[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 154 (Thursday, October 22, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H11587-H11595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1030
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3585, SOLAR TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP ACT

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 846 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 846

       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. 3585) to guide and provide for United States 
     research, development, and demonstration of solar energy 
     technologies, 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 Science and Technology. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Science and Technology now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question. 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. 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.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Science and Technology 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).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 846 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except 
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and provides 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
member of the Science and Technology Committee. It provides that the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science and 
Technology Committee shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.
  The rule waives all points of order against the substitute except 
those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report. Such amendments may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report and shall be offered by the Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to 
demand for division of the question. All points of order against such 
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
XXI.
  The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. The Chair may entertain a motion to rise only if offered 
by the Chair of the Committee on Science and Technology, and the Chair 
may not entertain motions to strike out the enacting clause.
  Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 weeks right down the street on the 
National Mall, 20 teams of university students competed in the biannual 
Department of Energy's solar decathlon. These teams competed not just 
for victory but for innovation and public awareness as well.
  Every 2 years, teams from all over the globe prove unequivocally, 
either rain or shine, under the all-too frequently cloudy skies of 
Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital, that solar power is not only 
here for the future, but is here and ready to go today. These teams 
showcase both cutting-edge technology and technology that has been 
around for decades. Technology that creates jobs, promotes energy 
independence, combats climate change just simply isn't getting the 
attention it deserves from several blocks away here on the Hill.
  The solar decathlon itself is noticing an interesting trend that 
speaks to what's occurring on a global scale. Teams like the two-time 
winners from my congressional district, the University of Colorado, 
unfortunately aren't finding the support that they need, and the 
University of Colorado had to cancel their program to compete this 
year, while teams from Europe and elsewhere continue to find the budget 
to compete and to win.
  Right now because of the policies we have and have not passed, our 
country is starting to lose the innovation race in technology. Europe, 
China, and other countries are leapfrogging us in the race to refine 
the technology that will power our future.
  This past Monday, The Wall Street Journal's ``Power Plays'' section 
highlighted America's competitiveness problem, which has been seen and 
felt by the many solar and clean-tech companies in my district for 
years.
  Our technology is draining away to countries who know how to support 
and foster its growth. The Wall Street Journal highlighted how China is 
taking the lead in solar energy investment and drastically cutting the 
price of the technology and its development, making it harder for U.S. 
companies to compete.
  Mr. Speaker, up until now Congress' attitude towards renewable energy 
and solar has been wanting. We failed time after time to support the 
small businesses, the technology, and the policies that could have and 
should have changed our Nation's energy outlook years ago.
  American solar businesses have had to deal with the uncertainty of 
not knowing what government policies will be in place from one year to 
the next; production in investment tax credits have ebbed and flowed 
with no real consistency.
  As someone with a background in business, I know this simply just 
doesn't work. Whether you're figuring out your payroll or trying to 
secure investments, without long-term certainty with regard to the 
playing fields, you have a hard time accomplishing either. Our policies 
towards solar research have been equally sporadic with no real 
directive to lead our research or investment.
  We desperately need to focus our research and focus our investments, 
and this legislation will do that.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, this bill is a game changer. This bill is 
the focus, this bill is the directive that we as a Nation need in order 
to realize the great potential that solar energy has had for decades 
and will have for our future. By creating this road map, we will have 
the foremost experts in the world focusing our research, focusing our 
policies, and focusing our vision on what is possible and what will be 
achieved; and in doing so, we will encourage investment by providing 
the long-term assurance that the market is so desperately looking for.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule before us today. The 
underlying legislation is being brought to

[[Page H11588]]

the floor under yet another structured rule that does not allow for 
many of the amendments my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
presented during the Rules Committee hearing. This is especially wrong 
when debating one of the important issues of our time, our Nation's 
energy policy. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut 
off the minority and their own colleagues from having any input in the 
legislative process.
  My assumption is that, along with me, all other Members want to see 
more solar power used in this country; but the Democrats in charge are 
limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents 
can be adequately represented in the House.
  Our constituents in both Republican and Democrat districts are 
struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are 
simultaneously being shut out of participating in debate over how their 
hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the Federal Government.
  Why is the majority blocking debate on such important legislation? 
Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough 
votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico, a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Lujan.
  Mr. LUJAN. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of H.R. 3585, in support of the 
rule in support of the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, a bill that I 
cosponsored and supported proudly during the committee process. And I 
commend Congresswoman Giffords for her work on this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has over 300 days of sunshine, 
a State that has abundant solar resources, a State that recognizes that 
we have to get out in front of this. But as we talk about the Southwest 
and where we have a lot of sunshine, we cannot lose sight that 
countries like Germany, that don't have the abundant solar resources 
that we do here in the United States, but especially in the Southwest, 
are still ahead of us. They're outproducing us, they're generating more 
power from the sun. We have to get out in front of this issue, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Solar energy production will support economic growth by creating jobs 
and opportunities for a clean energy workplace.
  You know, as we talk about this issue, we see and we remember that 
this technology, solar technology, was invented and developed right 
here in the United States, right here in America; yet we're falling 
further and further behind. We talk about the need for more jobs, for 
making sure that we're getting ahead of this important energy issue. 
There is no reason that solar energy can't be and should not be--and it 
must be--a big part of the solar mix of the energy mix that we have 
right here in the United States.
  When we talk about the investment in education, the emphasis with 
technology, engineering, mathematics, and science, making sure that 
we're building up that young group, those talented young people that 
will solve tomorrow's problems, investment in solar technology in 
developing a road map that will be essential in fully deploying and 
developing this technology is critically important. Our national 
laboratories at the forefront here are our colleges and universities. 
We have to invest in our engineers, our scientists, our researchers to 
provide this path forward.
  The solar technology road map lays out a clear path for identifying 
our country's solar technologies, development needs and staying on 
track to address its importance. It lets us get back in the front on 
this issue, Mr. Speaker. The Solar Technology Roadmap Act will provide 
resources to our academic institutions, our national laboratories for 
research and development, and a demonstration of advanced techniques 
and manufacturing a variety of solar energy products.
  Mr. Speaker, we can't wait any more. We all need to come together 
when we talk about the future of our energy needs in our country, 
solving our dependence on foreign sources of energy, getting back out 
in front of this very important issue.
  This piece of legislation will allow us to get there and allow us to 
pave the way and, once again, Mr. Speaker, allow America, allow the 
United States, allow our scientists our entrepreneurs, our business 
people to use their hands, use their minds, use their hearts and their 
souls to get back out in front of this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and support this 
legislation that will set our country on a path to be a leader in solar 
energy.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank very much the gentlelady for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to the underlying 
bill; and to explain why, I would like to walk through a little history 
and a little math.
  Let's begin with history and two very important dates: 1978 and 1839. 
In 1978, The Wall Street Journal carried this headline: ``Solar Power 
Seen Meeting 20 Percent of Needs By 2000; Carter May Seek Outlay 
Boost.''
  Well, oddly the same paper carried a headline in 2006 making the same 
promise, this time for all renewable fuels, only this time by 2025, but 
I digress.
  Billions of dollars were poured into research and development for 
solar technology as a result of that, and an entire solar industry 
solely supported by NASA subsidies arose in order to grab those 
dollars. And what was the result of all of this plunder of taxpayers 
and rate payers? More than 30 years after that promise was made in 
1978, solar power accounts for just one percent of electricity 
generation. That's not for lack of subsidies; it's because despite all 
of the billions of dollars of subsidies, the technology remains 
immensely inefficient and expensive.

                              {time}  1045

  And that brings me to the second year, 1839. This is not a new 
technology. Photovoltaic electricity was first discovered by French 
physicist Alexandre Edmond Becquerel in the year 1839. This technology 
has existed for 170 years, and in those 170 years of scientific 
discovery and progress and despite billions of dollars of subsidies to 
the solar industry, we have yet to discover a more expensive way of 
producing electricity.
  When the State of California was squandering its wealth on 
subsidizing this industry a few years ago, I asked the California 
Energy Commission: what is the price range of all of the various forms 
of electricity generation that we can choose from?
  Here is what they reported: the cheapest form of electricity 
generation is hydroelectric. It ranges from a quarter of a cent to 2.7 
cents per kilowatt hour, so the mid-range average is around 1.5 cents. 
Then comes nuclear power, with a mid-range of around 1.7 cents. After 
that is coal at about 1.9 cents, then wind at 4.6 cents, and gas at 
10.6 cents. Finally, we get to the most expensive way to produce 
electricity, solar, which is between a low of 13.5 cents and a high of 
42.7 cents per kilowatt hour, with a mid-range of about 28.1 cents. But 
it gets worse.
  In a day, a solid acre of state-of-the-art solar panels can produce 
2.2 megawatt hours of electricity, assuming an average of 5 hours of 
peak sunlight--2.2 megawatt hours per day. Now compare that to the 
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant that produces 49,000 megawatt hours 
of electricity each day. In order to duplicate that single nuclear 
power plant, it would require 22,000 acres of solid solar panels--34 
square miles of solid solar panels. By comparison, the Diablo Canyon 
power site sits on just 1 square mile.
  So this technology, after 170 years and after countless billions of 
dollars of research and development, is roughly 17 times more expensive 
than nuclear power, and it consumes 32 times the land area of a 
comparable nuclear facility. But don't worry, say the proponents, we 
just need a few billion dollars more to become competitive. Well, I'm 
sorry, but we have heard that song before. I suppose hope springs 
eternal.
  For decades, the Federal Government and gullible States like 
California have kept the solar industry afloat by pumping billions of 
dollars into subsidized

[[Page H11589]]

loans, by crediting consumers who buy solar panels and, of course, 
through research and development--$166 million last year and $175 
million this year by the Department of Energy alone.
  This is an industry that exists solely of the dole, by the dole and 
for the dole, and it is now clamoring for billions of dollars more. If 
this rule is passed and if the bill is taken up, they are going to get 
it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. If they get this rule and get this bill, they are 
going to get those billions of dollars more taken directly out of the 
shrinking bank accounts of American taxpayers. This is called the Solar 
Technology Roadmap Act. We have heard of the ``bridge to nowhere.'' 
This is the road map that's going to get us there.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, which makes in order the 
manager's amendment, which includes a provision that I drafted to 
require that one of the demonstration projects in the bill be on 
organic solar technology.
  Organic solar technology turns solar cells into high-tech ink that 
can be printed or sprayed onto surfaces using the same general idea as 
a common ink-jet printer. This technological leap allows us to turn 
lightweight, flexible films into solar receptors, which opens the door 
to using solar power for items like cell phones, laptops and even 
military equipment that can recharge in the field. Additionally, this 
technology could potentially cost less than silicon solar technology 
because it's easier to process and because it makes solar technology 
more attainable for all Americans.
  Organic solar cells would potentially be better for the environment 
than would traditional silicon solar technology. Not only does organic 
solar technology use less energy in production because it requires less 
processing, but the cells can more easily be recycled. Two of the 
biggest barriers to organic solar technology are how long the cells 
last in the field and how efficiently they convert sunlight into 
electrical energy.
  My provision in the manager's amendment would ensure the opportunity 
for a demonstration project to pursue bringing organic solar technology 
to market. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I support the rule 
and that I ask my colleagues to support the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying 
multibillion-dollar waste that the rule brings to the floor.
  Later today, I am sure the House will approve overwhelmingly this 
very wasteful $2.2 billion subsidy for the solar power industry and for 
the solar bureaucracy, but we should be remembering that our national 
debt will soon pass $12 trillion in just a few days. Solar energy has 
received massive subsidies, with very little progress, ever since the 
Carter administration. In fact, it has turned into little more than a 
jobs boondoggle for bureaucrats as the gentleman from California just 
showed us in a story from The Wall Street Journal where, in 1978, there 
was a claim that solar energy by the year 2000 would make up 20 percent 
of our energy needs.
  After all of this time and after all of this money, however, solar 
energy makes up far less than 1 percent of the total of U.S. energy. In 
fact, it is just 1 percent of the 7 percent that renewable energy 
provides this country. That is such a small figure that I can't even 
figure out exactly what 1 percent of 7 percent is. It's hard to get 
that small. The Department of Energy has received at least $1.2 billion 
for this research just since fiscal 2000, not counting what other 
departments and agencies have spent on this.
  I am not against solar energy in any way, but it is way past time for 
this industry to stand on its own. The demand for solar energy will go 
up much faster if the industry is weaned off of Federal money and if it 
is forced to put out a better, more efficient and less expensive 
product. This is called free enterprise. Some people may have heard of 
it. The taxpayers simply cannot afford to keep funding a very wasteful 
program just because it is politically correct or fashionable to do so. 
This is a multibillion-dollar waste, and it should be defeated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. DUNCAN. This bill should be defeated, but it will not be. As 
someone told me last week, it is easy to run as Santa Claus, but it is 
almost impossible to run against Santa Claus.
  I urge the defeat of this legislation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the House has an opportunity 
today to do something in a very fair and correct way and that is very 
important.
  I do want the record to reflect the degree of inclusion that Chairman 
Gordon and the members of his committee have put forth in this bill.
  By my count, there were 29 suggestions made by the minority which are 
included in this underlying legislation. One was made at the 
subcommittee level and was accepted, and three were made at the full 
committee level and were accepted. The gentlewoman from Arizona has a 
manager's amendment which will be considered by the House later today. 
My understanding is it includes 25 suggestions from the minority. The 
minority had some input, so the idea that this is a one-sided 
discussion, I think, is simply not accurate. More importantly, the 
discussion takes us in a direction that our country very badly needs to 
go.
  My friend from Tennessee just talked about the importance of paying 
down the national debt, and he sure is right. There is a best way to 
pay down the national debt, in my view, and two of the best ways are 
included in this bill. The first is to stop spending hundreds of 
billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy from countries that 
are not terribly friendly to us. The second way is to put Americans to 
work. So, instead of consuming public resources in the welfare, 
Medicaid or food stamp systems, they're paying more taxes because 
they're making more money, and they're contributing to the Treasury in 
that way.
  This bill puts us on a path that leads to those two directions. It is 
a road map. It suggests ways that innovative strategies can be used to 
increase the amount of energy that we derive from the sun.
  Now, my friend from New Mexico could have talked about how solar 
energy is prominent in his State because they do have a lot of sunshine 
there. I'm from New Jersey. We have a fair degree of sunshine but 
certainly not to the degree that they have in New Mexico. However, New 
Jersey is now second in the Nation in the number of kilowatt hours that 
we produce from solar energy. So our State is living proof of the fact 
that you do not have to be in a warmer, sunny-all-the-time climate in 
order to achieve progress in this way. Those are the kinds of 
strategies that we will see investigated and encouraged as a result of 
this bill.
  You know, this is a matter of energy, environment and security. The 
energy aspects are obvious. The more energy we derive from the sun, the 
less we buy from the Middle East and the less vulnerable we are. 
Second, it's a matter of the environment. The emission of greenhouse 
gases is a serious and growing problem in our ecosystem, and this bill 
would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that we emit into the 
environment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Finally, it's a matter of national security. Many of the 
problems that vex us today in the international situation are precisely 
because we put ourselves in a position of disadvantage by buying so 
much necessary energy from overseas, often

[[Page H11590]]

from countries who do not share our human rights or international 
agenda.
  This has been a very fair and open process. It's a very wise and 
forward-looking bill, and I would encourage Members of both the 
majority and minority to support this rule and to support the 
underlying bill later this afternoon.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that the manager's amendment incorporated 10 majority 
amendments. The only amendments that came in from the Republicans were 
put in in the names of the majority. There was only one Republican 
amendment made in order for today under the rule.
  I would like now to recognize for 3 minutes my colleague from 
Nebraska, Mr. Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today thankful we're 
talking about energy. Far too often, it seems, Washington is working on 
efforts to stop energy development right here in America. This bill at 
least makes an effort to tap into our domestic energy potential. 
However, I am concerned about the cost, and I am concerned the bill 
actually doesn't go far enough.
  As a member of the Science Committee, I am familiar with the efforts 
to spur energy research, and as a member of the Natural Resources 
Committee, I am familiar with the rich resources our Nation has to 
generate more domestic energy. At a time when we are facing an annual 
deficit which is larger than the deficits from the last 4 years 
combined, we are here today to spend another $2 billion without any way 
to pay for it.
  Energy policy is about choices, and the leadership of this Congress 
and of this new administration has made the choice not to promote the 
most economic and energy-rich forms of domestic energy resources, 
including oil and gas. In contrast, Republicans have chosen to support 
American energy production through an all-of-the-above energy plan. We 
support the development of solar energy all across America, and we also 
support wind, nuclear, hydropower, biofuels, and oil and gas 
development--domestic sources of energy.
  America does not need just one choice on energy. We need access to 
all of the domestic energy resources we can develop. The American 
Energy Act would clean up the environment, lower energy costs, and 
create more American jobs than the bill before us today. In fact, the 
American Energy Act has four main objectives:
  Increasing the production of American-made energy in an 
environmentally responsible and sound manner; promoting new, clean and 
renewable sources of energy such as nuclear, hydropower, clean-coal 
technology, wind and solar energy; encouraging greater efficiency and 
conservation by extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and 
rewarding development of greater conservation techniques and new energy 
resources; and cutting redtape and reducing frivolous litigation.
  America needs energy development, and America needs jobs. While 
today's bill will promote some energy development and some new jobs, 
it's only one piece of the puzzle. America needs an all-of-the-above 
energy policy to develop many new energy resources and to create a lot 
of jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans stand ready to help you promote increased 
domestic energy development. It's time that Congress not pick winners 
and losers in energy. It's time for all of the above.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3585, the 
Solar Technology Roadmap Act of 2010.
  It is critical that we promote the development of solar energy 
technology in order to expand our national energy profile. Such 
advancements are also important in helping us achieve our goal of 
energy independence.
  Colorado, in particular, has great potential for the generation and 
use of solar energy. Ten miles west of the Great Sand Dunes National 
Park in Alamosa County, Colorado, sits an 8.2 megawatt photovoltaic 
plant, one of the largest solar farms in the Nation. With 1 megawatt 
having the capacity to power 800 homes, enough energy is produced at 
the Alamosa plant to power over 6,500 homes. The facility is expected 
to add 250 megawatts of solar power by 2015.
  Earlier this year, the Bureau of Land Management identified southern 
Colorado as a solar energy study area for concentrated solar energy 
production. The two dozen areas currently being evaluated by the Bureau 
of Land Management could produce as much as 100,000 megawatts of solar 
electricity. As a rancher, I am confident that the positive 
environmental impact, economic development, and cost savings yielded by 
the access to solar energy would benefit rural communities across the 
Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that we promote the use of technologies 
such as solar as part of our energy mix. I encourage my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to give this bill their full support. 
Investment in advanced technologies will ensure that America remains on 
the cutting edge, secures our standing as a leader on the alternative 
energy front, and brings us one step closer to energy independence.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves the emperor's new clothes award. We 
all, again, want to see improved and increased use of solar energy in 
our country, but this rule and this bill are not going to do it.
  The bill before us authorizes $2.25 billion in borrowed money for the 
creation of a new committee which would devise a solar technology road 
map or plan. This wasteful spending does not reflect the hard economic 
times our country and our constituents are experiencing right now and, 
instead, is spending borrowed money that we do not have.
  Whenever I am home in North Carolina, which is every weekend, I hear 
from numerous constituents their concerns that the Federal Government 
in Washington is borrowing and spending too much. The American people 
know that in these tough economic times that they should save, not 
spend money. However, the Federal Government does not reflect the 
common sense I see throughout my district. Instead, the Democrats in 
charge here continue to borrow more and spend more, increasing our 
Federal deficit on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
  The money that Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration want to 
authorize today is all borrowed money. We cannot say that often enough. 
We do not have this money. Our constituents do not have this money and 
the Federal Government does not have this money. The Democrats in 
charge have made the irresponsible decision to borrow it in order to 
spend it at their whim.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. national debt is currently $11.5 trillion. With 
over 300 million people in the United States today, each citizen's 
share of this debt right now is $38.8 thousand. This bill will increase 
the deficit even more by borrowing and spending money we don't have. We 
can no longer blame the deficit and economic difficulties today on the 
previous administration.
  Those in charge have shown they don't care about the deficit by 
continuing to dig America into a deeper and deeper hole with more 
reckless spending. This borrowed money is all being spent by Speaker 
Pelosi and the Obama administration. As a result, the unemployment rate 
continues to rise and the deficit continues to rise also.
  Since the Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the 
national debt has increased by $3.282 trillion. Since President Obama 
was inaugurated just months ago in January, the national debt has 
increased by $1.325 trillion. The Department of the Treasury has 
reported that under the Democrats' control, 2009 is the worst fiscal 
year in this Nation's history. The results get more disastrous with 
each passing day.
  Mr. Speaker, the debt limit has been raised at least three times 
since 2008. A debt limit increase was included in H.R. 3221, the 
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. H.R. 1424, the Emergency 
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 raised the debt limit again.
  The Democrats in charge raised the debt limit yet again less than a 
year later with passage of H.R. 1, the, quote, stimulus, in February of 
this year. That bill raised the debt limit to $12.104 trillion, where 
it now stands. As if that weren't enough, the fiscal year

[[Page H11591]]

2010 budget resolution adopted on April 29, 2009, triggered the 
automatic passage of a separate measure, House Joint Resolution 45, to 
raise the debt limit to $13.029 trillion, which was then sent to the 
Senate.
  We will soon be asked to raise the debt limit again just as soon as 
the majority can find a way to do it and hide it in some other bill so 
that the American people hopefully are fooled by what they are doing. 
They are not going to be fooled because they are paying attention to 
what's going on here in the Congress.
  I have opposed all these efforts to raise the debt limit. According 
to an analysis by The Heritage Foundation, the White House projects 
$10.6 trillion in new deficits over the next decade. This is nearly 
$80,000 per household in new borrowing. It's beyond time to stop 
digging.
  The new budget estimates, including an estimated total national debt 
of $24.5 trillion in 2019 under President Obama's budget, are alarming 
and unsustainable. The result will be the highest level of spending and 
debt in American history. This is an irresponsible lack of fiscal 
restraint carried on the backs of our children and grandchildren. My 
constituents at home and Americans across the Nation are not operating 
their family budgets as recklessly as this Congress is spending their 
taxpayer dollars.
  On top of all this, the President and Congress' shameless proposals 
to create a $1 trillion health care entitlement are careless and 
unaffordable. We should be focusing on capping Federal spending, 
restraining entitlements, and eliminating wasteful programs. When will 
the Democrats learn that out-of-control spending will not solve our 
Nation's problems?
  Last week, a group of us had the great opportunity to hear Mr. John 
Allison, who is chairman of the board of Branch Banking and Trust 
Company in North Carolina, one of the most successful banks in the 
United States. He told us then that we are on an unsustainable course 
in terms of accruing debt.
  He said if we do not stop this almost immediately, we have fewer than 
25 years left as a great Nation, that within 25 years we will become a 
Third World country similar to other Third World countries, 
particularly in South America. We cannot sustain this. We owe our 
children and grandchildren a better future. We need alternatives.
  But what the Democrats in charge are doing is shutting off our 
opportunity to use alternative sources of energy that we have available 
to us in this country. We have plenty of oil, plenty of gas, plenty of 
coal. We could be using all of those sources of energy, but they are 
shutting us out. We should be utilizing those and not doing what our 
colleague from California showed, and that is wasting money on setting 
up committees to devise road maps to bridges to nowhere, when we could 
be developing the resources that we have, allowing the private sector 
to do it, and not having government involvement.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York, a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Tonko.
  (Mr. TONKO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3585, the Solar 
Technology Roadmap Act of 2010.
  As a Representative and certainly as an engineer, I wholeheartedly 
embrace the soundness of planning. The road map here represents 
planning that provides for the most effective use of taxpayer and 
consumer dollars and also provides for the most commonsense approach to 
a situation that has really caused a great interest in America.
  The previous administration spent down a surplus while it could have 
been investing in a sound energy plan. We now have no choice but to 
enter this clean energy race, which is global in nature. America will 
fall into deeper deficit in tougher times if it does not participate in 
the innovation economy driven by energy and environment reform.
  This bill will unleash the potential of the American solar tech 
industry and boost our economy by creating jobs in this expanding new 
sector. It requires the Department of Energy to establish a solar road 
map committee to write and oversee a solar technology road map. The 
solar technology road map will lay out a detailed plan for solar tech 
research and development, help improve the performance and reliability 
of solar technology, and decrease the cost of solar for consumers and 
businesses.
  Research and development funding will not only stimulate our economy 
and be the wave of energy innovation for the future, but it is also 
through R&D that we will be able to solve environmental issues, ensure 
the next wave of energy innovations occur right here in America, and 
provide those all-important American jobs to grow our economy and 
assist and relieve our American working families.
  Solar has the potential to shave overall electricity prices for 
consumers as well as enhance capacity. This bill is crucial to catalyze 
both of these activities. In fact, this body previously passed a 
similar piece of legislation that I sponsored, H.R. 3165, the Wind 
Energy Research and Development Act. That bill looked at improving and 
making more efficient the materials used for construction of wind 
turbines.
  In my district alone, there are numerous businesses and academic 
institutions such as the College of Nanoscale and Science Engineering 
at the University of Albany, which I toured this just this week, where 
thin film improvements are greatly enhancing and improving the 
opportunity for market penetration of many nanoscale applications such 
as solar energy. We will advance with this legislation and grow jobs 
and grow our economy and not reject the innovation that was rejected in 
the previous administration.
  As the vice Chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environment 
Coalition, or SEEK, which is newly formed this year, we recognize that 
H.R. 3585 is an important bill and is therefore a legislative priority. 
As such, I want to thank the gentlelady from Arizona for developing 
such a great bill, one that speaks volumes to bettering our Nation's 
economy, speaking to our energy policy and our environment.
  I encourage a strong vote in favor of its passage.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while solar energy is an important resource and worthy 
of support, there are many flaws in this legislation and in the rule. 
This is not the right policy to advance our Nation's energy needs.
  As usual, the Democrats' approach to another problem is to take money 
from hardworking citizens to use for their pet projects and their 
supporters. This approach fails to incorporate creative solutions that 
do not rely on ever increasing the size of the Federal Government.
  According to the Science and Technology Committee, solar energy has 
been on the forefront for over 30 years, and yet it still makes up only 
1 percent of the 7 percent of renewable energy consumed in the United 
States. Because there is no silver bullet, our Nation's energy policy 
must encompass many energy alternative solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats in charge were serious about achieving 
energy independence and freeing our Nation from the grip of foreign 
oil, they would bring legislation to the floor that invests in several 
energy initiatives, not just one.

                              {time}  1115

  Republicans have alternatives. We have alternatives to everything 
that they have been presenting. We've introduced legislation that would 
encompass a multitude of energy initiatives, including solar 
technology. H.R. 2846, the American Energy Act, of which I'm a 
cosponsor, is a comprehensive energy solutions plan that would create 
jobs, make energy more affordable, diversify our energy sources, and 
help the U.S. become more energy independent.
  The American Energy Act would increase both the supply of American-
made energy in environmentally sound ways and achieve the goal of 
energy independence for our Nation. Instead of investing billions in 
taxpayer dollars we don't have for one energy resource, the American 
Energy Act would establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues 
generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the

[[Page H11592]]

Arctic coastal plain. It would permanently extend the tax credit for 
alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen; and 
it would eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear 
power production. The comprehensive strategy is budget neutral, without 
tax increases, and would make independence achievable without wasting 
billions of our constituents' dollars.
  But instead of taking real action, this bill places restrictions on 
solar technology research and development by requiring that the 
Secretary of Energy allocate at least 75 percent of funding to those 
solar R&D projects directed under the committee's road map. This leaves 
little flexibility for innovations that may be feasible and yet were 
not included in the road map.
  When Speaker Pelosi took office, she promised the Nation that this 
Congress would be the most open and honest in history. This bill works 
against that objective. At least one-third of the road map committee 
created by this bill is made up of industry officials who are 
explicitly exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which is 
intended to provide an open and transparent process. The Democrats in 
charge could have ensured the road map committee was open and 
transparent, but curiously they chose not to.
  When it comes to solar technology research and development, we must 
have the collaboration of the Department of Energy, universities and 
industries. However, this bill would create a committee, half of which 
could be industry, telling DOE where to direct taxpayer money into 
research and development that could benefit their companies while not 
having to answer to anyone or defend their recommendations. This is not 
a responsible policy when billions of taxpayer dollars are on the line.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 900, of which I'm a cosponsor, would liberate 
energy companies from being suffocated by extreme environmental 
litigation and allow them to move forward and get approval to implement 
energy products.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is wrong. This bill is a bad bill.
  Since 2005, more than 200 applications have been submitted to the 
Bureau of Land Management for permission to build solar power projects 
on federally controlled land. To date, the Bureau of Land Management 
hasn't approved a single one of them. Mr. Rohrabacher has introduced 
H.R. 964, the Emergency Solar Power Permit Act, of which I am a 
cosponsor, to exempt solar energy projects from costly and prolonged 
environmental impact statement requirements. Enacting this legislation 
would do more to expedite solar energy than the underlying bill.
  Even though the public has repeatedly demanded to take advantage of 
the resources we have here at home, attempts to develop these resources 
are consistently and adamantly opposed by radical environmentalists who 
claim to be in favor of domestic development of renewable energy. The 
American people are suffering the consequences.
  The Democrats' radical environmentalist friends and campaign donors 
continue to block domestic energy development by imposing excessive 
environmental litigation on energy companies. This excessive litigation 
prevents our country from moving forward to implement policies that 
will develop renewable technology and free us from the grip of foreign 
oil.
  H.R. 900, of which I am a cosponsor, would liberate energy companies 
from being suffocated by extreme environmental litigation and allow 
them to move forward and get approval to implement energy projects. 
However, the Democrats in charge will not allow this bill to come to 
the floor for debate because they have more allegiance towards their 
radical environmentalist friends than towards the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, amendments to reduce the authorization, give the 
Secretary of DOE discretion as to how much funding should go to the 
Roadmap recommendations, and sunset the Roadmap Committee in 2015 were 
all voted down in the hearing on this legislation.
  Amendments to protect small businesses, veteran-owned businesses, and 
fund this bill through unspent funds authorized under the ``stimulus'' 
earlier this year were blocked by the Democrats on the Rules Committee 
so we will not be debating them in order to improve this flawed 
legislation. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, by creating a solar technology 
road map committee made up of experts representing a variety of 
perspectives from the private industry, the solar technology industry, 
from the national laboratories, one of which borders my district, the 
National Energies Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, from academia and 
from the relevant Federal, State, as well as local agencies, we can 
ensure that we have all the stakeholders on board with a forward-
thinking strategic plan for using our Federal solar energy research, 
rolling out development and demonstration, and making sure that funds 
are spent effectively and efficiently.
  The road map that this bill will create is a model that's tried and 
true. This bill's road map is modeled on the successful National 
Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors which has been instrumental in 
helping the semiconductor industry and semiconductor technology advance 
rapidly over the past two decades. The progress in the semiconductor 
industry has helped make the technology exponentially more cost 
competitive and has grown the industry to help establish America as the 
international leader in semiconductors, just as we have the opportunity 
to be the true international leader in solar technology.
  Like solar technology, the semiconductor industry at one point in 
time also needed focus. It needed a road map to point it in the right 
direction, a road map to ensure that its investments were being used 
wisely and efficiently, allowing us to compete with other countries. 
This bill will do the same for the solar industry.
  Mr. Speaker, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act has gained a wide 
variety of bipartisan support, support from institutions and 
organizations from many different perspectives on the energy issue.
  I strongly urge passage of this legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire of the gentleman from 
Colorado if he is prepared to close.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I have no additional speakers.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers, and I will 
make my closing speech now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would 
provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 554, a resolution to 
require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the 
Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not 
affect the bill made in order by the rule.
  The amendment to the rule provides the House will debate the issue of 
reading the bill within 3 legislative days. It does not disrupt the 
schedule.
  The bill currently has 164 cosponsors. The discharge petition has 182 
names, including five Democrats. This bill has gained support of an 
overwhelming majority of Americans and is widely respected by 
government watchdogs.
  The existing House rule, that committee reports be available for 3 
days prior to floor consideration, has been repeatedly waived by 
Republicans and Democrats alike. This is not a partisan measure. As 
Members of Congress, we ought to agree that regardless of the 
legislation brought before us, we should always have the opportunity to 
read and understand the legislation before we vote.
  The American public agrees with this commonsense position. A recent 
survey by Rasmussen Reports found that 83 percent of Americans say 
legislation should be posted online and available for everyone to read 
before Congress votes on it. The poll also found that this is not a 
partisan issue: 85 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 
92 percent of unaffiliated voters favor posting legislation online 
prior to its being voted on.
  In the beginning of the year, Democrat Members of this Congress voted 
to spend almost $790 billion in taxpayer dollars on a stimulus package 
that most Members did not even read. All Republicans voted ``no.'' The 
1,073-page document wasn't posted on the government's Web site until 
after 10 p.m. the day before the vote to pass it was taken.
  Furthermore, before debate on the cap-and-tax bill offered last 
summer, the House was presented with a 300-plus-page amendment at 3 
a.m. for debate the following morning and a vote

[[Page H11593]]

the following afternoon. This was unacceptable and further demonstrated 
the need to read the bill and the amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, we are elected to Congress to represent our 
constituents. How are we supposed to determine what is right for our 
fellow Americans if we have to vote on something before we even have 
time to read it? We need to have this debate. If people oppose having 
the text of bills available to read, they should make their case. This 
amendment to the rule allows them to do just that.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can 
have this debate and do the right thing for the American people.
  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 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question and the rule and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Carolina 
earlier alluded to her concern that, if we passed this bill and others, 
our economy will begin to resemble the Third World. She particularly 
cited, she said, the Third World, particularly South American 
countries. I would like to remind my colleague that South American 
countries, in particular Argentina and Brazil, have been on a tear of 
growth. They have had economic growth. Their currencies have gained 
value against the dollar. And I hope that our country can enjoy the 
same kinds of economic growth that in particular Brazil and Argentina 
have enjoyed this last year. And certainly the technology industry, in 
having a road map for our solar industry, can be an important part of 
that economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a responsible and well thought out and 
proven approach to moving our Nation away from its addiction on fossil 
fuels and towards independence. This is a mission that will help us 
address some of the largest challenges we face, reducing our dangerous 
dependence on foreign oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
  Time and time again, it has been shown that solar energy is a 
tremendous win in terms of national security, lessening our reliance on 
foreign oil. Whether having emergency response centers powered 
individually during disasters or having additional solar supplying the 
grid during blackouts, we are learning that energy security means 
homegrown renewable energy.
  What good does it do for us to be dependent on Europe or China for 
our energy in the future just as we are today on Saudi Arabia? I think 
not. We can change our future and take ownership of our future here 
today. The unfortunate truth of the matter is right now Europe and 
China are winning the technology wars to dominate our renewable energy 
future; and this will become worse with every day that we fail to act.
  Today, Congress can take action to change our future and take 
ownership of our future for America. We need to realize that the 
technological gains of China and Europe are a good thing, but not if 
they are to the detriment of our own small businesses, our own 
investment, and our own jobs.
  There is one factor that every place with a booming clean energy 
industry has in common. It's not just the sun, which we have in our 
country, it's not just the wind, which we have, it's not just the 
biomass, which we have in spades; but it is the policies, the policies 
that underlie creating a playing field that enables the growth of the 
solar technology industry.
  You may think that California and Colorado are the number one and 
number three, respectively, renewable energy States in the country 
because they are sunny or windy. But, in fact, we in Colorado, and the 
State of California is number one, are in their place because they have 
the right policies, the right policies to attract investors, the right 
policies to grow clean energy jobs, friendly State leadership from the 
Governor to the State legislature, to counties. To prove this point, 
coming in at number two is actually the somewhat cloudy State of New 
Jersey, due to their State leadership of embracing a renewable energy 
economy.
  In Colorado, this fact has been known for years. Our State and my 
hometown of Boulder know the benefits of policies that attract 
technological advancement, support small businesses and create jobs all 
because they promote investments in renewable energy.
  In fact, today the American Solar Energy Society will unveil a new 
national report that shows the economic and employment boom that clean 
energy could provide if only we enact the right policies, which we can 
through the road map that we have contained in this bill. Policies like 
net metering, interconnection standards, Property Assessed Clean Energy 
Bonds and the expansion of distributed generation are the next steps of 
policies that will give our Nation the benefits that clean energy has 
given to places like Colorado.
  That's why, Mr. Speaker, this bill has been officially endorsed by 
business groups across the board, like the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Solar Energy 
Industries Association, and the National Semiconductor Association.
  In passing the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, we are passing on 
confidence to investors that our support will be around for the long 
haul. It is predictable. We are saying to small clean energy businesses 
that you can hire more employees, and we are saying to researchers that 
without a doubt you will be inventing technologies that will make our 
country cleaner and will make our Nation stronger in the world.
  Establishing a research road map and prioritizing Federal funding for 
solar research will help commercialize new solar technologies and make 
clean, renewable energy sources more affordable and accessible for all 
Americans. Solar technology offers tremendous opportunity for America, 
the potential to create tens of thousands of good, high-paying, clean 
energy jobs that we are currently losing to overseas companies as we 
build our energy independence future.
  The U.S. has some of the best solar resources of any industrialized 
nation in the world, both intellectual as well as geophysical. Yet 
while America is currently a leader in solar technology development, 
other countries, like Spain, Germany and China, are devoting much more 
of a concerted effort and attention to deployment, putting the U.S. 
competitive position in jeopardy.

                              {time}  1130

  The Solar Technology Roadmap Act has diverse and bipartisan support.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Chairman Gordon of the 
Science and Technology Committee for his commitment to this important 
issue, and my friend from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) for her hard work 
championing this legislation to ensure that America retains and grows 
its position as a leader in solar technology and job creation for the 
future.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 846

                          Offered by Ms. Foxx

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and

[[Page H11594]]

     an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit which shall not 
     contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply 
     to the consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. 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 House Resolution 846, if 
ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules with regard to House 
Resolution 797, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 176, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 798]

                               YEAS--239

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     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
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     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)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     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)
     Melancon
     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)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     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--176

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     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
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     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)
     Gerlach
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     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
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     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
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Carney
     Cole
     Davis (AL)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Hinojosa
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Obey
     Radanovich
     Richardson
     Smith (TX)
     Walden
     Wamp
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1204

  Mr. CHILDERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H11595]]

  Ms. MATSUI. 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 241, 
nays 178, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 799]

                               YEAS--241

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     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
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     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)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     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--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     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
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     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)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     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
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Carney
     Davis (AL)
     Gohmert
     Hinojosa
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Radanovich
     Richardson
     Walden
     Wamp
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1212

  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.

                          ____________________