[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 153 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H9889-H9896]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1490 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1490

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on any 
     legislative day through September 27, 2008, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of a measure to provide 
     incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend 
     certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax 
     relief, and for other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. 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 this rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
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 New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1490 waives a requirement of clause 
6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the 
same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. The resolution 
applies to any rule reported on any legislative day through September 
27, 2008, providing for consideration or disposition of a measure to

[[Page H9890]]

provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend 
certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, 
and for other purposes.
  I rise today in support of this rule because American families and 
small businesses need tax relief now more than ever. This rule will 
allow us to bring legislation to the House floor later today that will 
not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class 
families and creating jobs at small businesses, but also will help to 
bring this country into a new alternative energy future that will help 
to create green collar jobs right here in America, jobs that cannot be 
outsourced to foreign countries or overseas.
  Since being elected to Congress, I have voted, along with this body, 
to cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses on at least 
14 separate occasions. In doing so, this Congress has upheld its pledge 
to the American people, and I have kept the promise I made to my 
constituents to provide much-needed tax relief and incentives for 
economic growth.
  I know that there are many families and businesses in my district 
that are struggling in the current economic crisis. With talk of a $700 
billion plan to bail out Wall Street, we cannot, in good conscience, 
fail to take action to help so many families facing the ever-escalating 
costs of gasoline and home heating fuel into this winter.
  This legislation we will consider provides tax relief and incentives 
to those who need them most at a fraction of the cost of bailing out 
the financial industry.
  This Congress has shown a strong commitment to the pay-as-you-go rule 
that we adopted last January. I applaud my Blue Dog Coalition 
colleagues for their outspoken leadership on the PAYGO consideration 
and the PAYGO issue. When I explain to folks back home what PAYGO is, I 
ask them a question: You have to balance your books each month, don't 
you? The individuals say, of course. They, of course, understand what 
it means to balance their books. They would not think of spending more 
than they earn. Businesses would not think of spending more than they 
earn. You have to ensure that you have enough income coming in to cover 
your expenses, and, of course, they respond with a nod of the head. 
They understand it. They get it. And then I say: Shouldn't the Federal 
Government operate in the same way when it involves spending your tax 
dollars?
  The legislation this rule will allow us to consider today will extend 
a number of critical tax relief measures targeted at middle class 
families and small businesses to improve the quality of life and 
strengthen our economy. Supporting this rule and the tax legislation we 
will consider later today is simple common sense.
  We can provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families, 
spur innovation, create tens of thousands of new green collar jobs, 
reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations and reduce greenhouse 
gases--and we can do it all in a fiscally responsible manner. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman, my friend, Mr. Arcuri, 
for the time that he has yielded me, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  ``Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule 
and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague 
this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the 
leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the 
procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to 
run a democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your 
party affiliation.''
  I strongly agree with these words, but I cannot, in good faith, take 
credit for them because I did not write them. I simply just read them. 
My staff did not write them, nor did any of the Republican staff on the 
Rules Committee.
  In fact, as far as I know, not one Republican had any hand in the 
composition of this eloquent defense of democracy in the House of 
Representatives, because their author is actually the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and a senior member of the Democrat Rules Committee, the 
gentleman, Mr. McGovern.
  He spoke these exact same words on the floor 2 years ago regarding 
what he eloquently and accurately called a martial law rule, which is 
what we are being asked to consider here today.

                              {time}  1230

  Although these are not my words, I associate myself with them fully 
because they are as true and relevant today as when they were first 
used. And since I have already borrowed one selection of the 
gentleman's words, I would like to point out another comment my 
esteemed Rules Committee colleague made regarding martial law rules. On 
December 6, 2006, just 1 month before Democrats were to take control of 
the House of Representatives, Democrats made a number of promises on 
how they would run the House which, unfortunately, have not held up 
well in the contrast to reality.
  Before they had control, Mr. McGovern said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is a 
better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the 
American people expect and deserve better. That's why the 110th 
Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness 
and fairness in the House. We must insist on full and fair debate on 
the issues that come to this body.''
  I would like to ask my friends on the Democrat Rules Committee and 
this Democratic leadership: What happened? What happened? Where is that 
openness and the fairness? Where was the openness on the no-energy bill 
rule where over 90 amendments were closed out, including a Republican 
substitute?
  Where was that openness when we first considered SCHIP 
reauthorization and we were handed two closed rules by the Democrat 
leadership? Where has it been over these last 2 years when Democrats 
have forced a record number of lock-down, closed rules through this 
House of Representatives with no opportunity for Members, Republicans 
or Democrats, to improve that legislation? And where is that openness 
today when we are being asked to consider this tax extenders rule by 
once again suspending regular order in this House of Representatives?
  I know where it is. Our friends, the Democrats, left it out on the 
campaign trail. And with an upcoming election, I suspect that is where 
we will be able to find these broken promises once again this next 
January. It was an empty promise when they made it, and the emptiness 
of this promise was fulfilled on the opening day of the new majority 
when the Democrats wrote into the rules of the House closed rules for 
consideration of the first six bills that they were able to take up, in 
effect discharging the Rules Committee from its duties for the first 
six bills they were going to consider. Ah, yes, 6 in '06.
  The remedy for examples of unfairness, they criticized the Rules 
Committee for the way they did their work, and that trend has started, 
sadly, and continues today.
  As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said, ``Mr. 
Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. 
Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is 
why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to 
rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full 
and fair debate on the issues that come before this body.''
  Mr. Speaker, with these wise words, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my colleague, my friend 
Mr. Sessions, if he has any further speakers. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have several speakers.
  At this time I yield for such time as he may use to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank my colleague and friend from Texas for 
yielding.
  I come to the floor today bitterly disappointed that this majority is 
one more time denying the opportunity to fund county timber payments to 
districts like mine.
  The Secure Rural Schools Program aids more than 600 rural counties, 
and 4,400 school districts in 42 States. Let me say that again: 4,400 
school districts, 42 States, 600 rural counties are affected by this.
  There is broad bipartisan support to reauthorize this legislation and 
keep a

[[Page H9891]]

nearly century-old commitment to the areas like I represent in rural 
Oregon where the Federal Government owns more than half of the land, 
much of it timbered. In the old days they would share the receipts from 
the timber harvest, and then the Federal Government and the courts shut 
all of that down.
  I have three counties that have more than 8 percent unemployment. 
Virtually all of the mills are gone. I had people coming up to me last 
weekend in their overalls asking, Is there any hope? Is there any hope 
for them and their kids to make a decent living taking care of 
America's forests? Is there any hope to reauthorize the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act in this Congress? I gave 
them a little hope. I said the Senate, the United States Senate, seems 
to be caring about us. And, indeed, in the tax extenders bill passed by 
the United States Senate by 93-2, they reauthorized the Secure Rural 
Schools, phasing it out over 4 years in a formula we all agreed to, but 
we don't necessarily like.
  Time and again, Democrat leadership in this House has said ``no'' to 
that legislation. That is happening right here, right now. It just 
happened up in the Rules Committee by denying an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) on a party-line 8-3 vote. 
They said, no, we won't even let the House vote to take care of these 
folks back home and keep this 100-year-old Federal commitment. It is 
outrageous. It is outrageous.
  Let me tell you what it means to the people out there. These are real 
jobs being lost. There are counties in Oregon that may declare 
bankruptcy. Half the police force in sheriff's offices, the deputies 
are gone. Road department after road department after road department, 
cut, slashed, gone. I have counties that have one road maintenance 
person for every 100 miles of road in their county now. That is the 
distance from the Nation's capital to Richmond, Virginia, in case 
you're counting.
  You are down to where there won't be any patrols by sheriff's 
deputies. And yet Americans want to recreate in America's forests. 
Unfortunately, they go out there and occasionally they get lost. And 
when they get lost, whom do they call upon to come find them but these 
same search and rescue teams. Tragically, often they have perished in 
my State before they get rescued.
  It was through funding through this program, or in the old days 
through the revenue sharing that came to those counties that we were 
able to have the search and rescue teams and the equipment and 
everything necessary to go out and try and rescue these families who 
would get lost or caught in a snowstorm. That is going away.
  Schools are deeply affected. In my State, the money, $280 million a 
year, was funneled throughout all of the school districts. In some 
States they didn't do it that way. They have already laid off teachers.
  Now what is wrong with keeping the word that this Speaker and others 
said at the beginning of this Congress that there would be an open and 
fair opportunity for the minority to offer up amendments, have them 
fully considered, and have them so people can see them.
  No, this Rules Committee on an 8-3 basis said we are not going to 
even allow you to have a vote. And the heck with these county roads and 
schools where the Federal Government has total control, and the heck 
with the people who live out there.
  County roads and school reauthorization should never have been a 
partisan issue, and yet it has become that. This House could simply 
take up the Senate bill under a different rule and allow a vote. And 
the President of the United States, although he is not the biggest fan 
of reauthorizing this county payments program, said he would sign that 
bill that came out of the Senate. So he is not the obstacle. He never 
said he would veto this. He doesn't like parts of it, but the staff is 
pretty clear that he would sign it into law and we would reauthorize 
it.
  Republicans would like to see a vote on this. They tried in the Rules 
Committee, but your Rules Committee said no. So here we are today. This 
same day rule short-circuits that process with a rule that says this is 
all you get, and shoves it back to the Senate.
  It is time for reform and time for change, and it needs to start 
right here right now by defeating this same-day rule, by defeating the 
next rule and giving people in this House the chance to represent their 
people back home by at least having a vote to reauthorize and fund 
county roads and schools.
  I will tell you, when you let them down, you are hurting literally 
school kids and putting people's lives in peril because search and 
rescue will be reduced or eliminated in some areas, and police forces 
are already being dramatically cut. And that is wrong. It doesn't have 
to be that way. If we really wanted to solve problems, you wouldn't ram 
this through the way you are doing it.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) has 
now for at least the last 2 years made himself available, built 
bipartisan support, spoken to people in both parties, built a case, 
invited people to see the circumstance, and talked on behalf of 42 
States, people who live in rural areas that have timber.
  The gentleman invited me out this last August, notwithstanding that I 
am a friend of his, but he invited me out. I landed in Portland, drove 
east on the beautiful highway that goes to Hood, Oregon, and had an 
opportunity to meet a lot of the people in the area. They are fabulous. 
They are outstanding people who live in the very midst of Mount Hood.
  I had an opportunity to see Mount Hood from a different perspective 
than the three climbers from Dallas who were trapped and who died 
earlier last winter. I had a chance to see Mount Hood in the 
summertime. As I was there with the gentleman, Mr. Walden, he told me 
the story about the big blowout in the mountain which happened on a 
separate event, that devastated the area as a result of what Mother 
Nature had done. He spoke about how the communities got together, how 
they worked together and solved their problems, just as they did when 
the three climbers from Dallas perished on the mountain.
  But he forthrightly, along with others, reminded me that it is really 
up to us to get our work done here in Washington. And by no means did 
the gentleman task me with doing it, but he knew, he knew that I would 
have the opportunity, along with our colleague, the gentleman from 
Pasco, Washington, Doc Hastings, who is also greatly affected, that we 
could come back to a committee that we have served on for 10 and 12 
years respectively between the two of us, that we would be able to talk 
to our colleagues whom we have served with on that committee for the 
past 10 years, that we would be able to express to them the need and 
the desire for public policy to be addressed at the appropriate time.
  Well, the appropriate time is now. The Senate has spoken. Today the 
bill came over from the Senate, overwhelming vote, and the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden) rushed to me to find out what the Rules 
Committee would do, really just to find out what was in the bill. We 
found out about the bill only minutes before, which once again is 
against the rules of the House that you don't consider a bill until it 
is laid out publicly for 24 hours. But that didn't matter again today.
  And so we asked on behalf of the gentleman, Mr. Walden, the other 
members of the Rules Committee what we thought was a bipartisan basis 
because I believe it is true to say that there are five people on the 
committee who serve rural areas also or who had heard the compelling 
story that impacts people all across this country.
  So I told Mr. Walden, I think we stand a good chance because we are 
able to come to our colleagues whom we have spent hundreds of hours 
with over the last 10 years and to say if it is not in your bill, and 
we found out it was not, but it is in the package that came from the 
Senate, will you please just include that?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate the gentleman's kind and generous 
comments, and also his willingness to come out to my State this summer 
and see what we are facing in some of these forests.

[[Page H9892]]

  I talked to a county commissioner from Klamath County yesterday 
morning. The Winema National Forest now, between the Federal forest 
land and adjacent private land, there is a half-a-million acres, 
500,000 acres, that is now bug infested and nearly dead, if not 
completely dead. They can go in and treat that area, clean it up, 
replant it, get the dead trees out for about $250 an acre. If we wait 
until it catches on fire, taxpayers will spend $1,500 to $2,000 an acre 
to fight the fire.
  Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act makes funds available through different titles in the 
bill to assist those local governments and the Forest Service to get in 
and make our forests less susceptible to catastrophic fire, healthier 
by removing the dead or diseased trees or those that are bug infested 
and get ahead of this and actually be better stewards of our lands.

                              {time}  1245

  This year, the Federal Forest Service budget spent over half, 52 
percent so far, to fight fire. In that forest alone, they had to take 
$1 million away from forest treatment efforts to pay for fighting fires 
elsewhere. So we fall further and further behind.
  This is not the stewardship of our forests that we should be proud 
of. It is the lack of stewardship that would cause Theodore Roosevelt 
to roll over in his grave, the great founder of our Nation's forest 
system. And it doesn't have to happen. It doesn't have to happen.
  Communities shouldn't be evacuated because of fire threat. Our 
budgets at the Forest Service shouldn't be exhausted to put out fires. 
And the biggest economic activity in a rural, forested timbered 
community around these Federal lands shouldn't be the making of 
sandwiches for the fire fighters. This has to stop.
  The gentleman from New York is a cosponsor of the legislation I'm 
advocating here. There are other members of the Rules Committee that 
are cosponsors of this legislation on both sides of the aisle. This is 
our opportunity. This is our moment. This is our time.
  The Senate and the White House support this effort in the legislation 
sent here by the Senate. If not now, when? Or do you let it all burn? 
Because that's what's happening out there.
  Do you put people out of work?
  You claim you're for family wage jobs. You're killing them in my part 
of the world.
  Am I angry about this?
  You bet I am. This is real life-and-death stuff. I was at the 
memorial service for the firefighters who were killed in Northern 
California, killed fighting fires. And while that, tragically, will 
happen again, and it is not all the fault that we don't have the 
Community Self-Determination Act in place, we need to get better 
policy. We need to get ahead of this problem. We need to be the good 
stewards we're entrusted to be of these lands. It is not that hard to 
be fair. It shouldn't be that hard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, you're hearing a story 
that happened just minutes ago up in the Rules Committee where the 
members of the committee had within their sole jurisdiction the ability 
to handle this issue, to take what is referred to as the ping-pong, the 
bill that moved over, that was completely in the bill that the 
gentleman, Mr. Walden, and the gentleman, Mr. Hastings, have worked so 
diligently for the last few years to do.
  The Rules Committee chairman, the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, said, 
well, you know, I had to wait 13 years for one of my bills. That was 
the response.
  The answer was, we came back and reasked the Rules Committee if they 
would please vote for it. Well, what they did is they turned it down on 
a voice vote. So we asked for a recorded vote.
  On a party-line basis, every single Democratic member of that Rules 
Committee said no to something that is completely within their 
jurisdiction, completely within their endeavor. And I fail to know 
where there's any opposition.
  It was obstinate, and it was a slap in the face to the members of the 
committee who have served with them for making a very simple, honest 
request.
  Open, honest, and ethical. These were the words that we were told and 
the American people were told. Well, the people in these 41 States are 
going to have to judge that, but they will know, they will know that it 
was the Rules Committee and the Speaker of this House, not the United 
States Senate, who voted 93-2. It's not the President of the United 
States. He's already said he'd sign the bill. It was the Rules 
Committee, under the complete jurisdiction of the gentlewoman, Ms. 
Slaughter, and the Speaker of this House.
  So we're on the floor today, a little upset. Being slam dunked I can 
handle. I think being treated in the way that we were is wrong. I think 
it's wrong to this committee. I think it's wrong to the members who are 
on it.
  We reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Welch.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from New York, my 
colleague on the Rules Committee. I thank my friend from Texas, also a 
colleague on the Rules Committee.
  The legislation before us is long overdue. It's about jobs, about 
energy efficiency and energy independence, and it's about restoring our 
confidence that we can produce jobs and produce energy that's clean, 
environmentally sensitive and strong and durable to help move our 
economy ahead.
  This transition language would allow us to extend about $42 billion 
in tax incentives. Mr. Speaker, I'm a skeptic oftentimes on tax 
incentives because they are frequently given to industries that are 
mature and profitable at the expense of taxpayers. An example of that, 
of course, is the $13 billion in tax breaks that continue to go to the 
oil industry that has been doing extremely well with the high price of 
oil.
  Tax incentives properly should be focused on emerging technologies, 
and emerging industries, where our country, where our companies, our 
small businesses can use the boost in order to develop the new 
technologies that will solve a problem that we have, the need for 
energy, the need for clean energy, and the need to create jobs and 
energy independence here in this country. This legislation will do 
that.
  I will give just an example. In Vermont, Jeff and Dorry Wolf are two 
folks who moved to Vermont in 1998, and they had a dream. The dream was 
they could create a company that would build renewable energy. They got 
involved in solar energy. And their company, when they started it, at a 
time when this was a pipe dream, has now become one of our big 
companies in Vermont. It's become a leader in solar technology. It is 
doing work all around the country. And these incentives are critical to 
its continuation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge us to pass this rule so that we can pass the 
underlying legislation, move towards energy independence, create jobs 
here in this country, and clean up our environment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire the time remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New York has 23 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, a gentleman who has 
spoken very eloquently and consistently up in the Rules Committee, and 
has worked his heart out for the needs of the 41 States that fall 
within the same position that the gentleman Mr. Walden and the 
gentleman Mr. Hastings have. He's a strong advocate. I would like to 
yield him 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend from Texas for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for going on 14 years, and I 
thought I understood how this system works. We have Republicans and we 
have Democrats. And always, I think, it's in the best interest of the 
American people when we can work in a bipartisan way.
  The issue I want to address myself to is the Secure Rural Schools 
Act. It expired. It is very, very important to States, particularly in 
the western part of the United States where there's a big influence of 
Federal lands and particularly forest lands.
  I just caught the end of what my colleague from Oregon talked about 
as to

[[Page H9893]]

why we are in this situation in the first place. But I can tell you, 
this is a big economic hit for those rural areas because they don't get 
the revenue from the Federal lands that they otherwise would have had.
  But what I don't understand is that this issue has strong bipartisan 
support. I serve on the Rules Committee, and there are five of my 
Democrat colleagues on the Rules Committee, five out of nine, that are 
cosponsors of this legislation.
  We know that we are nearing the end of this Congress. And we know 
that there are things that have to pass. The tax extender package is a 
very important package for other provisions in that bill. For example, 
the sales tax deductibility for States that don't have a State income 
tax. Florida is in that situation. There are several members of the 
Rules Committee that are affected by that. My State is one of those.
  But this issue of Secure Rural Schools is very, very important. I 
have four counties in my district that are impacted, and one that is 
heavily impacted, impacted in a way that my friend from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden) talked about.
  What I find rather confusing about this is that we have now a bill 
that will be brought before us that we could pass in a nanosecond. It's 
a tax extender bill that the Senate sent over with a vote of 93-2. It 
has essentially the same provisions that I think everybody agrees, 
taxes that need to be extended. But it has the provision and a fix to 
the Secure Rural Schools for 4 years. For 4 years. It allows those 
communities now to make some plans as to what the transition may be in 
the future, since we--of course, I think the best thing we ought to do 
is utilize our Federal lands. But if that's not going to happen, at 
least they'll have some time to plan for it.
  This morning, and, by the way, we got the text of this bill at 9:52 
this morning, which is a little over 3 hours ago, even though we were 
told that we're going to have 24 hours to look at any bill. But we had 
it at 9:52 this morning. And we discovered that the Secure Rural 
Schools Act was out of the House bill. It wasn't in there.
  Well, I'm a member of the Rules Committee, and as a member of the 
Rules Committee, you can amend the rules by suspending rules to put 
certain provisions in that you think need to be passed. It happens all 
the time, especially at the end of the session.
  So here we are, this morning, discovered the Secure Rural Schools 
wasn't in there. I questioned the individual from the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon, who came up and testified on the 
bill, if this was in there. It wasn't in there.
  By the way, his State is affected. Even though his district isn't 
affected, his State is affected.
  So I asked him why this was not in the bill. And his response to me 
was, well, this is a tax bill and really the Secure Rural Schools issue 
is a spending issue, so we felt it shouldn't be part of the package.
  Well, I said, if that's the case, and I accept your argument, then 
maybe it could go on some appropriation bill.
  And then I thought, wait a minute. Yesterday we had a continuing 
resolution with three appropriation bills that passed this House, and 
Secure Rural Schools wasn't on it. I don't know why the Democrat 
leadership didn't put it on that vehicle. That probably would have been 
the proper one. But we're running out of time. And the House Rules 
Committee can suspend the rules and attach a provision to anything they 
want to. We know the Senate bill came over here 93-2.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to take the text of the 
Senate language, which passed 93-2, and asked that that be debated on 
the House floor, just asked for it to be debated. If it loses, okay. 
That's fine. But I think there's broad support. But if it loses, I 
understand that.
  I called for a vote on that. And the vote was on a party-line vote, 
8-3 no. In other words, the five Democrats that are cosponsors of this 
provision, in the waning days of the session, voted ``no'' to consider 
this on the House floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield the gentleman 1 additional minute with 
only 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1300

  I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  So as I said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I don't 
understand how this process works because these extenders have to pass. 
We know that. And further, we know that the President will sign this 
bill with the Secure Rural Schools language in it. We know that. We 
know that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm kind of frustrated here, and I think this issue 
should pass. I think the best way to do that, frankly, is to pass the 
Senate bill and be on with it.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much.
  President Bush and the Senate Republicans have been given opportunity 
after opportunity to pass tax credit extensions for renewable energy. 
In just the past year and a half, the Republican leadership has 
followed the marching orders of the Bush administration and voted 13 
times against Democratic efforts to increase our use of renewable 
energy, help protect consumers from high energy prices, and ensure that 
Big Oil pays its fair share. They have refused time after time, instead 
siding with Big Oil and their fossil fuel friends even as oil prices 
remain sky high.
  Now the Senate Republicans couldn't resist this time around, either, 
sending us a renewable energy tax package stuffed with goodies for 
coal-to-liquids, tar sands, and oil shale. Big Oil even gets to keep 
most of their tax breaks even though they're tipping consumers upside 
down and shaking money out of their pockets. They also want to shake 
them upside down as taxpayers and get more money as tax breaks from the 
American people.
  The only thing renewable about Republican energy policy for the last 
8 years has been their inexhaustible support for the Big Oil agenda.
  I commend the great work of Chairman Rangel in stripping harmful and 
unnecessary provisions and giving us a genuine clean energy tax package 
to vote upon today.
  This bill primes the renewable energy engine and gives coal a clean 
path forward with more than $1 billion in tax incentives to demonstrate 
carbon capture and sequestration. This may be the last chance to get 
these renewable energy incentives passed into law. If President Bush 
and Senate Republicans shoot this package down like they've shot down 
every other opportunity for clean energy tax breaks, then there may not 
be another opportunity.
  Solar and wind companies are delaying projects because of investment 
uncertainty. History has shown that renewable energy deployment could 
fall 70 percent or more if these tax incentives lapse. That would 
translate into a loss of 116,000 job opportunities and $19 billion in 
private investment loss in 2009 alone. That's one more legacy I fear 
President Bush has no problem in carrying back to Crawford, Texas: 
Champaign celebrations for Big Oil and red ink and pink slips for 
America's high tech energy companies and their green collar workers.
  Last year in the United States, more wind capacity was installed than 
any other source with the exception of natural gas. Thirty-five percent 
of all new electrical generating capacity installed in the United 
States last year was wind power.
  This year, over 40 percent of all new electrical generating capacity 
in the United States will be new wind power. Solar photovoltaic 
installations also increased an amazing 80 percent last year. 2008 will 
surpass that. But what about 2009? What about 2010?
  This bill before us invests in the renewable revolution that will 
transform America. Electric cars, cellulosic biofuels, wind and solar 
will assert our energy independence over the coming decade if the 
President signs this bill.
  After 8 years of running on a Bush-Cheney-Big Oil energy plan, 
America, it is time for an oil change. It is time for us to move off 
the oil agenda and move on to the solar, the wind, the biofuels.
  The slogan for this Congress should be ``Change, baby, change!'' That 
is not what the Republicans are talking about.

[[Page H9894]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to reserve my time
  Mr. ARCURI. I am prepared to close, so I would reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time I have, I want you 
to know that, however, despite everything you have heard, I have good 
news, good news for the American people. Right now with the passage of 
this continuing resolution yesterday, Republicans have finally removed 
the main Democrat roadblock to increasing the domestic production of 
American energy.
  This underlying legislation--which I am going to put on the floor 
right now--which contains tax credits for energy efficiency and 
conservation will also help this House to implement what Republicans 
have advocated for months: an all-of-the-above strategy, including 
nuclear power.
  So today I urge my colleagues to demonstrate the courage of these 
convictions by voting with me to defeat the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow 
this House to take up a measure right now right here today that will 
prevent Members from going home to campaign for reelection without 
actually passing a comprehensive energy bill into law.
  It would make it plain and permanent for their support. It would 
allow States to expand their exploration and extraction of natural 
resources along the Outer Continental Shelf; it would open the Arctic 
energy slope and oil shale reserves to environmentally prudent 
exploration and extraction; it would extend expiring renewable energy 
initiatives; it would encourage the streamlining approval and refining 
of capacity for nuclear power facilities; it would encourage research 
and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration 
technologies and minimizing drawn-out legal challenges that 
unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.
  This requirement would force the Democrat leadership to take 
positive, comprehensive, permanent, and meaningful action to increase 
the supply of American energy.
  Mr. Speaker, all across this country there are cities without 
gasoline--there are cities without gasoline--and it stands exactly at 
the feet of the Democrat leadership, the new majority, who is making 
sure that the American consumer pays record high prices and yet we've 
done nothing to make sure that the supply side is taken care of.
  Mr. Speaker, 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?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, when you listen to the people on the other side of the 
aisle, you would think that everything that's happened is the fault of 
the Democratic Party.
  They have had the White House for 8 years. We see oil prices as high 
as they have ever been. Two oilmen in the White House, yet we still see 
that. We see the economy as bad as the economy has ever been. We're 
talking about bailing out Wall Street with $700 billion that we're 
borrowing.
  This rule today for this bill is about tax extenders, and that is 
extenders that would create incentives for alternative energy to help 
us wean ourselves off of our addiction to foreign oil. And we're doing 
it in a prudent way, in a way that doesn't borrow and spend, doesn't 
dump this on the backs of our children and grandchildren, but rather as 
a paid-for.
  The bill that my colleague from Washington spoke about, it's a very 
good bill, but it hasn't been paid for. These tax extenders today that 
we're talking about have been paid for. They are extenders that are 
prudent and responsible.
  Supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we consider later 
today is simply common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives 
to middle class families, we can spur innovation, create tens of 
thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile 
nations, and reduce greenhouse gasses. And we can do all of it in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       amendment to H. Res. 1490 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 
     l09th 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. ARCURI. 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 noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H9895]]

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered, 
and motion to suspend the rules with regard to H.R. 758.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 198, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 637]

                               YEAS--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     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)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     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
     Shays
     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 (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     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
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     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--8

     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, David
     McCrery
     Miller (FL)
     Moore (WI)
     Shuler
     Udall (CO)

                              {time}  1336

  Mr. FORTENBERRY and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 637, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             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 222, 
noes 198, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 638]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux

[[Page H9896]]


     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     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
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     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
     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--13

     Bachus
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Hooley
     Kaptur
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Miller (FL)
     Shuler
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1343

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 638, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________