[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10964-10969]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2419, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 291 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.

[[Page 10965]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 291

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except for section 104. Where points of order are 
     waived against part of a paragraph, points of order against a 
     provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only 
     against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purposes of debate only.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 291 is an open rule that provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 2419, the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also 
provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  I would like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate that we 
bring forth this resolution under a fair and open rule.
  Historically, appropriations bills have come to the floor of the 
House governed by open rules. We continue to do so in order to allow 
each and every Member of this House the opportunity to submit 
amendments for consideration, obviously as long as they are germane 
under the rules of the House.
  This legislation before us today, Mr. Speaker, appropriates almost 
$30 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Departments of 
the Interior and Energy, and several independent agencies. This bill is 
truly fiscally sound, representing a reduction of $131.7 million from 
the fiscal year 2005 legislation and the same spending level as was 
requested by the President in his budget request. At the same time, Mr. 
Speaker, this legislation provides the resources necessary to address 
the energy and water needs of the United States.
  H.R. 2419 provides $4.7 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
The corps is the world's premier public engineering organization, 
responding to the needs of the Nation in peace and in war. For over 200 
years the corps has been involved in such important missions as flood 
control, shoreline prevention, navigation and safety on the waterways 
of this great Nation. The vital work of the corps will continue under 
this act, which includes a vigorous civil works program.
  The bill also includes a number of significant changes to improve 
project execution and financial management, including more responsible 
use of reprogramming, continuing contracts and implementation of long-
term financial planning.
  I would like to highlight a corps project of particular interest to 
my community, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program. The 
restoration of the Everglades, that wonder of nature, is the largest 
and most significant environmental initiative that this country has 
ever undertaken. The legislation continues our commitment to the 
restoration of this environmental treasure with an appropriation of 
$137 million. I am pleased to report that Everglades restoration is 
moving forward expeditiously and effectively. Congress, and the 
Committee on Appropriations especially, should be proud of this 
environmentally sound action.
  The National Nuclear Security Administration, which includes the 
nuclear weapons program, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval 
reactors and the Office of the Administrator, is funded at $8.8 
billion, an increase of $24 million over fiscal year 2005. I am glad to 
see that the appropriators increased this program. Nonproliferation is 
essential to the defense of the homeland. Our work across the globe, 
especially in Russia, makes it ever more difficult for rogue states and 
terrorists to obtain the weapons necessary to attack the United States 
or our Armed Forces abroad or our allies.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) for truly extraordinary 
work on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, 
to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to today's consideration of H.R. 2419, 
which reflects much thought and long-term planning on behalf of the 
Committee on Appropriations. This year's energy and water bill means a 
great deal to my constituents and to my home in Sacramento.
  Sacramento's history has long been intertwined with flood control. 
When the city endured a near catastrophic flood in 1986, the community 
quickly realized they did not have nearly the level of flood protection 
necessary to fully safeguard the region. After the city again faced 
more floods in 1997, the community set off to achieve 200-year flood 
protection. However, until that day arrives, flooding remains a very 
constant and real threat, and continued Federal assistance plays an 
important role to attaining that goal.
  In spite of years of efforts, Sacramento still remains one of the 
most flood-prone and threatened cities in the country, paling in 
comparison to the level of protection enjoyed by other river cities. 
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento's flood risk 
is among the highest of major urban areas in the country.
  Located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers, 
Sacramento is the hub of a six-county regional economy that provides 
800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people. A major flood along the American 
River would cripple this economy, cause between $7 billion and $16 
billion in direct property damages and likely result in significant 
loss of life. The risk of serious flooding poses an unacceptable threat 
to the safety and economic well-being of Sacramento and to California's 
State Capitol.
  With the steady support of Congress, Sacramento has already made good 
progress toward our initial goal of achieving 100-year flood protection 
for the region and ultimately moving as quickly as possible towards 
200-year flood protection. At the beginning of this year, FEMA revised 
its flood maps for the majority of Sacramento to reflect 100-year flood 
protection. But this level of flood protection is still a far cry from 
the protection afforded other large river cities and at least 100,000 
people and 1,500 businesses continue to be at high risk in the south 
Sacramento area.
  Fortunately, as a result of long, bipartisan negotiations, Congress 
has authorized a suite of projects that will

[[Page 10966]]

achieve 200-year flood protection. Upon completion of the authorized 
projects to improve area levees, modify the outlets at Folsom Dam and 
raise Folsom Dam by 7 feet, Sacramento will attain its long-term flood 
control goal. I deeply appreciate the Committee on Appropriations's 
commitment to funding these projects to help give Sacramento the level 
of flood protection that it both needs and deserves.
  I am also quite pleased with the work that the committee has done to 
ensure corps projects are executed in an efficient manner with improved 
financial management. For example, the work necessary to achieve 200-
year flood protection will take 15 to 20 years to complete. The 
committee is asking that the corps develop a 5-year plan and a vision 
for water infrastructure in the country. The current year-by-year 
strategy would not be an efficient manner to plan for the significant 
financial demands. This would ultimately compromise the ability to 
implement the region's flood control projects. Efforts to 
comprehensively interrogate financial planning and project management 
in the corps will greatly benefit not only the execution of the 
projects, but also the local and State partner's ability to plan their 
budget.
  It is certainly understandable that no matter how extensive the 
planning and preparation for a project, that as it moves forward, it 
may get off schedule. With that in mind, it is certainly helpful for 
the corps to be able to reprogram funding to projects that can keep 
progressing. But this should only happen if the corps can return the 
funding back to the project the funds originally came from. To not do 
so is a complete disregard of congressional directive. In such tight 
financial times, the corps must curb this practice.
  I strongly support the committee directive that the corps 
specifically identify all of the funding owed to projects as a result 
of reprogramming. I also believe integrating this funding into the 
corps budget will help clear the books and assist the corps in 
efficient project execution and financial management.
  By working together, the Congress, the administration and the corps 
of Engineers will be better prepared to ensure limited Federal 
resources are spent efficiently, commitments to local sponsors are 
honored and projects remain on schedule.
  I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the committee's 
work determining funding priorities for the Department of Energy. This 
year's Energy and Water Appropriations bill highlights the committee's 
focus on other long-range issues, noticeably their commitment to 
nuclear nonproliferation.
  Sadly, this President's go-it-alone approach has been ineffective in 
reducing the threat by cooperating and working with our allies and 
others around the world to bring economic, social and political 
pressure to bear on any country trying to gain nuclear weapon 
capabilities.
  It is illogical to expect any other nation to listen to Americans 
speak of nonproliferation when we are developing bunker-busting nuclear 
weapons. I stand with the committee's position to stop nuclear earth 
penetrator research. Considering the vast amount of nuclear material 
that is not secured in the former Soviet Union, I believe it is a much 
better investment to fund the Sustainable Stockpile Initiative. Through 
this program, we will be able to increase our Nation's security by 
keeping their Cold War-era nuclear weapons and materials from falling 
into the hands of terrorist organizations.
  My one disappointment with this rule, Mr. Speaker, is that yesterday 
afternoon the Committee on Rules refused to make in order a good 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz). 
Her amendment would provide the Department of Energy an additional $250 
million to accelerate energy research, development, demonstration and 
deployment. This investment will help our Nation harness technology to 
secure greater independence from foreign sources of energy. As we face 
rapidly rising prices for crude oil and gasoline at the pump, I believe 
this issue is very timely and of great relevance to our debate today 
about the funding priorities for the Department of Energy.
  This bill moves our country forward on many levels, from improving 
local water infrastructure, to bigger-picture Corps of Engineers 
financial management and efficiency issues, to global issues like 
nuclear nonproliferation. I strongly support the underlying bill and am 
pleased it was reported in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the rule under consideration.
  Yesterday, I asked the Committee on Rules to provide a waiver so that 
the House could consider my amendment to create the energy technology 
to power the 21st century initiative which would provide $250 million 
to accelerate the research, development, demonstration and deployment 
of new energy technologies and make our Nation less reliant on foreign 
energy. Unfortunately, my request was denied along party lines.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question much of our energy supply is 
controlled by foreign nations. Just as we are trying to improve 
national security, we have failed to complement these efforts with the 
energy policies that would move us towards greater energy independence.
  The recently passed Energy Policy Act failed to adequately invest in 
renewable energy and conservation, directing $600 million to these 
efforts while allocating more than 40 percent of the bill's $8.1 
billion in tax cuts, that is, $3.2 billion, toward the oil and gas 
industries, the same traditional resources that in large part we depend 
on foreign countries for.
  Mr. Speaker, if we do not change our focus, our country's consumption 
of oil will only increase. By 2025, oil usage will increase to 28.3 
million barrels per day, with imports accounting for 19.68 million of 
those barrels. Leaving our energy security in the hands of 
international oil barons is a foolish and dangerous approach.

                              {time}  1045

  That is why I wanted to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 
Energy and Water Appropriations Act that would provide the Department 
of Energy with $250 million to accelerate the research, development, 
demonstration, and deployment of new energy technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the benefits of controlling our own energy sources are 
enormous. A down payment of $250 million would spur much-needed work in 
the emerging sector of energy technology. We could bring to bear 
reliable and successful methods of wind, solar, biomass, hydrogen, and 
other forms of energy. It could bring new ways to bring cleaner, safer, 
and more efficient energy with more traditional sources, including coal 
and oil. It would put the United States on a course to energy 
independence, something we all talk about.
  It would also help maintain our standing as a world leader with 
regard to scientific discovery by establishing a 21st-century engine to 
discover new, more efficient, cleaner energy sources for the future. We 
would help to create new, high-paying jobs and keep the United States 
on the cutting edge of science and technology. With appropriate 
investments, consumers as well as businesses will have greater, rather 
than fewer, and less expensive options.
  In the end, shifting our energy economy means improved national 
security, more American jobs, a stronger economy, and a cleaner 
environment. It is time to demand action on policy initiatives that 
will set the United States free from its reliance on imported oil.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  With regard to an amendment that was allegedly not made in order, I 
want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that we brought forth this legislation 
under an open rule. Obviously, an amendment has to be germane and not 
violate the

[[Page 10967]]

rules of the House. We very much attempted to bring forth this 
appropriations bill under an open rule, and we are pleased that we were 
able to do so, and obviously that permits the amendment process to be 
wide open and obviously fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Gibbons), my distinguished friend and a great leader in this House.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for 
allowing me today to rise in support of the rule, but in opposition to 
the underlying bill. First, I would like to thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for allowing me time to speak 
on an issue that is very important to my home State of Nevada.
  Mr. Speaker, since the proposal of Yucca Mountain over 2 decades ago, 
Nevadans have collectively fought against this ill-advised project. I 
hope that one day I can come to the House floor and tell the people of 
Nevada that they no longer need to worry about this disastrous 
proposal. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, today is not that day.
  I agree with my colleagues that we must find a solution to the 
escalating energy problem in this country. However, digging a hole in 
the Nevada desert and burying the waste is simply not the answer. The 
Yucca Mountain project was based on 1980s science and technology and 
has no place in our country today. We need to focus on 21st-century 
solutions like reprocessing and transmutation processes to reduce our 
nuclear waste. Going forward with the Yucca Mountain project is like 
still using cassette tapes or even 8-track stereo tapes in an era of 
MP3 players and Ipods.
  In addition to this disregard of modern technology, it seems now the 
DOE does not even care about ensuring the science they are basing the 
project on, outdated or not, is even accurate. I met with Secretary 
Bodman, along with the rest of the Nevada delegation, and we discussed 
the recent scandal regarding the falsification of science from some 
employees directly involved in the project. Despite the manipulation of 
the data and the complete disregard for quality assurance that the 
employees have shown, the Secretary demonstrated absolutely no 
willingness to review the Yucca Mountain project.
  I know most of my colleagues are not following this issue as closely 
as we are in Nevada; but for the sake of government accountability, we 
must halt this project until we have time to fully investigate these 
accusations.
  As Members of Congress, we are entrusted with responsibly spending 
the taxpayers' dollars, and now is the time for us to stand up and 
demand that the Department of Energy be accountable for its actions. We 
are only wasting our constituents' tax dollars by pumping money toward 
a project that continues to crumble from the inside.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the funding levels for 
Yucca Mountain in the underlying bill. However, I will support the rule 
so that we can move forward with debate on this very important issue.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can 
consider the Schwartz amendment that was offered in the Committee on 
Rules last night, but rejected on a straight party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the Schwartz amendment proposes an important new 
initiative to help the United States reduce our dependence on imported 
oil and strengthen our national security. It would provide the 
Department of Energy with an additional $250 million next year to 
accelerate the research and deployment of energy technology that will 
reduce our country's consumption of fossil fuels.
  I also want to point out that the cost of this amendment is fully 
paid for and will not increase the deficit by one penny. The funding 
for this amendment will come from a small, less than 1 percent 
reduction in a tax cut for people making over $1 million this year.
  A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote 
on the Schwartz amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from 
voting on this responsible and aggressive approach to help our Nation 
out of its dependency on foreign oil.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the 
text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on the previous question so that 
we can have an opportunity to vote on the Schwartz amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to 
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. 
Res. 291.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  This is an important appropriations bill, and it is one that we are 
pleased, obviously, to bring forward under the great tradition of open 
rules. So I very strongly support not only the underlying legislation 
but also the rule, and I would ask for an affirmative vote by all of 
our colleagues on the previous question as well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, while I am not present for 
today's debate on this rule or on the underlying Fiscal Year 2006 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill due to an illness in my family, I 
do urge my colleagues to support both measures.
  This is an open rule and allows for full debate on funding for the 
Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and all programs and 
activities of the Department of Energy in the next fiscal year.
  Writing this bill was a challenging task, as Subcommittee Chairman 
Hobson had over $130 million less to spend in Fiscal Year 2006 than was 
spent in Fiscal Year 2005. I commend Chairman Hobson for the tremendous 
leadership he has shown in constructing this bill and for garnering 
bipartisan support for it in both his Subcommittee and the full 
Appropriations Committee. I fully expect it will pass this House with 
strong bipartisan support as well.
  I particularly want to thank Chairman Hobson for the continued 
commitment he has shown to the Department of Energy's Environmental 
Management program and cleanup of the Hanford site in Washington state. 
The Administration's proposed budget reductions at Hanford would have 
jeopardized the progress and cleanup momentum that has been achieved 
through accelerated cleanup over the past 3 years and put cleanup 
deadlines in jeopardy of being missed. The restoration of over $200 
million for Hanford in this bill will ensure that cleanup momentum 
continues, the Department has the ability to meet its legal timelines, 
and that skilled workers remain on the job.
  The Federal government has a legal and moral obligation to cleanup 
Hanford and the Nation's other nuclear waste sites, and this bill 
ensures that these promises are kept.
  In addition to significantly restoring funds to Hanford's budget, 
this bill provides funding for preservation of the B Reactor, for 
operation of the Volpentest HAMMER training facility, and for the 
critical effort to develop replacement lab space for Pacific Northwest 
National Lab scientists who will soon be required to vacate their 
current workspaces for cleanup work. PNNL is home to world-class 
researchers and ensuring they are able to continue their work is 
important for our Nation and for the economic future of the TriCities 
community in Washington state.
  While water project funding is much tighter this year due to overall 
spending constraints, I am pleased that several important Washington 
state initiatives were included in this bill. Scarce funds will be used 
to continue the progress on the Bureau or Reclamation study of 
additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin that I began in 
2003. Additional funding is also provided for work to address depletion 
of the Odessa Subaquifer, the Port

[[Page 10968]]

of Sunnyside's wastewater treatment and wetland restoration project, 
and the deepening of the Columbia River channel.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support passage of 
the underlying Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

  Previous Question H. Res. 291--Rule for H.R. 2419, FY06 Energy and 
                          Water Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Schwartz of 
     Pennsylvania or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

                  Amendment to H.R. 2419, as Reported

                Offered by Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania

       Page 19, line 5, insert ``(increased by $250,000,000)'' 
     after ``$1,762,888,000''.
       Page 45, after line 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 503. In the case of any taxpayer with adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1,000,000 for the taxable year ending in 
     calendar year 2006, the amount of tax reduction for the 
     taxpayer for such year resulting from enactment of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 
     (Pub. L. 107-16) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced 
     by 0.78 percent.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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.
  Ms. MATSUI. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 190, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 203]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     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
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Boehlert
     Brady (TX)
     Burton (IN)
     Cardoza
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Gohmert
     Hastings (WA)
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     Kuhl (NY)
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Poe
     Pryce (OH)
     Reynolds
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Walsh
     Watt
     Wexler
     Wu


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1115

  Messrs. BISHOP of New York, ORTIZ, RUPPERSBERGER, BERMAN, GENE GREEN 
of Texas, Ms. WASSER-
MAN SCHULTZ and Ms. SOLIS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations, I unfortunately 
missed the following vote on the House floor today, Tuesday, May 24, 
2005.
  Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 
No. 203 (On Ordering the Previous Question--Providing for consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water 
development for FY 2006).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 10969]]



                          ____________________