[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 106 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8107-H8115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3183, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 645 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 645

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3183) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as 
     read through page 63, line 12. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 
     except as provided in section 2, no amendment shall be in 
     order except: (1) the amendments printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution; (2) not to exceed one of the amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules if offered 
     by Representative Campbell of California or his designee; (3) 
     not to exceed six of the amendments printed in part C of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative 
     Flake of Arizona or his designee; and (4) not to exceed three 
     of the amendments printed in part D of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Hensarling of 
     Texas or his designee. Each such amendment may be offered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. In the case of sundry amendments reported from the 
     Committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the 
     House en gros and without division of the question. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After disposition of the amendments specified in 
     the first section of this resolution, the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
     designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill 
     for the purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the 
     proponent.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 3183, the Chair may 
     reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
     under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.
       Sec. 5.  House Resolution 618 is laid on the table.

                              {time}  1100


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against 
consideration of the rule because the resolution violates section 
426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of 
the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 
426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

[[Page H8108]]

  The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific 
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated. 
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of 
consideration.
  The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
  After that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, we are going through an appropriations 
process. We will do two bills this week. Traditionally, appropriations 
bills have been open rules. They come to the floor. Members are allowed 
to offer as many amendments as they wish--striking funding, moving 
funding around, making a policy point. That has been the tradition of 
this House.
  It is sometimes pointed out that it hasn't always been this way, that 
the appropriations bills haven't always been open, and that there is no 
reason why they should be. Yet I would remind the House, Mr. Speaker, 
that, over the past 20 years, we've gotten into a practice of loading 
up and larding up these appropriations bills with all kinds of 
congressionally directed spending.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee likes to say that, when 
he chaired the Appropriations Committee in 1992, when the Labor-HHS 
bill came through, there was not one congressional earmark, not one. 
That's less than 20 years ago. There was not one congressional earmark. 
I think, in the past couple of years, there have been upwards of 2,500 
earmarks in that bill. In the bill that we'll address today, the energy 
and water bill, there are literally hundreds of earmarks.
  Now, one would like to think that the Appropriations Committee would 
vet these earmarks, would actually check them out to see if they're 
meeting Federal purpose, if money is being wasted, if it, maybe, looks 
bad and looks like it's tied to campaign contributions or whatever, but 
they don't. They don't have the time or the resources or, perhaps, the 
inclination to do so, so all we have is this forum here on the floor. 
When you bring an appropriations bill to the floor under a closed rule 
or a restricted rule--a structured rule--and deny Members the ability 
to offer amendments, then you've shut down this place in a way that is 
simply not right.
  For this bill, there were 103 amendments submitted. Now, because you 
have to pre-file your amendments, a lot of Members will submit more 
amendments than they intend to offer on the floor just to protect their 
place. So the majority party knows that we would never have offered 103 
amendments on the floor. We won't have time to do it. We have done it 
in years past, but only 21 of these remained in order--78 Republican 
amendments were submitted, and only 14 were made in order.
  The gentleman from Georgia, to whom I will yield 3 minutes, has been 
offering a number of amendments, and has not been able to have them 
made in order.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, I just 
called previously for a motion to adjourn this body. I don't typically 
do dilatory motions. I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
know that. What, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to say to those who are now 
in charge of this body--Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, the 
chairman of the Rules Committee--is, look, as the gentleman from 
Arizona has pointed out, you have taken away so many opportunities--
not, indeed, all of the opportunities--for the minority to represent 
their constituencies. Those constituencies are close to 700,000 people 
in all of our districts across this country, and we don't have this 
opportunity, particularly on these very important appropriations 
bills--on these 12 spending bills--which, after all, are probably one 
of the two most important things that we as Members of the legislative 
branch are charged constitutionally to do year after year after year.
  I commend the majority for wanting to get the work done and for 
wanting to have all of that done by the end of the fiscal year. It's 
insanity not to do that, but we can do it in an open way, as the 
gentleman from Arizona has pointed out. Going back to the fairness that 
you all called for when you were campaigning so hard in the fall of 
2006, you gained the majority, to a large extent, on that kind of a 
platform and on that kind of a pledge. So this is wrong, and this is 
why we're making these points.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
California on the point of order.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider 
this rule and, ultimately, the underlying bill. In reality, it is about 
trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and 
without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, 
itself.
  I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote to consider 
this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a 
procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on 
final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this 
legislation today.
  I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' so that we can consider the rule and get down to doing 
the business of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is an unfunded mandates 
point of order that has been raised. This is not unfunded mandates 
we're talking about here. Unfortunately, this is about the only way we 
can get time to actually talk about this rule at sufficient length.
  As to the way that these appropriations bills are being shut down for 
Members and when the gentlelady said that this bill should be voted on 
according to its merits, the problem is there were dozens and dozens of 
meritorious amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee. The 
fact that they actually had to be submitted tells us we've got some 
problems here because, as I mentioned, appropriations bills have 
traditionally been open, but meritorious amendments have been 
submitted, and only a few have been allowed.
  Now, I happen to have six, I believe, allowed in this bill, and I 
know full well the game here. I offer limitation amendments on 
earmarks. The majority party knows full well that earmarking is a 
bipartisan addiction and that the process of logrolling takes effect 
and that my amendments are defeated routinely. So they can throw me a 
bone here and there, and that's fine. I understand that. Still, we need 
to raise these issues. Let me tell you why.
  This was in the Washington Post today, and you can look yesterday in 
Roll Call or in The Hill from the day before. Virtually every day there 
is a news story about earmarks having gone awry. This one in particular 
talks about defense earmarks, that there are some individuals in the 
lobbying community and in the defense community who have pled guilty to 
taking earmarks from this body and to spreading them around to several 
contractors who didn't do the work that they promised to do. Some 
actually took kickbacks for the earmark money they distributed. These 
were earmarks that were supposedly vetted by the Appropriations 
Committee, but we know that the Appropriations Committee doesn't have 
the time or resources to vet these earmarks.
  We're going to be doing a defense appropriations bill in just a 
couple of weeks. We've allowed one day for that bill to be on the 
floor, and if history holds, only a couple of amendments will be 
allowed, particularly amendments to strike earmarks. If on this floor 
we are not going challenge these earmarks, where are we going to do it?
  They're not doing it in the Appropriations Committee. From sad 
experience, we know that. Over the past several years, the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee has said they

[[Page H8109]]

don't have the time or the resources to adequately vet these earmarks, 
so we have two choices. We ought to have two choices. Either strike the 
earmarks and not bring the bill to the floor with congressional 
earmarks in there or have proper time to vet them on the floor. Or 
simply say that we're not going to allow them at all until we get this 
process fixed. Instead, what we've chosen to do is to cover up the 
process and to pretend that there is no problem here and to simply 
limit the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor and 
hope that nobody notices, that nobody sees.
  What happens when nobody sees--last year, for example, we weren't 
allowed to offer any amendments on the floor. The defense 
appropriations bill was offered as part of a ``minibus'', and no 
amendments were offered at all. Then we get stories like this. Let me 
just quote one paragraph from this story:
  It really puts a fine point on the murky unaccountable web that 
exists around earmarks, said Steve Ellis of the watchdog group 
Taxpayers for Common Sense. These earmarks, because there is very 
little accountability, provide a petri dish for corruption.
  Certainly, that is what we've seen over the past several years, but 
we are not allowing adequate time on the floor to vet what will be 
likely over 1,000 earmarks or close to it--if there are not 1,000, 
there will be several hundred--in the defense bill that's going to be 
coming up.
  What is worse is that hundreds of these earmarks that will be in the 
defense bill will be given to companies whose executives will turn 
around and will write large campaign contributions to the sponsor of 
the earmark in the bill. So, essentially, we are earmarking for our 
campaign contributors.
  I think we should all agree that, if there are earmarks in this body, 
they certainly shouldn't be going to those who can turn around and can 
then make a campaign contribution directly back to them. To give a 
Federal appropriation a no-bid contract--and that's what earmarks are, 
particularly in the defense bill, no-bid contracts--to somebody who can 
turn around and write a campaign contribution right back to you is 
wrong.
  What makes it doubly wrong is that now, in the House, we are going to 
tell Members you can't even challenge those earmarks on the floor 
because we're going to limit you to three or four amendments. Choose 
them. That's it. That, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. We can't continue to do 
that. People say that, outside of the Beltway, nobody cares about 
process. That may be true, but take it from somebody who was in the 
majority and who is now in the minority, who is squarely in the 
minority: Bad process yields bad results, and it will catch up to you 
sooner or later. What is worse is that what we're doing, particularly 
with earmarks in the defense bill, reflects poorly on this House.

                              {time}  1115

  The cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and 
Democrats alike; and we ought to stand up to the institution and say, 
We think more of this institution than that to have this cloud out 
there. So I would plead with everyone, Mr. Speaker, to not proceed with 
bills like this which don't allow Members to offer amendments on the 
floor, the amendments that are meritorious, that are not trying to slow 
down the process. They are simply trying to improve the bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this 
important piece of legislation today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my friend Mr. Diaz-Balart. All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself as much time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 645.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 645 provides a structured 
rule for consideration of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010. The resolution provides for 1 
hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Obey as well as Mr. 
Pastor and Mr. Visclosky for their work on this bill. They have been 
tireless advocates for vital funding in this legislation which truly 
meets the needs of a number of important areas from our water 
infrastructure to our national energy policies. Specifically, the bill 
provides $5.5 billion for the Corps of Engineers, which is $139 million 
over 2009 levels. For my constituents, this funding is more than just 
numbers. It is a matter of survival. My district sits at the confluence 
of two great rivers, the Sacramento and the American. The Sacramento is 
considered to have the highest flood risk of any major metropolitan 
city in the United States. Almost a half million people, 110,000 
structures, the capital of the State of California and up to $58 
billion are at risk of flooding in my district alone. The Federal 
investments in this legislation for the Corps of Engineers directly 
benefits not only my constituents but the capital of the eighth largest 
economy in the world. Vital funding will strengthen levees along the 
American and Sacramento Rivers, levees which keep my constituents safe 
every single day.
  The bill also makes it possible for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete a GRR to protect the Natomas community in my district. 
Additional funds will go toward levee construction in south Sacramento, 
which will give that community 100-year protection. These are projects 
I have worked on throughout my career in Congress, and I am eager to 
see it move forward. Finally, this important appropriations bill will 
also invest in modifications to the joint Federal project to provide 
greater efficiency in managing flood storage in the Folsom Reservoir.
  From the joint Federal project in Sacramento to the levee work in the 
Mississippi Delta to the coastal restoration in the southeast, this 
bill works to protect our communities and commits to a strong 
investment in our aging infrastructure. The legislation before us today 
builds on the job-creating work of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, which has already started to stem the tide of bad 
economic news. In April, $10 million was invested in flood protection 
infrastructure in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. This project alone will 
create up to 200 quality American jobs in manufacturing and 
construction. In my district alone, the Recovery Act has invested $21 
million already in keeping my constituents' homes safe from floods and 
in keeping people in their jobs. The legislation before us today builds 
upon this positive record of infrastructure investment as a job-
creating strategy. It will employ scientists to perform hydraulic 
studies, engineers to design levees and construction workers to move 
the dirt. When we rebuild our infrastructure, we rebuild our economy. 
The same is true for energy. When we invest in energy independence, we 
invest in our economic health. I strongly support the significant 
energy policies that this bill supports. Thanks to the congressional 
leadership in this House, our country is finally on the right track 
toward a clean energy future that will create jobs here at home and 
enhance our competitiveness abroad. Between the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act and the American Clean Energy and Security Act, this 
Congress has created a new day for our national energy policy.
  The legislation contains $1 billion to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil

[[Page H8110]]

and keep energy prices low. This funding will go toward research, 
development, demonstration and deployment of energy technologies which 
will help our country become more energy independent. When I look to 
the future of the world economy, other countries are already investing 
in the clean energy technologies that will power the future. China, for 
example, doubled its wind power investment in 2008 and has made its 
intentions clear to become the world's leader in wind energy 
development. The legislation before us today represents a strong step 
that this House can take to compete with the Chinese.
  This bill also looks toward the future and provides robust funding 
for both the Department of Energy and the Office of Science. It makes a 
commitment to support the advancement of innovative technologies by 
providing $2.25 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It 
also recognizes the importance of an efficient, reliable, secure and 
flexible transmission and distribution grid by increasing funding for 
electricity delivery and energy reliability to $208 million, 52 percent 
above last year's level. Every increase for clean energy in this bill 
is a bet on the ingenuity of the American people to compete in a global 
marketplace where clean energy will drive investment for decades into 
the future. Just as every dollar invested in levees and other 
infrastructure in this bill is a down payment on the safety and 
security of communities, like my hometown of Sacramento, safety and 
security is what the legislation before us today is all about.
  I strongly support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank 
Mr. Obey and the committee for their work on this robust bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the 
time, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  The underlying legislation, the Energy-Water Appropriations Act, 
provides over $33.2 billion in funding for critical water projects. It 
helps to develop a cleaner, more dependable energy sector that is less 
dependent on unreliable sources of foreign energy. It also supports our 
national defense system by funding critical weapons and 
nonproliferation programs. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007, 
known as WRDA, authorized the deepening of the Miami Harbor to a depth 
of 50 feet. The underlying legislation follows up on that authorization 
with $600,000 for the planning of the dredging project. Reaching a 
depth of 50 feet by the time that the Panama Canal expansion is 
completed in 2014 is of both local and national importance. Once the 
Panama Canal expansion is complete, a new class of supercargo carriers 
will be able to traverse the canal and will be looking for new 
deepwater ports to unload their cargo. However, there are very few 
ports in the United States ready to handle those carriers. Once Miami 
reaches the 50-foot depth mark, it will be the closest U.S. port to the 
Panama Canal that can handle the carriers and will serve as a vital 
entry point for international trade in and out of the United States. 
The ability of the Port of Miami to accommodate those carriers will 
double the amount of cargo the port is able to handle and will serve to 
cement Miami's position as the trade capital of the Americas. It will 
also create numerous high-paying jobs; and it will have an 
extraordinary impact, obviously, on the local economy.
  The Florida Everglades is a great national treasure. The Everglades' 
combination of abundant moisture, rich soils and subtropical 
temperatures traditionally supported a vast array of species. Flood 
control and reclamation efforts in the 1940s and the 1950s manipulated 
the Everglades' hydrology, redirecting fresh water destined for the 
Everglades out to sea. Its ecosystem was also harmed by degraded water 
quality. Pollutants from urban areas and agricultural run-off, 
including pesticides and excess nutrients, have harmed plant and animal 
populations. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which I 
strongly support, will capture fresh water destined for the sea, the 
lifeblood of the Everglades, and direct it back to the ecosystem to 
revitalize it. At the same time the project will also improve water 
supplies, provide flood control for South Florida and protect wildlife. 
My colleagues in the South Florida delegation and I have worked closely 
with appropriators to secure funding for this important project. I'm 
thankful to my colleagues, and I am pleased the Appropriations 
Committee agreed on the importance of this project by appropriating 
$210 million. I would like to thank Chairman Pastor and Ranking Member 
Frelinghuysen for their bipartisan work on the important underlying 
legislation that we're bringing to the floor today.
  While I support the underlying legislation, I must oppose the rule by 
which the majority is bringing this bill to the floor. Last month the 
majority set a dangerous precedent to limit debate on appropriations 
bills, debate that, historically, was almost always considered under an 
open rule, an open process of debate. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are set to 
consider the eighth of 12 appropriations bills, and every bill 
considered so far has been considered under a structured rule that 
severely limits the ability of Members from both sides of the aisle to 
bring amendments to the floor for debate and for a vote and is not in 
the usual open procedure which allows every Member to offer their 
amendments.
  During last week's Rules Committee hearing on the State and Foreign 
Operations appropriations bill, the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis, testified that there was still 
time to undo the majority's new precedent, restricting the ability of 
Members to offer amendments to appropriation bills. Mr. Lewis asked the 
majority to reconsider the use of structured rules on appropriations 
bills, to return to regular order, to historical order, to the 
tradition of an open debate process on appropriations bills. He even 
offered his services to persuade Members to not offer dilatory 
amendments, which would hamper the ability of Congress to complete its 
appropriations work on time, something that both the majority and the 
minority wish to accomplish. Ranking Member Dreier of the Rules 
Committee and I also offered to help Ranking Member Lewis rein in any 
Members who wished to unnecessarily prolong the debate process. I 
really hoped that the majority on the Rules Committee would heed Mr. 
Lewis' thoughtful suggestion and accept his offer to help move the 
process along if an open debate process was returned to. However, the 
majority, once again, blocked the overwhelming majority of Members from 
both sides of the aisle from having a full opportunity to debate the 
bill and represent the interests of their constituents.

                              {time}  1130

  So, Mr. Speaker, the majority has not understood the damage it is 
causing this House by closing debate unnecessarily on appropriations 
bills by breaking, in effect, two centuries of precedents. It is sad.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. 
Arcuri.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California, for the courtesy of yielding to me and for 
her strong leadership on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and H.R. 
3183, the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act. The bill provides much-needed funding to continue our Federal 
commitment to meeting the infrastructure needs for our Nation. This 
bill will create jobs and invest in new technologies, scientific 
research, and conservation efforts.
  I also would like to take a moment to lend my strong support to Mr. 
Pastor's amendment to H.R. 3183, the manager's amendment. The amendment 
provides a critical increase in funding for the Northern Border 
Regional Commission. The 2008 farm bill first authorized the Northern 
Border Regional Commission as an independent agency to address the 
shared economic needs and harness the unique assets of the counties 
along the Nation's northern border from Maine and New England through 
New York. In

[[Page H8111]]

this region, 13.1 percent of the population lives in poverty. The 
median household income is $6,500 below the national average. 
Unemployment is significantly higher than the national average; and the 
region actually lost population between 1990 and 2000, while the 
overall population of the United States rose by 13.2 percent.
  The region shares many common economic challenges stemming from 
relative geographic isolation, aging infrastructure, and a loss of 
natural resource-based industry that has historically been an economic 
engine. However, at the same time, the region also has a common set of 
assets, not the least of which is expansive natural beauty and 
resources, as well as historic and geographic ties.
  The commission utilizes the same model that has successfully enabled 
the Appalachian Regional Commission to facilitate a ``bottom-up'' 
approach where local development districts, not-for-profit 
organizations and others bring project ideas and priorities to the 
commission from the local level.
  The regional commission model helps foster improved collaboration and 
coordination within the region and among Federal and State agencies, 
while also serving as a vehicle to leverage additional public and 
private sector investments. By taking a regional view, the commission 
can promote projects that confer a broader benefit without States 
having to compete among themselves for scarce funds for the region.
  I thank the committee for their hard work to see that the Northern 
Border Regional Commission receives the funding necessary to make the 
commission a reality for this region. I thank my colleagues from the 
region, Representatives Michaud, Pingree, Hodes, Shea-Porter, Welch and 
my New York colleague, John McHugh, for their continued efforts to 
establish and secure funding for the Northern Border Regional 
Commission.
  I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and vote for 
the rule and for H.R. 3183.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to express my 
dissatisfaction with this rule. This is my 11th year here, my 11th 
appropriations season, and it is the first time where substantive, real 
discussions have been prevented. I am extremely disturbed at this rule, 
as all previous rules this year on appropriations.
  In years past, if we had a substantive, meritorious amendment, we 
were allowed to bring it to the floor without having to go through a 
totalitarian regime where a small group of people get to place their 
beliefs at the forefront and prevent discussion. So in the charade of 
saying that they are just protecting us from dilatory amendments, they 
are using this power to silence us on substantive amendments.
  Let me give you my example about why I stand here today expressing my 
frustration at the heavy-handedness of the majority. I believe that our 
country is in jeopardy of not having enough energy to power our economy 
in the future. If we look at the electricity that needs to be generated 
in the future, we have to build well over 230 gigabytes of new energy 
over the next 30 years.
  Let me put that in perspective. Most power plants are 500 megabits. 
So this is 450 to 460 new power plants. If we want clean, reliable and 
affordable energy for this country to power our economy, we have to 
open ourselves to nuclear power. We can't access Yucca Mountain. That 
has been shut down. But the rest of the world recycles their nuclear 
waste and power rods. We do not in this country.
  I had an amendment that I felt very strongly about that increased for 
our national laboratories funding specifically to research recycling 
technologies that can be used at our nuclear power plants to continue 
to recycle their materials, as they are being recycled. Not only is 
this energy efficient, but wise and efficient use of these nuclear 
rods, which also means that we have solved our waste issue, not totally 
making Yucca Mountain irrelevant, but certainly making it----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. TERRY. Thank you. But certainly putting us on a path where we can 
use nuclear power as clean, affordable energy without the necessity of 
Yucca Mountain being opened today.
  For some reason, in our Energy and Commerce Committee, every one of 
our nuclear amendments was shut down and voted against. And now we have 
a Rules Committee that is preventing nuclear power amendments.
  I don't understand. I am at a complete loss why the majority wants to 
shut down nuclear power when it is the cleanest power we can have, the 
most reliable and the most affordable. That is where our future lies. 
We can replace old coal-fired plants with clean, new nuclear and 
produce twice the energy. But for some reason, the majority wants to 
shut this down.
  This rule proves that they are shutting down nuclear power, or at 
least stepping up and making sure that we aren't going to have more 
nuclear power in the future. So I ask my colleagues who are pro-nuclear 
and pro-energy to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point.
  This bill makes an investment in nuclear power and makes it clear 
that nuclear energy is a component of the overall energy mix. The bill 
provides $812 million for nuclear, $20 million above the fiscal year 
2009 level, and $51 million above the President's request. Support is 
provided for existing activities funded in fiscal year 2009 and ensures 
this area is included in our funding priorities.
  And with that, I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I rise in opposition to this rule because 80 percent of the 
amendments that were brought forward on this bill were not allowed 
under this rule. And so clearly we are not operating under a 
transparent process. We are not operating under a process that is 
allowing the free debate that I think all Americans want us to have on 
appropriations bills that spend their money.
  First, there were some amendments that were brought forward that 
would have actually directed the Corps of Engineers to base their flood 
protection decisions on the most safe options to protect our citizens 
and their property from future storms. That amendment was not allowed 
under this rule. There was actually an amendment to cut, and I know it 
is a word that some people don't like over in this building, to cut 
spending by $7 billion based on the amount of money that was added in 
the stimulus bill.
  I think many of us, on this side for sure, and I would hope some of 
my colleagues on the other side, would even acknowledge that the 
President's stimulus bill was a failed spending bill, $800 billion of 
new government spending at a time when our economy is hurting. And now 
even the Vice President acknowledges they misread the economy.
  Everybody I think that has looked at it objectively acknowledges the 
spending bill was a bad idea. Those of us who voted against it said it 
would be a bad idea and hurt the economy then. That is why we proposed 
an alternative. Yet this steamroller to just continue spending money 
out of control went on, and they passed the bill.
  There was an amendment that was proposed that would have cut that $7 
billion in this Department that went through the stimulus bill that 
clearly isn't working. Instead of controlling the spending and allowing 
a vote on that, that was ruled out of order under this rule.
  All of us that have looked and said, where are the jobs from the 
spending bill, that stimulus bill, no one can point to the jobs, 
because we have lost jobs. Since President Obama took office, 2 million 
more Americans have lost their job. And what is their answer? You would 
think their answer would be, Maybe some of those Republicans that had 
some alternative ideas might have been right; we will actually work in 
a bipartisan way and go talk to them and see what their ideas were 
because they were good ideas that would have helped small businesses 
and helped American families get back on

[[Page H8112]]

their feet. Instead, these ideas were discarded. Maybe they would go 
back and look at those ideas again.
  Instead, some people in the White House are actually suggesting a 
second stimulus bill, yet another massive spending bill at a time when 
the spending is what is hurting our economy. And so we bring an 
amendment to cut spending, and they rule it out of order in this rule.
  Maybe Speaker Pelosi and some of her liberal lieutenants think that 
the American people aren't watching, and maybe they are high-fiving 
because they are hoodwinking people into not knowing what is going on 
here in this House.
  But I hate to tell them, the American people are watching, and they 
don't like what they see. They see massive runaway spending. They see 
more jobs being lost. They see this energy bill, this cap-and-trade 
energy tax that would run millions of jobs to countries like China, 
causing more Americans to be unemployed and raising utility rates on 
every American family.
  The American people are watching this. And they are demanding action 
from Congress. That is why we are bringing these amendments to cut the 
spending.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my friend from Florida again. That is 
why we are bringing these amendments. We are bringing constructive 
ideas to solve the problems of our country and to propose different 
approaches, not massive spending, but actually ways to get Americans 
back employed, ways to help small businesses survive during these tough 
times, ways to help middle class families who are struggling to get 
back on their feet. And every time we bring these proposals, the 
liberal leadership on the other side says, no, we don't want to hear 
those alternative ideas; we want to just keep spending money like there 
is no end in sight.
  Well, there is an end in sight. And if you look just earlier this 
week, we reached a hurdle that I don't think is a good hurdle, I don't 
think anyone should be proud of, but it is a historic hurdle. Earlier 
this week, our country exceeded $1 trillion in deficits during the 
course of a fiscal year. It was already exceeded this week, and we 
still have months to go in the fiscal year.
  So this is going to have a devastating effect on our economy, this 
massive runaway spending. And yet they bring a rule that closes debate 
on 80 percent of amendments.
  I would urge rejection of this rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point.
  Infrastructure spending on public safety projects in this bill will 
save jobs across America.
  Infrastructure spending is also smart investment, exactly the kind of 
smart investment the American people want this Congress to be making at 
this difficult point in our history.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates levee construction 
provides a 6-to-1 return on flood damages prevented when compared to 
initial investment cost. At the same time, our country's levees are 
crumbling and putting public health at risk.
  Now is exactly the time to invest in this critical public good.
  With that, I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Nathan Deal.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule.
  The reason is that my colleagues and I from Georgia offered an 
amendment that was not accepted in the Rules Committee. The amendment 
would have prohibited funds in this act from being made available to be 
used to update the calculation of the critical yield of the Federal 
projects within the ACF and the ACT river basins before the development 
of updated water control plans for the Federal projects within these 
river basins.

                              {time}  1145

  The reason for the amendment was that language was included in the 
other body's version of this bill which requested that the critical 
yield updates be accomplished before the water control manuals 
themselves. The fact is that these control manuals need to be completed 
first by the Corps before the critical yield studies can be finished. 
This is an important study and therefore should be done properly.
  Although the critical yield updates are a necessary part of the 
manual updates, they do not provide any understanding of how water is 
currently being allocated or how the Federal projects may best be 
managed. The Corps of Engineers must be allowed to determine the 
critical yield under appropriate conditions, and our amendment would 
have made sure that they were able to do that.
  This language that is inserted in the bill by the other body is not 
mutual in regard to the ongoing water struggle between our States. It 
arbitrarily prioritizes this particular study and diverts resources 
away from the Corps of Engineers that are needed in order to complete 
the much-needed water control plans.
  And for that reason, since the amendment was not allowed by the Rules 
Committee, I rise in objection to this rule before the body today.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my good friend, Mrs. Matsui, once again for her courtesy, and I 
want to thank all of my distinguished colleagues who have participated 
in this debate on the rule bringing forward to the floor the 
appropriations bill, the Energy and Water appropriations bill.
  I was particularly impressed by the arguments brought forth by Lee 
Terry who explained--and I wasn't aware of it--how, in the authorizing 
committee, and, quite frankly, then the Appropriations Committee, there 
have been systematic attempts to limit, close down debate, really, on 
developing, encouraging in a serious, comprehensive way nuclear power 
for the Nation.
  It reminded me of what I consider an unfortunate aspect of the dogma 
of the left of the United States. Curious is their opposition to 
nuclear power. Not necessarily is that the case with the left 
everywhere. In France, for example, where about 80 percent of 
electricity is generated from nuclear power, governments of the left 
and the right. President Mitterand was a strong supporter of nuclear 
power, as obviously was President Giscard, and then President Chirac, 
and now President Sarkozy. Left and right in France have seen the 
critical importance of developing nuclear power and the importance of 
reprocessing, which was what Lee Terry was talking about, that ever 
since the Carter years here we have limited, we have excluded, in 
effect, that option.
  So we're at a point now where we spend so much--we use so much 
imported oil in this country to generate electricity. That's insane 
when there is a clean option, nuclear power, which requires 
reprocessing in order to be really effective, as demonstrated in 
France. And yet the dogma of the American left on that issue curiously 
does not make that option possible.
  Let me ask, how much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. I just want to add to the gentleman's comments on this 
important issue of nuclear and its absence, really, in any impactful 
way in the legislation that comes before the House today.
  Our country built its first 100 nuclear reactors in less than 20 
years. Today, we know so much more about this particular industry. We 
are so much more technologically advanced. Without question, we could 
build a hundred nuclear reactors in the next 20 years, and we would 
lead the world in this particular energy technology again.
  And it's troubling because, like the gentleman, I've been all over 
the world and all of these other countries look back and say, Why 
wouldn't the United States, like Japan and like France, take a lead on 
nuclear again so that they can show leadership on the reduction of 
carbon and this issue of climate change? That's the logical big step 
that we could take as a Nation. Yet many of the people who oppose coal 
in this body also oppose nuclear, and you cannot

[[Page H8113]]

possibly achieve their own stated goals without it.
  And we could do this. Talking about jobs and a stimulus, that should 
be step one, is a bold nuclear agenda where we reprocess the spent 
fuel, turn 80 percent of it back into energy, and lead the world in the 
energy technology opportunities and industry in the world. The best 
chance for success is nuclear, yet it's not advanced near enough in 
this legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself the remainder of 
my time.
  It is a pillar of thought of the American left's opposition to 
nuclear power. I think it's evident. And the American left controls the 
leadership of this Congress, and it's unfortunate, as Mr. Wamp pointed 
out, because, and as I tried to point out earlier, in other countries 
left and right agree on the importance of nuclear power. It's clean 
energy that is available, readily available, and safe to reduce 
dependence on oil immediately.
  Alternative sources are being developed, and they're important. But 
in terms of the significant substitution of oil with new sources, clean 
and reliable sources of energy, there is nothing that's available that 
can be more impacted or more effective than nuclear power. So it's a 
curiosity.
  As a student, I studied comparative politics, comparative law. As a 
student of the left and the right in many countries, I find it curious 
as to why it is, because it is evidently a pillar of thought of the 
American left--opposition to nuclear power--but it's a fact.
  I will be asking for a ``no'' on the previous question, Mr. Speaker, 
so we can amend this rule so we can allow an open process. There is no 
question that the rules the majority bring forth today will help to 
cement the dangerous precedent that it set last month. It will further 
damage bipartisanship and comity in this body.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
can uphold our tradition of allowing free and open debate on 
appropriations bills. If we do not do so, I believe the majority will 
come to regret their decision to close down the deliberative process of 
the House on appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to highlight a 
significant appropriations bill. After seven hearings, the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water crafted an important 
bill that brings our spending priorities in line with America's vision 
for a brighter tomorrow.
  The bill before us invests in new technologies, scientific research 
and conservation efforts. It increases funding for the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation allowing them to continue their 
mission to improve our water infrastructure.
  The bill continues to invest in the development of a new smart grid 
to ensure electricity delivery and energy reliability, and it makes a 
commitment to renewable energy and scientific research. The bill also 
continues ongoing nuclear nonproliferation efforts and rejects funding 
for the development of a new nuclear weapon.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 645 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert 
     the following:
       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3183) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Ms. MATSUI. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  adoption of H. Res. 645, if ordered; and

[[Page H8114]]

  motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 1044, H.R. 934, and H.R. 762.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 177, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 538]

                               YEAS--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--177

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     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
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bachus
     Cassidy
     Conyers
     Engel
     Gerlach
     Gordon (TN)
     Green, Al
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Issa
     Levin
     Lynch
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Schrader
     Sestak
     Waxman
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. COLE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably delayed 
and missed the vote on Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the 
Rule for H.R. 3183--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2010 (H. Res. 645).
  Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on this vote.
   Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 538, I was unavoidably 
detained. 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.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 185, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 539]

                               YEAS--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan

[[Page H8115]]


     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cassidy
     Conyers
     Cuellar
     Engel
     Gordon (TN)
     Levin
     Schrader
     Sestak
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1228

  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.

                          ____________________