[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29449-29459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY 
                           POLICY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 443 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 443

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 6) to enhance energy conservation and research and 
     development, to provide for security and diversity in the 
     energy supply for the American people, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
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.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 443 is a rule providing for the 
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 6, the Energy 
Policy Act of 2003. The rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and its consideration and provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read.
  Over the past several months, more and more Americans have 
experienced firsthand the crippling effects of America's outdated 
energy systems. For example, natural gas supply shortages resulting 
from conflicting government policies have caused home heating bills to 
skyrocket and forced businesses to lay off thousands of workers. In 
addition, this summer's great blackout exposed the vulnerability of our 
Nation's deteriorating electricity grids. It is absolutely critical 
that Congress approve a comprehensive national energy bill this year so 
that all Americans will have access to more efficient, affordable, and 
environmentally responsible energy supplies. As a Nation, we simply 
cannot afford to wait any longer for this important legislation.
  I am pleased, therefore, that later today the House will have an 
opportunity to pass a conference report on H.R. 6 that clearly meets 
these imperatives. The conference agreement improves our Nation's 
electricity transmission capacity and reliability. It promotes a 
cleaner environment by encouraging new innovation and the use of 
alternative power sources.
  The bill also authorizes $200 million for the Clean Cities program, 
which will provide grants to State and local governments to acquire 
alternative fueled vehicles. The agreement promotes clean coal 
technology and provides incentives for renewable sources such as 
biomass, wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectricity. It also provides 
leadership in energy conservation by establishing new mandatory 
efficiency requirements for Federal buildings and higher standards and 
stricter labeling for a variety of energy-consuming commercial 
products.
  The conference report allows for stepped up natural gas exploration 
and development in the Gulf of Mexico and permits construction of a 
natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the Lower 48. The 
bill also decreases America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil by 
increasing domestic oil and gas exploration and development on nonpark 
Federal lands and by expanding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve capacity 
to 1 billion barrels.
  The bill encourages more nuclear and hydropower production by 
authorizing the Department of Energy to develop accelerated programs 
for the production and supply of energy and sets the stage for building 
badly needed nuclear power plants by reauthorizing the Price-Anderson 
Act.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents a region heavily 
dependent on hydroelectric power, I am pleased that the conferees 
included bipartisan reforms of the lengthy and costly hydrorelicensing 
process. These reforms will maintain environmental standards while 
providing utilities the flexibility to reduce their costs in achieving 
those standards.
  Mr. Speaker, the Nation needs this energy bill, and it needs it now. 
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the 
underlying conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in a dangerous world, a place where America's 
major oil supplies can be disrupted by Middle East dictators. And here 
at home, we have seen the economic disruption that resulted from the 
distortion of the domestic delivery of electricity by those eager to 
game the system. We all agree that a comprehensive energy policy could 
help move this country toward greater energy independence and could 
prevent the kind of high rates that victimized millions of people 
throughout the West several years ago.

[[Page 29450]]

  So, Mr. Speaker, I share the disappointment that so many Members feel 
about the nearly 1,000-page energy conference report that Republicans 
released just before 3 a.m. this morning, only a few short hours ago. 
Make no mistake, it contains some good provisions, like tax incentives 
for small, independent oil and gas producers. It also gives the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission new authority to establish mandatory 
reliability standards for utilities, as well as the power to sanction 
utilities that do not comply with them. And I am glad that Democrats 
have beaten back the Republican plan to spoil the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. But it represents a missed opportunity, and it 
demonstrates the dangerous arrogance of this all-Republican government.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats support a balanced, comprehensive energy 
policy. We have proposed a plan to increase America's energy 
independence, strengthen the economy, and protect the clean air and 
water that we all value. Over and over again, we have tried to work 
with Republicans to pass such a plan but, true to form, Republicans 
have repeatedly refused to work with us. For this conference, they 
retreated to the secrecy of the back room to hold their discussions. 
They hid their negotiations in little rooms not open to anyone but a 
very few and shut out Members who were legitimately part of the 
conference process.
  In doing so, Republicans ignored Members who represent nearly half of 
America, Members with extensive expertise in energy policy. They 
brought in Vice President Cheney to broker deals but refused to work 
with the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), 
a man who has probably passed more energy legislation than anyone in 
American history. They even shut out those Democratic conferees who 
voted for the original legislation when it passed the House.
  Ultimately, that is why this conference report is so disappointing in 
so many respects. For instance, Republicans refuse to pay for even the 
$23 billion that the tax provisions will cost U.S. taxpayers. Instead, 
they are simply increasing a Republican budget deficit that is already 
hovering around $500 billion, and that will raise the Republican debt 
tax on all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to hear Republicans explain why 
they refuse to pay for energy tax breaks, especially since they have 
repeatedly blocked needed financing for veterans health care and 
homeland security by insisting that those priorities be paid for. But I 
am sure that that explanation will not be part of the Republican 
talking points today. Instead, we are going to see Republican Members 
march down here to the floor to blithely sing the praises of a nearly 
1,000-page bill that almost none of them have read.
  The truth is, almost no one knows what is really in this conference 
report. And almost no one knows which special interest got what special 
favor, and how much it will ultimately cost American taxpayers. That is 
because this bill ended as it started, in secrecy. It began in 2001 
with Vice President Cheney's infamous energy task force. And since the 
White House still refuses to come clean with the American people about 
its secret dealings with Big Energy executives, it should come as no 
surprise that this bill was finally pasted together last week in the 
back room of some Capitol hideaway, far removed from the scrutiny of 
the public.
  Neither should it surprise anyone that one of the provisions buried 
in this massive bill would permanently establish Mr. Cheney's energy 
task force in the White House, guaranteeing for it the secrecy the Bush 
administration so adamantly demands. Or that Republicans have violated 
the rules in order to sneak into the conference report numerous 
provisions that were not part of the original bills passed by either 
the House or the Senate.
  Yesterday, Rules Committee Democrats wrote Chairman Dreier asking for 
a list of all the new provisions that violate the rules of the House, 
but Republicans refuse to publicize them. We do know that Republicans 
waived a Clean Air Act requirement aimed at cleaning up air pollution 
in metropolitan areas like my Dallas-Fort Worth home, despite my 
opposition and that of other area officials, like the gentlewoman from 
Dallas, Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) who led the fight against it 
in the House. And it will not surprise anyone when we discover, long 
after this bill has passed, that this conference report contains other 
hidden special favors for Republican special interests that had access 
to the final back-room negotiations that were closed to everyone else.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the danger that some of my Republican colleagues 
on the Committee on Rules warned of a few years ago. In a 1993 report 
entitled, ``The Decline of Deliberative Democracy in the People's 
House,'' Chairman David Dreier and Representatives Porter Goss, Deborah 
Pryce, and Lincoln Diaz-Balart wrote, ``The House and Senate have been 
repeatedly embarrassed over the years by conference reports on 
voluminous pieces of legislation which have been voted on before even 
properly printed or distributed, let alone understood. Only after their 
enactment have some of the provisions come back to haunt the 
Congress.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is why Democrats on the Committee on Rules 
yesterday, and this morning, urged Republicans to allow Members, the 
public and the press 3 days to examine the final conference report in 
detail. That is what the rules of the House require, and it is the only 
way to allow Members to make an informed decision about this conference 
report. But, apparently, Republicans do not want anyone to read this 
massive bill. Because instead of giving Members more time to examine 
it, they are waiving the House rules to rush it through the House 
today. It was nearly 3 a.m. today, Mr. Speaker, before House 
Republicans made the final conference report available, leaving Members 
with just a few short hours to read all 1,000 pages before voting on 
it. This is not just an outrageous abuse of the process; it is an 
insulting attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, Members have only one way to defend the public against 
this abuse, by voting ``no'' on the important parliamentary vote known 
as the previous question. If it is defeated, I will amend the rule to 
ensure that all Members have 3 days to examine the nearly 1,000 pages 
of this conference report before voting on it, as the rules of the 
House require.
  Make no mistake, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not 
defeat this conference report. It will only give Members a chance to 
actually read it. But a ``yes'' vote will allow Republican leaders to 
circumvent the rules of the House for no reason except to keep Members, 
the public, and the press in the dark.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce concerning provisions of the 
conference report of importance to the citizens of the Pacific 
Northwest who receive the majority of their electricity from 
hydroelectric dams.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman and conferees for agreeing to 
section 231 of the conference report, a set of long overdue reforms to 
the process for the relicensing of non-Federal hydroelectric projects. 
However, I want to ensure that these provisions are intended to apply 
immediately. Can the chairman provide this assurance?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Yes, I can. The conferees intend that section 231 of the 
conference agreement shall go into effect immediately upon enactment 
and be available to license applicants in all ongoing and future 
hydroelectric licensing proceedings under the Federal Power Act. The 
conferees also note that section 231 is intended to complement, not 
undo, the reforms to the licensing process recently implemented by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

[[Page 29451]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the chairman for these 
clarifications and his leadership in the development of national energy 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this point to engage 
the chairman in a colloquy as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I seek clarification of section 704 which amends 
section 303(c) of the Energy Policy Act. I understand there are 
basically two ways vehicles are procured by Federal agencies. Either 
GSA acquires the vehicles and sells or leases them to agencies or in 
some cases agencies may acquire the vehicles directly.

                              {time}  1315

  Is it the intent of this provision to require GSA to allocate the 
incremental cost of all alternative vehicles it procures for other 
agencies, either by lease or purchase, so that the costs are allocated 
on a Federal Government-wide basis and not just across the vehicles 
procured by an individual agency? In other words, under this amendment 
will GSA be required to allocate the incremental cost of all 
alternative fuel vehicles it procures each year across the entire fleet 
it is responsible for?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, that is indeed our intent. Our purpose in 
requiring GSA to spread this incremental cost across the entire Federal 
fleet is, in fact, to remove the cost disincentive for some Federal 
agencies, to improve EPACT compliance, and to minimize the overall cost 
to the Federal fleet.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for that 
clarification, and I will proceed with my statement.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in 
support of this rule and the underlying bill that will make much needed 
improvements in the efficiency and security of our Nation's energy 
supply. Three months ago we experienced a blackout in the Midwest and 
Northeast unlike anything we have seen in almost 20 years. We never 
want to see a dark day like that again, a day where storefronts are 
dark, factories are shuttered, and the economy is brought to a halt. 
The repercussions of that day stretched far beyond the cities directly 
affected. They made every American feel vulnerable. They made every 
American wonder if their city was next. And after the lights came back 
on, everyone agreed on one thing, that the crisis could have been 
prevented if the system had not been neglected. If reliability had been 
fostered, and if the correct incentives for maintenance, modernization, 
and expansion of our electricity grid had been created by an energy 
policy. Americans would not have been left hunting for candles or 
stranded in subway cars. The lack of a modern and coherent energy 
policy to ensure a consistent supply of energy left us very vulnerable. 
Approving a comprehensive overhaul of our energy system will accomplish 
two very important objectives: It will enhance our national security, 
and it will strengthen our economy through job creation.
  We are making incredible progress on a prescription drug bill that 
will pass in a few days, I believe, but before our seniors can worry 
about drugs, they have to be able to keep themselves warm at night. So 
the leadership of this House has worked tirelessly to ensure that we 
formulate an energy policy that keeps the lights on while lighting the 
fire of our economy. This bipartisan plan will create nearly 1 million 
jobs in the energy and manufacturing sectors, recovering some of the 
lost jobs that high energy prices have stripped from Americans. This 
plan will put construction workers back to work. It will put truck 
drivers back on the road transporting raw materials for our energy 
needs and engineers back on their jobs designing a modern energy system 
that will propel us into the 21st century. This is how it should be. 
This is how our economy and our energy sector should work together, 
strengthening, rather than weakening, each other.
  And, lastly, this bill will increase our supply and use of renewable 
fuels and, very importantly to Ohio, ethanol. Ethanol makes our gas 
burn more cleanly and helps our skies become more clear. The bill 
contains important steps towards fixing the ethanol tax penalty on the 
Highway Trust Fund. This fix could mean more than $100 million for 
Ohio's transportation needs alone.
  Now is the time when the rubber meets the road. Let us pass this bill 
without further ado and demonstrate our commitment to keeping the 
lights on in America's homes and businesses and our commitment to 
keeping Americans at work.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this fair rule and look forward to 
what I expect to be a very spirited debate today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the health of the American public could be seriously 
threatened. All across the United States for the past 30 years, a 
cancer-causing chemical has contaminated our drinking water. In New 
York State alone, over 1,500 sites have been contaminated. This 
carcinogen, MTBE, has been added to gasoline as an octane enhancer 
since the 1970's, and over these past 30 years, the public has learned 
that MTBE can cause, among other things, lymphoma, liver, testicular 
and kidney tumors. Outrageously, the MTBE industry knew of the 
chemical's environmental dangers before putting it into widespread use, 
according to the United States Conference of Mayors.
  Responding to the serious public health threat posed by MTBE, the New 
York legislature passed, and Governor Pataki signed, legislation to ban 
the use, sale, or importation of fuels containing MTBE. Upon signing 
the legislation, Governor Pataki said that ``the use of MTBE in 
gasoline has significant environmental impacts on groundwater'' and 
``New Yorkers deserve clean air and water.''
  Mr. Speaker all Americans deserve and expect clean water and clean 
air, but unfortunately while New York and other States like California 
and Connecticut are taking steps to protect our water, this energy bill 
conference report would take steps not to protect the public, but to 
protect the MTBE manufacturers at the expense of their health.
  The 1,700-page conference report on the Energy Policy Act, finalized 
in the dark this morning, hands the MTBE manufacturers a lucrative gift 
of liability protection. Manufacturers are shielded from lawsuits for 
making a defective product, and they are handed a $2 billion check 
during a 10-year phase-out period. The legal immunity bestowed upon 
MTBE manufacturers protects these producers from any case filed in the 
future and all cases previously filed.
  I could go ahead about this, but the fact is that there were about 
four champions here who have had MTBE made in their districts in Texas 
and Louisiana. I want to urge all New Yorkers who hear my voice to vote 
against this bill because there is a $29 billion unfunded mandate that 
goes to the people of the country to pay because we make sure the 
manufacturer does not.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the conference 
report on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. After a series of fits and 
starts over the past 3 years, Congress now stands ready to approve the 
first comprehensive national energy policy in more than a decade. As 
chairman of the Energy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, 
I am honored to have helped develop this legislation which addresses 
not only our immediate energy problems, but also makes a much-

[[Page 29452]]

needed and sustained investment in basic science and applied energy 
research that will lead to future energy solutions.
  The national energy policy proposed by President Bush 2 years ago, 
and this conference report, both emphasize the use of advanced 
technology to expand and diversify our energy supply, meet growing 
demand and reduce the environmental impact of energy production and 
use. Advanced energy technologies grow out of basic-science and 
applied-energy research like that supported by the Department of Energy 
at our universities and national laboratories. It is this kind of R and 
D that will be strengthened by the passage of this conference report.
  America now has the motivation perhaps like no other time since the 
oil crisis of the 1970's to find newer and better ways to meet our 
energy needs. But America also has the ingenuity and the expertise to 
meet our future energy demands and promote energy conservation, and we 
can do so in environmentally responsible ways that set a standard for 
the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that affordable energy and a clean and 
safe environment are mutually exclusive. We can have both at the same 
time if we put technology to work and cut some of the 1970's-style 
government red tape that has stifled the development of new supplies 
and infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the conference report 
which uses science and technology to put America on the path toward a 
more secure and independent energy future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as a ranking member of the House conferees 
on this energy bill, I would observe that like most of the other House 
conferees on the Democratic side, I was a conferee in name only. We had 
a ceremonial meeting to start it out, created no change in the bill. It 
was followed by a ceremonial meeting last night in which, again, no 
significant changes were made in the bill, which was written in the 
dark by, for, and with the assistance of the different special 
interests.
  The conference on this bill does not reflect well on this body. 
Questions began early when the Senate decided to pass last year's 
energy bill and then to ignore its contents. Since the conference 
began, Democratic conferees were not invited to any substantive 
discussions. We have been forced to read the papers to find out what is 
in the bill.
  The Record must be clear. Democrats were only provided drafts of 
certain titles of the bill at the same time they are made available to 
the public. Democratic staff made comments, but significant 
recommendations were diligently ignored. I suspect the comments of 
lobbyists were met with vastly more success.
  With regard to the controversial provisions of the bill relating to 
electricity, ethanol, and taxes, Democrats were never allowed to see 
any drafts until Saturday. We had no input in these matters. The rule 
waives the 3-day layover rule for conference reports, yet one more 
attempt to prevent Members of this body from having adequate 
opportunity to review the bill.
  My Republican colleagues have decided to totally ignore any rules on 
scope. For example, there are amendments to the Clean Air Act that are 
neither bill. They have salted the report with dozens of special 
interest provisions, many of which were put in the tax title. Speaking 
of the tax title, it has grown like Topsey to $23 billion, nearly three 
times the amount requested by the administration. So much for 
Republican fiscal discipline.
  We held a conference meeting yesterday that helped shed some light on 
the bill, but little more. The Senate adopted seven amendments on a 
bipartisan basis. Within minutes, however, of the beginning of the 
debate on these recommendations on the House side, my Republican 
colleagues moved to reject all but two of the provisions they had 
previously worked out, and without debate the Senate then agreed.
  I note the conference report includes a 139-page statement of the 
managers, nearly all of which relate to the tax portions. These pages 
on taxes were not made available to the conferees before the report was 
made available.
  I am unable to support this bill for a number of substantive reasons, 
and I cannot recommend that the House should do so. I will discuss them 
during the debate on the conference report. The bill is an assault upon 
the Nation's environment. Rollbacks of the Clean Air Act and Clean 
Water Act, attacks on the Nation's rivers and the conservation 
provisions that protect fish and wildlife, abusive new provisions 
conferring special benefits on electrical utilities. The bill harms 
consumers and investors by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company 
Act and refuses to address the abuses of Enron and other companies that 
gouge consumers in California and other States west of the Rockies. 
Finally, the bill includes unattainable and massive subsidies to 
industry that are unlikely to affect the energy needs of the country.
  I have worked on a lot of comprehensive energy and environmental 
bills during my time in this Chamber. All of them were the result of 
extensive bipartisan cooperation. This is the first energy bill I have 
had to oppose, and I regret that we were not permitted to develop a 
bipartisan bill that will bring real benefits to all Americans. 
Instead, we have before us a mishmash of controversial special interest 
proposals that were drafted in the dark of the night with little 
participation by anybody, including the American public and the Members 
of this body, especially on this side of the aisle. This is an 
outrageous rule. Vote no on the rule. Vote no on the previous question. 
And when the Members get a chance, vote no on this outrageous 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  First of all, let me thank the Committee on Rules for the expeditious 
handling of this rule so that we can get to the final vote, we hope, on 
the energy conference report, which was approved last night in open 
conference on a voice vote on the House side and was approved on the 
Senate side by a ten to three bipartisan vote.
  I wish to remind my colleagues that when this bill passed the House 
in April that it indeed was a bipartisan vote that sent it into the 
conference. And despite some of the rhetoric on the bill, let me give 
the House some actual facts.
  The facts are that this is not at all a bill written in some dark 
room like conferees meeting in secret. There were nine public meetings 
to debate the comprehensive national energy bill since the year 2002.

                              {time}  1330

  That comprised about 24 hours and 47 minutes of meetings. In fact, 
since 2001, there have been 28 hearings, public meetings and hearings 
on this bill. In 2003, there was 7 hours and 22 amendments considered 
in the Committee on Energy and Commerce alone, not counting all the 
other committees of the House that have worked on this bill. The full 
committee markup took 15 hours, with 58 amendments considered. And 
again, last night in the conference, we considered another dozen or so 
amendments, several of which were adopted as we made our final offer to 
the Senate.
  So, indeed, there have been a lot of public meetings and a lot of 
discussion. This process has gone on now for 3 years. Much of the 
conference committee report was worked out in conference with the 
Senate in last year's session in which about 60 or 70 percent of the 
conference work was done. In addition to which, in this year, in this 
conference, there were over 10 meetings between Republican and 
Democratic staff to work out details of the draft; and, in fact, there 
were 48 hours of discussion in those 10 meetings.
  In short, there have been extensive public hearings and debate, and 
today I hope we will have the final debate on

[[Page 29453]]

the most comprehensive energy policy perhaps this country has ever 
seen, certainly in the last 10 years, at a time when this country 
desperately needs energy security, affordability, and reliability. 
Never has there been a downturn in the U.S. economy that has not been 
related to some prices in energy; and the downturn we recently 
experienced has been associated with high prices, shortages, blackouts, 
and, in some cases, a loss of jobs and loss of personal security, 
because plants have shut down and begun to talk about moving out of 
this great country. This bill is critical to stopping that job loss, to 
building another 800,000 to 1 million new jobs in this economy, and to 
creating new initiatives in conservation and renewable fuels and vast 
new initiatives to make sure that we burn cleaner fuels and that, in 
fact, this country is better off as we move into an economic future 
that all of us want and desire for our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and later I will urge 
adoption of the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  I am pleased that the conference has included the Ultra-deepwater and 
Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas Research and Development program in 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 6. This important provision 
would establish a new research and development program for these 
technically challenged regions to help the U.S. to meet its midterm gas 
demand with domestic resources.
  As the original author in the last Congress and as coauthor this 
year, I am also pleased that the language in the report generally 
follows the intent and substance of the provision as reported from the 
Committee on Science.
  Mr. Speaker, natural gas prices have eased somewhat as we enter this 
fall, but we should not be complacent about the need to invest in 
securing future supplies of natural gas. The Energy Information 
Administration says demand for natural gas will rise by over 50 percent 
in the next 2 decades. Let us be clear about our options for supply. 
The United States is not running out of natural gas. We have nearly 
1,500 trillion cubic feet of technically-recoverable reserves, more 
than a 50-year supply.
  Let us also be clear about the nature of these remaining reserves. 
Many of them are on Federal lands and are off limits to production by 
virtue of rules, regulations, and other things. These legal access 
restrictions are addressed elsewhere in H.R. 6, but almost all of these 
regions, with the exception of the shallow and deepwater regions under 
various moratoria, are subject to access restrictions; and without 
investment in research and development, physical access to these 
technically challenged regions will not produce a single cubic foot of 
natural gas.
  We have this opportunity to address this problem through the ultra-
deepwater program in H.R. 6. The program will establish a unique 
partnership between government and industry to help ensure its 
objectives to meet midterm gas demand through development of these two 
technically challenged, but potentially prolific, provinces. Further, 
the program would pay for itself.
  Mr. Speaker, too often government research programs are limited by 
size and scope and vagaries of the budget cycle and lack of incentives, 
but this type of focus and deadline will encourage the kind of ruthless 
execution we will need to meet the U.S. gas demand over the next 
decade.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference has included the Ultra-
deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas Research and 
Development Program in the conference repro to accompany H.R. 6. This 
important provision would establish a new research and development 
program for these technically challenged regions to help the US to meet 
its midterm gas demand with domestic resources.
  As the original author in the last Congress and coauthor with 
chairman Boehlert this year, we are also pleased that the language of 
the report generally follows the intent and substance of the provision 
as reported from the Science Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, natural gas prices have eased somewhat as we enter the 
fall. But we should not be complacent about the need to invest in 
securing future supplies of natural gas. The Energy Information 
Administration says demand for natural gas will rise by over 50 percent 
in the next two decades. Let's be clear about our options for supply. 
The United States is not running out of natural gas. We have nearly 
1,500 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable reserves--more 
than a 50-year supply.
  Let's also be clear about the nature of these remaining reserves. 
Many of them are on Federal lands and are off limits to production by 
virtue of rules, regulations and outright moratoria. These legal access 
restrictions are addressed elsewhere in H.R. 6.
  But almost all of these regions--with the exception of the shallow 
and deepwater regions under various moratoria--are subject to access 
restrictions of the ``technological variety.'' Without investment in 
research and development, physical access to these technically 
challenged regions with not produce a single cubic foot of natural gas.
  We have this opportunity to address this problem through the Ultra-
deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas Supply Research and 
Development program in H.R. 6. The program would establish a unique 
partnership between government and industry to help ensure its 
objectives--to meet midterm gas demand through development of these two 
technically challenged but potentially prolific provinces. Further, the 
program would pay for itself. The increased production as a result of 
this R&D will mean significant increases in royalties to the Federal 
Treasury. A healthy royalty stream is critical to the future of other 
programs that rely on royalty funding such as the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  Finally, this new program would address the inadequacy of current 
research models, particularly in the applied energy R&D area. Too 
often, government research programs are limited by size and scope, the 
vagaries of the budget cycle, and the lack of incentives for public/
private partnerships. In the energy arena especially, industry 
leadership and input is critical to success. Further, the program is 
terminated after 10 years. This type of focus and deadline will 
encourage the kind of ``ruthless execution'' we will need to meet U.S. 
gas demand over the next decade.
  Permit me to make several points on specific congressional intent 
relative to the program. The program has two large subparts: the Ultra-
deepwater Program and the Unconventional Onshore Program.
  It has always been the intent of the authors that the Ultra-deepwater 
Program would be managed through a program consortium of academia, 
industry and research institutions, selected through a competitive 
solicitation managed by the Department of Energy. The expertise in the 
ultra-deepwater resides with academia, researchers and industry, not 
with the government; this knowledge and experience is critical to the 
success of the program. We further intend that the program consortium 
should, to the maximum extent possible, manage this program through 
large research consortia that will drive toward high-level production 
and royalty revenue goals.
  The Unconventional Onshore R&D program would be managed by the 
Department of Energy, which has previous experience in managing such 
programs. It is our clear intent however, that DOE manage this program 
through substantial research consortia that are resource-based--as 
opposed to regionally based--and that are large enough, in both funding 
and participation, to make a substantial difference in gas and other 
petroleum production. A historic example of successful research 
consortia is found in the industry/academia/Gas Research Institute 
effort on coalbed methane that after roughly 10 years and a $140 
million investment, transformed coalbed methane from a hazard into 
approximately 8 percent of our domestic gas production.
  It is our responsibility in Congress to do everything we can to 
ensure consumers and businesses that energy supplies will be abundant, 
affordable, and reliable, as well as produced and consumed in ways that 
minimize environmental impacts. It's also our responsibility to make 
certain that every Federal dollar is spent wisely as we provide for the 
public good.
  The importance of natural gas was abundantly clear this year when the 
House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing to emphasize just 
how critical natural gas is to our economy and the Nation's energy 
supply. The Ultra-deepwater and Unconventional Gas Supply R&D 
provisions in H.R. 6 will add new natural gas supplies quickly to help 
ensure our

[[Page 29454]]

Nation's energy security. I thank my colleagues for working with us in 
the development of this program and urge their support in the adoption 
of the Conference Report.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the 
subcommittee chairman handling this legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the marble slab 
behind the Speaker's rostrum, it starts out with the quote, ``Let us 
develop the resources of our great land,'' and it goes on in some 
detail. That is by Daniel Webster.
  If there was ever a time that we were before this body fulfilling 
that wish of Daniel Webster, it is today. This energy bill that is 
before us touches every energy source in our country.
  If my colleagues think that we need to do more to develop our 
conventional resources of oil, gas, nuclear, coal, and hydro, it is in 
this bill. If my colleagues think we need to do more to develop our 
renewable resources like solar and hydroelectric and biomass and wind 
power, it is in this bill. If my colleagues think we need to focus on 
the future and try to find new alternative sources of energy like 
hydrogen, it is in this bill. If my colleagues think that we need to do 
something to structure the reform, the basic energy systems of our 
country like the electricity grid, it is in this bill.
  I could go on and on and on, but I will simply say that this is the 
most comprehensive energy bill that has ever been before a Congress of 
the United States of America, and it is long overdue.
  I am very proud of this bill. I have been working on it in some 
shape, form, or fashion for 19 years that I have been in the Congress. 
As subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I 
have been working on it for almost 6 years. So I think it is an 
excellent bill. It passed the House in a bipartisan fashion back in 
April. As the chairman of the committee has pointed out, the Senate 
conferees voted for it in the conference report 10 to 3 last evening. 
When we get the bill to the floor later this evening, it will pass in a 
very bipartisan fashion with 50 to perhaps even as many as 100 
Democrats voting for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our chairman for his excellent work, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin). We could not have had a 
better senior negotiator for the House position than him. I want to 
thank Senator Domenici in the other body for his excellent work. And I 
want to thank the committee staffs who have worked so hard on the bill: 
Dan Brouillette, Jim Barnette, Mark Menezes, Andy black, Jason Bentley, 
Dwight Cates, Bill Cooper, Sean Cunningham, Bob Meyers and, on my 
staff, Ryan Long and Joby Fortson.
  This is a good bill. Vote for the rule, vote against the motion to 
recommit, and vote for final passage.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, 
shame on me. I say to the White House, wake up, because you just lost 
West Virginia. You got us once, but not again.
  This bill contains nothing for the coal miner and coal field 
communities. It seeks to lull us into complacency with false promises 
of future spending for clean coal technology that maybe, perhaps, some 
day will translate into real money. This bill says to us in the coal 
fields, go trolling for dollars while we bust open the doors of the 
Treasury and shovel out loads of cash and tax breaks to Big Oil. 
Billions of dollars. This bill digs deep into the pockets of West 
Virginians, and we get nothing in return.
  We sought to have provisions inserted into this bill to reclaim our 
abandoned coal mine lands so that we can rebuild our coal field 
economies. Just payment. Just payment for the coal that we produced 
that fired the industrial revolution, took us through a war, and 
sparked the technological revolution. And we sought to have provisions 
inserted for promised coal miner health care. They gave their all to 
produce the coal in back-breaking conditions that made this country the 
world power that it is that helps produce domestic energy security.
  Yet, the pleading voices of coal miners and their widows hailing from 
southern West Virginia to the Powder River Basin met deaf ears in this 
conference. Why? I will tell my colleagues why. Because it does not 
involve handing out goodies to multinational energy corporations. Then 
it is not in this bill, if it does not involve that.
  Believe you me, they are partying today in the corporate boardrooms 
of America, but in the hills and hollers of Appalachia, this is no 
laughing matter. You take us for a fool. You try to play the coal miner 
for a fool. You are going to get burned for that, I say to the White 
House. You are going to get burned if you continue to try to do that.
  In the words of my senior Senator, fie on the White House, fie on the 
White House. Shame on you. Let us defeat this terrible piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I want to congratulate all of the people who 
have worked so hard on this bill. America has waited far too long for a 
comprehensive, coordinated energy policy. There are a lot of good 
things I could say about this bill, but I want to talk just 
specifically about the renewable fuel standard and what it will mean to 
rural America, what it will mean to energy independence and, 
ultimately, what it will mean for a cleaner environment.
  Last week we in the House had a little hiatus and one of the things I 
did is I took a trip to the western part of my district. Out in the 
western part of my district we have what is called the Buffalo Ridge. 
Literally, from as far as the eye can see in one direction and the 
other direction, you see these wind farms going up, making clean, clean 
energy, using the wind. It is an amazing thing.
  I also stopped at a little town called Brewster where we are now 
building the largest, I think perhaps in the world, biodiesel plant in 
Brewster, Minnesota. It is going to be farmer owned.
  Let me just talk about some of the things this renewable fuel 
standard is going to do. With the requirements that are in here for 5 
billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012, let me just explain 
what it will mean to rural America. It will reduce our crude oil 
imports by 1.6 billion barrels. It will reduce the foreign trade 
deficit by $34 billion. It will create 214,000 good-paying jobs here in 
America. It will increase U.S. household income by $51.7 billion. It 
will create $5.3 billion in new investment, in renewable fuel 
production facilities; and it will increase the demand for grain, 
mostly corn, by an average of 1.4 billion bushels of corn and soybeans 
per year.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is overdue, it is timely, it is 
time that we have a coordinated energy policy. I think I speak on 
behalf of those who breathe our air, those who are concerned about 
energy independence and saying that one of the best parts about this 
bill is the renewable fuel standard and what it will mean for rural 
America and what it will mean for our environment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing with this energy bill is 
the result of a highly partisan, secretive process in which Republicans 
have been talking only to other Republicans and the oil and the gas and 
the nuclear and the coal and the electric utility industry. Well, they 
have treated the Democratic minority and the environmental and consumer 
groups with the maximum possible disregard and with political 
arrogance. It is the final stages of the implementation of the secret 
energy task force meetings that began in Vice President Cheney's 
office.
  This bill is the worst piece of legislation that has been brought 
before this legislative body in many decades. It is

[[Page 29455]]

an appalling concoction of tax breaks, subsidies, and pork barrel 
spending for wealthy oil, natural gas, nuclear, coal, and utilities 
industries. It turns over control of the American people's lands to 
energy companies that will be free to ravage and rape the environment 
with little or no restraint.
  It pays polluters, pays polluters to clean up the messes that they 
have created and subsidizes them to pollute some more. It will make our 
Nation's air dirtier. It will make our water dirtier, and it will make 
ordinary people pay higher energy bills for the privilege of having 
dirtier air and dirtier water, more asthmas, more cancers, and more 
deaths due to pollution. And all of this done with $138 billion in 
borrowed money from the Social Security and Medicare trust fund because 
our country is in deficit and it must borrow the money.

                              {time}  1345

  And worst of all, it dishonors the sacrifice made by 130,000 of our 
young men and women in Iraq today, guarding oil fields. We know we now 
import 60 percent of our oil from overseas. If we do not do something 
that deals with the amount of oil that we consume in our SUVs and our 
automobiles, if we do not do something about fuel economy for air 
conditioners, then in another 10 years we will be 80 percent dependent 
upon imported oil from overseas. That is where we are heading.
  This bill does nothing to deal with where we put oil in our country. 
We put it into gasoline tanks. We ignore that fact. It deals not with 
the fact that 70 percent of peak demand in the summer goes for air 
conditioning. Are we kidding ourselves out here today? This bill is a 
disaster. And meanwhile, there is $138 billion worth of subsides in tax 
breaks, in new authorizations for which industries? Oil, gas, coal, 
nuclear, the wealthiest industries getting all of these tax breaks.
  This is a terrible bill. Vote no on the rule and no on final passage.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and commend the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) for what I think is excellent work in the House and in the 
conference. This is landmark legislation. I think it absolutely defines 
the word comprehensive.
  It is going to decrease dependence on foreign oil. It enhances the 
electricity grid ensuring reliability and protecting native load. It is 
a boon for our consumers. After dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens of 
hearings over the last 3 years, and a few empty trips to the red zone, 
we are now on the goal line today.
  Vote yes to score a victory, ladies and gentlemen, for the American 
consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, with the balance of my time I would like to enter into a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  I have a couple of questions regarding the native load provision of 
section 1236 that I was hoping that the distinguished chairman might be 
able to answer.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will be happy 
to try.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the provision 
requires FERC to allow utilities with service obligations to reserve 
sufficient transmission capacity to serve the power supply needs of 
existing native load customers as well as the future growth needs of 
those customers and that the commission regulations must conform to 
this intent. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is 
absolutely correct.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, how about section 217(c), does that allow 
FERC to compel load-serving entities to give up any transmission rights 
that are not covered by section 217(a)?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, it does not. These entities can continue to 
use their transmission rights as now allowed under the Federal Power 
Act.
  Mr. NORWOOD. And lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the 
gentleman about the section 1242, the participant funding. Would this 
provision allow a transmission provider to charge all of his 
transmission customers, including the party requesting an upgrade, the 
same embedded cost transmission charges?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, yes, it does. And it is a little complex, so 
let me try to explain. Briefly the requester would, in fact, pay the 
same transmission charge as any other transmission customer. The 
embedded cost language simply clarifies that in the up-front lump-sum 
payment to fund the upgrade, the requester is not required to pay both 
the cost of the physical upgrade and the entire future cost of any 
monetary credits or the compensation the requester will later receive.
  The embedded cost of the physical upgrade is not rolled into the rate 
base because it is paid for up front by the requester. The cost of the 
upgrade in terms of the monetary credits used to compensate the 
requester, however, are rolled into the rate base. Thus, these costs 
are included in the imbedded cost transmission charges on a prorated 
base as the credits are provided to the requester. All transmission 
customers, of course, must pay this transmission charge.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that 
clarification. Once again, let me not just thank the chairman, but the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the hard work of all our staffs. 
This is fine work. I encourage everybody to vote for this rule and the 
final bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this rule. As a Republican Member of the other body stated 
the other day, this bill should be called ``Leave No Lobbyist Behind.'' 
This bill is an inappropriate vehicle for amending the Clean Air Act. 
It makes absolutely no sense to protect the MTBE manufacturers from 
civil liability while opposing a phase out of the dangerous 
carcinogenic chemical. This has been going on since the court order in 
1996 getting one waiver after another.
  The provisions in this bill will mean more asthma attacks, hospital 
visits, and premature deaths for residents of ozone nonattainment areas 
such as Dallas/Fort Worth.
  Mr. Speaker, we have about 88,000 children with asthma in the Dallas/
Fort Worth area. The bill will force my constituents and everyone 
else's constituents in the Dallas/Fort Worth area to breathe dirty air, 
unhealthy air until 2012.
  In their desire to pass any comprehensive energy bill, some of my 
colleagues may be willing to overlook the massive damage this bill 
would do to existing clean air policies, but we must not pass a bill 
with great shortfalls simply because we need to pass a bill. We need a 
fair bill that protects us all. We should not, and we must not, 
endanger ourselves or our children.
  I urge my colleagues that want clean air to oppose this rule and this 
porker of a bill. This bill is a waste of taxpayer's dollars. It is a 
first-class ticket to fossil fuel dependence. It is an invitation to 
destroy the lungs of 127 million Americans who already breathe in air 
that violates Federal standards.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. Speaker, since 1992 section 212(j) of the Federal Power Act has 
provided very important protections for the Tennessee Valley Authority 
and all the people and businesses of the TVA region from one-way 
competition from other suppliers as an equitable balance to those 
provisions of the TVA Act which greatly restrict TVA's ability to sell 
excess power outside the TVA region.
  I wanted to verify that it was not the intention of the conference 
committee for any provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2003 to be 
construed to repeal the protections from such one-way competition 
provided by section 212(j).

[[Page 29456]]


  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is 
correct. It was not the intention of the conference committee for any 
provision to repeal the protections provided by section 212(j).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the 
bill. It is ludicrous to have only 1 hour of debate on the rule and 1 
hour on such an important bill.
  America faces real problems with its energy needs. We need to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil. But instead of pursuing the program of 
energy efficiency, we have a bill that pursues a policy of political 
payback and corporate welfare. My Republican colleagues are constantly 
saying they do not like wealth distribution, but this bill will suck 
dollars out of the pockets of New Yorkers and others to pay for 
unnecessary ethanol subsides to huge Agra businesses.
  The majority has talked to a good game against unfunded mandates. 
This bill was a case of ``do as I say, not as I do.'' There is a 
liability shield for MTBE makers so that New York taxpayers could be 
forced to pay for cleanups, but this bill also provides $2 billion in 
subsides for the MTBE makers to transition to other work.
  This bill takes us back in time by weakening the Clean Air Act and 
Clean Water Act. Why are we letting polluters make policy? Why we going 
to weaker standards? I think we know the answer: Because oil and gas 
companies find it cheaper to pollute and push off the true cost of 
their activities to the real people in this country. This bill is a 
disgrace. I am sick and tired of coddling polluters and sticking the 
average Joe with the cost of fixing polluters' problems. We should 
stand up for America and stand up for energy independence and future 
generations and vote down this rule and this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the rule and 
strong support for the conference report, H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act 
of 2000.
  I serve as a conferee between the Senate and House. We gave 
developed, in my opinion, a very balanced, sensible bill with 
production initiatives with conservation. The electricity portion of 
the bill, one of the most controversial items we have dealt with, sets 
the stage, I believe, for investment and reliable operations to bring 
our energy markets into the 21st century.
  The bill also provides incentives for renewable energy production, 
clean coal technology, low-income energy assistance, provides for 
certainty and reliable operation of our energy markets, and increased 
domestic production.
  As this graph shows, renewable energy, providing new solutions like 
hydrogen fuel cells, will provide economic and environmentally safe 
energy solutions and prevent blackouts.
  This bill promotes investment in critical electric transmission 
capacity and efficiency. So I commend my colleagues the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and 
their staff. They have done yeoman's service in bringing this bill to 
the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, this is an energy bill that will do nothing 
to help the families living in southern Nevada with the cost of their 
power. Whatever good provisions may be in the bill are buried under 
billions of dollars in subsides for the nuclear industry.
  I am appalled that this Nation would spend one cent more on nuclear 
energy when there is no safe way to ship and no safe way to store 
radioactive nuclear waste. There is also no provision in this 
legislation to address this Nation's dependence on foreign oil. We will 
be importing just as much oil if this bill passes as we are today. And 
we will continue our unholy alliance with Middle East countries that 
export terrorism and finance terrorists.
  Finally, I am disappointed that the overwhelming majority of tax 
incentives in this bill are reserved for nuclear, coal, oil and natural 
gas. This subsides come at the expense of renewable energy sources such 
as wind, solar, and geothermal that must be a major component of any 
long-term energy policy for this Nation if this Nation is to ever be 
energy independent.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, oppose the 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and 
strong support of final passage of this legislation which is so 
important to the economy of our country. I also wish to commend the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) of my committee for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, for 3 years this work, this legislation has been in the 
making, which, of course, is too long. But I would like to point out 
that a key component of this legislation as we work towards energy 
independence is conservation. And we think about who consumes energy in 
America, 20 percent of the energy we consume in our Nation is consumed 
in our homes by residential consumption of energy.
  I would note in this legislation, there is an important provision 
which provides an energy efficient homes tax credit rewarding 
homeowners and homebuilders for investing in better insulation and 
better windows and better doors and sealing their home, and encouraging 
homebuilders when they build a new house to use more energy efficient 
technologies in heating and cooling. This is important legislation.
  This tax credit provides individuals and businesses up to $2,000 tax 
credit, which means the first 20 percent of the first $10,000 they 
invest they can recover by reducing their tax burden to the Federal 
Government. The bottom line is we need to provide incentives for our 
homeowners and those who build homes, provide for more energy-efficient 
house.
  When I talk with those who build homes, they tell me that often a 
consumer will come in, if they are going to spend a little extra money, 
they want to invest that money in a nicer bathroom or nicer kitchen, 
something they can see, and that energy efficiency and energy 
conservation is a second thought.
  What is monumental about this legislation that is before us today is 
we provide a real incentive for homebuilders and homeowners to invest 
in making their homes more energy efficient by providing for up to a 
$2,000 tax credit in energy-efficient homes. Bottom line, this is good 
legislation, deserves bipartisan support. I urge an aye on the rule and 
an aye on final passage.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time.
  Whether it has been 3 years or 6 years, the fact is the Committee has 
produced a comprehensive bill. You do not have a comprehensive energy 
policy. $138 billion in total costs may buy support, but it is not 
going to buy energy independence. It avoids meaningful energy 
conservation that would have permanent savings for every American every 
year. It avoids meaningful investment in renewables. Simply defining 
nuclear energy as a ``renewable energy source'' is not an adequate 
alternative.
  The $138 billion pales in comparison to the hidden cost to our 
environment, to our air, our water, and increased global warming. It 
will extend our dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come. Three 
years, 6 years, 12 years, and hidden Republican only conference 
meetings produced a huge, special interest driven bill. What you have 
lost is an opportunity to have a comprehensive energy policy that would 
make this country safer, cleaner and more economically secure.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

[[Page 29457]]


  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) on, I think, a very good bill, 
controversial but weaving a lot of disparate sections together. I thank 
him and the others for the hard work and determined effort that went 
into the completion of this conference report.
  I want to point out two sections in particular under my committee's 
jurisdiction which demonstrate the value we have gotten in adding 
flexibility to government contracting. First, we have the energy 
savings performance contracts that we make permanent in this 
legislation. Energy savings performance contracts, ESPCs, allow 
agencies to contract with energy service companies to upgrade and 
retrofit existing Federal buildings with modern, energy-efficient 
equipment. The agencies pay for this upgrade using the energy savings 
generated by the upgrade themselves.
  These contract mechanisms enable the Federal agencies to improve 
energy efficiency of their facilities without depending on annual 
congressional appropriations for capital improvements. From 1988 to 
2000, agencies using ESPCs to leverage an estimated $795 million in 
private sector financing for energy improvements in Federal buildings, 
resulted in a 20-percent savings. This legislation makes ESPCs 
permanent.
  I also want to describe a new acquisition authority granted in this 
legislation. This is the authority granted by the Department of Energy 
to engage in what are called Other Transactions in certain 
circumstances. Other Transactions, OTs, are contractual arrangements 
that support research and development without using standard 
procurement contract grants or cooperative agreements. They have been 
used successfully in the Department of Defense for a number of years.
  Firms who are understandably hesitant to conduct research for the 
government because of government patent rules, accounting practices, 
and business requirements are willing to consider working with us under 
these arrangements. Some companies that have tried to work with the 
government under normal procurement rules have found it impossible to 
remain competitive in the private sector and contract under standard 
government restrictions and rules.
  It is time to recognize the government needs the best, the most 
innovative research available. We need to become increasingly self-
reliant in the energy field. We need to engage inventive firms that 
have until now refused to do business with the Federal Government 
because of arcane and inflexible standards.
  This new flexibility is a major step toward harnessing the magic of 
America's research and development center in our quest for energy 
independence. I urge an ``aye'' on the rule and an ``aye'' on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair would state that the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 2 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have multiple speakers or 
only one speaker?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will be closing, so I have 
one more speaker.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that every Member of this House, whether 
or not they are supporting this bill, should be concerned that we are 
about to cast a vote on a major piece of legislation that only a small 
handful of House Members have read.
  This conference report is over 1,000 pages long. I cannot understand 
why the Republican majority is insisting that this conference report be 
voted on today when its provisions could have such a direct impact on 
energy securities of the United States and Members have not been given 
an adequate opportunity to read and digest its contents.
  Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House give Members 3 days to read a 
conference report after it is filed. Clause 8(a)(1)(a) of rule XXII 
states that ``it shall not be in order to consider a conference report 
until the third calendar day on which the conference report and the 
accompanying joint explanatory statement have been made available to 
Members in the Congressional Record.''
  Those who are insisting that the House proceed with all due haste 
will argue that the text has been on the Web site of the Committee on 
Ways and Means since this weekend, late Saturday night to be exact.
  Mr. Speaker, what was posted Saturday night was not the final version 
of the agreement and the statement of managers was not included. A fine 
point, perhaps, but an important one.
  The wholesale denial of the rights of Members to know what they are 
voting on is something Republicans complained of bitterly when they 
were in the minority. Well, I would argue that the Republicans might 
have been crying wolf because now that they have controlled this 
Chamber for nearly 9 years, they seem to have completely forgotten what 
they once said.
  So in an attempt to remedy the wrong they have complained of in the 
past and that they are now so eager to perpetrate, I am asking Members 
to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this rule can be amended to 
give each Member the opportunity to find out what is in a bill that is 
written in closed meetings and secret places. That is only fair, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill 
and it will be a historic step when we vote on the bill after we 
dispose with the rule.
  Let me just go through the extensive hearings that the committees 
involved with this have had over this year. As was mentioned by the 
chairman, the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee held 28 public 
hearings, four markups, 43 hours in total, and considered 159 
amendments. The Committee on Resources held 32 hearings, three markups, 
over 100 hours, and considered 38 amendments. The Committee on Science 
held 16 public hearings, two markups. They have considered 21 
amendments. The Committee on Ways and Means held six hearings, four 
markups, and they had six amendments offered to their part of the bill.
  It is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. I urge the Members to support 
the rule, defeat the previous question, and support the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of 
the amendment at this point in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

   Previous Question on H. Res. 443, Rule for H.R. 6, the Conference 
                    Report on the Energy Policy Act

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill 
     (H.R. 6) to enhance energy conservation and research and 
     development, to provide for security and diversity in the 
     energy supply for the American people, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration (except those arising under 
     clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XXII) are waived.''

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.

[[Page 29458]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 193, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 628]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Boyd
     Carson (OK)
     DeMint
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Kaptur
     Lantos
     Meeks (NY)
     Pitts
     Radanovich
     Sanders
     Toomey

                              {time}  1429

  Messrs. LYNCH, BACA, THOMPSON of Mississippi, HINCHEY, ORTIZ and RUSH 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and 
Messrs. CARTER, SESSIONS, JOHN and TERRY 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. Quinn). The question is the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. 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 248, 
noes 167, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 629]

                               AYES--248

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--167

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra

[[Page 29459]]


     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Boyd
     Burr
     Carson (OK)
     DeMint
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Lantos
     Meeks (NY)
     Pitts
     Radanovich
     Sanders
     Toomey

                              {time}  1437

  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.

                          ____________________