consider a 
     concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of either 
     House of Congress until comprehensive energy legislation has 
     been enacted into law that includes provisions designed to--
       (A) allow states to expand the exploration and extraction 
     of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf;
       (B) open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale 
     reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and 
     extraction;
       (C) extend expiring renewable energy incentives;
       (D) encourage the streamlined approval of new refining 
     capacity and nuclear power facilities;
       (E) encourage advanced research and development of clean 
     coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies; 
     and
       (F) minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably 
     delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.
       (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 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. SUTTON. 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. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 187, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 605]

                               YEAS--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     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
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson

[[Page H8413]]


     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     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
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     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
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     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--22

     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Dreier
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hulshof
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     King (NY)
     Lampson
     Moran (VA)
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe
     Renzi
     Souder
     Udall (CO)

                              {time}  1214

  Messrs. MACK and SCALISE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. ESHOO and Ms. CLARKE 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 (Mr. Pastor). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 190, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 606]

                               AYES--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     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
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     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
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     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
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     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)
     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--25

     Bachus
     Brady (TX)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Capuano
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Dreier
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hulshof
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     King (NY)
     Lampson
     Moran (VA)
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Souder
     Udall (CO)
     Woolsey


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1223

  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.

                          ____________________