[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 41 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1661-H1668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3644, OCEAN, COASTAL, AND WATERSHED 
                             EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1192 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1192

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3644) to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to establish education and watershed programs 
     which advance environmental literacy, including preparedness 
     and adaptability for the likely impacts of climate change in 
     coastal watershed regions. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural 
     Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions of the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources; (2) the further 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative Capps of California 
     or her designee, which shall be in order without intervention 
     of any point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; (3) the 
     amendment to the further amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules, if offered by Representative Flake of Arizona or 
     his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of 
     rule XXI, shall be considered as read, shall be separately 
     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; and (4) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1612) to 
     amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to expand the 
     authorization of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, 
     and the Interior to provide service-learning opportunities on 
     public lands, help restore the Nation's natural, cultural, 
     historic, archaeological, recreational, and scenic resources, 
     train a new generation of public land managers and 
     enthusiasts, and promote the value of public service. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources; (2) the further 
     amendments printed in part C of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules, each of which may be offered only by a Member 
     designed in the report, shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be separately 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; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  During consideration of an amendment printed in 
     part C of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, the Chair may postpone the question of 
     adoption as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart ). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1192.
  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.
  House Resolution 1192 provides a structured rule for consideration of 
H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Education Act, with 1 hour 
of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
that is printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules, if 
offered by Representative Capps of California or her designee, which 
shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes. The rule also makes in 
order the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered 
by Representative Flake or his designee, which shall be separately 
debatable for 10 minutes.
  The rule also provides for consideration of another bill, H.R. 1612, 
the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009, under a structured rule. 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  The rule makes in order the further amendments printed in part C of 
the report of the Committee on Rules, each of which may be offered only 
by a Member designated in the report and shall be separately debatable 
for 10 minutes.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit for both H.R. 3644 
and H.R. 1612.
  I think this is a very fair rule. The rule provides for consideration 
of two bills under a structured rule. For H.R. 3644, two of the three 
amendments that were submitted to the House Rules Committee are made in 
order, including one Republican amendment and one Democratic amendment. 
For H.R. 1612, two of the six amendments submitted were made in order, 
both of which are Republican amendments. So for both of the bills 
combined, three out of the four amendments that are made in order under 
this rule are sponsored by Republicans.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
bills, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Education Act and the Public 
Land Service Corps Act. The programs within both of these bills benefit 
districts all across our Nation, from Florida to Alaska, Texas to 
Minnesota and Colorado. So it is no surprise that my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle across the country support these programs.
  I would like to thank Chairman Rahall for his leadership on this 
important issue and my colleagues, Representatives Capps and Grijalva, 
for their hard work on these bills.

[[Page H1662]]

  Madam Speaker, we have before us two excellent pieces of legislation, 
one which would expand and reinvigorate an existing program, the Public 
Land Corps, by streamlining its management, modernizing its scope and 
providing new tools to help the program accomplish its mission, and 
another bill which would expand two National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration grant programs that are aimed at enhancing environmental 
education related to water resources upon which economic development 
and human health depend.
  H.R. 1612 will help repair and restore our Nation's public lands 
while employing and training thousands of young Americans and promoting 
a culture of public service.
  This legislation will help provide real employment and training to 
young people who need it, particularly in a recession, while improving 
the condition of our priceless natural and cultural resources. We live 
in a time when environmental science education is just as critical for 
a healthy environment as land conservation or wildlife protection. Our 
citizens are empowered by being informed and educated enough to make 
important decisions in their own daily lives about environmental issues 
based on sometimes complicated scientific evidence. We need to supply 
our children and the next generation across our country with enough 
scientific knowledge to tackle the environmental challenges that they 
will face in the coming years and to make educated choices as 
consumers.
  This bill also takes a decisive step forward in finishing desperately 
needed work on our national park lands, forests, wildlife refuges and 
historic sites. As I have said previously, protecting and maintaining 
our public lands is one of the most important duties that we have as 
citizens. I was lucky enough to grow up in Boulder, Colorado, hiking in 
Mount Sanitas, as I did just last weekend when I was back, the Flat 
Irons and Flagstaff Mountain. If we don't defend America's truly great 
public lands, we run the risk of being the last generation to enjoy 
them.
  America and Colorado are really defined by our natural character. 
America is beautiful and needs our help to remain so. We must not let 
our ``spacious skies,'' our ``amber waves of grain'' and our ``purple 
mountains majesty'' become nothing more than forgotten lines in a song.

  The bill recognizes the importance, as well, of our coastal and 
marine systems and our national marine sanctuaries. Those previously 
have not been eligible for Public Land Corps projects but are just as 
worthy and just as important a part of our national heritage for those 
who reside on the coast.
  While Members of this body as well as the American public review the 
historic health care reform bill we will be taking up in the next few 
days, we have the opportunity to consider this vital program that has 
bipartisan support providing our youth the education and experience 
they will need to find meaningful employment while gaining civic pride, 
scientific education and personal responsibility while maintaining and 
improving our public lands and National Park System.
  This program will invest in our young people, reduce youth 
unemployment, and prepare young people for a lifetime of work 
experiences. At the same time youth will be repairing and restoring our 
National Park System and preserving it for the next generation, we also 
are able to whittle away at the massive backlog of work that has 
doubled over the last decade to levels around the $10 billion mark of 
backlog work that needs to be done. The National Park System has been 
called America's best idea, and it is past time we give our best 
attention and respect to the National Park System that it deserves.
  Preparing our park system for future generations and preparing young 
people to face the scientific and environmental challenges that are 
only beginning to come to fruition is an undertaking of great national 
importance.
  H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Education Act, formally 
codifies and authorizes two existing programs that have already made 
great strides in expanding ocean, atmospheric, and environmental 
literacy in the United States. These programs, the Bay-Watershed 
Education and Training, which we call B-WET, and the Environmental 
Literacy Grant, ELG, program deserve Federal recognition and funding 
for their good work providing educational opportunities from 
kindergarten all the way through 12th grade.
  This legislation gives us an opportunity to consider these vital 
programs, programs which provide our youth the education and experience 
that they will need to find meaningful employment in advancing our 
Nation's progress in science, technology, engineering and math to help 
keep America globally competitive.
  H.R. 3644 codifies two existing environmental education grant 
programs that were established through the annual appropriations 
process and are administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. Over the past 7 years, these two NOAA education 
programs have been essential towards advancing ocean and environmental 
education in the United States. Both programs are very popular in the 
education community, and in fact, requests for environmental literacy 
grants are 10 times greater than the appropriated funding levels can 
support.
  Since 2002 and 2005, respectively, the B-WET and ELG programs have 
connected school children from kindergarten all the way through high 
school with their ocean and coastal environments. These programs help 
school children learn about the effects that everyday actions they take 
have on the environment.
  Let's make no mistake about it. Our society is faced with a 
fundamental lack of scientific understanding, where special interests 
on all sides frequently undermine the vast scientific consensus on key 
issues simply by flashy public relations campaigns. We need to make 
sure that our country is the world leader in innovation and science in 
order to ensure that our country can overcome new challenges and 
protect its public health and natural wonders.
  In addition to my time growing up in Colorado, I also spent a lot of 
time in San Diego growing up where the community is as physically, 
emotionally and economically tied to the ocean and coast as Colorado is 
to its mountains. Regardless of where someone lives in our great and 
vast country, whether it's the plains, the mountains, the forests, the 
coasts or the tundra, our Nation's public spaces, wildlife and 
environmental health are truly our greatest national treasures, an 
important part of our national character and who we are. And these 
pieces of legislation go a long way in our effort to protect them.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to 
thank my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for the 
time.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to take a minute to contrast what the 
majority is doing today with what it is expected to do this weekend.
  Today, the majority has brought forth a rule to provide 1 hour of 
debate for consideration of H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal, and 
Watershed Education Act, and another hour of debate for H.R. 1612, the 
Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009. That is a total of 2 hours of 
debate on bills that would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to establish education and watershed programs to advance 
environmental literacy, and expand the authorization to provide 
service-learning opportunities on public lands and train public land 
managers. I thank my good friend for thoroughly detailing and covering 
what is in those bills.
  If the majority proceeds as expected later this weekend, Madam 
Speaker, the House will prohibit, other than in the rule, all time to 
debate the Senate health care bill and will send it to the President 
for his signature. So that bill, the Senate health care bill, would 
become law even though the House of Representatives would never 
consider it, never debate the bill. The House, in fact, has never even 
held a committee meeting on the Senate health care bill.
  On Sunday, it is expected that the majority will deem the bill 
passed, and in a few days it would be law, the signature issue of this 
President and this congressional majority.

[[Page H1663]]

  You would think, Madam Speaker, that they would proudly embrace their 
signature accomplishment. You would think that they would welcome 
debate on it. But they do not, because they know that the Senate bill 
is fatally flawed. The American people deserve a full and complete 
debate in the House on the Senate health care bill, but they won't get 
it.
  Again, let's juxtapose that reality with today's actions.
  Today, 2 hours of debate on two noncontroversial bills that cost $300 
million and absolutely no debate, no committee hearings on a bill that 
costs nearly $1 trillion, covers one-sixth of our economy, and will 
affect every single American. That is unfair and inappropriate.
  Last year, the majority rushed through a 300-page amendment at 3 in 
the morning that no one was able to read on cap-and-trade. At that 
time, the American people rightly stood up and demanded that Congress 
read the bill. After this weekend's action, the people will demand that 
Congress not only read bills, but that we debate and vote on bills.
  It would seem like common sense, Madam Speaker. But with this 
majority, it often seems as though common sense is the least common of 
the senses.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. There will be, and I certainly look forward to joining my 
colleague from Florida, a debate this weekend on the health care bill.
  I am glad to see, on issues of our national parks and oceans, we are 
able to come together. And there are certainly other issues where 
Members of the body don't agree, but there will be a debate and there 
will be a rule proposed for that debate. I personally believe there 
should be several hours of debate, and I am hopeful that there will be 
2 or 3 or more hours, which would then give Members on both sides who 
desire to present their positions the ability to do that.
  I do take some issue with the characterization that there has not 
been a vetting of these issues involved. There have been, over the past 
year, dozens of hearings, even, very recently, a bipartisan summit that 
the President convened on health care. There have been many ideas and 
amendments from both sides of the aisle that have been incorporated 
into the bill that our committee will be doing a hearing on tomorrow 
and referring, for consideration of the House as a whole, a rule to 
consider that important piece of legislation.
  Both of these bills that we have before us today under this rule are 
supported by national, regional, State, and local advocates. They are 
supported by leaders in education, environment, conservationists, 
service communities, and business communities.
  Through passage of these bills, we are able to bring together the 
desire of this Congress of a meaningful impact on creating jobs for 
young people, training for young people to occupy the jobs of the 
future, and doing some lasting good in preserving the historic 
character of our open spaces.
  The B-WET and ELG programs are exactly the kind of innovative 
learning that we need to cultivate an environmentally minded workforce 
that can compete in the increasingly green economy of the future. By 
teaching our children not only to enjoy but also appreciate the value 
and effect of our endangered national treasures, we can truly create a 
workforce, a community, and a society that values our environment and 
our national heritage and in which the environment and economy are 
increasingly intertwined.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend 
for supporting 2 or 3 hours of debate on one-sixth of our economy.
  I would point out that, pursuant to House rules, the deeming, which 
is presumed will occur with regard to the Senate bill in the debate on 
the rule itself, that debate is limited to 1 hour. So I would assume 
the 2 or 3 hours total would be after that bill, the Senate bill, is 
deemed to have passed by the 1 hour of debate on the rule.
  But suffice it to say, it is an improvement that, with regard to one-
sixth of the economy, our friends are saying that we should have 2 or 3 
hours. But we will continue pressing.
  Anyway, I would ask my friend if he has any further speakers. I have 
none.
  Mr. POLIS. I have no additional speakers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, having said that, 
since there are no more Members on this side of the aisle who have 
requested time, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I have here a letter which I will quote, in 
part, and then submit from a number of environmental groups under the 
auspices of the Campaign for Environmental Literacy, a group that I 
have also had the opportunity to work with on education legislation. 
What I would like to read is a paragraph that describes ELG and B-WET's 
contributions to our country.
  ``The ELG program enables NOAA, as the Nation's leading expert on 
weather, climate, and ocean information, to partner with the Nation's 
top nonprofit organizations and educators to put this information to 
good use.'' ELG funds will allow ``the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science to update climate education standards that are 
used to guide science education in classrooms and across the country to 
reflect state-of-the-art science.''
  ``The B-WET grants programs support environmental education which 
promotes locally relevant, experiential learning in the K-12 
environment.''
  I submit the entirety of the letter for inclusion in the Record.
                                        Campaign for Environmental


                                                     Literacy,

                                                    Mar. 18, 2010.
     Hon. Lois Capps,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Capps: We write to you to indicate our 
     strong support for passage of the Ocean, Coastal, and 
     Watershed Education Act (H.R. 3644). This bill authorizes and 
     strengthens the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration's existing Bay-Watershed Education and 
     Training (B-WET) and Environmental Literacy Grants (ELG) 
     programs.
       Over the past seven years, these two NOAA education 
     programs have been essential to advancing ocean, atmospheric, 
     and environmental literacy in the United States, a major goal 
     of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report and the U.S. 
     Ocean Action Plan. They have been well received by the ocean 
     and environmental literacy communities, and in fact, ELG 
     requests for proposals have been oversubscribed by a factor 
     of 10.
       The ELG program enables NOAA, as the nation's leading 
     expert on weather, climate and ocean information, to partner 
     with the nation's top non-profit organizations and educators 
     to put this information to good use. For example, these 
     grants have enabled more than 20 million people to gain 
     access to compelling up-to-date weather, climate and ocean 
     information through the Science on a Sphere and Ocean Today 
     Kiosk from Alaska to Hawaii to California to Massachusetts. 
     ELG funds have also allowed the American Association for the 
     Advancement of Science (AAAS) to update climate education 
     standards that are used to guide science education in 
     classrooms around the country to reflect state-of-the-art 
     climate science. In addition, ELG grants to the National 
     Science Teachers Association have given thousands of teachers 
     access to the most accurate scientific information on 
     climate, corals and hurricanes.
       The B-WET grants programs support environmental education 
     which promotes locally relevant, experiential learning in the 
     K-12 environment. A fundamental goal of the programs are to 
     demonstrate how the quality of the watershed affects the 
     lives of the people who live in it. B-WET programs have now 
     expanded to include the Chesapeake Bay, California, Hawaii, 
     Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico and New England, and this 
     bill will add five new regions as well. B-WET awards to state 
     and local education organizations have provided opportunities 
     to over 125,000 students and 6,200 teachers in 2008 alone.
       It is important to now establish these programs in law, 
     consistent with the education mandates provided to NOAA in 
     both the America COMPETES Act (PL 110-69, Sec. 4002) and the 
     Omnibus Public Land Management Act (PL 111-11, Sec. 12304). 
     They are vital to NOAA's ability to execute the educational 
     function of its mission. They have demonstrated their 
     effectiveness, as well as their value to stakeholder 
     communities. And as our nation begins to grapple with the 
     complexities and challenges of a changing climate (and ocean 
     and landscape), they are timely and highly relevant.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request. For 
     questions about this letter, please contact James Elder, 
     Campaign for Environmental Literacy (978-526-7768, 
     [email protected]).
           Sincerely,


                         National Organizations

       American Fisheries Society (Gus Rassam, Executive 
     Director);
       American Fly Fishing Trade Association (Gary Berlin, 
     President);

[[Page H1664]]

       American Forest Foundation (Tom Martin, President);
       American Hiking Society (Gregory A. Miller, President);
       American Sportfishing Association (Mike Nussman, President 
     & CEO);
       Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher 
     Education (Paul Rowland, Executive Director);
       Association of Zoos and Aquariums (Steve Olson, Vice 
     President);
       Biodiversity Project (Jennifer Browning, Executive 
     Director);
       Camp Fire USA (Pamela Wilcox, National Interim CEO);
       Challenger Center for Space Science Education (Daniel 
     Barstow, President);
       Climate Literacy Network (Tamara Shapiro Ledley, 
     Coordinator);
       Coastal States Organization (Kristen M. Fletcher, Executive 
     Director);
       Consortium for Ocean Leadership (Bob Gagosian, President 
     and CEO);
       Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (Stephanie 
     Pfirman, President);
       Council on Environmental Education (Josetta Hawthorne, 
     Executive Director);
       Earth Day Network (Kathleen Rogers, President);
       EarthEcho International (Philippe Cousteau, CEO);
       Earth Force (Lisa Bardwell, President);
       Ecological Society of America (Katherine S. McCarter, 
     Executive Director);
       Federation of Fly Fishers (Leah Elwell, Conservation 
     Coordinator);
       National Association for Interpretation (Tim Merriman, 
     Executive Director);
       National Audubon Society (Judy Braus, Vice President for 
     Education);
       National Council for Science and the Environment (Peter 
     Saundry, Executive Director);
       National Estuarine Research Reserve Association (Matt 
     Menashes, Executive Director);
       National Marine Educators Association (J. Adam Frederick, 
     President);
       National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (Jason Patlis, 
     President and CEO);
       National Project for Excellence in Environmental Education 
     (Bora Simmons, Director);
       National Science Teachers Association (Jodi Peterson, 
     Assistant Executive Director);
       National Service-Learning Partnership (Nelda Brown, 
     Executive Director);
       National Wildlife Federation (Kevin Coyle, Vice President 
     for Education);
       North American Association for Environmental Education 
     (Brian Day, Executive Director);
       Ocean Alliance (Roger Payne, President);
       Ocean Conservancy (Vikki Spruill, President and CEO);
       Ocean Conservation Research (Michael Stocker, Director);
       Ocean River Institute (Rob Moir, President);
       Project WET Foundation (Dennis Nelson, President and CEO);
       SandyHook SeaLife Foundation (Mary M. Hamilton, Executive 
     Director);
       Second Nature (Anthony Cortese, President);
       ServeNext (Zach Maurin, Co-Director and Co-Founder);
       Sierra Club (Jacqueline Ostfeld, National Youth 
     Representative);
       Student Conservation Association (Dale Penny, President & 
     CEO);
       Tag-A-Giant Foundation (Shana Miller, Director);
       The Ocean Foundation (Mark Spalding, President);
       The Ocean Project (Bill Mott, Director);
       Trout Unlimited (Charles Gauvin, President);
       U.S. Green Building Council (Richard Fedrizzi, President & 
     CEO);
       Wildlife Conservation Society (John F. Calvelli, Executive 
     Vice President);
       Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR 
     (Scott Hoffman Black, Executive Director); and
       Youth Service America (Steven A. Culbertson, President & 
     CEO).


                               California

       Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach, CA (Jerry R. Schubel, 
     President and CEO);
       Los Angeles Conservation Corps, Los Angeles, CA (Bruce 
     Saito, Executive Director);
       NatureBridge, San Francisco, CA (Susan Smartt, President);
       O'Neill Sea Odyssey, Santa Cruz, CA (Dan Haifley, Executive 
     Director);
       Santa Barbara Zoo, Santa Barbara, CA (Rich Block, Chief 
     Executive Officer);
       Wilderness Arts and Literacy Collaborative, San Francisco, 
     CA (Conrad Benedicto, Director); and
       WildPlaces, Springville, CA (Mehmet McMillan, Director).


                         Chesapeake Bay Region

       Alice Ferguson Foundation, Accokeek, MD (Tracy Bowen, 
     Executive Director);
       Green Jobs Alliance, Hampton, VA (Randolph G. Flood, 
     Executive Director);
       Maryland Association for Environmental and Outdoor 
     Education, Annapolis, MD (Bronwyn Mitchell, Executive 
     Director);
       Pennsylvania Association of Environmental Educators, PA 
     (Ruth A Roperti, President); and
       Rivanna Conservation Society, Charlottesville, VA (Robbi 
     Savage, Executive Director).


                           Great Lakes Region

       Binder Park Zoo, Battle Creek, MI (Gregory B. Geise, 
     President & CEO);
       Buffalo Zoo, Buffalo, NY (Donna Fernandes, President and 
     CEO);
       Chicago Zoological Society/Brookfield Zoo, Brookfield, IL 
     (Stuart D. Strahl, President and CEO);
       John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, IL (Ted A. Beattie, 
     President and CEO);
       Minnesota Conservation Federation, St. Paul, MN (Steven 
     Maurice, President);
       Save the Dunes Council/Save the Dunes Conservation Fund, 
     Michigan City, IN (Debroah Chubb, President); and
       Toledo Zoo, Toledo, Ohio (Anne Baker, CEO).


                           Gulf Coast Region

       Crosby Arboretum/Mississippi Native Plant Society, 
     Picayune, MS (Janine Conklin, President);
       Florida Wildlife Federation, FL (Manley Fuller, President);
       Louisiana Science Teachers Association, LA (Jean May-Brett, 
     Treasurer);
       Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Baton Rouge, LA (Randy P. 
     Lanctot, Executive Director);
       Mississippi Environmental Education Alliance, Jackson, MS 
     (Cynthia Harrell, President); and
       Southern Association of Marine Educators (Joan R. Turner, 
     President).


                                 Hawaii

       Conservation Council for Hawaii, Honolulu, HI (Marjorie 
     Ziegler, Executive Director).


                              New England

       Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, MA Richard 
     Delaney, Executive Director); and
       Save The Bay (Narragansett Bay), RI (Jonathan Stone, 
     Executive Director).


                          New York/New Jersey

       Audubon New York, Albany, NY (Albert E. Caccese, Executive 
     Director);
       Citizens Campaign for the Environment, NY & CT (Dereth 
     Glance, Executive Program Director);
       New York Aquarium, Brooklyn, NY (Jon Forrest Dohlin, 
     Director); and
       Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper, NY (Jennifer J. Caddick, 
     Executive Director).


                        Pacific Northwest Region

       Arnold Creek Productions, Lake Oswego, OR (Doug Freeman, 
     COO-Producer);
       Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Milwaukee, OR (Jay 
     Burris, President);
       Center for Research in Environmental Science and 
     Technologies, Wilsonville, OR (Bob Carlson, Director);
       Concord Elementary Community Garden, Milwaukie, OR 
     (Margaret Thornton, Chair);
       Environmental Education Association of Oregon, Portland, OR 
     (Traci Price, Board Co-chair);
       Friends of the Straub Environmental Learning Center, Salem, 
     OR (John Savage, Board President);
       John Muir Elementary School, Seattle, WA (Awnie Thompson, 
     Principal);
       Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Portland, OR 
     (Debrah Marriott, Executive Director);
       NatureBridge (Susan Smartt, President);
       Northwest Youth Corps, Eugene, OR (Art Pope, Executive 
     Director);
       Oregon Coast Aquarium, Newport, OR (Gary N. Gamer, 
     President);
       People For Puget Sound, Seattle, WA (Kathy Fletcher, 
     Executive Director);
       Place-Based Education Northwest, Lewis & Clark College, 
     Portland, OR (Gregory Smith, Founder/Coordinator);
       Rachel's Friends Breast Cancer Coalition, Portland, OR 
     (Diane Lund-Muzikant, Board Chair);
       Sierra Club Inner City Outings--Spokane, Spokane, WA (Chris 
     Bachman, Project Director);
       Siskiyou Field Institute, Selma, OR (Arnie Green, Executive 
     Director);
       The Freshwater Trust, Portland, OR (Joe Whitworth, 
     President);
       The Friends of Haystack Rock, Cannon Beach, OR (Tom Oxwang, 
     Chair);
       Tualatin Riverkeepers, Tigard, OR (Monica Smiley, Executive 
     Director); and
       Washington Wildlife Federation, Bellevue, WA (Mark Quinn, 
     President).


                             western states

       Arizona Wildlife Education Foundation, Mesa, AZ (Karen 
     Schedler, President);
       Arizona Wildlife Federation, AZ (Ryna Rock, President);
       Colorado Alliance for Environmental Education, Golden, CO 
     (Katie Navin, Executive Director);
        Colorado Wildlife Federation, CO (John Smeltzer, 
     President);
       Environmental Education Association of New Mexico, NM 
     (Barbara Garrity, Statewide Coordinator)
       Idaho Wildlife Federation, ID (Rob Fraser, President);
       Iowa Wildlife Federation, Des Moines, IA (Joe Wilkinson, 
     President);
       New Mexico Wildlife Federation, NM (Ed Olona, President);
       Renewable Resources Coalition, AK (Anders Gustafson, 
     Executive Director);
       SOS Outreach, Avon, CO (Arn Menconi, Executive Director);
       The Wellness Coalition, Silver City, NM (Sam Castello, 
     Executive Director); and
       Wyoming Association for Environmental Education, WY (Susan 
     McGuire, President);


                     Alaska Individual Signatories

       Nils Andreassen, Executive Director, Institute of the 
     North;
       Bruce Botelho, Mayor, City and Borough of Juneau;

[[Page H1665]]

       Dennis Egan, Senator, State Legislature;
       Kirk Hardcastle, Research Tech, Alaska Center for Energy 
     and Power;
       Frank Holmes, Commissioner, Haines Energy and 
     Sustainability Commission;
       Albert Howard, Mayor, City of Angoon;
       Leslie Isaacs, City Administrator, City of Klawock;
       Ben Johnson, Director of Operations, Petersburg Indian 
     Association;
       Lainda Jones, Economic Development Coordinator, Central 
     Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes;
       Michael Kline, Division Manager, Ketchikan Public Utility;
       Mike Korsmo, President, Southeast Conference;
       Lisa Long, Director, Haida Corporation;
       Bill Lucey, Director/Coastal Planner, Yakutat Salmon Board 
     City and Borough of Yakutat;
       Scott McAdams, Mayor, City and Borough of Sitka;
       Joe Nelson, Planning and Logistics Superintendent, City of 
     Petersburg;
       Merrill Sawford, Assembly Member, City and Borough of 
     Juneau;
       Beverly Schoonover, Executive Director, Juneau Watershed 
     Partnership;
       Tim Shields, Executive Director, Takshanuk Watershed 
     Council;
       Maxine Thompson, President, Angoon Oil Co.; and
       Alicia Wendlandt, Director/Coastal Planner, Taiya Inlet 
     Watershed Council.

  In my experience before getting to Congress as well as in Congress, I 
was in the State Board of Education for Colorado before I arrived here, 
and I am on the Education and Labor Committee serving here. 
Environmental literacy and awareness is one of the most important 
aspects of teaching science in the schools. It can be an 
interdisciplinary approach that helps use examples from the environment 
to help teach math, science, even history through a lens that actually 
prepares students to be responsible consumers in the their own lives 
and to have responsible consumption habits that have a positive impact 
on the planet.
  Madam Speaker, I have been amazed and impressed as I have gone to 
classrooms across Colorado where young children, 6-year-olds, 8-year-
olds are convincing their parents to recycle. They are helping their 
parents to establish compost heaps in their yards. These are programs 
that not only have a positive impact on our planet, but a positive 
impact on the health of their families as well.
  Given the success and popularity of these programs, educators across 
the country have been increasingly eager to take part as a result. One 
of the things we accomplish in these two bills is that we codify these 
formal programs within NOAA and establish them as models of innovative 
environmental education for the entire country to follow.
  As part of our shared future, it is an important role for our public 
schools to help prepare our young people to succeed in the next 
generation and to preserve, through a legacy of individual 
responsibility, our planet.
  And while there may be and there has been disagreement on both sides 
of the aisle about the top-down environmental policies and regulations, 
I think people across the spectrum ideologically believe in the value 
of individual responsibility, and to inculcate the values of 
stewardship and preserving our environment as part of individual 
responsibility for the next generation can go a long way in a way that 
all Americans can feel good about towards preserving our natural 
heritage.
  With regard to H.R. 1612, I want to be clear that it is not just a 
Parks bill. The bill restores our national forests, our wildlife 
refuges and other public lands, as well as our coasts and shores. H.R. 
1612 protects our natural heritage; and, even more importantly, 
particularly as our Nation battles a severe recession and rising 
unemployment rates, H.R. 1612 creates an important program, the Public 
Land Service Corps--enhances an important program--that can help reduce 
youth unemployment while repairing and restoring our Nation's public 
lands.
  Madam Speaker, I have seen the statistics with regard to the current 
youth unemployment rate, much higher than the overall unemployment 
rate, and I have heard it firsthand from my constituents in Colorado, 
wondering, it used to be an assumption that they would have access to a 
summer job, to an after-school job, increasingly finding it more 
difficult to be able to get those job opportunities. What better way to 
not only employ young people and give them job skills that can 
positively impact their future, but to create something of lasting 
benefit to all Americans.
  I had the opportunity to join Boulder County's Youth Service Corps 
last summer, repairing some trail huts above Boulder. Not only was this 
terrific hands-on experience for the young people involved, but we 
actually made the trails wheelchair accessible in an area that 
previously had not been accessible to those who were in wheelchairs, 
above Boulder County, Colorado. It was great to see these kids working 
with their mentors and volunteers and members of the Parks Department 
to actually create something that not only would people be able to 
enjoy, but also to prepare and preserve our heritage for the next 
generation.
  That is why these bills are important, and I think it is important 
that we, as a body in Congress, are able to come together around items 
that we agree on. There will always be some things that we agree on and 
some things that we don't, but preserving our national heritage and 
environmental literacy are two issues that I think are critical to our 
Nation's future. By emphasizing the value of individual responsibility, 
we could all feel good about preserving our national heritage.
  This program invests in our young people, helps prepare them for the 
jobs of the future. The green technology sector has been one of the few 
sectors in my home State of Colorado that has added jobs over the last 
2 years. So while the State as a whole, like our country, has lost 
jobs, Colorado employs more people today in green and renewable energy 
than it did 1 year ago and than it did 2 years ago. And that is a trend 
that I believe will continue, not only in Colorado, but across our 
country. The type of preparation for those jobs in the future is 
consistent with the skills taught through environmental literacy and 
also in the Public Service Corps working to be stewards of our natural 
lands.

                              {time}  0945

  I'd like to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me 
in support of these very important bills and thank my colleagues for 
bringing them to us today.
  H.R. 3644 has two Republican amendments and one Democratic amendment 
that were submitted. H.R. 1612 has six amendments that were submitted, 
all by Republicans--two of which were allowed. It really is exciting to 
be able to present these bills to this body here today, precisely 
because we are trying to and we have heard from our constituents that 
jobs is one of the key focuses that they want us to work on.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Would my friend yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I'll yield for a question.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Actually, I was going to inquire, 
because I yielded my time back as my friend knows because we had no 
further speakers, but Mr. Lungren has arrived and would like to address 
the House.
  Mr. POLIS. I will yield some of my time to Mr. Lungren in just a 
moment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask unanimous consent to 
reclaim our time, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I thank the gentleman for the courtesy on this floor. I 
admire courtesy and civility here. I just wish we had more of it on 
both sides from time to time, particularly as we are in these 
contentious days dealing with one of the most important issues of our 
time--the health care bill.
  I would stand in support of all the things that the gentleman from 
Florida said about this rule making in order these two bills. It is not 
unusual for us to make in order two bills under a rule, but what I 
would suggest is that that is somewhat different than what we evidently 
are going to be asked to do later this weekend. As I understand it from 
the ranking member on the

[[Page H1666]]

Rules Committee, it is contemplated that we will have a rule that will 
be ``self-executing'' dealing with a substantial portion of the 
American economy, that is the entire arena of health care. I don't 
think enough attention has been given to the difference between the 
appropriate procedure that we are enacting here versus that which is to 
go forward later this weekend.
  I served in this body in the 1980s and then left and came back about 
6 years ago. In the intervening time there was an effort, on a 
bipartisan basis, made by this House and the Senate, with the signature 
of the President, on a piece of legislation that was called the line-
item veto. The line-item veto was a process that was contemplated which 
would allow the President of the United States to receive an 
appropriation bill from the Congress and then to look at that 
appropriation bill and find out and decide whether there were certain 
items that he thought were not appropriate, there's too much spending 
in an overall appropriations bill. It would have given the President 
the right to sign the overall bill, but on the one hand, to take out, X 
out, line out certain items. And so this provided a constitutional 
question before the Supreme Court in the case of Clinton v. City of New 
York, because they had to wait until the President actually exercised 
the right presumably given to him by the legislation passed by this 
Congress.
  And so the question was: Was that manner in which laws were passed 
consistent with the requirements of the Constitution? And the 
Constitution sets out the terms under which we're able to pass laws. 
Essentially, it says three things must happen: It must pass the House 
of Representatives; it must pass the United States Senate; and it must 
be presented--it's called presentment--presented to the President and 
signed by the President.
  Interestingly enough, in the majority opinion written by Justice 
Stevens--I believe the longest-serving member of the U.S. Supreme Court 
at the present time--when he investigated it, he said this. He said, 
The Constitution requires that it be the exact text in all three 
circumstances. Those are his words. The exact text. He went on to say 
that if in fact a paragraph were absent from the law that the President 
signed, meaning the President exercised his line item veto and had 
taken it out, it would invalidate the constitutional requirement for 
passage of a law because it would not be the exact text.
  So, as I understand it, contrary to the rule that we are debating 
here today, the contemplated rule to cover the health care bill will 
say something along the lines of: We incorporate a bill which will be 
deemed to have passed if we pass the rule; or other language to say: 
thereby passing. So then you will have the interesting question of 
whether or not we are acting on--that is, I as an individual Member of 
Congress representing my constituency--I am voting on the ``exact 
text'' as was voted on in the Senate, which then goes to the President 
for signature. And I would argue that if you cannot remove a paragraph 
from the ``exact text,'' as the Supreme Court told us, in any of the 
three aspects of the bill, that you cannot add text. And that is, if 
you have a rule which incorporates the bill, you naturally have other 
language that goes along with it, particularly if it makes reference to 
other subject matter.
  And so in contrast to the rule we have here, which should be 
supportable under the circumstances that it does not violate the 
Constitution in any way, shape, or form, even though it is a little 
different than when we adopt a rule that permits two bills to come to 
the floor, in the instance of having a self-executing rule we will then 
be presenting to the Supreme Court a constitutional issue upon which 
they have not directly ruled. It is, however, my interpretation of 
their ruling in Clinton v. City of New York that it is the mirror image 
of what the court found to be unconstitutional. That is, if the exact 
text requirement cannot be fulfilled by removing a single paragraph 
from the text; similarly, if you add language to the text in the vote 
that is presented to the membership, it would be not the same thing, so 
that we would be prohibiting the Members of this institution, the House 
of Representatives, from their constitutional obligation to vote on the 
exact question presented in the other body so that that same exact 
question can be presented to the President of the United States for his 
signature.

  Now I understand that some say, Aha, there's another section of the 
Constitution which says that the House of Representatives and the 
Senate in their respective bodies shall be the sole arbiter of the 
rules of their Chambers. And that is true. But it is also true that we 
cannot, by our rules, do what is otherwise unconstitutional. And so 
Members should understand that while, unfortunately, when we debate 
rules often times there's the absence of many of our Members here, 
because the rules process is considered to be technical, in some ways 
taken for granted, in other ways nonobjectionable, not rising above the 
ordinary, with all due respect to the members of the Rules Committee. 
In the instance of a self-executing rule, so-called, on one of the most 
controversial issues presented to this Congress, certainly in my years 
of service here, we cannot blithely dismiss legitimate questions about 
what our obligation is here. I have said on this floor before, and I 
continue to say, the Constitution is an inconvenient truth.
  A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to be in a meeting with 
Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia made an interesting point. He said, The 
essence of a democracy or a democratic republic such as ours is, 
majority rules. If majority rules, you don't have a democracy. But he 
said one of the unique things about America is that we have some 
limitations on majority rule. Those limitations are found in the 
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They limit what the majority can 
do and protect minority rights. But he said, The interesting thing is, 
those limitations were imposed on the majority by the majority. In 
other words, it is through the adoption of the Constitution that the 
majority has limited itself. And he suggested that that should give 
caution to members of the court to not supersede their legitimate 
authority by finding new limitations on the majority that were not 
contemplated by those who adopted the Constitution, and if you need 
further limitations or protections of minority interests, the way to do 
that is to amend the Constitution, which is again done by the majority.
  Similarly, I would suggest, that those of us who take an oath to 
uphold the Constitution as representatives of our constituents in this 
body must follow the dictates of the Constitution and the limitations 
of the Constitution. In some language in that case that I cited 
earlier, the 12-year-old case of Clinton v. City of New York, the court 
talked about how it may or may not be a good public policy that the law 
that was otherwise found to be unconstitutional, that the fact that it 
may or may not be good public policy is irrelevant to the question of 
whether it's constitutional.
  So the argument that we have presented to us here most recently in a 
nationally televised interview by the President of the United States, 
that whatever vote takes place is going to be on health care and 
therefore it's okay, and he'll sign it, forgets the inconvenient truth 
that the Constitution does not permit us to do that, and it does not 
permit the President to do that. So while a lot of people are talking 
about the fact we're going to be here over the weekend--and that's 
extraordinary--I would wish that we would concentrate on the more 
extraordinary question of whether we are following the Constitution. 
Because if in fact we circumvent the Constitution by ``allowing'' a 
bill to become law in which each Member of the House and the Senate did 
not have the opportunity to vote on the exact language, we are not 
punishing the Members of Congress; we are punishing our constituents, 
who have a constitutional right to have laws passed in the way that is 
articulated in the Constitution, which provides specificity as to how 
that is done so that the power of the Federal Government will be 
exercised in the limited sense that was given to it by the people 
through the Constitution.
  And so while I support all of the comments made by the gentleman from 
Florida with respect to this rule and find this rule to be relatively 
noncontroversial and to be more of the same, the rule that we are being 
told of

[[Page H1667]]

that we will consider this weekend is not more of the same, is not 
ordinary, is in fact extraordinary, and I would suggest such an 
extraordinary stretch that it will be rendered unconstitutional. Why 
would we follow a procedure that will call into question the very 
constitutional foundations of the contents of the bill if in fact it is 
such an important issue? If it in fact is something that needs to be 
dealt with with such urgency, ought we not to follow the Constitution 
in each and every aspect and ought we not be guided by the most recent 
decision of the Supreme Court on a law which we thought was a good law 
on a bipartisan basis, but which, unfortunately, the Constitution does 
not allow us to enact.

                              {time}  1000

  And I would hope that my colleagues who may not be here on the floor 
but may have an opportunity to review these remarks will take seriously 
my concerns. We may very well be preparing to embark on an 
unconstitutional journey which not only will take the healthy 
skepticism that our Constitution provides for government--not rejecting 
government, but we have a healthy skepticism of the power of government 
that is a part of our constitutional process--but we will turn it from 
a healthy skepticism to an unfortunately destructive cynicism. And if 
there is anybody who believes that is good for this country, I would 
suggest they are wrong.
  This is a tough issue that we're going to have to deal with later 
this weekend. Let us at least do it in a constitutional way, and let us 
not pass something for the American people that will be called into 
question in court challenge after court challenge after court challenge 
and delay the impact or implementation of whatever we believe on a 
bipartisan basis ought to be the governing law with respect to the 
health care system.
  So with that, I thank the gentleman for his time, and I thank the 
gentleman for his courtesy.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend again for his 
courtesy, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Again, I would like to emphasize that the gentleman from 
California's criticisms are not about this rule or any rule that we 
have before us. Tomorrow the Rules Committee will be meeting to decide 
under what rule we will consider health care.
  The gentleman has made some remarks with regard to a common practice 
that is within House resolutions referred by the Rules Committee that 
involves self-executing language. In 1996, the Republican-controlled 
House adopted a resolution to consider as adopted the conference report 
on line-item veto. I would also like read a quote from Thomas Mann who 
is quoted by USA Today. He is a scholar at the Brookings Institute, who 
said that the ``deem and pass'' move is not very unusual, has been used 
36 times in 2005 and 2006 by the Republican Congress, 49 times in 2007 
and 2008 by the Democratic Congress.
  I think what's important for people to know is that the Rules 
Committee doesn't have any special ability to do these rules 
unilaterally. They only exist by the good graces of a majority of the 
House. If a majority of the House wants to pass the Senate health care 
bill as part of a rule, they can. There will be a debate and a 
discussion over that Senate health care bill, and the Senate bill will 
be presented to the President and signed, if it passes, before the 
reconciliation bill reaches the Senate floor.
  The House, under the Constitution, is given a great ability to do 
what it wants to do and to conduct its own affairs as it wants to 
conduct its affairs. Just as today we have a House resolution, 1192, 
and that House resolution provides for the consideration of two bills, 
those bills will only be considered by the House if this rule, this 
House resolution, passes the full House with a majority of the votes. 
It will be the same with any rule that is referred out of the Rules 
Committee tomorrow with regard to the consideration of health care. 
That rule will only have any force, any effect, if a majority of the 
House passed that rule and whatever is in that rule, just as they would 
consider any bill under the House of Representatives.
  This rule is a very fair rule. These two bills, I believe, have 
bipartisan support, a strong consensus to help create jobs, prepare 
kids for our future, educate kids about the environment, and preserve 
our great natural resources.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 1192 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on two motions that the House suspend the rules previously 
postponed, on which the yeas and nays are ordered, to wit:
  on H.R. 3671 and on H.R. 2788.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 171, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                               YEAS--236

     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
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     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
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     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
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--171

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords

[[Page H1668]]


     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     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
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     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
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Ackerman
     Blunt
     Buyer
     Carter
     Clay
     Cummings
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Emerson
     Fortenberry
     Garamendi
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Kaptur
     Lee (NY)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Souder
     Stark
     Weiner
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1038

  Mr. WITTMAN, Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. ROSKAM and BARTON of Texas changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________