[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.

                          ____________________