[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.
____________________