[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12179-12186]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4503, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2004, 
    AND H.R. 4517, UNITED STATES REFINERY REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 671 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 671

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4503) 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. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
     one hour of debate on the bill, with 40 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 10 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Resources; and 10 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4517) to 
     provide incentives to increase refinery capacity in the 
     United States. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 671 is a rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004; and H.R. 
4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4503, with 40 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 10 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Resources, and 10 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides one motion to 
recommit.
  Section 2 of the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 
4517 to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also 
provides one motion to recommit H.R. 4517.
  Mr. Speaker, the first bill provided for under the rule, H.R. 4503, 
reflects the conference report on H.R. 6 that passed the House this 
November by a vote of 246 to 180. It is a bipartisan, comprehensive 
energy plan that is focused on providing a secure and diverse energy 
supply for our Nation.
  There is bipartisan agreement on this plan to modernize our power 
generation systems, improve conservation and promote the development of 
renewable energy resources. The predominant source of energy varies 
among the different regions of our country. The bipartisan energy plan 
is comprehensive and addresses energy produced from oil, natural gas, 
wind, biomass, solar, coal, nuclear, and hydro.
  In my area, the Pacific Northwest, Mr. Speaker, our primary source of 
power comes from hydroelectric dams. Clean, low-cost hydropower was 
critical to building the Northwest's economy. Whether it was 
electricity to irrigate central Washington's farms or to build 
airplanes in Seattle, it was vital to our economy.
  This bipartisan agreement includes reforms to the lengthy and costly 
dam relicensing process that is critical to maintaining our region's 
low-cost hydropower. Environmental protections are preserved while 
providing flexibility to reduce costs and delays. Getting this plan 
enacted into law will help keep prices lower for Northwest families and 
for job-creating businesses.
  An adequate, affordable energy supply is vital for a growing economy 
and job creation, and we need to get this plan enacted into law.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the United States imports nearly 60 percent of 
its oil. This energy plan contains provisions to reduce our dependence 
on oil from the Middle East. The second bill provided for under this 
rule, H.R. 4517, will also help increase our Nation's energy 
independence.
  The United States Refinery Revitalization Act would responsibly 
encourage the opening of previously closed refineries in the United 
States and the construction of new refineries to increase the domestic 
supply of gasoline which would help lower the price at the pump.
  American demand for gasoline and refined fuels currently outpaces the 
capacity of our Nation to produce these needed products, and 
consumption of gasoline is expected to rise as our economy grows over 
the next 2 decades. Our choice as a Nation is to either increase our 
dependence on foreign sources of fuel or to help ensure refineries are 
built in America, which will create jobs here rather than at refineries 
in other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to act and get a bipartisan energy plan 
enacted into law. It is time to increase America's energy independence. 
Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule, H. 
Res. 671, and the two underlying bills, H.R. 4503 and H.R. 4517.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 671, 
which is the rule for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy 
Act of 2004, which is masquerading today as the energy conference 
report of 2003; and H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this summer Americans all across the country are 
flooding into movie theaters to see the much-anticipated sequels to 
such blockbuster films as ``Shrek,'' ``Spider Man,'' and ``Harry 
Potter.''

                              {time}  1130

  So far the early reviews and box office returns for these sequels 
suggest Hollywood has actually managed to improve on the original 
versions by adding exciting new characters and interesting new plot 
lines.
  Sadly, that is not so here in the House of Representatives. This 
summer, the Republican leadership is forcing us to vote on the same 
tired old reruns of bad bills that we have already

[[Page 12180]]

seen and voted on once before. The consideration of H.R. 4503 actually 
marks the sixth time this year that this House has passed a bill for 
the second time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of the bills that the 
House has voted on at least twice this year.

       (1) Bankruptcy. The House passed its bankruptcy reform bill 
     on March 19, 2003 (H.R. 975, vote No. 74) and passed it again 
     on January 28, 2004 when it substituted the text of the 
     already-passed H.R. 975 into a non-controversial Senate 
     family farmer bankruptcy bill (S. 1920, vote No. 10).
       (2) Medical Malpractice. The House passed medical 
     malpractice reform legislation on March 13, 2003 (H.R. 5, 
     vote No. 64) and then passed it again on May 12, 2004, as 
     part of the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R. 
     4280, vote No. 166).
       (3) Association Health Plans. The House passed legislation 
     creating Association Health Plans (AHPs) on June 19, 2003 and 
     then passed the same bill again in May 13, 2004, as part of 
     the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R. 4281, 
     vote No. 174).
       (4) Teacher Training. The House passed the ``Ready to 
     Teach'' Act on July 9, 2003 (H.R. 2211, vote No. 340) and 
     then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004 
     under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then 
     inserted by H. Res. 656 into H.R. 444).
       (5) Graduate School Grants. The House passed a bill to 
     reauthorize programs that award grants to U.S. graduate 
     students under suspension of the rules on October 21, 2003 
     (H.R. 3076, voice voted) and then passed it again under a new 
     bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules 
     (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into 
     H.R. 444).

  Mr. Speaker, there are no exciting new characters, no interesting new 
plot lines, just the same old story: special interests meet Congress; 
Congress rolls over; special interests destroy environment and Congress 
weakens the Nation's energy policy. End of story.
  In fact, all that can be said of H.R. 4503 is that with each passing 
day, we discover something new about the original energy conference 
report that further confirms how bad that bill was and still is. Since 
the House passed the energy conference report in November last year, 
new details about the 1,100-page bill have come to light.
  For example, the bill lifts tariffs on Chinese-made ceiling fans, a 
provision which is widely acknowledged to benefit Home Depot of 
Atlanta, Georgia. It includes a $500,000 grant for the Georgia carpet 
industry to research the burning of industrial carpet waste in the 
manufacture of cement, and it contains a tax-exempt ``green bond'' 
program that will finance the construction of a mall in Shreveport, 
Louisiana, which will house a Hooter's restaurant.
  This bill is so laden with special interest money that no less than 
Grover Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform and the National 
Taxpayers Union have said that the energy conference report is 
``chockful of subsidies, pork barrel projects, and unnecessary spending 
that have little, if anything, to do with our Nation's energy needs.''
  An in-depth analysis of the energy conference report conducted by the 
well-respected Energy Information Administration of the Department of 
Energy concluded the following: that the energy conference report's 
energy provisions will not reduce the overall amount of energy 
consumption in the United States over the next 15 years and 
furthermore, its transportation fuel provisions will cause the average 
gas prices in the year 2015 to be 3 to 8 cents higher than they would 
be under current law.
  Mr. Speaker, I imagine that is a surprise ending that not even the 
Republicans who single-handedly wrote the energy conference report 
would enjoy. Imagine, after handing out $23 billion in tax breaks and 
subsidies to the oil and gas industry, we are actually going to pay 
more for gas at the pump.
  I can tell Members my constituents in Massachusetts will be demanding 
their money back after seeing that surprise ending. In Massachusetts, 
the average cost of gasoline this month will be $2.10 per gallon. This 
is 58 cents higher than a year ago at the same time. At that rate, 
motorists in the Worcester, Massachusetts, area will pay $29 million 
more for gasoline this summer driving season than they did last summer. 
That is $200 more for the average family between Memorial Day and Labor 
Day.
  Meanwhile, the Republican leadership's response to this very real 
national crisis is to bring us a repeat of the same failed energy bill 
which has been stalled in negotiations with the other body for nearly 7 
months, a so-called energy security act that will not secure our future 
energy supply by enhancing our independence or reducing our demand, a 
bill that does not include a renewable energy portfolio standard, but 
does include a $2 billion bail-out and liability protection for 
producers of MTBE.
  Mr. Speaker, since the Republican leadership of this House seems bent 
on bringing the same bills to the floor, I am compelled to respectfully 
repeat the same suggestion that I have offered them before: instead of 
shamelessly using the legislative calendar here to send a message to 
the other body, perhaps the House leadership could walk across the 
Capitol and simply confer with their fellow Republican leaders. It is 
not that far, and I will remind them that the House is under Republican 
control and so is the other body. They should go over and talk to each 
other and try to work these things out.
  If that is too much trouble, maybe at a minimum the House leadership 
could make in order thoughtful, responsible amendments offered by their 
own Members, such as the climate change amendment offer by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) in the Committee on Rules last evening, an 
amendment that would have established a voluntary, and I repeat 
voluntary, greenhouse gas registry and database. This would be 
something different, something worth watching for.
  Mr. Speaker, the truly amazing thing about the House leadership is 
that when they are not bringing bills to the floor that we have already 
voted on, they are bringing bills to the floor that have never had a 
hearing.
  This rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. 
Refinery Revitalization Act. This bill was filed on June 4 and referred 
to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. On June 7, the bill was 
promptly offered to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. Exactly 
one week later, it was before the Rules Committee, and today it is on 
the floor. No committee hearings or markup.
  To his credit, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
conceded this point in the Committee on Rules last evening, going so 
far as to say that the ranking member's request for a hearing on the 
bill was reasonable.
  I do not doubt that the lack of domestic refinery capacity has been 
discussed before in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I will 
not dispute the statistics regarding the number of refineries currently 
operating in the United States that are cited in the findings of this 
bill. However, it seems to me that there is considerable and legitimate 
debate over the causes for this shrinking capacity. In fact, some fuel 
economists argue that there are fewer refineries today because they are 
run more efficiently than in the past.
  Now, in light of this, I think it is reasonable to allow the 
committees of jurisdiction to examine these issues before we rush bills 
to the floor that make sweeping changes to the permitting process for 
these facilities.
  H.R. 4517 gives extraordinarily broad powers to the Secretary of 
Energy to grant approval for building new refineries and reactivating 
idle refineries. It allows the DOE to force other State and Federal 
agencies to make decisions within 6 months and allows the DOE to 
override the objections of a Governor of a State or the EPA on such 
projects. The bill also allows the DOE to ignore the provisions of the 
Clean Air Act that limit the emissions of the toxic air pollutants that 
refineries produce.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4517 is intended to streamline and expedite the 
permitting process for refineries, but the rule under which the bill is 
being considered is intended to deliberately circumvent and subvert the 
legislative process. That is not only unacceptable; it is appalling, 
and it should concern every

[[Page 12181]]

single Member of this body regardless of his or her party affiliation.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to 
put an end to this charade of bringing bills to the floor that we have 
either voted on before, or alternately have never been before a 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think probably the right thing to do is just review 
back to how we got to this point. Let us remind ourselves we have not 
had an energy policy in this country for several decades, and we need 
to have an energy policy. This House has passed three energy bills, and 
the other body has not acted on those three energy bills.
  The last energy bill, however, did get to a conference where we 
worked out the disagreements between both of the bodies, and the 
ensuing conference report was then passed by this body and then went to 
the other body and was subject to a filibuster which, of course, is in 
their rules. In order to break that filibuster, it takes 60 votes. They 
got 58 votes. The presumption would be if they had a chance to vote up 
or down on the bill that perhaps they would have enough votes to pass 
the energy bill.
  But I think it is even more instructive to go back and reflect on how 
we got to this point of the conference report. In the House alone in 
the last 3 years, we had 80 public hearings on energy policy in this 
country. We had 11 markups in the various committees on this energy 
bill. They considered 224 amendments, and we had 5 days of floor debate 
with 39 amendments in this body.
  In the other body, there were 37 hearings, there were eight markups, 
and they had weeks of debate on the floor. When they finally got to 
conference, which of course is the final product which will develop the 
bill which will ultimately be the policy of this country, there were 
nine public hearings, there were 24 hours of debate. On a bipartisan 
basis, there were 10 staff meetings working out some of the details, 
and to say that this was not made public totally misses the point 
because there were 14 titles and 1,163 pages of text posted on the Web.
  It is not surprising then with this background that the conference 
report dealing with our energy policy would pass on a bipartisan basis: 
246 in this body to 180 against.
  So I would just remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) that there was a great deal of work that went into this. We 
are simply bringing the bill back again with the idea to pass an energy 
bill that we need, and we need it very badly. It has been reflected, of 
course, in the higher prices of gasoline, which, I might add, are 
starting to reduce because of market pressures; and I am in favor of 
that.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I think to set the record straight there has 
been a great deal of work that has gone into the original bill and into 
this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying 
bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair would remind Members to 
refrain from characterizations of the actions of the Senate, such as 
use of the term ``filibuster.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) that this process is lousy. H.R. 4503, the bill the gentleman 
was referring to, Members on the Democratic side were not even allowed 
to participate in the conference where this bill was negotiated. The 
process here is awful, and it really is indefensible.
  I also remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this 
rule is not only for the consideration of H.R. 4503, it is also for the 
consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery and Revitalization Act. 
There were no hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction on that 
bill. There was no markup by the Members of the committee of 
jurisdiction on that bill.
  I think we need to say something in defense of the Members, both 
Democrat and Republican, who are on that committee of jurisdiction that 
they should have an opportunity to be present at hearings and ask 
questions and to be able to make suggestions to make that bill better. 
So this process is indefensible. It is indefensible not only by the 
fact that people are getting locked out and bills are being rushed to 
the floor without hearings and without markups, but also this is bad 
policy. I think almost everybody knows it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are debating an energy bill which does plenty for 
energy companies, but does precious little for energy consumers.
  The elephant in the room is still the failure to address the 2000-
2001 western energy crisis. Two weeks ago, CBS News broadcast tapes of 
conversations in which Enron employees bragged about stealing money 
from California during the energy crisis. They talked about shutting 
off power plants, they bragged about all of the money they stole from 
``those poor grandmothers in California.'' Some of the language was so 
profane it could not be broadcast. The language was shocking and the 
facts in the transcripts chilling. They are part of a litany of 
widespread market manipulation.
  Today, we have the smoking gun memos in which Enron admitted how it 
gamed the market. We have today the transcripts of employees of Reliant 
Energy describing how they gamed the market. We have today 3,000 pages 
produced by the State of California. We have today the Department of 
Justice's indictments and plea agreements with many energy traders and 
producers. We have today even the language that FERC found 
``significant market manipulation.''

                              {time}  1145

  What we do not have are refunds for the consumers who were gouged to 
the tune of $8.9 billion and $1.1 billion in the Pacific Northwest.
  The law requires that this money be refunded, but for 4 years 
consumers are still waiting. For 4 years this Congress has failed to 
investigate, and the administration has continued to perpetrate the 
myth first stated by Vice President Cheney that ``The basic problem in 
California was caused by Californians.''
  Have you listened to the tapes, Mr. Vice President? For 4 years, the 
administration has lectured consumers about supply and demand and free 
markets. Now the Enron tapes make it clear that consumers in the West 
were robbed.
  I want to repeat that. Consumers in the West were robbed. Once again, 
in this bill the House is turning its back on these consumers by doing 
nothing to hold industry accountable, but then again we are living in 
an era of total unaccountability. It is a culture of unaccountability.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It is deeply flawed, and it 
does nothing for consumers in this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Linder) from 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 671 provides for the consideration 
of H.R. 4503 under a closed rule as well as providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4717 under a closed rule. I urge my colleagues in 
the House to join me in supporting this rule so that the full House can 
proceed to consider the merits of the underlying legislative measures.
  In particular, I want to urge the House to approve H.R. 4503, which 
is a comprehensive energy plan that focuses on developing and 
implementing new energy technologies, as well as increasing current 
energy reserves through cutting edge methods and technologies. It 
closely follows the text of H.R. 6, the final version which the House 
passed last year but which has fallen victim to a filibuster by the 
minority of the other body's membership.

[[Page 12182]]

  In recent months gas prices have increased from an average of $1.34 
to over $2 per gallon. Furthermore, the average family is paying 25 
percent more for energy than they were in 1998.
  We must take action, but more importantly Congress needs to take the 
right kind of action. Increasing the supply of energy will help bring 
prices down, while imposing governmental mandates and requirements will 
simply drive energy prices higher.
  The ability of our economy to continue growing and creating jobs, as 
it has for the last several quarters, depends on affordable energy 
prices. H.R. 4503, H.R. 4517, and 2 other energy-related measures that 
the House will consider later today are explicitly designed to increase 
energy supplies, bring prices down and make the United States more 
energy independent.
  Energy drives the American economy, and this legislation would allow 
us to reiterate our commitment to the economy and send the message to 
the American people that our consumers and businesses need a new far-
sighted, free, market-oriented energy policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
so we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair would admonish Members 
to avoid improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this rule is not just ineffective. It is not 
just inefficient. It is not just unfair. It perpetuates one of the 
largest frauds on consumers in American history. It aids and abets the 
rip-off by Enron of over $1 billion of American consumers of 
electricity in the West Coast of the United States in the last 4 years.
  This rule does nothing about that. This rule allows Enron to keep 
their billion dollars they took away from our people, and this is 
clear. We have heard the tapes. We have heard the Enron traders saying 
let us jam a million dollars here to the grandmothers of California. 
Let us rip off the Washington ratepayers for $500,000. Let us stick 
Snohomish County for $152 million. Let us let California burn, baby, 
burn. And your rule does nothing about that. This rule is in bed with 
Enron. It aids and abets Enron. It is written for and by Enron, and it 
should be rejected.
  Now, we have offered an amendment that will allow ratepayers relief, 
give ratepayers in Snohomish County that $122 million back, give 
ratepayers in California over hundreds of millions of dollars in relief 
back, and the Republican Party said, no, we are on the side of Enron.
  Now, why did they do that? Well, this administration has not lifted a 
finger to help the ratepayers of the West Coast, not a finger. They 
have got all the efficiency of the Keystone cops and the aggressiveness 
of Barney Fife when it comes to enforcing the laws of this country.
  In fact, when we met with the Vice President during the height of the 
energy crisis in 2000, we explained to the Vice President that Enron 
had turned off a third of the generating capacity in the West Coast and 
driven the prices sky high. And you know what he did? He looked at us, 
Members of Congress, and he said, ``You know what your problem is? You 
just do not understand economics.''
  Well, we do understand economics. We just do not understand 
Enronomics. We do not understand why the majority party will not allow 
us to do anything to get relief back from the customers who are gouged 
by Enron. Why will not they allow this Chamber even the right to vote 
on the measure to recover some sense of justice? Why do they lay down 
with Enron? Why do they get in bed with Ken Lay? Why are you motivated 
to do that? We cannot understand it.
  What I know is the people of my district deserve relief. They deserve 
a refund. The Snohomish County ratepayers deserve that $122 million 
back. So I want to ask my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings), a friendly question, if I can. Today the gentleman is 
denying us the opportunity to get relief for ratepayers of the State of 
Washington and Enron.
  When will the Republican Party bring to the floor of this House a 
measure to allow us to get refunds from Enron of the millions of 
dollars they stole from Washington and Oregon and California?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend from 
Washington that I am outraged as he is and other speakers have been by 
the revelation of the traders at Enron. No question about that. It is 
in black and white.
  Mr. INSLEE. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman will just kindly 
answer my gentlemanly question. When will you bring a bill to the House 
to allow a refund by Enron? Just give me an answer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this combined rule. This rule 
governs debate on H.R. 4503, an energy policy bill, and on H.R. 4517, a 
refinery revitalization bill. Everyone is well aware that H.R. 4503 is 
identical to the conference version of H.R. 6, which the House already 
adopted in November and is pending before the Senate. So that part of 
this exercise is a complete waste of time.
  With that said, in my view H.R. 4503 will do little if anything to 
achieve energy independence or enhance national security. I had and 
still do have extensive environmental concerns with that bill. I voted 
against that bill last year and I will vote against this rule and that 
bill again today. But I want to take this time to highlight one of the 
most glaring oversights of H.R. 4503, its failure to address the issue 
of climate change.
  Last night, I brought a bipartisan amendment to the Committee on 
Rules with the gentlemen from the First and Eighth Districts of 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and (Mr. Van Hollen). Our amendment would have 
done 2 things. First it would have required the development of a 
national climate change strategy with the basic goal to stabilize 
greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere. Second, it would have 
established a voluntary greenhouse gas reductions registry and 
information system to provide data to be used by public and private 
policymakers to develop effective greenhouse gas stabilization and 
reduction strategies. If, after 5 years, less than 60 percent of 
emissions were being reported to the registry, emissions reporting by 
large greenhouse gas producers would become mandatory.
  Mr. Speaker, the facts are simple. Greenhouse gases are accumulating 
in the Earth's atmosphere. These accumulations are substantially caused 
by human activities. Temperatures are rising at the Earth's surface. 
All of these statements have been confirmed by our own National Academy 
of Sciences and by the work of thousands of international scientists 
and American scientists together through the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change. Impacts are fully observable. The time to act is now.
  The amendment was really very moderate. This language was passed by 
the Senate by voice vote and it was included in the Senate-passed 
energy bill of 2002. It is a modest start, but at least it is a start. 
Not only was this amendment rejected, all amendments were rejected by 
the Committee on Rules. So this is a sham exercise and a sham debate.
  I urge a no vote on the rule and a no vote on H.R. 4503 when it comes 
forward.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

[[Page 12183]]


  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule before us. There are 
several bills that we are going to bring up today under this rule. The 
first has been renumbered, but it is the comprehensive energy 
conference report that this body passed last November by a vote of 246-
180 on a bipartisan basis. If the other body had been willing to bring 
that up, I feel very comfortable that it would have passed and the 
President would have signed it and it would be law by now. That 
particular bill reforms our electricity grid, it provides much needed 
R&D dollars for clean coal technology, provides some incentives for oil 
and gas development in this country, and has several provisions for 
renewable energy, including the President's hydrogen fuel initiative. 
That is a bill that has already passed this body once and hopefully if 
we pass it again today, the other body might be willing to bring it up 
and at least let there be a vote.
  The second bill is the Refinery Revitalization Act. This is a piece 
of legislation that is needed because the number of refineries in the 
United States has fallen by 53 percent in the last 20 years. We are now 
having to import refined products. Somewhere between 5 and 10 percent 
of our refined products are being imported and are not being refined in 
the United States. This bill is in an area that has 20 percent 
employment higher than the national average, would have an expedited 
procedure coordinated by the Department of Energy, would not waive any 
existing environmental restrictions but would set up a coordinated 
effort. If you wanted to refurbish an old, shutdown refinery or 
modernize an existing refinery or even build a new refinery in certain 
brownfield areas, you would have an expedited method of doing so.
  This would maintain jobs in the United States and hopefully create 
new jobs in the United States and also make us less dependent on 
imported refined products which is a growing problem for this country.
  I would ask for a yes vote on both of these rules and I would also 
ask for a yes vote on the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, rather than have a thoughtful discussion 
about ways to reduce American dependency on foreign oil, this body is 
again recycling bad legislation, in this case a series of corporate 
subsidies and environmental rollbacks that indemnify companies that 
would poison our water, encourage the polluting of our air, and waste 
taxpayer dollars.
  Two provisions would have the gravest of impacts upon my State. The 
first permits a controversial Long Island Sound energy cable, the Cross 
Sound Cable, to be reactivated despite having been turned off by the 
Secretary of Energy earlier this year. The cable is in violation of 
State and Federal environmental permits. The bill disregards pending 
litigation by the Connecticut Attorney General and stifles the 
regulatory authority of Connecticut and the Army Corps of Engineers, 
who share jurisdiction over the installation of such transmission 
cables.

                              {time}  1200

  This bill would also sound a death knell for States' abilities to 
regulate the siting of natural gas pipelines by eliminating the ability 
of State environmental departments to prevent the damaging 
environmental effects of pipeline siting. It would grant FERC, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the sole authority to make these 
decisions. Remember, FERC is charged with protecting consumers; but as 
the people in California and the Pacific Northwest know very well, they 
abdicated that responsibility in support of the industry. They gave the 
industry every break and not one for the consumer.
  If we grant FERC this authority, it paves the way for the 
construction of Islander East, the gas pipeline, across the Long Island 
Sound, stretching from Branford, Connecticut, to Shoreham, New York. 
The results will be that Islander East, that pipeline, would be 
installed over and above the objections of the Army Corps of Engineers 
and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
  This is a slippery slope, Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members, 
because this will run roughshod over State authority. These provisions 
disregard the needs of Connecticut's economy, its environment, and the 
voices of millions of Connecticut citizens who will be directly 
affected by these provisions. By not even allowing for the amendments 
to address these concerns, the leadership insisted once again that it 
is they and not the Connecticut citizens, who are elected officials, 
who know what is best for our State.
  The Republican leadership does not know what is best for the State of 
Connecticut. If we want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, if we are 
serious about saving taxpayers' money, we should have a real debate in 
this body, if we are serious about what constitutes good energy policy 
instead of more corporate giveaways like this in this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, we need a comprehensive national energy 
bill to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil by investing in 
cleaner, safer ways to power America. The bill attached to this rule 
absolutely fails to reduce our growing demand for oil and will only 
increase our vulnerability by making us more dependent on foreign oil 
in the future.
  We need an energy policy that restores electric system reliability; 
keeps consumers' energy bills affordable; promotes energy conservation; 
provides more power from clean, renewable sources; and tackles global 
warming. Again, this bill fails miserably on every count.
  This energy bill is the most anti-consumer, anti-environment, pro-
polluter, pro-corporate welfare legislation that I have seen in the 12 
years that I have served in this House. It could cost consumers as much 
as $136 billion in subsidies to polluting industries and corporate 
handouts. The bill rewards energy companies with billions in subsidies 
while sticking taxpayers with the bill and the pollution and the bill 
for that pollution, which right now comes to about $167 billion in 
monetized health care costs cross the country.
  It eliminates consumer protections and subsidizes the construction of 
new nuclear power plants that most people do not want. The bill fails 
to take any step whatsoever to require that the Nation reduce its 
dependence on oil or improve the fuel economy of our cars, trucks, and 
SUVs. The conference even removed the Senate-passed provision to reduce 
U.S. energy demands by 1 billion barrels a daily.
  It nullifies lawsuits by cities, States, and others filed on or after 
September 5, 2003, seeking compensation for contamination of 
groundwater by MTBE, which is a very heavily suspected carcinogen. This 
forces State and local communities to pay the cost that was originated 
by the polluters. And then the bill provides 2 billion in taxpayer 
dollars for these MTBE manufacturing companies to transition themselves 
into a new line of work, more corporate welfare.
  It violates the ``polluter pays'' principle by forcing taxpayers, 
rather than polluters, to pay for the cleanup of contamination from 
leaking underground storage tanks. Taxpayers, rather than polluters, 
will pay another $2 billion to compensate the polluters rather than 
having them to pay the bill. The bill does nothing to address the 
serious damage caused by global warming. It dramatically increases air 
pollution and global warming with huge new incentives for burning 
fossil fuels. It allows more smog pollution for longer than the current 
Clean Air Act currently authorizes. This means more kids and others 
breathing dirty air for longer periods of time, more cases of asthma, 
more public health problems.
  It undermines the Clean Water Act. It threatens drinking water 
supplies,

[[Page 12184]]

public health, and the environment by exempting hydraulic fracturing, a 
drilling technique which injects chemicals into the groundwater.
  This is an absolutely atrocious presentation. The rule should be 
defeated, and the bill should be defeated.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the people watching the 
floor today are feeling like they are having deja vu all over again; 
and, yes, they are right. We did do this before; and, no, there is 
nothing new here.
  What we should be talking about is renewable energy. We should be 
talking about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. We should be 
talking about ensuring that catastrophes like Enron's cheating the west 
coast out of billions of dollars never happen again. We should be 
talking about improving our electrical transmission lines so that the 
blackouts we experienced last summer do not happen again this summer.
  We should be talking about how to make our buildings more energy 
efficient, and we should be talking about the high price of gas and how 
to bring relief to the American people.
  Instead, we are talking about the same flawed energy bill that has 
already passed the House. That bill was not good the first time, and it 
is not good this time. This is the exact same energy bill that allows 
companies to pollute our air and contaminate our water while giving 
huge tax incentives to big oil and gas companies, the same companies 
that are today gouging the American people with high gas prices at the 
pumps.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing this rule and these bills and to get on with the work of a 
real energy policy, one that will bring us independence from foreign 
fuels; one that will protect our environment and ensure that we are no 
longer depending on fossil fuels.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to support 
comprehensive energy legislation.
  I think it is ironic that we are having to do this for the third time 
when gas prices are at historic high levels in our country; and I do 
not know what message it will give to two thirds of the Senate to say 
we need a national energy, one that applies for more energy, domestic 
sources of energy.
  I know we need more energy, whether it be from crude oil for our 
gasoline in our cars. We need lower natural gas prices. We have some of 
the highest in the world. And yet we still have people in this country 
who do not want to produce in our own Nation.
  The nation of Cuba can drill 60 miles off Key West, and yet the 
Governor of Florida does not want American companies drilling with zero 
emission platforms 100 miles away. Obviously ANWR is an issue. We need 
to drill domestically and produce it, and that way we will not become 
dependent on foreign oil.
  I support passing this bill, again, Mr. Speaker; and I would hope 
that the bipartisan majority of the House would support it also.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members 
it is inappropriate to urge action on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests 
for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this House is becoming a place where the rules are 
constantly being broken and a place where the process is constantly 
being ignored. No hearings, no markups, no amendments made in order. 
How cynical on an issue so important.
  We need an energy policy in this country, Mr. Speaker. But this is 
not it. What we are being presented with today really is a giveaway to 
big campaign contributors. This bill does nothing to lower gas prices. 
This bill does nothing to have us become less dependent on foreign oil. 
It does nothing to support, in a meaningful way, renewable energy 
sources.
  This bill is having a tough time for all the right reasons, because 
it is a bad bill. And rather than trying to fix it and rather than 
trying to negotiate with the other body, here we are again going 
through the same old routine.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not just people like me who have problems with 
this bill. Let me read just a section from a letter signed by the 
president of Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the president of the 
Council for Citizens against Government Waste, the President of the 
National Taxpayers Union, the president of the Americans for Tax 
Reform, and the president of the American Conservative Union. They 
recently sent all of us a letter. Let me just quote from one paragraph.
  They say: ``There is too much waste to describe in one letter,'' 
contained in this bill. ``Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches 
everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to 
`green' bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal 
industries to billions in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas 
pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges 
across this country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a 
quarter of the bill's funding.''
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and I will insert this letter in 
the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, we could do so much better, and I would urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule, to force the 
committees of jurisdiction to do their job, to go back and meet again 
and to come up with an energy bill that we all can be proud of.

                                                 December 1, 2003.

                     Pop the Ballooning Energy Bill

       Dear Senator: On behalf of our members, the undersigned 
     groups urge you to oppose H.R. 6, the so-called ``Energy 
     Policy Act of 2003.'' We are concerned that at every 
     opportunity the energy bill has been larded up with more and 
     more waste and inappropriate taxpayer-funded subsidies. 
     Between initial passage on the floor of the House of 
     Representatives and the bill's emergence from the sequestered 
     conference committee, the bill's price tag ballooned from $46 
     billion to over $72 billion in authorized spending. That is a 
     50% increase in authorized spending in just a few months. Our 
     organizations will strongly consider including votes on this 
     bill in our end-of-the-year scorecards.
       H.R. 6 is chock full of subsidies, pork barrel projects, 
     and unnecessary spending that have little, if anything, to do 
     with our nation's energy needs. Even supporters of the 
     legislation have admitted that it is not real comprehensive 
     energy policy, but merely a goodie bag of various projects 
     and policies. The Wall Street Journal called this bill ``one 
     of the great logrolling exercises in recent Congressional 
     history'' and that to get the bill through, leadership has 
     ``greased more wheels than a Nascar pit crew.'' The 
     Washington Post also editorialized against the bill, calling 
     on lawmakers to ``make sure the bill doesn't become law.'' We 
     echo that sentiment.
       There is too much waste to describe in one letter. Suffice 
     it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything, 
     from giving billions to ethanol producers to ``green'' bonds 
     for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal 
     industries to billion in loan guarantees for an Alaska 
     natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet 
     projects at colleges across the country. The oil and gas 
     industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's 
     funding.
       Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6 and we will strongly 
     consider including votes on this wasteful legislation in our 
     organizations' end-of-year scorecards. We would be happy to 
     discuss these issues with you further. Please contact Aileen 
     Roder at Taxpayers for Common Sense Action at (202) 546-8500 
     130 or [email protected] with questions or comments.
           Sincerely,
     Jill Lancelot,
       President, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action.
     Tom Schatz,
       President, Council for Citizens against Government Waste.
     John Berthoud,
       President, National Taxpayers Union.
     Grover G. Norquist,
       President, Americans for Tax Reform.
     Richard Lessner, Ph.D.,
       Executive Director, American Conservative Union.


[[Page 12185]]


  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the revelations that came to light 
last week regarding the tapes on the Enron traders. As I started to say 
earlier, that is pretty black and white, and it is bad. There is 
absolutely no question about that. And FERC is responsible for that. 
FERC has been working on this for some time. They have been. I think, 
frankly, they have been moving rather slowly. But now that this new 
information is out, I think FERC has to move much more quickly on this 
issue because there is an awful lot at stake for the rate payers in the 
western part of my State and certainly in my State and, indeed, the 
whole northwest. So I share concerns with my colleagues on the west 
coast that FERC needs to act immediately, and I hope that they would.
  I might also add that since these revelations came to light last week 
about the trading, the Department of Justice has now weighed in, as 
they properly should. So we will get to the bottom about this. I do not 
think there is any question about that. But there is no way that 
anybody in this body can condone what we heard that was made public 
with those tapes.
  So with that, getting back to the business at hand, I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.
  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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds 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 clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 671 will be followed by 5-
minute votes, as ordered, on adopting H. Res. 671; ordering the 
previous question on H. Res. 672; and adopting H. Res. 672.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 197, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 236]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     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
     Jenkins
     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
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     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
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     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--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     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)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     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
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     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
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bishop (UT)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Collins
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Ehlers
     John
     Lampson
     Millender-McDonald
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Terry
     Watson


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1237

  Messrs. POMEROY, DAVIS of Illinois, BRADY of Pennsylvania, BACA, 
DAVIS of Tennessee, ACKERMAN, GORDON, WEINER, SHAYS, and RANGEL, and 
Mrs. NAPOLITANO and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 193, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page 12186]]



                             [Roll No. 237]

                               AYES--225

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

                               NOES--193

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Collins
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Ehlers
     John
     Lampson
     Millender-McDonald
     Pascrell
     Turner (TX)
     Waters
     Watson


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1246

  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.

                          ____________________