[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 67 (Thursday, May 6, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H3207-H3215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5019, HOME STAR ENERGY RETROFIT ACT
OF 2010
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1329 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1329
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5019) to provide for the establishment of the
Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
All points of order against the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under
clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule
XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question. All points of order
against such amendments are waived except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce or his designee. The Chair may not
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1329 provides a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 5019, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act. The rule
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and provides that the
bill be considered as read.
The rule waives all points of order against the bill itself. The rule
makes in order the eight amendments printed in the Rules Committee
report and waives all points of order against those amendments except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The rule provides that the Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce or a designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to
strike out the enacting words of the bill.
Madam Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of the rule for
the Home Energy Retrofit Act and the underlying bipartisan legislation.
[[Page H3208]]
I would like to applaud Chairman Waxman, Representative Welch,
Representative Ehlers, and my fellow colleagues on the Energy and
Commerce Committee for their hard work on bringing this important bill
to the floor today.
Madam Speaker, as our Nation moves toward a more energy-efficient
economy, it is critical that we adopt policies that enable us to become
the world leader in promoting smart energy use and manufacturing
energy-efficient products.
As our Nation continues its economic recovery, we must continue to
focus on job creation. By increasing energy efficiency, we will not
only create jobs and incentivize the emerging clean technology industry
but also reduce carbon pollution and cut costs for customers.
H.R. 5019 would increase residential efficiency and create almost
170,000 jobs nationwide, thereby reducing the current 25 percent
unemployment rate in the construction sector. Specifically, it would
authorize a Silver Star rebate program, which would allow homeowners to
buy and install more affordable energy-efficient products. The bill
would do this by providing rebates of up to $1,500 for the installation
of energy-efficient improvements, including upgraded installation, duct
sealing replacements, and installation of storm windows and energy-
saving doors.
This legislation would also authorize the Gold Star rebate program,
which would provide rebates of up to $3,000 to those who make their
entire homes at least 20 percent more energy efficient. As a result,
the bill will have a meaningful long-term impact on energy use in
communities across our country.
Recent estimates indicate that more than 3 million families would
participate in a program like this. Such a participation rate would
save these families $9.2 billion on their energy bills over the next 10
years, or the power equivalent of 6.8 million gallons of heating oil.
Madam Speaker, my hometown of Sacramento is poised to be a national
leader in clean tech and energy efficiency. Sacramento has received
over $200 million in energy efficiency and clean technology grants
through the Recovery Act.
H.R. 5019 would build on the roughly $11.8 million in Recovery Act
investments that have already been delivered to Sacramento to support
energy audits and energy efficiency retrofits in residential and
commercial buildings. These allocations include $7.8 million in
Weatherization Assistance Program funding, $19.9 million for the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, $16.6 million in municipal
financing to Sacramento County.
Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Home Star bill is in keeping with
our Nation's commitment to improve the quality of our air, reduce our
carbon footprint, lower families' energy bills, and create green jobs.
These are all goals that my district has embraced.
Like many areas of the country, Sacramento has demonstrated great
leadership on energy efficiency and clean technology. I have been
organizing an effort in the Sacramento region to ensure coordination
and to advance the energy efficiency and clean-tech industry.
It is imperative that we make energy-efficient products a brand that
more and more Americans will purchase. We are lagging behind China and
Germany in producing and exporting clean energy products, and that is
simply unacceptable.
That is why I recently introduced H.R. 5616, legislation to boost
clean-technology exports from the United States. The Home Star Energy
Retrofit Act would further expand the market for energy-efficient
products.
Madam Speaker, I again applaud Chairman Waxman's efforts to bring
this bill before the full House today. As our economic recovery
continues, it is important that we continue to support the Home Star
program and other job creation proposals. H.R. 5019 does not represent
the end of our work, but reflects another critical step forward for the
American people and for our environment.
I thereby urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentlewoman from California for the extension of the
time, my friend from the Rules Committee, whom I enjoy working with
very much.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying
bill.
Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the Democrat majority once again
shut out good Republican ideas while rolling 15 Democratic amendments
into the manager's amendment. These were 15 Democrat requests to add
into the bill, and the Rules Committee saw fit to get that done for
those Members of the Democratic Party. This is not the way to have an
open, honest Congress, as our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, promised in 2007.
Madam Speaker, what Republicans are going to talk about today is a
number of issues, but perhaps key among them is the priority items that
are on this floor today that is about more spending, more deficit
spending, and against the ideas that this Speaker and the Democratic
majority have talked about, about paying for bills.
{time} 1030
I think what we are going to learn today, and as we move forward, is
the Democratic Party is having problems making a decision about how
they will pay for these bills because we have had so much massive
spending, so many new programs, that this majority is incapable of
setting any priorities. In other words, if you want something else, the
public was sold, that the Democrats would be open to taking it from
somewhere else and constantly making prioritization. In fact, that's
not true. What it's all about is just adding in more spending and more
debt without regard for making tough decisions.
I disagree with that. I think it's a bad policy. I think if you say
you are going to require bills to be paid for under PAYGO, you should
do that. Once again today we see where that is not true with another
bill on the floor that is about spending more money. One hundred
percent deficit spending in this bill.
Today I am also going to discuss other issues. And it's really about
the bill. This bill is too costly. It raises serious questions about
the Department of Energy's ability to effectively implement this
program. And it will allow the Federal Government to pick winners and
losers in the private sector while all of these companies are trying to
take care of making us more efficient, but then picking the winners and
losers.
H.R. 5019 would authorize $6.6 billion for what I am going to call a
cash for caulkers program, $6.6 billion of new deficit spending. This
bill would provide tax rebates to participating contractors and vendors
who would perform qualifying energy-saving measures that meet
efficiency and insulation targets in Federal standards. That's a whole
lot of words for a program that in essence is too expensive,
unnecessary, and I believe a waste of taxpayer dollars, especially at a
time when growing deficits are causing this country to have failing
markets and confidence in this government.
Republicans strongly support legislation that promotes effective
energy efficiency. But 150,000 jobs, as are being talked about, for
$6.6 billion on the back of the American taxpayer is not a good deal.
It's not a fair trade. And to that point, the Democrats on the Rules
Committee all voted against allowing my colleague Mr. Latta, the
gentleman from Ohio, from even offering his amendment on the House
floor today, which would have suspended the provisions of this bill if
it added to the Federal deficit. This majority doesn't even want to
have a conversation about controlling spending. And that's why they
will continue to shut out Republican Members as they come to the Rules
Committee with wise, prudent, and conservative ideas.
This 2-year program will be administered through the Department of
Energy, which has already proven to be a terrible manager of the $4.7
billion from the economic stimulus weatherization program in which only
30,297 homes have been weatherized, about 5 percent of the stated
overall goal of more than 600,000. These are all, I am sure, great
ideas and lofty goals, but it's taxpayer spending, taxpayer money, and
more deficit spending.
The Home Star Energy Retrofit Program will undoubtedly experience the
[[Page H3209]]
same administrative problems, implementation problems, and oversight
problem for the Department of Energy. What a shame we just didn't give
it directly to consumers rather than creating a program that then must
be administered following Federal standards, Federal rules, and more
and more and more participation from Washington, D.C. Allowing the
Federal Government to get bigger and bloated and to control this
process is not an efficient way to run this government or spend the
American people's tax dollars.
Additionally, this legislation is not technology-neutral. It is not
the role, I believe, of the Federal Government to pick winners and
losers in the private sector, yet that's exactly what this bill does.
This legislation lists 13 energy-saving measures that qualify for
rebates of varying dollar amounts. That's right, we are going to tell
people exactly how to do this and what qualifies.
There are many energy products that were left off the list or that
will not qualify because of what are considered technical requirements.
These are so numerous that we simply cannot effectively have a good
program. It should be about effectiveness, saving energy, and allowing
a consumer to be engaged in making these decisions so that we assure
that the real cost and the delivery of that product was known and
understood by the consumer, not just ordering something that came from
the Federal Government, having somebody show up at your door, and then
being reimbursed by the Federal Government, with the consumer being
left out in the cold rather than a demand about what they were after
and knowing what their needs are.
Over a year ago, Speaker Pelosi and the President promised that
unemployment would not reach 8 percent or above. Since that time, 4
million Americans have lost their job. And that was a promise. We have
now reached a 10.2 percent record unemployment rate, and continue to
hover well over that promised 8 percent figure.
Madam Speaker, I believe the American people understand what this
change has meant. It has meant a bigger Federal Government, record
spending, and incredibly high deficits for as far as the eye can see
and over the horizon. This is another example of the kind of political
agenda that adds to that of the Speaker and the President that will, if
all implemented, net lose over 10 million American jobs. Losing 10
million American jobs from a political agenda is a problem to the
Republican Party.
We believe that the ability to make progress and work here in
Congress for the best effort of the American people in the creation of
jobs, not net loss of 10 million jobs, should be what this Congress
should be focused on. You see, Madam Speaker, we think that America
should be the employer nation. We believe that America has always led
the way, the leader in the world to making sure we are competitive, and
to make sure that we have a smaller, more efficient Federal Government,
with unlimited opportunity for freedom for citizens back home. This
bill effectively takes the citizenry, the consumer, out of the equation
and puts the Federal Government central not only in people's lives, but
central in paying the bill.
We should work with the investor and the free enterprise system. That
is what has made us the global leader for our grandparents, our
parents, and this current generation. We only have unemployment and
this horrible high debt because of the political considerations of the
Democratic Party and their agenda. And the Republican Party is on
record again today as saying enough is enough.
The national debt continues to grow rapidly towards $13 trillion, yet
our Democrat majority friends are spending billions of more dollars
again today on an excessive program that sets burdensome technical
requirements, picks private sector winners and losers, and hands the
reins over to the Department of Energy to dole out the funds as it sees
fit. Shuttling our responsibility, not allowing the amendments in the
Rules Committee for commonsense legislation, rolling 15 Democrat
amendments into the manager's amendment, and a $6.6 billion cost that
will come directly from deficit spending, which means we have to go
borrow and once again go to the world or the Chinese or others to say
``please help us'' is a bad way to run this business.
Madam Speaker, it is obvious to me that the political agenda is more
that the Democrats want than the commonsense attributes of saying,
enough is enough, let's know what we're doing.
So I am going to urge a ``no'' vote. I am going to urge a ``no'' vote
on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker I just
want to say the bill before us today is a strict authorization bill.
There is no direct spending contained in it. CBO has said it will not
add to the deficit because any money which is spent under the Home Star
Program will have to be appropriated through separate legislation. This
is regular order in the purest sense of the term: authorize first,
appropriate later.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Sutton), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Matsui for yielding
the time and for her leadership.
I rise today in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 5019, the
Home Star Energy Retrofit Act, and I want to congratulate and thank
Representative Peter Welch for his leadership in bringing us to this
place.
This is a timely, smart, commonsense bill that will achieve multiple
goals. Home Star will help our workers, help our economy, and our
environment. Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, this is a jobs bill. And
jobs are the highest of high priorities. It's estimated that the Home
Star Program will create 168,000 good-paying construction,
manufacturing, and retail jobs. And these are jobs that cannot be
shipped overseas.
Home Star will help kick-start the construction industry, which has
been one of the hardest hit industries during this economic recession.
Today more than one in four construction workers remain unemployed. And
today those in this Chamber have the chance to vote to change that.
Home Star will also stimulate domestic manufacturing and grow jobs,
which will strengthen our economy and strengthen our Nation.
There are sustainable building solution companies in my district and
across this country that are ready and waiting for the Home Star
initiative, employers who are ready to ramp up production, ready to put
people back to work. And the positive ripple effects will be felt
throughout the retail and distribution sectors.
Home Star will also help millions of families lower energy bills.
Improving energy efficiency is one of the easiest, most cost-effective
ways for homeowners to reduce energy waste. And Home Star will improve
our environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and enhance our
national security. Energy efficiency improvements will create jobs and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Household energy accounts for more than one-fifth of U.S. carbon
emissions. And as we proved with the bipartisan, let me stress
bipartisan and successful Cash for Clunkers program, it doesn't have to
be jobs or the environment. It can be jobs and the environment. Home
Star enjoys broad national support from business leaders, environmental
and energy efficiency groups, labor unions, manufacturers, retailers,
and construction contractors.
For these reasons I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the
underlying bill because this is a jobs bill, and we need to make jobs
the highest priority.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, jobs are the issue, and so is debt. And
taking debt of $6.5 billion to add to this deficit that we have got to
pay for should be a priority. Spending five or six generations' worth
of money in a year-and-a-half is not a good way to pass on a better
America.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Bowling Green, Ohio (Mr. Latta).
{time} 1045
Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against the rule for H.R. 5019.
I offered an amendment in full committee markup which would have
prevented enactment of H.R. 5019 if there
[[Page H3210]]
was an impact on deficit neutrality. I withdrew that amendment in
committee due to an exchange I had with the chairman, Mr. Waxman, where
he told me we would continue to work on this amendment so we could pay
for this bill before we brought it to the House floor. I do thank the
chairman for meeting with me.
There has been no pay-for secured, unfortunately, and therefore I
offered a similar amendment in the Rules Committee. The amendment was
not accepted in the Rules Committee, and therefore we are not able to
have open debate on the issue today on the House floor. It is
frustrating that the majority has shut down the opportunity to have a
debate on the cost of the legislation and the addition it would be to
the Federal deficit.
Very simply, my amendment stated that the provision of this act,
including the amendments made by the act, shall be suspended and shall
not apply if there is a negative net effect on the national budget
deficit of the United States. While this is an authorizing bill, I am
concerned that the majority could not give any assurance that this bill
will indeed be paid for. I'm very concerned about the $6.6 billion
price tag of this legislation. At a time when there is a national
deficit crisis, it is not appropriate to add $6.6 billion in spending
to the deficit. As a Congress, we absolutely must stop this excessive
spending.
President Obama submitted his administration's fiscal year 2010
budget proposal with a record-breaking cost of $3.8 trillion. This
budget proposal includes a $2 trillion tax increase over the next 10
years and projected record deficits. This proposal will double our
Nation's debt in 5 years and triple it in 10 years from the levels from
fiscal year 2008. CBO has stated that under current spending levels, by
2020, American taxpayers will be paying $2 billion per day in interest
on the national debt. It also estimates that the debt will be $20
trillion by that year. Our Nation's economic future requires that this
Congress and the administration exercise serious fiscal restraint.
Also, we know there will be devastating effects on the economy due to
the recently passed health care bill. The recent CMS analysis concluded
that national health care expenditures will actually increase by $311
billion. This analysis also shows the recently passed health care bill
increased health care costs to 21 percent of GDP by 2019. Finally, CBO
released figures showing that the ``doc fix'' will cost $275.8 billion
through 2020, and that is if rates are frozen at current levels. This
is a 33 percent increase from the initial figure of $207 billion.
I'm against this rule and disappointed my amendment was not approved
by the Rules Committee for consideration today on the floor.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATTA. I yield.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I'd like to congratulate my friend from Ohio for his
very thoughtful remarks and pursuing as diligently as he did the effort
to try and make in order his amendment which would have ensured that
this $6.6 billion, as Mr. Sessions has pointed out, is, in fact, paid
for. Time and time again, we hear from our friends on the other side of
the aisle that the sine qua non is to ensure that everything is paid
for.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 additional minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATTA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me just say that we continually hear that the penultimate, the
highest priority is to ensure that everything that we have before us is
paid for. Now, to his credit, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, Mr. Waxman, proceeded to engage, as Mr. Latta has just said,
in the goal of trying to come to some kind of agreement.
Now, the thing that I found very troubling--and, again, the American
people, for the first time in a long period of time, are focusing on
process. And what took place in the Rules Committee last night is, once
again, an indication of the arrogance that we continue to see from the
leadership of the Rules Committee and of the Democratic majority here
in the House.
Let me say that Mr. Waxman, again, to his credit, came before the
Rules Committee and said the following. Referring to Mr. Latta, he
said, He has submitted to you an amendment that he wishes to offer--
these, again, are Mr. Waxman's words--and I would like to express to
the Rules Committee that I support his right to offer that amendment.
I'm sorry we weren't able to work it out to put it into the manager's
amendment, but I just wanted to express that opinion to you.
Mr. Waxman was making a request of the Rules Committee. Now, I
understand that a committee chairman does not in any way dictate the
action of the Rules Committee, but clearly, since the chairman of the
authorizing committee indicated that he wanted to have Mr. Latta's
amendment made in order, I found it very troubling when I asked the
distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee whether or not we would
see the Latta amendment, they chose not to make it in order, and I
asked why not. I brought up Mr. Waxman's words about his interest, his
desire to see us consider the Latta amendment here on the House floor,
and she responded to me by simply saying that Mr. Waxman simply wanted
Mr. Latta to have the right to testify before the Rules Committee on
behalf of this. Well, Madam Speaker, every Member of this House knows
that every single Member who chooses to come before the Rules Committee
to make their case on an amendment has the right to do that.
And so, again, the arrogance, the arrogance, to deny a Member who
simply wants to take on the issue of fiscal responsibility and say,
when we've got a $6.6 billion package before us, after we've only
expended $368 million of the $4.7 billion that was included in the
stimulus bill for weatherization, we're going into this entire new
program, and Mr. Latta is saying, At least if we're going to do this,
let's pay for it.
Very sadly, Madam Speaker, we have gotten to a point where the
negotiations between Chairman Waxman and Mr. Latta broke down and Mr.
Waxman at least said, Let's have a vote on the House floor about this
on this amendment. Again, the arrogance of the committee led the
committee to conclude that, in fact, it could not be considered. And
it's just plain wrong.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to comment. It's not just the
Democrats on the Rules Committee that said that the Latta amendment is
unnecessary. The Congressional Budget Office has said so as well. Allow
me to read directly from the CBO letter on the Home Star bill: Enacting
the bill will not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-
as-you-go procedures would not apply. Instead, any actual funding for
programs in the bill would have to be appropriated separately by
Congress. The amendment essentially is attempting to offset funds that
are not spent.
With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
principal sponsor of the bill, a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady from California. I appreciate her
leadership in the committee and also in the Rules Committee. I want to
thank Chairman Markey and Chairman Waxman for their leadership.
Let me talk a little bit about why Home Star makes sense. This is a
partnership. Government is putting up some money but homeowners are
going to make decisions about refitting their homes and insulating
them. Businesses are going to make decisions about taking on those
jobs. Our local retail outlets are going to sell the product. Ninety
percent of the product they sell is manufactured in America. So it's
creating jobs here.
It does the three things that need to be done. It helps us with
economic recovery, putting 170,000 folks to work; helps homeowners save
money; and it helps us move towards energy independence. A confident
nation doesn't shrink from the challenges it faces; it attacks them
directly. Energy independence, job creation, cleaning our air, those
are all very important.
[[Page H3211]]
This is bipartisan, too. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work
that was done by Vern Ehlers in cosponsoring this legislation. I want
to thank former Governor of Michigan John Engler, who was an
outstanding advocate for this program. I also want to thank Mr. Barton
and the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who made a good
bill better by their contributions. Mr. Barton insisted that we engage
in this bill. He made positive suggestions that we included. Mr.
Shadegg suggested we add electric tankless hot water heaters. A good
suggestion. We included it. Mr. Shimkus suggested geothermal heat
pumps. We included it. Mr. Buyer included an important study to verify
that this works. We did it. Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Murphy both supported
this in committee. And I want to say that I appreciate the constructive
engagement by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
There's been a concern expressed--and a valid concern--about
spending. There's wise spending and there's wasteful spending. If we
have a family that's on a tight budget and they blow what money they
have to go on a vacation they can't afford, that's wasteful. But if
that family foregoes the vacation and puts that money into renovating
and insulating their home so that they can save some cash, not just
this year but next year and the year after, that's wise spending.
This bill will be paid for. This is authorization only. The next step
will require that we have a pay-for. The pledge is and the requirement
on us will be to make certain that happens. So this will be paid for,
but this is in the category, very much, of wise investment and solid
investment.
I urge support for Home Star because it is a concrete step that's
simple partnership between the government, with a light hand providing
an incentive, a point-of-sale rebate that is going to give the upfront
money to our homeowners that aren't buying new homes but want to save
money by refitting and insulating the homes they have. It puts the
local contractors to work. It's our local hardware stores that will
make the sales.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking
member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Ennis,
Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my friend from Dallas.
It embarrasses me when my colleague from Vermont says nice things
about me, since I'm opposing this bill. I will say before I list some
of my concerns that there was a lot of input asked for and received by
Republicans both in the committee and outside of the committee.
This is not a terribly bad bill, but it has one fatal flaw: It is not
paid for. It, in my opinion, authorizes and, if the authorization is
actually appropriated, spends more money than we need to be spending in
an era of $1.5 trillion per year budget deficits.
Mr. Latta of Ohio did offer a pay-for amendment at committee. It
simply said that this bill must not increase the deficit. There was
some discussion. Mr. Latta was asked to withdraw. The chairman, Mr.
Waxman, said he would work with Mr. Latta. There were kind of desultory
conversations at the staff level, until yesterday, after a markup of
another bill, which at that time Chairman Waxman did sit down with
Congressman Latta and myself. There were fairly serious discussions
yesterday afternoon. Those discussions were not satisfactory to either
side.
The end result was that Mr. Latta went to the Rules Committee and
offered his original amendment that he had withdrawn in committee. In
its infinite wisdom, the Rules Committee chose not to make the most
important amendment requested, in my opinion, in order. They made an
amendment in order by myself, which is an okay amendment. So I thank
Congresswoman Matsui and the other Democrats on the Rules Committee for
accepting that amendment.
But the crux of it, in an era with $1.5 trillion annual deficits, any
new program, no matter how good, we should pay for it. If it's an
authorization bill, we should put in the authorization bill that it
should be paid for, that it will be paid for.
Now, the circuitous argument was: since this is an authorization
bill, doesn't cost anything, you don't need a pay-for. Well, why not
set the precedent? Let's make it a point as this Congress, if we really
are concerned about the deficit, let's say, if we start a new program,
we'll pay for it, and tell the Appropriations Committee and the Budget
Committee we want this paid for. Now, Republicans want to pay for it by
reducing wasteful spending.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules
Committee, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you to my colleague, Representative
Matsui, for yielding the time, and to my colleague, Peter Welch, for
doing such a great job on this bill.
I want to talk a little bit about how this affects my home State of
Maine.
Madam Speaker, with long, cold winters, some of the oldest housing
stock in the country, and the highest reliance on oil heat in the
country, paying heating bills can be a real struggle for many families
in my State of Maine. Recently, I heard from a family with three kids
who live in a 100-year-old home. From the street, their house looks
like every other house in the neighborhood. In fact, it not only looks
like every other house in the neighborhood, it pretty much is just like
every other house in the neighborhood: old, leaky, and hard to heat.
{time} 1100
By mid-December of last year, they had already gone through two tanks
of oil to heat their 1,200-square-foot home, and they were wearing wool
hats on the inside. Facing high heating costs and a new mortgage, they
are forced to make tough decisions about improvements.
But energy-efficiency improvements can make a world of difference.
Another Maine family told me that by removing inefficient fiberglass
insulation and replacing it with cellulose insulation, they turned a
drafty 200-year-old house into a snug and comfortable home.
Weatherizing homes isn't just good for the homeowners; it's good for
the economy. For example, a company called WarmTECH in Yarmouth, Maine,
is a strong supporter of this bill. According to the owners, with the
creation of the Home Star program, they expect to increase their staff
by at least 30 percent and purchase additional equipment.
Thankfully, my State is taking the lead on helping families save
money by making their homes energy efficient. Maine has undertaken an
aggressive campaign to weatherize every home in the State and half of
all businesses by 2030. With the help of the Recovery Act funding,
which I was proud to support, my State has created a program to provide
rebates of up to $3,000 for energy efficiency improvements, and it is
in the process of setting up a revolving loan fund that will make it
easier to finance those improvements and pay them off more quickly.
Improving our Nation's energy efficiency benefits our economy, our
national security, and our environment; but much remains to be done,
and this bill, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010, is one more
step in the right direction. By creating rebates and incentives that
will make it more affordable to weatherize your home, this proposal
will help families start saving money on their heating bills right away
and at the same time will create good-paying jobs that can't be
exported.
When people are able to invest in making their homes more energy
efficient, that creates good business for contractors, energy auditors,
and building supply stores. It stimulates the local economy, saves
families money, and reduces our dependence on oil. This bill will allow
3 million families to save over $9 billion on their energy bills over
the next decade and create 168,000 of those good-paying jobs right here
at home.
Madam Speaker, sometimes I think the word ``investment'' gets a
little overused around here; but the Home Star program is, in the
truest sense of the word, an investment, and it is an investment that
will begin paying dividends immediately by creating jobs, saving
working families money, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
[[Page H3212]]
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from Auburn, Washington (Mr. Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I'm glad there is some bipartisanship here. I think the American
people really want us to work together. I mean, that's the bottom line
here: we all want to create jobs, we all want to be more energy
efficient, and especially in this economy, I think people want to lower
their energy costs so they have more money in their pockets.
I think our focus, therefore, is in the right place, but I think
there is a more effective way to achieve these goals rather than a
rebate check that's before us today. That's why the House should
instead take up a bipartisan package of tax incentives that I authored.
Again, this is a bipartisan effort by Ron Kind, Geoff Davis, Earl
Blumenauer, Chris Lee, and Tom Perriello.
This bill, H.R. 2426, Expanding Building Efficiency Incentives Act,
is a more effective approach for several reasons. It puts incentives
directly in the hands of the consumers through the Tax Code. It gives
the people more choices to meet their needs. It's easier to administer.
Tax incentives avoid the expensive and complicated ``middle man''
structure used to give rebate checks.
When I was the sheriff, we applied for grants. And I know that some
of the grants were from the Federal Government; they passed through the
State government. And as they passed through the State government, they
cost an additional 20 percent in administrative fees, therefore
reducing the amount of money that actually ended up in the hands of the
sheriff's office or police chiefs across the country.
I think the administrative costs in this bill we're about to vote on
today remove some of the incentives for homeowners. It includes
commercial property and new construction as well as home retrofits.
Forty percent of the energy used in our country is in buildings like
office towers, warehouses, and shopping malls. If we were really
committed to creating jobs and saving money through energy retrofits,
let's tackle the problem head on, not just a piece of the problem.
Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed--well, quite disappointed--
that the Rules Committee didn't make in order our amendment to consider
this bipartisan tax bill, and I ask my colleagues to provide the House
with an opportunity to do so.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate this again: what
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fail to recognize or
refuse to admit is that the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act is an
authorizing measure; it does not include any appropriated funds.
Moreover, there are no earmarks included in this legislation. The
Congressional Budget Office has said that enacting the bill would not
affect direct spending or revenues, therefore, PAYGO procedures would
not apply.
This process is not anything new, and the Republicans routinely
approved proposals that authorized programs when they controlled this
Chamber and the administration.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Ms. Bean).
Ms. BEAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment
and the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010. I want to commend
Chairman Waxman and particularly Congressman Peter Welch for their
leadership, making energy efficiency more affordable for American
families in my Eighth District in Illinois and across the Nation.
Welcome signs of economic recovery and competitiveness in the global
economy are directly related to the opportunities emerging as
businesses become cleaner and leaner. The same philosophy holds true
for American households. Investments in better building materials and
technologies can pay for themselves in the form of energy savings, and
then some. At the same time, Home Star is a jobs measure. It will
provide timely and targeted employment to the skilled trades industry
which is still reeling from the housing bust and economic recession.
Two amendments I authored, included in the manager's amendment, will
enhance the job creation potential of Home Star. States will be
directed to engage with community colleges to implement the retrofit
program. These community colleges are excellent resources for worker
education, training, and certification; and they collaborate with area
employers to provide dynamic and affordable educational resources to
meet workforce needs. The role of community colleges in our clean
energy economy will only continue to grow in significance.
I also authored a provision with our colleague, Mr. Driehaus, to
expand rebate eligibility to replacement storm windows and doors, which
will particularly help historic homes. To improve energy efficiency and
maintain the historic integrity of a house, a homeowner may prefer to
install storm windows and doors. This amendment will provide families
more options to retrofit their homes in a manner that best fits their
needs.
H.R. 5019 is a well-crafted measure that will create jobs and boost
domestic manufacturing, while saving families money and reducing energy
consumption.
I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and this
important underlying bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Clarence, New York, (Mr. Lee.)
Mr. LEE of New York. I appreciate the opportunity to speak out on the
rule on the ``Cash for Caulkers'' legislation before us today because I
believe this is the wrong approach. It's another government boondoggle
costing taxpayers over $6.5 billion. Even more frustrating is the fact
that last year's so-called ``stimulus,'' we haven't used up the
billions of dollars that were allocated for the energy-efficiency
programs. So, again, let's just keep spending money that we do not have
in this country.
Americans can agree on one issue, that is, that we are facing an
energy crisis that demands our attention, and that part of the solution
means improving the efficiency of our energy intake. Today, we have an
important choice on how we get this done.
Energy-efficiency improvements are best achieved through the use of
voluntary, market-based programs through tax incentives which are
provided directly to the consumer. I've had the pleasure to work with
Representatives from both sides of the aisle on introducing H.R. 4226,
a comprehensive, bipartisan package of energy efficiency incentives
that will reduce energy costs, save energy, and create long-term energy
jobs. For this reason, my colleagues and I offered an amendment in the
nature of a substitute to provide a choice in how we move forward.
While the underlying bill and the substitute amendment both seek to
make it easier to retrofit an existing home to achieve energy savings,
only one of these bills will allow families and businesses to plan for
future retrofit expenses and to make more effective home improvements.
The alternative legislation my colleagues and I supported is more
effective in creating jobs and saving energy costs. It includes a
predefined 5-year extension of proven successful tax incentives, not
another government handout. Our alternative will make it more
affordable for homeowners to retrofit their existing homes.
Furthermore, H.R. 4226 includes commercial retrofits, something the
underlying bill does not provide. Commercial buildings are in as much
need, if not greater need, than many residential buildings. H.R. 4226
would allow small businesses to save more, which would allow them to
invest in themselves and create jobs, something that cannot be said
about the bill before us today.
H.R. 4226 is an important step towards energy conservation, and it
does so in a responsible and meaningful way. Contrast that with the
underlying bill before us today, which amounts to a rushed cash handout
to the tune of $6.6 billion that just forces burdensome mandates on
taxpayers already struggling to make ends meet.
Unfortunately, today's rule does not allow my colleagues the
opportunity to vote on this approach. I encourage all of you to reject
this rule and the underlying bill and to support H.R. 4226, which will
increase energy efficiency in
[[Page H3213]]
both domestic and commercial structures in a much more effective,
fiscally responsible, market-based approach.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to say before I yield to my
next speaker that this bill has been strongly endorsed by a broad range
of business, labor, environmental and consumer groups. In fact, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers,
and the National Association of Home Builders have formally endorsed
this bill. The National Lumber and Building Material Dealers
Association, on behalf of its 6,000-member companies nationwide, also
recently endorsed this bill. This bill is a perfect example of
industry, consumer, labor, and environmental groups all working
together to move our Nation toward a more energy-efficient economy.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding
and for your leadership in making sure this very good bill moved to the
floor. I support the rule, and I want to thank Chairman Waxman,
Representative Welch, Representative Markey, and the committee staff
for all of their very hard work in getting this bill to us today.
This bill is about more than home improvements. It's about reducing
energy demand by expanding the use of cost-effective, energy-efficient
technologies, for which my district and the State of California have
long been a leader. This bill is about healthier homes and healthier
communities, and it's critically important that we recognize that this
bill is about the creation of good-paying, high-quality green jobs.
I am pleased that this legislation will incentivize targeted job
training and financial assistance to low-income communities and the
chronically unemployed, as well as the recruitment of small, women-
owned and minority-owned businesses.
I commend my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and our
staff, especially Congressman Rush, who helped to champion the cause
for these vital provisions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much.
Let me just acknowledge the role of the Congressional Black Caucus in
this and thank our leadership for working with us to make sure that
these provisions were included because these provisions will ensure
that we serve and that we empower and include those hardest hit by the
economic recession and that no one is left behind in this bill, and
will really look at how to achieve and rectify historical,
environmental injustices. With that in mind, I strongly urge my
colleagues to support the rule and this legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire, if I can, upon
the time remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/4\ minutes
remaining, and the gentlelady from California has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
{time} 1115
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I want to thank certainly
my colleague from California for allowing me to go forward with this,
and also say thank you to Chairman Waxman and Mr. Welch for all of the
work that they have done on the committee.
H.R. 5019 would make important advancements toward the twin goals of
improving our country's energy efficiency and adding jobs to our
economy. The energy efficiency measures that are covered under this
bill will help to bring down energy costs for our families, reduce
overall energy consumption, and reduce our Nation's dependence on
foreign energy sources.
Another important effect of this bill, however, that is not addressed
as much is the impact of the bill on the quality of life for our
constituents. One quality of life issue that this bill will address is
the issue of noise reduction. The technology used to make our homes
energy efficient can also be used to reduce noise levels.
The amendment I have submitted would require the Secretary of Energy
to study what effects the energy efficiency measures installed under
this bill have on noise reduction.
My district is located in Nassau County, Long Island, New York, a
densely populated area adjacent to John F. Kennedy Airport and several
train lines. Due to the close proximity to JFK, many communities in my
district are severely affected by noise from airplanes landing and
taking off at JFK. Airplane noise can be heard at all hours of the day
and night. We have also a lot of noise coming from the trains that run
through my district, also at all times.
In this densely populated area of the country, railroad tracks are
often close to homes, schools and businesses. This issue affects
thousands of my constituents on a daily basis. Noise significantly
affects our quality of life. Airplane noise can also have dangerous
effects on the health of otherwise heathy individuals. Extended
exposure to loud noise levels not only affects the hearing of adults
and children, but has also been linked to an increase in blood
pressure. And the noise prevents individuals from getting restful
nights of sleep.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Airplane noise has also been found to have
an effect on children's education. Children who are exposed to
prolonged periods of airplane noise learn to read at a slower pace than
those not exposed to the noise. Noise significantly affects individuals
with certain health conditions even more and we need to be very
sensitive to the needs of them in future policies we pursue.
I am drafting legislation that would provide a tax credit to people
who want to soundproof rooms in their homes or schools due to plane
noise. Many of the items that individuals use to soundproof their
homes--insulation and better doors and windows--are the same types of
investments that this bill provides for. Therefore, the study I have
included in this bill will help inform us about the best ways to move
ahead with noise abatement activities and also see where we can double
our value by achieving energy efficiency and decreased energy costs for
consumers.
By taking action on this bill and the legislation I am drafting, we
will do a lot to improve the quality of life for all our constituents.
Once again I thank the committee, and I encourage everyone to vote for
the rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, 30 years ago President Carter declared the
moral equivalent of war on foreign oil. We have done two things in
those 30 years: we have slashed Federal investments in research and
development for energy efficiency and renewables by 85 percent; and we
have doubled our imports of oil.
In the past 2 years, we have corrected our top down investments. We
are investing more in energy efficiency, but we have missed the most
critical three words in the debate: return on investment. We need to
find ways to make it easier for people to purchase energy efficient
windows, to retrofit their homes, and that is exactly what this bill
does. It gives consumers rebates of up to $3,000, it lowers utility
bills, and it creates jobs. It creates jobs by allowing people to go to
their stores to buy their windows and equipment. That means somebody is
going to need to manufacture that equipment and install that equipment.
This is a way of creating jobs and enhancing our energy security. It is
a way of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This is a critically
important bill from a national security perspective and an economic
security perspective. I support it wholeheartedly.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The facts of the case are out on the table today. The Federal
Government is going to run this program. It will determine the winners
and losers. It will decide which of the technologies will be
reimbursed. It will decide how this
[[Page H3214]]
program is going to work. We in essence take the consumer out of the
equation. The taxpayer of this country, as the bill is written, will
have $6.6 billion in new deficit and debt that will be on the future of
this country, our children and our grandchildren. We will continue to
have less ability to effectively have jobs in this country as a result
of the continuing debt.
We have heard this story before. We heard about how great the
stimulus was. Well, the stimulus, which was called a jobs bill, was
about anything but jobs. It was about big government and diminishing
the size of the free enterprise system.
The health care bill, oh, it's all about jobs. And we found out just
days after that was passed, whoops, you better add another $600 billion
to what the real cost will be because it was not included, despite the
debate and all of the time on the floor. The health care bill was as
much about health care as the stimulus was about jobs.
Here we are adding another promise from the Democrat majority: this
is about jobs. But what this party fails to talk about is, okay,
150,000 jobs for $6.5 billion worth of spending, new debt not paid for,
not adequately enumerating the things that will really happen in the
marketplace. We have already talked about the promises that were made
during the stimulus, and of that only 5 percent has materialized out of
the Department of Energy. The reason why is because people don't have
money. People do not have money because they do not have jobs. We do
not have jobs in this country because of the Democratic majority who
has made a decision that their political agenda to diminish the size of
the free enterprise system is just fine for them.
The three largest political agenda items of this Democratic Party,
the Speaker and the President, net lose 10 million American jobs.
That's why people do not end up having jobs and why people will not be
able to buy into this plan either. Because people are unemployed. They
are hurting. They are concerned about how they are going to take care
of themselves. Quite honestly, Madam Speaker, this country is afraid.
They are afraid of the massive debt, and we are going to pile on
another $6.5 billion today.
We talked about how and when the Democrats took control of this
Congress, they promised little job loss, lower deficits, and we have
only seen the opposite. Additionally, little to no progress has been
made to providing real solutions to the high unemployment rate; 150,000
jobs won't cut it. We are getting ready to lose 300,000 more teachers'
jobs because communities can't afford to have the teachers. They can't
pay for them. And we are here today to vote on another $6.6 billion, a
spending spree for the Federal Government to manage and pick the
winners and losers in the energy saving sector. It is bad policy.
Where are the jobs? Where is the ability of people to make decisions?
Nope, we are going to let the Federal Government decide this.
Madam Speaker, Congress, the Democratic Party, believes we can just
spend our way out of this economic crisis. We need reforms. We need to
work together. We need America to be an employer nation again. Ah, the
old days with Republicans, all that debt they caused, not a drop in the
bucket compared to what this 4 years of Democrat control has done.
I once again stand up for my party and say no, we are not going to
participate in this. We K-N-O-W exactly what this Democrat majority is
all about. One-party rule is bad for this country. Not accepting
amendments from the other party is not good for the country.
I encourage a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, it is important that we not rewrite
history today. The previous administration had the worst fiscal record
in American history. When President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, he
inherited from President Clinton a budget surplus projected to be $5.6
trillion over the next 10 years. But over his two terms, through
fiscally reckless policies, President Bush squandered that surplus and
gave the country 8 years of deficits instead.
We have had to take evasive action to stave off a long-term economic
disaster, and no one on my side of the aisle will apologize for boldly
confronting one of the worst fiscal and economic crises in our
country's history.
Madam Speaker, creating jobs is our top priority, to put more
Americans back to work and truly turn our economy around. There is no
doubt that the Home Star program will boost our domestic energy
efficiency industry and further move our country toward a clean energy
economy. By increasing energy efficiency, we will not only incentivize
the emerging clean technology industry, but also reduce carbon
pollution and cut costs for consumers.
The legislation before us will create nearly 170,000 new green jobs
in this country. This bill will create three separate energy efficiency
rebate programs to encourage home energy efficiency, cut down on the
use of fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase
energy security and independence.
As a result, the bill would have a meaningful, long-term impact on
energy savings. Together with the ongoing investment by the Recovery
Act, the Home Star program will substantially invest in our clean
energy economy and spur job creation and economic growth in this
country. This Congress must continue to invest wisely in proposals that
will train our workers, create new good-paying jobs, grow our economy
and rebuild the middle class. This legislation does just that.
This bill has been strongly endorsed by a broad range of business,
labor, environmental and consumer groups. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National
Association of Home Builders have formally endorsed this bill. It is a
perfect example of industry, consumer, labor, and environmental groups
all working together to move our Nation toward a more energy-efficient
economy. Madam Speaker, this is an important bill that will create jobs
and move our Nation towards a clean energy economy.
With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and
on the rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 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. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 1329 will be
followed by 5-minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules on H.
Res. 1295; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1722.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 182, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 249]
YEAS--229
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
[[Page H3215]]
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
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
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--182
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Courtney
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
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
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schauer
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Barrett (SC)
Blackburn
Bonner
Campbell
Costa
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Garamendi
Hoekstra
Johnson (GA)
Kennedy
Kratovil
McCollum
Melancon
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Reyes
Schock
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1153
Messrs. POSEY, GARY G. MILLER of California and SCALISE changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. KILDEE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 249, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________