Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 49 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2338-H2350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 910, ENERGY TAX PREVENTION ACT OF
2011

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 203 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 203

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. 910) to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from
promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action
relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a
greenhouse gas to address climate change,

[[Page H2339]]

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. 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. 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 in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 203 provides for a
structured rule designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of
H.R. 910. This rule allows for 12 amendments--that is, 12 amendments,
Madam Speaker--submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the
underlying bill, including the open process that is taking place, not
just in the Rules Committee, but also on the floor, where Members will
be allowed to come and debate these 12 amendments, as opposed to a
closed rule with no amendments.
This legislation, introduced by the chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), has gone
through regular order. There were hearings held on this issue. H.R. 910
was marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the chairman of
the Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, provided for a
structured amendment process for 12 additional Democrat amendments to
be considered.
The bill we are discussing today, the Energy Tax Prevention Act,
would stop the Environmental Protection Agency--also known as EPA--from
imposing a national energy tax in the form of carbon emission
regulations.
Today, I will explain what the underlying bill does, and I will
discuss the EPA's agenda, what this agenda would do to the Nation's job
market and economy, the need for a stronger energy policy from not just
our President, but also from the administration and also, as the
guidepost that begins with this legislation today, from the United
States Congress on behalf of the American people.
H.R. 910 prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the
Clean Air Act and repeals the steps the agency has already taken to
begin this process. In this bill, we only focus on greenhouse gases and
we leave EPA's authority to monitor and regulate pollutants intact.
In short, the underlying bill clarifies that the Clean Air Act is not
a vehicle for regulatory taxing. The decision about whether and how to
regulate greenhouse gases should be made by Congress and only by
Congress, not the regulatory body of a President who wishes to place
his overriding answers on unelected bureaucrats to fulfill this role.

{time} 1300

The EPA has been aggressively pursuing a national cap-and-tax energy
agenda through regulation and legislation for years.
After cap-and-trade failed in Congress last year, the EPA accelerated
its efforts to regulate this controversial policy through a series of
new rules on hundreds of thousands of buildings all across the United
States. In other words, because the President couldn't get his
political agenda through Congress, he's taking his political agenda in
the administration to overlay the American people.
We disagree with that, and that is why we are on the floor of the
House of Representatives today.
Regulating greenhouse gas emissions--primarily the carbon dioxide
emissions that come from coal, oil, and natural gas--will increase the
cost of everything from gasoline to household utilities and, of course,
groceries.
Additionally, regulating and taxing emissions will ship American jobs
overseas to countries that understand and recognize stable, affordable
and energy policies that are vital for their economic growth.
According to a letter from the Chamber of Commerce on March 9 of last
year to the Energy and Commerce Committee: ``These regulations will
impose significant burden across the United States economy, including
sectors that will create jobs and lead us in our economic recovery.''
Additionally, the letter references that the American Council for
Capital Formation has ``estimated that EPA's greenhouse gas regulations
could reduce business investment between $97 billion and $290 billion
in 2011 and as much as $309 billion in 2014,'' a tremendous hit on the
economy when it comes from the President of the United States, Barack
Obama, and his administration. This is not a way for America or our
future to be successful.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity also references the
American Council for Capital Formation in a press release just last
month that estimates that a greenhouse gas tax ``could result in the
loss of between 476,000 to 1.4 million jobs.''
Republicans are committed to putting Americans back to work, and our
Democratic colleagues continue to pursue a reckless agenda that puts
more Americans out of work, drives business overseas--all the while
limiting U.S. energy production and use.
So, Madam Speaker, today the Republican Party is on the floor of the
House of Representatives with good news not just for the taxpayers but
for the American people, in particular, not just consumers, but those
who have lost their job or who are underemployed. We believe that what
we're doing today is a jobs-saver bill.
The House Natural Resources Committee reported last month that the
Obama administration policies have caused domestic oil production to
drop by 16 percent versus projected levels and future projections show
continued decreases in domestic production and more foreign imports to
make up for this difference.
A recent Rasmussen poll from March 3, 2011, shows that three-quarters
of Americans believe this country does not do enough to develop its own
oil and gas resources.
So whether through greenhouse gas regulation permit delays or
permitting moratoriums, which the President stands behind in his
administration, this administration should change their policies and
their direction.
We must find new sources of energy and not tax those that exist for
the freedom of this country.
So while energy prices soar and continue to soar and projections
estimate a $5-a-gallon gasoline by summertime, this administration
wants to inflict more costs on consumers.
The bill today would help to ease the cost of energy prices. It would
assist in the global competitiveness of America.

[[Page H2340]]

It would help ensure that this Nation does not lose millions of more
jobs and does not threaten the intent of the Clean Air Act.
No, Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is here because this is yet
another opportunity at a jobs bill that is pro-consumer and pro the
American people who want and need to be able to help in a desperate
time when we're losing our jobs and things are tough back home to do
something positive on behalf of the American public.
This is a bipartisan bill that provides good policy for our Nation,
and we're asking every single Member of Congress to understand clearly
and see this for what it is. It is a jobs-protection bill.
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule
and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, it has been a remarkable April in the House of
Representatives. Last week, the majority rewrote the Constitution with
a bill stating that one House of Congress can deem a law made all by
itself regardless of what the Senate or the President of the United
States might think. And if that wasn't enough, today the majority is
proposing to rewrite the laws of science itself, the definition of
taxes, and the laws of economics.
Despite indisputable scientific evidence, the Republicans are seeking
to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting Americans'
health and safety from what the scientific consensus agrees is the
worst environmental threat in the world's history: global climate
change.
It's akin to telling Homeland Security to stop protecting the
homeland. It denies scientific proof and logic. Even the Supreme Court
stated that the EPA has a responsibility to act to keep the public
safe. We're witnessing nothing less today than a full assault on four
decades of progress in protecting Americans from environmental dangers.
Madam Speaker, for nearly 40 years the EPA and the Clean Air Act have
protected the health of Americans from dangers both seen and unseen.
Over the last 20 years, the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated
843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory illness among
children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart
disease, and 200,000 premature deaths--not only saving people from the
human toll of dealing with illness among themselves and their family,
but saving the economic costs to society and individuals from all of
these conditions.
Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to ignore this
progress and prevent the EPA by handcuffing it and preventing it from
protecting us in the future.
Repealing the EPA's authority to limit pollution would have
devastating consequences. It would increase the number of children and
adults who suffer from asthma. It would increase the number of
individuals with emphysema, lung cancer, bronchitis, and many other
respiratory diseases driving up health care costs for all Americans
significantly.
For this reason, 280 groups--including the American Heart
Association, the American Public Health Association and many others--
sent a letter to Congress urging us to reject measures that would block
or delay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to
protect all Americans from life-threatening air pollution.
Madam Speaker, my friend from Texas mentioned the word ``tax'' six
times in his remarks, to my count. It's possible I missed a couple of
instances of that word as well. And yet yesterday in committee, both
Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman agreed that the EPA does not
have the statutory authority to confer any taxes whatsoever.
Therefore, the name of this bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, is a
complete misnomer. This bill has not even originated in or been passed
out of the committee in Congress that has jurisdiction in tax matters,
namely, the Ways and Means Committee. It's a completely inappropriate
and misleading way to convey what this bill does.
Madam Speaker, America's science and environmental policy should be
driven by science and science alone. The EPA should be allowed to move
forward. And I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and the underlying
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Beaumont, Texas, Judge Poe.

{time} 1310

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the EPA is on a mission to destroy American industry.
Their damaging plan to regulate the so-called carbon emissions will
cost every household in America at least $1,600 per year. These
unnecessary regulations will strangle the economy by driving up the
cost of energy. Gasoline is $4 a gallon, will soon be $5 a gallon. It
will put more Americans out of work, especially in the energy industry.
Congress must take immediate action to stop the EPA and its out-of-
control concepts from ruining American industry. Earlier this year, I
introduced similar legislation to what we are considering today. I
introduced it during the first CR. It passed this House with bipartisan
support. And what it would do is similar to what this legislation is
going to do: that would be to prevent the EPA's attempt to regulate so-
called greenhouse gases.
I support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, when regulators, especially those at
the EPA, go to work every day, they go down the street here to one of
these marble palaces, they get in a big room with a big oak table, they
drink their lattes, and they sit around and say, ``Who can we regulate
today?'' because that's what regulators do. Regulators regulate. And
they figure out new ways to regulate the entire United States, all on
the so-called premise of protecting us from ourselves.
In my opinion, it has nothing really to do about protection, but it
has to do about power. EPA has a power agenda and they have a political
agenda, and they are trying to claim it is an agenda to protect all of
us from ourselves. The EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases, in my
opinion, lacks proven scientific basis. And the EPA is out of control.
You know, the EPA overregulates, and it's driving energy businesses
out of this country. It's hammering the American energy industry, and I
doubt whether or not it is doing so with scientific basis.
The United States is in an energy crisis. It's a national security
issue. And what is the administration's energy plan? Let's not drill
here. Let's not drill there. We can't drill in ANWR. We can't drill in
any new lands in the United States. We are certainly not going to
promote permitting in the Gulf of Mexico at a rapid pace so that we can
drill there. But our energy plan, sayeth the administration, is to send
money down to Brazil and let the Brazilians drill off of their coast so
we can buy their crude oil. Now, that doesn't make any sense to me.
It's time for us to drill in the United States safely. It's time for
America to take care of America.
And that's just the way it is.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, when making decisions on a bill
referral, is the bill title a consideration?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not render an advisory
opinion on that at this time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is it true that anyone can put the word ``tax'' in
the title of a bill even though it has nothing to do with taxes?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's point has not been stated as
a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, let me turn, if I could, to my good
friend on the Rules Committee for purposes of yielding to a question,
if he would.

[[Page H2341]]

I was just curious. I had an amendment before the Rules Committee. I
noticed you waived germaneness on other questions. I had an amendment
submitted that would simply ensure that the bill accurately
accomplished what its title described. My amendment would have struck
everything in the bill except the title, Energy Tax Prevention Act, and
replaced it with language that actually prevented the EPA from imposing
an energy tax.
Do you have any guidance as to why this amendment was not in order?
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman engaging me in a colloquy,
and I will just give him a straight answer.
We did not offer any waivers. All 12 amendments offered by Democrats
were germane. This, and perhaps others that were submitted to the Rules
Committee, were not germane to the House rules, so we did not offer any
waiver. But the others that we did, the 12, were all germane and did
not have to have a waiver.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, I would just note that the
committee did deal with germaneness in terms of allowing things to go
through from the Energy and Commerce Committee. It's unfortunate that
you would not allow an amendment to at least have an accurate title
before the Chamber for its debate.
It's clear that H.R. 910 has nothing do with energy taxes. The bill
is designed to confuse Members of Congress and mislead the public. As a
member of the Ways and Means Committee, I would strongly object to EPA
imposing a tax on energy. But we all know that the EPA has no intention
of imposing a tax on energy. Instead, this bill will overrule the
scientific consensus on climate change, ignore a Supreme Court
decision.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. It would ignore a Supreme Court decision and endanger
the future of the planet.
I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying
bill.
I would add, Madam Speaker, that a statement from the Joint Committee
on Taxation indicates that this bill has nothing to do with taxation.

Congress of the United States,

Joint Committee on Taxation,

Washington, DC.
Hon. Earl Blumenauer,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Blumenauer: This letter is in response to your
request dated April 5, 2011, for an estimate of H.R. 910, the
``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' That bill limits the
ability of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to use authority granted under the Clean Air Act to
promulgate regulations or take other actions relating to the
emission of greenhouse gases to address climate change.
While the bill does not reference anything in the Internal
Revenue Code, there are at least half a dozen places in the
Internal Revenue Code (the ``Code'') that cross reference the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act. For
example, Code section 40(b)(6)(E) defines cellulosic biofuel
in part as a liquid that meets the registration requirements
for fuels and fuel additives established by the Environmental
Protection Agency under section 211 of the Clean Air Act.
There are also additional instances in the Code that do not
reference the Clean Air Act but do require consultation with
the EPA Administrator. For example, section 45Q, which
provides a credit for carbon dioxide permanently sequestered
in secure geological storage provides that ``the Secretary,
in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary
of the Interior, shall establish regulations for determining
adequate security measures for the geological storage of
carbon dioxide . . . such that the carbon dioxide does not
escape into the atmosphere.''
Notwithstanding these and similar Code provisions that
cross reference certain Clean Air Act rules or require
consultation with the EPA Administrator, we do not think it
likely that H.R. 910 will have an effect on Federal fiscal
year budget receipts.
I hope that this information is helpful to you. If we can
be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Barthold,
Chief of Staff.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of our brand-
new freshmen, a gentleman who is not only on what is called an A
committee but an exclusive committee of the United States Congress, who
has had a distinguished career as a sheriff in Florida and who is a
distinguished member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Nugent).
Mr. NUGENT. I thank the gentleman from Dallas, Mr. Sessions.
Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 203 and
the underlying legislation, H.R. 910.
When I talk to people in Florida's Fifth District about what we are
doing here in the House of Representatives to cut spending, reduce the
size and scope of the Federal Government, I always stress that we are
just one part of the process. The House can only do so much. We still
need the Senate and the President to sign off on any legislation we
pass before it becomes law. This is one of the most basic building
blocks of our government and one we're reminded of as we continue to
wait on the Senate to pass a budget for this fiscal year and to prevent
a government shutdown.
But the Obama administration has decided to bypass Congress on the
issue of greenhouse gas. Can't pass cap-and-tax? Push the greenhouse
agenda on the American people another way. So now unelected bureaucrats
in the EPA are trying to regulate greenhouse gases.
Among the gases the EPA is trying to regulate is methane. According
to EPA, 28 percent of the global methane emissions they classify as
coming from human-related activities actually come from livestock. I
don't think it's a coincidence that the EPA's move to regulate methane,
including cow flatulence, comes on the heels of a report from the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that states:
``Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's
most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to
remedy the situation.''
Now, I am pretty sure if you asked the ranchers of Florida's Fifth
District, as much as they would like to regulate cows from passing gas
for plenty of reasons, some smellier than others, we just don't have
that capacity. Nevertheless, EPA wants to follow the U.N.'s lead and
regulate methane. And the cost of that will inevitably fall upon the
backs of America's families.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 910 is a good and important bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. NUGENT. Similarly, the rule provided by H. Res. 203 gives us time
for a full, comprehensive debate on the issue, and I encourage my
colleagues to support them both.

{time} 1320

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute to respond.
I know the gentleman from Florida mentioned the cow flatulence in our
committee meeting last night, and it sounded like a topic that bore
looking into. I did have a chance to look it up in the interim, and Fox
News had reported the prospect of EPA regulating cow and livestock gas.
However, it never existed. FactCheck.org, which I looked it up on,
dispelled the myth and EPA itself actually came out with a statement
that said not only is there no such regulation that it discussed or was
in the works, but even EPA admitted it's not under their authority to
regulate that in any way, shape or form.
So it is a false accusation with regard to the issue regarding
livestock.
Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee and a
former member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He has racked up
quite a few former memberships.
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, today's legislation is essentially about the very
simple sounding act of abolishing the Clean Air Act.
Why? How is it that we are going to do this? The authors in support
of this legislation have come to the legislative conclusion that global
warming is a hoax. Give him credit. Coming to that conclusion was a big
lift. It flies in the face of the unanimous conclusion of American
scientists, 97 percent, that global warming is real and it's manmade.
And, you know, when you are going to get to that conclusion, you have
to follow a long-established tradition we humans have, and that's the
ability to

[[Page H2342]]

disregard the obvious and the proven when that conflicts with what our
ideology says we want.
You know, Aristotle was the EPA of his day. He was attacked when he
said that the Earth was round. The world at that time thought the world
was flat, and people argued with Aristotle and about Aristotle for
1,500 years.
Galileo became the EPA of his day when he said that the Earth
revolved around the sun. He too was attacked for centuries for being
``wrong.''
Today we have unanimous, near unanimous, scientific conclusion that
global warming exists, it's a threat to our planet, it's a threat to
our health and, yet, as the folks who attacked Aristotle when he said
the Earth was round, as the folks who attacked Galileo when he said the
Earth revolved around the sun, the authors, in support of this
legislation, deny the proven fact of global warming and wave it away by
abolishing the Clean Air Act. This is the wrong step to be taking.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, there was a dialogue back and forth
about cows, cattle, and that the EPA really is not after that issue.
But if you go to the EPA Web site, epa.gov, and you look under the
portion called ``Frequent Questions'' where it deals with livestock, in
fact, the EPA is trying to talk about methane produced by livestock.
And it ends up saying, as I read from my BlackBerry, that essentially
20 percent of all the methane content in the air comes from livestock.
Well, that's what they want to regulate, which means they would get
in the business whether we said this or not.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman will have his own time in a minute, and
I'm sure he will be very effective.
But I encourage the gentleman to get on his BlackBerry and go to the
Web site and look this up. They're going to blame it on cattle. They're
going to tax cattle. They're going to tax the output because that's
what they are proposing.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished 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. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
rule and in strong support of the underlying bill.
I have been a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee for 26, now
27 years. I'm a past chairman. I'm a past subcommittee chairman. I
currently have the title of chairman emeritus.
I participated under former Chairman John Dingell, former Chairman
Billy Tauzin, former Chairman Tom Bliley, former Chairman Henry Waxman
and now current Chairman Fred Upton, dozens of hearings on the Clean
Air Act, markups, amendments, dozens of hearings on climate change,
global warming and all of those issues.
The bill before us, if the rule passes, does not change the Clean Air
Act. It does not gut the Clean Air Act. It does not in any way prevent
enforcement of the criteria pollutants that are regulated by the Clean
Air Act. It simply says that greenhouse gases are not to be regulated
under the Clean Air Act.
And the reason it says that is that greenhouse gases are different
than the criteria pollutants that are regulated under the Clean Air
Act. First of all, greenhouse gases by definition are necessary for
life.
As I stand here, Madam Speaker, and speak, I am creating, as I
breathe in and out through the respiratory process, CO2. So
under the dictates of today's EPA, I am a mobile source polluter,
because I am breathing. I am creating CO2.
CO2, carbon dioxide, is necessary for life. Greenhouse
gases are necessary to protect the environment. They have the ability
to prevent heat from escaping into outer space, and that is what
creates the temperature zone that allows life to exist.
The radical environmentalists who think CO2 is a pollutant
have decided amongst themselves--I don't know how they have done it--
but they have decided that the magic number for CO2 in the
atmosphere should be about 350 parts per billion. We are currently at
about 380 parts per billion.
We know from records and from ice samples and tree rings and things
like this of the past that we have had CO2 up in the
thousands parts per billion in the past. So how 350 has become the
magic number is beyond me.
In any event, let me simply say, the bill before us doesn't change
one sentence in the Clean Air Act. It does say that the endangerment
finding was flawed, and the decision by the Obama administration to
regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is wrong, and it should
not be allowed to stand.
If this Congress or future Congresses want to regulate
CO2, want to regulate greenhouse gases, let them bring a
bill forward through the normal regulatory process and do it.
Please vote for the rule. Please vote for the bill.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, it's hard to figure out where to start with regard to
refuting some of the statements that were made.
First of all, again, with regard to the information regarding methane
emissions on the EPA Web site, there is a difference between a
statement of fact and an action, and part of what the EPA does is it
provides good scientific facts.
They, EPA itself, concedes and says they don't have the authority,
nor should they have the authority, to monitor emissions from
livestock. So they will publish good information. I don't refute the
information the gentleman said, and I hope they publish more useful
information about the impact of livestock, but they are not seeking to
regulate it.
The gentleman said they are going to tax cattle. Again, very clearly,
Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, said the EPA does not have the
ability to impose a tax.
I would ask my colleague from Texas a simple ``yes'' or ``no''
question: Does the EPA have the ability to impose a tax?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. A tax is a burden.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, it's a simple ``yes'' or ``no''
question. If there is an additional statement the gentleman would like
to make, I would be happy to have him explain it on his own time. My
time is limited and I have many speakers.
But I would be happy to enter into a dialogue with him on his time or
allow him to respond to whether or not the EPA has the ability to
impose a tax.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, we spend a lot of time these days talking
about costs--costs of regulation, costs of repeal, costs of
implementation.
Conveniently missing from this discussion are the human costs: lives
lost, those altered by heart attacks, asthma, and brain damage due to
fine particulate matter in our air and mercury in our water.
My hometown of Chicago knows this all too well. Chicago ranks second
of all cities in the country adversely affected by power plant
pollution.

{time} 1330

Two particularly egregious emitters, the Fisk and Crawford power
plants, emit fine particulate matter that directly contribute to 41
deaths, 550 ER visits, and 2,800 asthma attacks annually. EPA estimates
that fine particle pollution from power plants shortens the lives of
1,356 people from my home State each year.
Talk about costs.
In 2001, the Harvard School of Public Health put out an Illinois
power plant study. In the 8 years since these harms were modeled and
publicized, the Environmental Law and Policy Center estimates the
continued Fisk and Crawford coal plant pollution has caused from $750
million to $1 billion in health and environmental-related damages.
Even if you don't care about global warming and you don't believe
climate change is manmade, you can't argue with these numbers. So if
you want to talk costs, let's talk costs. Fisk and Crawford power
plants cost Chicagoans 550 ER visits per year. They cost Chicagoans
2,800 asthma attacks per year. And Fisk and Crawford power plants cost
Chicagoans $750 million to $1 billion in only 8 of the 50 plus years

[[Page H2343]]

we've been collecting data on these pollutants.
The answer to these costs is not to repeal the law that cleans our
air, that protects our children and allows us to remain competitive in
a global market. The answer instead is to transition away from the
antiquated and outdated industry that pollutes and toward green
infrastructure that encourages domestic economic development.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and H.R. 910, the dirty air
act.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, a colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
and to the underlying legislation which is an assault on science and
reason. Indeed, it is an assault on the very air we breathe. My
Republican friends continue to bury their heads in the sand.
Last night in the Rules Committee, along with my colleagues Earl
Blumenauer and Peter Welch, I offered an amendment to end taxpayer
subsidies to Big Oil, something the Republican leadership has refused
to do. These subsidies have helped BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips,
ExxonMobil, and Shell make a combined profit of nearly $1 trillion over
the past decade. That is trillion with a ``t.'' Give me a break.
Our amendment would have raised $40 billion that would have gone
straight toward deficit reduction. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly,
our amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. That shows exactly
where the Republican priorities are, Madam Speaker, a radical
redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the
wealthiest people and corporations in the country.
Yesterday, our Republican friends unveiled their budget proposal.
That budget takes extreme, right-wing trickle-down economics to new
levels. They want to destroy Medicare as we know it and impose a huge
tax increase on middle class seniors through higher health care costs.
They want to eviscerate Medicaid by turning it into a block grant
program. They want to cut food stamps, education, infrastructure,
environmental protection, and medical research, programs which actually
create jobs and improve the lives of American working families.
And at the same time, my Republican friends want to provide massive
tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans and corporations, including
Big Oil companies that are reaping billions and billions and billions
of dollars in profits each year. The Republican Party wants to increase
health care costs for seniors in order to pay for their tax breaks for
the rich. Those are wrong priorities, Madam Speaker.
As Harold Meyerson wrote today in the Washington Post, ``If it does
nothing else, the budget that House Republicans unveiled Tuesday
provides the first real Republican program for the 21st century, and it
is this: Repeal the 20th century.''
For the life of me, I can't understand why the people who caused the
recession be allowed to keep everything while innocent workers get the
bill.
We all want to reduce the deficit, Madam Speaker. How about ending
our occupation in Afghanistan? How about ending subsidies for
multinational oil companies and agribusiness? How about asking hedge
fund managers to pay a fair tax rate?
The Republican leadership has made it clear that they are willing to
shut the government down in order to achieve their right-wing, radical
agenda. And if that happens, Madam Speaker--and I hope it doesn't, and
I pray it doesn't--the American people need to know that the
responsibility lies at the feet of the Republican Members of this
House.
Again, I urge my colleagues to reject this--again, another
restrictive rule--and reject the underlying legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, my, oh my, we've heard this tirade
before. If it wasn't just Republicans and the House, which we've had
now for about 4 months, it was something else. The Democrats are
looking for somebody to blame their woes on, their tax increases, their
overregulation, all the big spending and the debt. Madam Speaker, we
know what it is. If they search quickly enough, they can find out what
the American people know: It is pin the tail on the donkey. We know how
this happened.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather
Community, North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, our colleagues on our side of the aisle have made it
abundantly clear that this bill does not affect the Clean Air Act. What
it does is help us rein in unelected bureaucrats who are arrogant and
who believe that they have all the answers to what needs to be done in
this country.
After listening to the debate over this issue, it's clear to me that
nary a liberal here has read a book entitled ``Heaven and Earth'' by
Ian Plimer, a renowned Australian geologist who takes a science-based
approach to disproving so many of the myths underlying the manmade
global warming theories. It is a unique, gripping, and powerful book
that would undoubtedly leave a deep impression on any independent
thinker. And I also want to mention, Madam Speaker, another book, the
Heartland Institute book review of a book called ``The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism'' by Christopher
Horner, which highlights some of the motivations for liberals to
persist with the manmade global warming theory.
Horner tells us, ``Global warming hysteria is truly the
environmentalist's dream come true. It is the perfect storm of demons
and perils, and the ideal scare campaign for those who would establish
global governance.'' And he goes on, ``We are daily told of an alleged
'consensus' on the issue--a concept actually foreign to science--and
global warming alarmists want to put disbelievers on trial. They want
to control our lifestyles without anyone being allowed to question
their cause.'' And he says, ``Nowhere is Horner more brilliant than in
convincing the reader of the odious concept of consensus taking root
regarding climate science, where alarmists and the rest of the global
warming industry assail scientists and other experts with ad hominem
campaigns to discredit them. History is `full of efforts to stifle
innovation by reference to unchallengeable authority of consensus.'
Galileo and Copernicus come quickly to mind.''
Madam Speaker, this shows the arrogance of our colleagues across the
aisle and the arrogance of the bureaucrats. They think that we human
beings have more impact on the climate and the world than God does. And
we don't.

{time} 1340

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentlelady mentioned science. One of the expert witnesses the
Republicans called for last week's congressional hearing on climate
science was Professor Richard Muller of Berkeley. Now, this was a
physicist who had gotten into the climate skeptic game. And I have to
say, the climate skeptic game is a very lucrative one for people.
Anybody who finds a way to deny climate change sells lots of books,
gets booked on the conservative talk show circuit, and does very well
for themselves. And yet, despite the intensive economic pressure for
climate scientists to deny climate change, 99 percent have stayed true
to the scientific method; and the conclusion of the vast majority is
that climate change exists.
Now, Professor Muller reported that his group's preliminary findings
were that the global warming trend is very similar to that reported by
prior groups. Now, this took some courage. Because of his belief in
science, no doubt it hurts his own earning potential. I think he had
been doing very well as a climate skeptic. Now he is somebody who has
put his scientific principles above his own economic need.
What science tells us is not always convenient. Every climate
scientist that I know wishes that they could say that there is no
danger from climate change, wishes there was no danger from carbon
emissions. Nobody wants to be a harbinger of disaster--what a terrible
thing to be--and yet they value the integrity of the scientific
process.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 3, 2011]

The Truth, Still Inconvenient

(By Paul Krugman)

So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a
professor of marketing walk into a room. What's the punch
line? They

[[Page H2344]]

were three of the five ``expert witnesses'' Republicans
called for last week's Congressional hearing on climate
science.
But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans,
when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify
went off script.
Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has
gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort
partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation.
And climate deniers--who claim that researchers at NASA and
other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and
distorted the data--had been hoping that the Berkeley project
would conclude that global warming is a myth.
Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his
group's preliminary results find a global warming trend
``very similar to that reported by the prior groups.''
The deniers' response was both predictable and revealing;
more on that shortly. But first, let's talk a bit more about
that list of witnesses, which raised the same question I and
others have had about a number of committee hearings held
since the G.O.P. retook control of the House--namely, where
do they find these people?
My favorite, still, was Ron Paul's first hearing on
monetary policy, in which the lead witness was someone best
known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a
``horrific tyrant''--and for advocating a new secessionist
movement as the appropriate response to the ``new American
fascialistic state.''
The ringers (i.e., nonscientists) at last week's hearing
weren't of quite the same caliber, but their prepared
testimony still had some memorable moments. One was the
lawyer's declaration that the E.P.A. can't declare that
greenhouse gas emissions are a health threat, because these
emissions have been rising for a century, but public health
has improved over the same period. I am not making this up.
Oh, and the marketing professor, in providing a list of
past cases of ``analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade
global warming''--presumably intended to show why we should
ignore the worriers--included problems such as acid rain and
the ozone hole that have been contained precisely thanks to
environmental regulation.
But back to Professor Muller. His climate-skeptic
credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore
and my colleague Tom Friedman as ``exaggerators,'' and he has
participated in a number of attacks on climate research,
including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British
climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers
had high hopes that his new project would support their case.
You can guess what happened when those hopes were dashed.
Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent
climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and
piously declared himself ``prepared to accept whatever result
they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.'' But never
mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present
those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as
``post normal science political theater.'' And one of the
regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller
as ``a man driven by a very serious agenda.''
Of course, it's actually the climate deniers who have the
agenda, and nobody who's been following this discussion
believed for a moment that they would accept a result
confirming global warming. But it's worth stepping back for a
moment and thinking not just about the science here, but
about the morality.
For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have
been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue
with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps
catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you're going to
assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral
responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness
and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right,
you'll be doing a great deal of damage.
But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce:
a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no
business being there and instant ostracism for a climate
skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the
face of evidence. As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair
pointed out long ago, it's difficult to get a man to
understand something when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
But it's terrifying to realize that this kind of cynical
careerism--for that's what it is--has probably ensured that
we won't do anything about climate change until catastrophe
is already upon us.
So on second thought, I was wrong when I said that the joke
was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding me this time.
I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation,
H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. In spite of the title of this
bill, it has absolutely nothing to do with limiting taxes on energy or
taxes from the get-go. This bill should be called the Dirty Air Act
because it turns back the clock by erasing years of advances that we
have made in fighting air pollution and curbing greenhouse gas
emissions.
This bill ignores the clear-cut scientific evidence: carbon pollution
is endangering our health and the environment and that the need for
urgent action to address climate change is indisputable.
This bill prevents the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, from
acting under the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
unequivocally linked to climate change. Under this bill, EPA will be
prohibited from enforcing common sense, and I want to repeat that word,
commonsense protections against carbon dioxide pollution and other
greenhouse gases.
Since its enactment in 1970, the health benefits of the Clean Air Act
have far outweighed industry's compliance costs. Toxic and health-
threatening air pollutants have been reduced by 60 percent, and the
world did not come to an end for corporations. In fact, during this
time the economy grew by 200 percent.
This legislation guts the Clean Air Act pollution standards and
repeals EPA's authority to limit health-threatening pollution. And for
what? For what, to protect the profits of the big polluters; and in so
doing, this bill repeals important safeguards that are needed to create
American clean energy jobs, reduce energy costs, reduce our dependence
on foreign oil, and increase our economic competitiveness.
We cannot pass this Republican majority's anti-science, anti-
innovation bill. And let's not forget one of their top goals:
continuing multi-billion dollar tax breaks for the oil and gas
solution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. HIRONO. In my book, clean air and the health of the American
people trump profits for polluters every time. I urge my colleagues to
vote against this rule and against this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we are talking about 1.4 million jobs, a
lot of cattle, and a lot of bull.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Melbourne, Florida (Mr. Posey).
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, Congressman Webster and I were walking past
the rear of the Chamber, and we looked at each other kind of funny
after some former comments and thought we were walking by a set for
comedy hour.
I mean, I think I really heard somebody allude to the fact that we
need more government regulation and for sure we need more taxes on the
oil companies, those evil oil companies, and the answer to all of our
problems is to tax them more--as if the Members of this body and the
public are stupid enough to think that at the end of the year, those
big oil companies are just going to write a check for an extra zillion
dollars.
Let's say we tax those evil oil companies another dollar a gallon.
They're not going to write the check. We know what's going to happen:
They're going to raise the price a dollar a gallon, or, given the
corporate greed we sometimes see, round it off to 2 bucks a gallon.
Corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations collect taxes. They
collect taxes from consumers who ultimately pay the tax. You add a tax
to a product, and the consumer is going to pay more.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. POSEY. I wish we would, as the gentleman from Texas said, quit
trying to play ``Pin the Tail on the Donkey.'' We know corporations
don't pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes; corporations just collect it.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after
the House adopts this rule, it will bring up Senate bill 388, a bill
that prohibits Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay
during government shutdowns.
It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a
sponsor of a bill to do the same, Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from Colorado.

[[Page H2345]]

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The Federal
Government is now 6 months into fiscal year 2011 without a budget.
We've created no new jobs and, in fact, have put tens of thousands of
people out of work.
All we've done is to stumble along from continuing resolution to
continuing resolution. That's no way to run a government, let alone the
most powerful Nation in the world.
Sadly, with the clock running, ticking toward the midnight hour of a
government shutdown on Friday, agreement on a full-year budget is
nowhere to be found. We have no consensus. We can't get together. We
can't do our job.
And instead, the Republicans in this House continue to serve up far
right ideological proposals such as this which pretends that global
warming isn't really happening. It will block EPA's modest attempts to
limit the growth of greenhouse gas emissions that are endangering the
public's health and our children's future.
Instead of such sham political posturing, this body would be far
wiser to bring up a bill that has already been passed in the Senate and
sits ready for consideration in the House today. That is the Moran-
Tester Government Shutdown Fairness Act. On the eve of a government
shutdown, with hundreds of thousands of government employees facing
furloughs, and millions of Americans having to forgo the essential
services that the Federal Government provides on a daily basis, it is
unconscionable that Members of Congress will continue to receive their
pay.
Having abdicated our responsibility to do our job, to pass a budget,
we should not continue to receive a paycheck. It is simply a matter of
fairness, Madam Speaker. If all Americans are going to feel the pain of
a government shutdown, then we should make sacrifices, too. The Moran-
Tester bill would suspend Members' pay in the event of a shutdown. The
Senate passed it unanimously, and so should we. It's the one thing we
could agree on now and have signed by the President immediately. That's
the vote we should be taking today.
Now, some have argued for self-centered reasons that the Moran-Tester
bill is unconstitutional, but that's simply a smokescreen, Madam
Speaker. They know perfectly well that the courts decide matters of
constitutionality. Further, we know that the only individuals with
standing before the court would be the very Members of Congress who
would be voting to shut down the government.
So just consider the scene where Members of Congress would be
arguing----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. MORAN. So I ask, Madam Speaker, just to consider the scene where
Members of Congress would be arguing before the courts their right to
be paid while millions forgo their pay.
Madam Speaker, this body is wasting its time with the legislation we
are considering today. Let's demonstrate to the public that we are
willing to make the same sacrifice we are asking of others. If we are
going to put 800,000 Federal employees and our staff out on the street,
then we ought to be out there with them. Take up the Moran-Tester bill
instead of this expression of ideological extremism that is dead on
arrival in the Senate. That's what we should be doing.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, there was a discussion a few minutes ago
about Republicans and oil companies and a lot of very interesting
comments. Yet many on our side have alluded to President Obama
supporting the Brazilian Government and people by supporting their oil
drilling, drilling for natural resources that they have. The President
is willing to go down and back up a 2009 commitment to proposing $2
billion from the Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian company that is
their energy company.
And I would like to quote what he said, if I can, because I think
it's very interesting: ``At a time when we've been reminded how easily
instability in other parts of the world can affect prices, the United
States could not be happier for a new, stable source of energy.''
Madam Speaker, what he just spoke of was the United States' ability
to produce our own oil so we don't have to look to foreigners to get
that done.

[From The Hill, Mar. 21, 2011]

Overnight Energy: Republicans Pounce on Obama's Brazilian Oil Support

(By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman)

State of Play: Republicans and the oil industry are working
to translate President Obama's weekend comments in support of
Brazilian oil development into political ammunition in their
battle against the White House's U.S. drilling policies.
The American Petroleum Institute, the country's most
powerful oil and gas trade association, and Republicans,
including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Monday
that the administration should be doing more to develop U.S.
oil-and-gas reserves.
Here's Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who is among the
lawmakers pushing for wider U.S. offshore drilling: ``It's
ridiculous to ignore our own resources and continue going
hat-in-hand to countries like Saudi Arabia and Brazil to beg
them to produce more oil,'' Vitter said in a statement. ``We
need to get serious about developing our resources here at
home and working toward lower gas prices and long-term energy
independence.''
But President Obama said Saturday during his visit to
Brazil that an energy partnership with the nation will offer
major benefits for the United States. Obama, in announcing a
``Strategic Energy Dialogue'' with Brazil, noted that the
country has nearly twice the oil reserves as the United
States and lauded its stability compared to some other oil-
exporting countries.
``We want to work with you. We want to help with technology
and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when
you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best
customers,'' Obama told a group of business leaders Saturday.
``At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability
in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the
United States could not be happier with the potential for a
new, stable source of energy.''
Under the Strategic Energy Dialogue, the United States will
work with Brazil ``in the environmentally responsible and
technologically advanced development'' of Brazilian oil
resources, according to a White House summary of the plan.
Administration officials also say they are working
diligently to expand U.S. oil-and-gas development. The
Interior Department has recently issued three deepwater
drilling permits for the type of projects halted after last
year's Gulf oil spill. And the department on Monday approved
an exploration plan that paves the way to expanded Gulf
drilling.
Still, it's not the first time Republicans have criticized
the administration for its oil dealings with Brazil. Vitter
and others railed against a 2009 proposed $2 billion
commitment from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian
oil company Petrobras to ensure the purchase of U.S. goods as
the company explores for oil.
Many Republican claims about the Export-Import proposal
have been shown to be overblown.
Forbes ran a handy fact-check Monday on Republicans' claims
about the proposed Petrobras loans. And the Export-Import
Bank takes on Republican charges here.

Progress and setbacks at stricken Japanese nuke plant

``Tokyo Electric Power Co. continued to report progress in
restoring order at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors,
but finishing the job is turning out to be a painstaking
process plagued by damaged equipment and unexpected
incidents,'' The Wall Street Journal reports.

Court ruling hits California climate program

``California did not adequately consider alternatives to
its plan to create a cap-and-trade market for carbon
emissions, a judge ruled on Monday, throwing a wrench into
the most aggressive U.S. effort to combat climate change,''
Reuters reports.

U.S., Chile strike green deals

President Obama's trip to South America is bearing green
fruit, according to the White House, which is touting
expansion of work with Chile on energy and climate change.
The White House noted several areas of cooperation. Under
the existing Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas,
``the United States intends to support the establishment of a
regional research network for glacier monitoring and modeling
led by Chile's world-class researchers,'' the White House
said.
``This network will inform policy and decisionmaking by
providing a more robust understanding of how glacial retreat
will impact water security in Andean glacier countries,'' a
summary states.
President Obama lauded the various areas of cooperation
during a press conference with Chilean President Sebastian
Pinera. ``I want to commend President Pinera for agreeing to
take another step, hosting a new center to address glacier
melt in the Andes. In addition, a new U.S.-Chile energy
business council will encourage collaborations between our
companies in areas like energy efficiency and renewable
technologies,'' Obama said at a joint news conference in
Santiago.
Three days ago the two nations also inked a formal
``memorandum of understanding'' on peaceful uses of nuclear
energy.

House vote on pesticides looms

House lawmakers will vote next week on a bill to limit the
Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over pesticide applications.
The Hill's Floor Action blog reports:

[[Page H2346]]

The House is expected to take up legislation next week that
would reverse a court decision that said pesticide use is
regulated by the Clean Water Act, in addition to a federal
pesticide law.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last
week marked up the bill, H.R. 872, and Republicans want to
move the measure quickly so it can take effect before April
9. That date is the deadline by which the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is due to announce a new permitting
process for pesticides that takes the court ruling into
account.
Staff for Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), who sponsored the bill,
said they expect it to be considered next week in order to
meet that deadline.
The bill is a reaction to a decision by the 6th Circuit
Court of Appeals in the case National Cotton Council v. EPA.
According to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
that decision vacated an EPA rule that said using pesticides
in compliance with federal pesticide regulations means a
permit is not required under the Clean Water Act.

Chamber to host discussion on regulatory process

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event Tuesday
called ``restoring balance to the regulatory process.'' The
event will focus in part on the Obama administration's energy
and environmental regulations.
``Tuesday's discussion, hosted at the Chamber, will focus
on how we implement more checks and balances to improve the
process and guarantee sensible regulation, while also
ensuring that federal agencies are held accountable to the
people,'' said Bill Kovacs, senior vice president for
environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the
Chamber.

State Department, World Bank look to boost water security

The State Department will mark World Water Day by expanding
cooperation with the World Bank. Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton will sign a memorandum of understanding with
the bank at its headquarters.
``The MOU will strengthen support to developing countries
seeking a water-secure future,'' an advisory states.

Think tank gets efficient

The Center for Strategic and International Studies will
host Obama administration officials and other experts at a
forum on energy efficiency. Speakers will include Rick Duke,
the deputy assistant secretary for climate change.

Group to release nuke poll

The Civil Society Institute will release polling that
explores attitudes about nuclear power amid the crisis at
Japan's stricken reactors.
The poll is the ``first major survey to look at the views
of Americans on the broad policy implications of the
Fukushima reactor crisis--including support for federal loan
guarantees for new U.S. reactors, the merits of shifting
federal resources from nuclear to less renewable energy
alternatives and whether or not to end federal
indemnification of the nuclear industry against nearly all
cleanup costs,'' the group said.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . .

Here's a quick roundup of Monday's E2 stories:
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell
Issa (R-Calif.) said the country's nuclear reactors need to
be re-examined.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission detailed its review of
U.S. reactors.
The Environmental Protection Agency warned of a banned
pesticide in a product used to kill ants.
A top House Democrat said military action in Libya is
motivated by oil.
Top lawmakers on the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee
put out a call for input on the ``clean energy standard.''
And the Obama administration approved the first deepwater
exploration plan since last year's Gulf oil spill.

{time} 1350

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that we can in this body take up
and pass Senate bill 388 if we can defeat the previous question, and
this will go directly to the President's desk. There is still time.
I think the American people don't know that if government shuts down
at the end of the day Friday as it might--it seems increasingly
likely--Members of Congress will still continue to receive their
paycheck. I had a tweet from one of my constituents that said, ``If
there is a government shutdown, are Congressmen and Senators considered
essential employees?''
I responded that we had a bill, Senate bill 388, that would make sure
that Members of Congress don't get paid in the event of a shutdown, but
Speaker Boehner refuses to bring it to the floor of the House in spite
of passing the Senate unanimously.
My constituent responded, ``Maybe if the rulemakers had to live by
the same rules they created, a solution would come faster. Gridlock is
not governance.''
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. The next sad chapter in Republican Fantasyland is being
written here today. Last month, they couldn't tell the difference
between Big Bird and big government. Now they insist that dirty air is
really good for us. They live in a fact-free zone when the facts don't
support their point of view, insisting that big polluters know best and
that good science should be ignored.
The Clean Air Act for the last 40 years has improved air quality and
saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Unfortunately, my home State of
Texas is one of the world's leading carbon polluters, and it is also
one of the leaders in condoning lawlessness by those polluters. Foul
air fouls lives and especially young lungs. For my three granddaughters
and their generation, particularly for the more than 23,000 children in
my home county who are suffering from asthma, we need to ensure clean
air, and that ought to be a given, not just a goal.
Science-based decisions, not ideologically driven nonsense, should
guide us. I stand with the American Lung Association and with a large
number of scientists across many disciplines who call for this bill's
rejection. And in its drive to interfere with our health, this same
Republican proposal creates the very type of uncertainty that stands in
the way of more job creation throughout Texas, and Texas moving to
become the leading wind provider in the country. Those wind turbines
could be built in our State. Solar energy could be expanding in our
State. But a climate of uncertainty to which this bill adds even more
will interfere with the start-ups, with the new ideas that keep us at
the forefront of creating clean jobs instead of sending all those jobs
over to China and other parts of the world.
This is a bad bill for our economy, and it is a bad bill for the
future health of our country. I urge its rejection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the
gentleman that I have no further speakers on this side.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. I am the last speaker for my side,
and I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would like to submit into the Record a Nature editorial entitled,
``Into Ignorance: Vote to Overturn an Aspect of Climate Science Marks a
Worrying Trend in U.S. Congress.''
Madam Speaker, time and time again we've heard our colleagues cry
wolf and make outlandish claims about what the Environmental Protection
Agency is attempting to do. But the American people aren't fools. They
know that every time the EPA stands up to big polluters, big polluters
claim the sky is falling.
That's exactly what happened when the EPA tackled the acid rain
problem. Polluters claimed new safeguards would end their industries,
increase the price of consumer goods, and cause massive job loss. In
reality, acid rain has been dramatically reduced and the limits on
pollution were met faster and at roughly a tenth of the cost that
industry estimated--all without driving consumer prices up.
A recent MIT study even suggests that implementing the EPA safeguards
we are debating today would create 1.4 million jobs as companies
invent, build and install newer and cheaper pollution control tools and
renewable energy.
Rather than discussing ridiculous and already disreputable and
refuted claims of cow flatulence and other elements that aren't even
considered by the EPA, let's discuss science and the facts.
Republicans have claimed that the EPA has found carbon dioxide to be
dangerous, the same gas we exhale. They say, how can carbon dioxide be
dangerous? In reality, the endangerment finding was based on sound
science and found that as climate change increases, so does ground-
level ozone, longer pollen seasons, and more mold allergies. These
affect health problems like asthma and heart disease. Once again,
Republicans were oversimplifying a serious problem to support their big
polluter buddies at the cost of public health.
Science will guide us in the right direction, and science is a blind
goddess. It doesn't care what we want science to

[[Page H2347]]

say. What matters is what good science done actually says.
The supporters of this legislation want to present a false dichotomy
that somehow protecting the environment would hurt job creation.
Instead, the exact opposite has been proven to be true.
Since 1970, the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have been
shown to outweigh all costs associated with the law, and the economic
benefits of the Clean Air Act are expected to reach nearly $2 trillion
in 2020--exceeding costs by more than 30 to 1.
That's why a number of business organizations representing over
60,000 firms wrote to President Obama and congressional leaders urging
them to support the EPA's mission and to reject efforts to block, delay
or weaken implementation of the Clean Air Act. In their letters, the
groups note that studies consistently show that the economic benefits
of implementing the act far exceed the costs of controlling air
pollutant emissions.
The EPA's rule is strictly tailored to only the country's biggest
power plants and industrial polluters. These safeguards apply to about
700 of the top polluting power plants and oil refineries, facilities
that need new permits, anyway, under current law.
It's been proven countless times that we can protect the environment
and public health and grow and strengthen our economy at the same time.
To say otherwise simply ignores the facts.
Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that no one is misled by the title
of the bill we're considering, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. The only
amendment that would have actually prevented energy taxes was offered
by my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and was denied even a floor
discussion and debate or a vote under this rule. The only thing this
bill is taxing is our patience. As serious issues confront America,
including the government shutdown, the majority seems intent on
legislating by false bumper-sticker slogans.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to consider Senate bill 388.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that
actually does something useful, ensures Members of Congress don't get
paid during a shutdown of government and has a real chance of being
enacted into law and signed by President Obama, and I urge a ``no''
vote on the rule.

[From Nature]

Into Ignorance

Vote to overturn an aspect of climate science marks a worrying trend in
US Congress

As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was
poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific
finding on the dangers of global warming. The Republican-
sponsored bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas
emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public
welfare in 2009. That assessment serves as the EPA's legal
basis for regulation, so repealing the `endangerment finding'
would eliminate its authority over greenhouse gases.
That this finding is scientifically sound had no bearing on
the decision to push the legislation, and Republicans on the
House of Representatives' energy and commerce committee have
made clear their disdain for climate science. At a
subcommittee hearing on 14 March, anger and distrust were
directed at scientists and respected scientific societies.
Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted and
nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let
alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display,
not just for the Republican Party but also for Congress and
the US citizens it represents.
It is tempting to write all of this off as petty
partisanship, a populist knee-jerk reaction to lost jobs and
rising energy prices by a well-organized minority of
Republican voters. After all, US polling data has
consistently shown that, in general, the public accepts
climate science. At a hearing last week, even Ed Whitfield
(Republican, Kentucky), who chairs the subcommittee, seemed
to distance himself from the rhetoric by focusing not on the
science but on the economic effects of greenhouse-gas
regulation. ``One need not be a sceptic of global warming to
be a sceptic of the EPA's regulatory agenda,'' said
Whitfield.
``The US Congress has entered the intellectual
wilderness.''
Perhaps, but the legislation is fundamentally anti-science,
just as the rhetoric that supports it is grounded in wilful
ignorance. One lawmaker last week described scientists as
``elitist'' and ``arrogant'' creatures who hide behind
``discredited'' institutions. Another propagated the myth
that in the 1970s the scientific community warned of an
imminent ice age. Melting ice caps on Mars served to counter
evidence of anthropogenic warming on Earth, and Antarctica
was falsely said to be gaining ice. Several scientists were
on hand--at the behest of Democrats on the subcommittee--to
answer questions and clear things up, but many lawmakers
weren't interested in answers, only in prejudice.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress
has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of
affairs in a country that has led the world in many
scientific arenas for so long. Global warming is a thorny
problem, and disagreement about how to deal with it is
understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data
or address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific
process, or any given scientist, perfect. But to deny that
there is reason to be concerned, given the decades of work by
countless scientists, is irresponsible.
That this legislation is unlikely to become law doesn't
make it any less dangerous. It is the attitude and ideas
behind the bill that are troublesome, and they seem to be
spreading. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who chairs the
full energy and commerce committee, once endorsed climate
science, but last month said--after being pinned down by a
determined journalist--that he is not convinced that
greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to global warming. It was
yet another blow to the shrinking minority of moderate
centrists in both parties.
One can only assume that Congress will find its way at some
point, pressured by voters who expect more from their public
servants. In the meantime, as long as it can fend off this
and other attacks on the EPA, President Barack Obama's
administration should push forward with its entirely
reasonable regulatory programme for reducing greenhouse-gas
emissions where it can, while looking for ways to work with
Congress in other areas. Rising oil prices should increase
interest in energy security, a co-benefit of the greenhouse-
gas and fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles that were
announced by the administration last year. The same advice
applies to the rest of the world. Work with the United States
where possible, but don't wait for a sudden change of tenor
in Washington, DC.
One of the scientists testifying before Whitfield's
subcommittee was Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie
Institution's global ecology department in Stanford,
California. Field generously hoped that his testimony at last
week's hearing took place ``in the spirit of a genuine
dialogue that is in the best interests of the country''.
Maybe one day that hope will be justified.
____

[From the New York Times, Apr. 3, 2011]

The Truth, Still Inconvenient

(By Paul Krugman)

So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a
professor of marketing walk into a room. What's the punch
line? They were three of the five ``expert witnesses''
Republicans called for last week's Congressional hearing on
climate science.
But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans,
when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify
went off script.
Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has
gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort
partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation.
And climate deniers--who claim that researchers at NASA and
other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and
distorted the data--had been hoping that the Berkeley project
would conclude that global warming is a myth.
Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his
group's preliminary results find a global warming trend
``very similar to that reported by the prior groups.''
The deniers' response was both predictable and revealing;
more on that shortly. But first, let's talk a bit more about
that list of witnesses, which raised the same question I and
others have had about a number of committee hearings held
since the G.O.P. retook control of the House--namely, where
do they find these people?
My favorite, still, was Ron Paul's first hearing on
monetary policy, in which the lead witness was someone best
known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a
``horrific tyrant''--and for advocating a new secessionist
movement as the appropriate response to the ``new American
fascialistic state.''
The ringers (i.e., nonscientists) at last week's hearing
weren't of quite the same caliber, but their prepared
testimony still had some memorable moments. One was the
lawyer's declaration that the E.P.A. can't declare that
greenhouse gas emissions are a health threat, because these
emissions have been rising for a century, but public health

[[Page H2348]]

has improved over the same period. I am not making this up.
Oh, and the marketing professor, in providing a list of
past cases of ``analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade
global warming''--presumably intended to show why we should
ignore the worriers--included problems such as acid rain and
the ozone hole that have been contained precisely thanks to
environmental regulation.
But back to Professor Muller. His climate-skeptic
credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore
and my colleague Tom Friedman as ``exaggerators,'' and he has
participated in a number of attacks on climate research,
including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British
climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers
had high hopes that his new project would support their case.
You can guess what happened when those hopes were dashed.
Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent
climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and
piously declared himself ``prepared to accept whatever result
they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.'' But never
mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present
those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as
``post normal science political theater.'' And one of the
regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller
as ``a man driven by a very serious agenda.''
Of course, it's actually the climate deniers who have the
agenda, and nobody who's been following this discussion
believed for a moment that they would accept a result
confirming global warming. But it's worth stepping back for a
moment and thinking not just about the science here, but
about the morality.
For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have
been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue
with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps
catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you're going to
assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral
responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness
and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right,
you'll be doing a great deal of damage.
But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce:
a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no
business being there and instant ostracism for a climate
skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the
face of evidence. As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair
pointed out long ago, it's difficult to get a man to
understand something when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
But it's terrifying to realize that this kind of cynical
careerism--for that's what it is--has probably ensured that
we won't do anything about climate change until catastrophe
is already upon us.
So on second thought, I was wrong when I said that the joke
was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race.

I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for this
wonderful discussion and debate that we've had here today.
Madam Speaker, the bill we're discussing today does not weaken the
Clean Air Act or the regulation of air pollution. It does not interfere
with the EPA's longstanding authority to protect the environment. In
fact, as I stated in the very beginning, it simply clarifies that the
Clean Air Act was never designated, designed or shown to be for
regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, we would be removing
authority that the EPA has not had, should not have, and would not have
because this Congress will not pass what is called cap-and-tax
regulations.
By gaining control of government spending and eliminating government
regulations, the private sector believes that the Republican Congress
can be here for the interests of not only the taxpayer but also to make
sure that jobs and investment in this economy in the future are very
bright.
I applaud my colleagues for coming down to help debate this bill. I
encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 203 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 388)
to prohibit Members of Congress and the President from
receiving pay during Government shutdowns, if called up by
the Minority Leader or her designee. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill 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 House Administration; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of S. 388.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
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 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 203, if
ordered; and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 266,
nays 158, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 230]

YEAS--266

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle

[[Page H2349]]

Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Conyers
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinchey
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAYS--158

Ackerman
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Andrews
Baca
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Meeks
Olver
Sanchez, Loretta
Young (FL)

{time} 1423

Messrs. CRITZ, INSLEE, Ms. MOORE, and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CLEAVER, RUSH, WATT, SCOTT of Virginia, JACKSON of Illinois,
RICHMOND, CUMMINGS, Ms. CHU, and Ms. BASS of California changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250,
noes 172, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 231]

AYES--250

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--172

Ackerman
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)

[[Page H2350]]

Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Andrews
Baca
Berman
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Meeks
Murphy (CT)
Olver
Sanchez, Loretta
Young (FL)

{time} 1431

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.

____________________