[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28995-29003]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2262, HARDROCK MINING AND 
                        RECLAMATION ACT OF 2007

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 780 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 780

       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. 2262) to modify the requirements applicable to 
     locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with 
     the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, 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 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. 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 
     Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
     rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 2262 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H. Res. 780.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 780 provides for consideration of H.R. 
2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, under a structured rule. 
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources. It also makes in order an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute reported by the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation. My home State of California is what it is today because of 
the business of mining. When James Marshall discovered gold in the 
American River in my area more than two centuries ago, California was 
not yet a State.
  The economic boom that followed the discovery of gold helped to 
remake the West. It infused our young Nation with renewed energy and 
capital. It began one of the most well-known episodes in our country's 
history: the Gold Rush.
  Without mining, the City of Sacramento, which I represent proudly, 
would probably not be the capital of the largest State in the Union. 
Without mining, States like Nevada and Utah would be without the 
economic basis upon which they are now growing. Without mining, the 
western half of the United States would be a different place.
  But in the West, Mr. Speaker, we have more than hardrock minerals. We 
also have rivers, streams, mountain ranges, and millions upon millions 
of people. These are natural resources just like gold and silver, and 
they must be protected from environmental harm.
  Unfortunately, the law that currently governs mining operations is 
extremely outdated. It was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant. This 
was during the time when miners used shovels and pickaxes. Now, huge 
machines and industrial equipment are the tools of the mining trade.
  Times have changed, Mr. Speaker. In the year 2007, we recognize that 
the term ``natural resources'' includes more than what we extract from 
the Earth. Its definition now encompasses the whole environment in 
which we live, from the water we drink, to the land we farm, to the air 
we breathe.
  All Americans have a stake in preserving this environment, Mr. 
Speaker, and mining companies should contribute their fair share. 
However, they currently enjoy access to Federal land that no other 
industry does, not natural gas, not oil shale, not coal.
  Under the 1872 law, mining companies pay next to nothing to extract 
metal from publicly owned lands. American taxpayers foot the bill for 
the extensive environmental remediation that many abandoned mines 
require.
  Other old mines simply never get cleaned up. They sit empty and 
vacant, leaching chemicals into groundwater, polluting watersheds, and 
posing safety hazards for the public. After 135 years' worth of this 
subsidy, it is long past time for mining companies to pay their fair 
share.
  This bill received 3 subcommittee hearings and a full committee 
hearing that stretched over 2 days. The rule makes in order 7 total 
amendments, 5 of which are Republican.
  This legislation has been considered and debated in the best 
tradition of the U.S. Congress. It is good environmental policy in the 
very same tradition. It is also good social policy. The bill also takes 
into account industry concerns and provides economic assistance to 
mining communities. One-third of the revenue created by this bill will 
go to a community assistance fund to help mitigate the social and 
economic impacts of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Sacramento grew up around a place called 
Sutter's Fort. It was originally built to be a base for agricultural 
trade. The discovery of gold in the foothills northeast of Sutter's 
Fort changed its history and the history of our Nation forever. Because 
of gold, what was once Mexican territory soon became our 31st and most 
prosperous State.
  Mining has left a permanent imprint on this country. Yes, it has led 
to increased economic gain and the development of the western United 
States. At the same time, it has had negative impact on our public 
lands. As Members of Congress, we are stewards of this Federal land. We 
have the responsibility to update our laws so that the mining industry 
helps ensure that our public lands and natural resources are preserved 
for future Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying legislation which imposes an 8 percent gross tax on all new 
mining claims made on Federal lands and will cause a significant 
reduction in domestic mineral production and future mining investments 
in the United States of America.

[[Page 28996]]

  I do appreciate the lip service that the Democrat majority regularly 
pays to making America the top-ranked nation in the world on a number 
of fronts. However, after managing over what will surely rank as the 
least effective Congress in recent memory, I am surprised that there 
isn't more disappointment on their side of the aisle with this 
legislation because this bill fails to set new global standards for the 
highest tax on mining on the planet; it merely matches Germany's, which 
already holds the world record for the highest mining tax at 8 percent 
of gross receipts. Once again we see the new Democrat majority trying 
to equal what is done in the United Kingdom and across Europe, 
including Germany.
  In the Committee on Natural Resources hearing held on this matter on 
October 2, James Cress testified: ``I am only aware of a single royalty 
that is as high as the royalty proposed in this bill, just one in my 20 
years of practice. An 8 percent royalty would really be ruinous.''
  I suppose that neither Mr. Cress nor anyone watching this debate 
should be surprised, though. In what will surely go down as the least-
productive Congress in recent history, this new Democrat majority has 
failed for the first time since 1987 to even send a single 
appropriations bill to the President for his approval by this point in 
the year.
  This is the same Democrat majority that recently set another record 
of dubious distinction, a record for the most legislative ``busy work'' 
with the least amount to show for it. Since the beginning of this 
Congress, Members of this House have voted on over 1,000 roll call 
votes with just barely a tenth of those bills having been signed into 
law.
  And of the 106 bills that have actually made it to the President's 
desk, 46 named post offices, courthouses, or roads; 44 bills were 
noncontroversial measures sponsored by Republicans or passed with 
overwhelming GOP support; and 14 bills extended preexisting public laws 
or laws passed during the Republican-led Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that with a track record as abysmal as 
this, the Democrat majority is eager to put just about anything on the 
floor in the hopes of claiming any kind of legislative victory. 
Unfortunately, the policies included in this legislation are quite 
simply wrong for America that will jeopardize the current and future 
domestic sourcing of minerals that are critical to our Nation's 
economic well-being and security.
  In addition to imposing the world's highest royalty on mineral 
production, this legislation would also retroactively levy a 4 percent 
gross royalty on existing mines where business plans and investments 
have already been made without accounting for this after-the-fact cost. 
This provision, which is of doubtful legality but is doubtlessly 
unfair, is the legislative equivalent of one party changing the terms 
of a contract after it has already been signed. I believe that the 
Federal Government abusing its power to change the negotiated terms of 
these agreements is simply unfair, and I oppose it.
  I also disagree with the inclusion of several provisions in this 
legislation that would empower political appointees to stop new mining 
projects even after these projects have met all applicable 
environmental and legal requirements.
  No industry can or should be expected to operate with such regulatory 
uncertainty, and the net effect of all of these provisions will simply 
be to encourage companies to take their business overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation that 
harms the domestic American mining industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa), the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the Rules Committee for their 
cooperation and assistance in bringing this bill to the floor today. 
Mr. Speaker, I think there are many reasons why we should support the 
rule proposed for H.R. 2262. Most important among them is what I 
believe is a sound, solid legislative process that has led to the 
amended version of H.R. 2262 that we have before us today.
  Now, with deference to my colleague who just spoke, let me be clear 
that the process has worked. Proper order has been followed. We have 
worked on this issue for most of the last 10 months with the 
subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals on 
Public Lands.
  The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals on Public Lands has the 
jurisdiction to provide a balance. This balance we talk about often in 
the subcommittee. It is a challenging balance because on the one hand 
we are to protect and preserve the natural heritage of our Nation's 
public lands for all of our citizens to enjoy in perpetuity, and to 
ensure that those public lands remain available for all generations of 
future Americans to benefit from.

                              {time}  1030

  There are many numerous ways in which we benefit from them. We know 
historically that those public lands have played a very meaningful role 
in our Nation's development, and it's that balance.
  In this case, the subcommittee knows that the energy and the mineral 
developments that took place in the 19th and the 20th century were key 
and critical to the development, economically, of our Nation, and they 
also had obviously a very important role in the social development as 
well because if it were not for the discovery of gold in the 19th 
century in California and the opportunities that discovery brought 
forth, as in all the other minerals and energy that have been 
discovered on public lands in the 19th and 20th century, we would not 
have seen the opening of the West.
  So, therefore, our subcommittee and the members on the subcommittee 
are very mindful of the fact that we have this dual role: balancing the 
resources that provide important energy and minerals to our Nation's 
wealth and at the same time preserving and protecting those same public 
lands to ensure that, in fact, they will be available for future 
generations of Americans to come.
  And, yes, one other thing, when those public lands are being used in 
that dual role, since they belong to all Americans, that, in fact, all 
Americans are able to derive some benefit of the wealth that is derived 
from the utilization of those public lands for either mineral resource 
or for energy development because, remember, these lands belong to all 
Americans, unlike private holdings.
  So when I took over the subcommittee chairmanship early this year, 
this issue clearly was going to be one of the issues that Chairman 
Rahall wanted to address. Why? Well, for two decades, Chairman Rahall 
has attempted to reform this law. This is not a new issue. Let's be 
clear about this. This is no rush to judgment of some issue for the 
sake of having an issue on the floor.
  The mining law that was put together in 1872, signed by then-
President Ulysses S. Grant, has not been changed, modified in shape or 
form since President Ulysses Grant signed it into law in 1872.
  Back in the late 1970s and 1980s, Chairman Rahall, Congressman Rahall 
from West Virginia, a person who has a great deal of mining that takes 
place in his own district, came to this issue and wanted to make 
necessary changes for all the right reasons. As I took over the 
subcommittee chairmanship early this year, we decided we would build on 
that record and that effort of Chairman Rahall.
  In response to complaints, the minority has raised about having more 
hearings on this measure, let me tell you about the good work that the 
subcommittee and the committee has done.
  The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals, we've held four hearings 
this year on H.R. 2262, the 1872 mining law. Two of them, one in Elko, 
Nevada, with Members of both parties well-represented and Senator Reid, 
the other

[[Page 28997]]

one in Tucson, Arizona, provided valuable opportunities for local input 
from community citizens. In total, we have heard from over 33 witnesses 
in two field hearings and a multitude of hearings here in our Nation's 
Capital. We have done what you're supposed to do in the process. We've 
listened. We've made changes.
  Those hearings led to significant improvements in the bill, 
improvements supported by both the conservation community as well as 
the mining industry. That's not to say that everybody has gotten 
everything they want because, of course, that never happens in this 
process. No bill will ever be perfect on all sides, but this is a bill 
that has had thorough vetting and due, some would say past due, for all 
the attention this matter has gotten over two decades.
  I would also note that there's a long history as it relates to the 
mining law reform, the history that really predates this legislation, 
as I noted.
  So I think it's important to understand that we have taken into 
account over the last two decades hearings that have been held in the 
following States: Nevada, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 
Alaska, all States in which mining is of critical importance.
  In short, the need for mining law reform is not a new issue. It's one 
that has extensive legislative history. The flaws of the current law 
are well-debated and analyzed.
  I appreciate the leadership's interest in H.R. 2262 and Chairman 
Rahall's leadership and look forward to the debate on the amendments 
before us.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I come from northern Illinois, an area 
that has over 2,500 factories. I've spent about three-fourths of my 
time in Congress dealing with manufacturing issues and traveled the 
world working on different projects that have different processes, and 
this bill is really, really bad for people who are interested in 
keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States. Therefore, I rise in 
opposition to the rule governing the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation 
Act of 2007.
  Twenty-six amendments from both Democrats and Republicans were 
submitted, but only 7 were approved for the House for debate for 10 
minutes apiece. The bill proposes to make huge changes to an important 
sector of our economy, and the bill, therefore, deserves more than a 
little over 2 hours of debate.
  If the underlying bill is enacted as currently drafted, it poses an 
unacceptable threat to the health of our manufacturing and defense 
industrial base. Without agriculture, mining and manufacturing, we 
become a Third World Nation.
  U.S. mining operations provide approximately 50 percent of the metals 
needed by American manufacturers. Everybody in Congress, Mr. Speaker, 
interested in manufacturing needs to listen to this, because if this 
bill passes, this makes us more dependent upon China to get our 
minerals for manufacturing.
  Many of these minerals, gold, silver, copper, platinum, molybdenum, 
beryllium, titanium, zinc, magnesium and nickel are used in 
manufacturing applications from industrial motors to satellites. Thus, 
the core of our industrial minerals is what we're discussing today. 
Over the past few years, the cost of these raw materials has gone 
through the roof. We're putting the viability of our manufacturers in 
America at stake.
  When I chaired the Small Business Committee, I held two historic 
hearings on the spike in metal prices and what it means for 
manufacturers, both large and small. No one recommended at those 
hearings that we should make it more difficult, and thus more 
expensive, to mine in the United States.
  Many of the alternative sources of these minerals are also located in 
countries that are not close allies of us. Many of these minerals are 
also critical for the production of defense equipment. I'm concerned 
that we may find that just as America's energy security is largely 
dependent on the goodwill of OPEC, our national security will be 
largely dependent on China's goodwill as we compete for the metals and 
rare Earth minerals that feed our defense industrial base.
  Over half of the high-end magnet production that contains aluminum, 
nickel, and cobalt comes from China, and 100 percent of the rare Earth 
minerals used in magnets is found in China. The magnets are used in 
advanced missile guidance systems such as JDAM.
  I'm not aware of anybody that has claimed that the increased 
regulatory burden, an 8 percent gross income royalty interest in new 
production and a 4 percent increase on retroactive production, will 
help to improve the domestic supply of minerals or help lower their 
costs.
  Our manufacturing workers are the best and most productive workers in 
the world. They have been beset by cheap labor overseas, rising energy 
costs, unfair trade practices. And now this Congress, this Congress, 
Mr. Speaker, will make it more difficult for the American worker to 
keep his job in manufacturing because this Congress will make the raw 
materials so expensive that what will happen, the U.S. mining companies 
may go out of business, and then we will be totally dependent on 
foreign countries to keep up the mineral supply for our manufacturing 
base.
  This is an issue that if you vote ``yes'' on this rule, if you vote 
``yes'' on the bill, it will destroy America's manufacturing jobs. 
Maybe I get too passionate when it comes to protecting America's 
manufacturing jobs. I've visited hundreds and hundreds of factories 
throughout the world to make sure that the United States is way out 
front in technology and innovation, and in fact, when I hear so much 
talk going on on the other side of the aisle about innovation, about 
competitiveness, then you come right back and the very feedstock for 
American manufacturing you want to tax out of business.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill for American workers. This is a bad 
bill for American workers. This is a bad bill for American workers 
because it says let's just tax the minerals you need to make things 
that go out the door out of business. You might as well put another tax 
on natural gas. In fact, the Democrats did the same thing by taking 
away the tax break for exploration of natural gas, which is 80 percent 
of the feedstocks for plastics.
  And so here we are again, this Congress destroying American 
manufacturing jobs. Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Hardrock Mining Reclamation Act. Long overdue, the time for mining law 
reform has finally arrived.
  The 1872 mining law was enacted 40 years before Arizona was even a 
State. At that time, it encouraged the development and the expansion of 
the American West. My district of southern Arizona had a town of Bisbee 
that during the turn of the century actually had its own stock exchange 
and was the largest community from St. Louis to San Francisco. The 
copper star on the State of Arizona's flag symbolized the importance 
when we achieved statehood of the copper industry.
  However, times have changed. Today's West now depends on the health, 
as well as the conservation, of our fragile environment as much as it 
relies on mining.
  H.R. 2262 is a solid first step. It provides impact assistance to 
mining communities and establishes a practical and a modern approach to 
reclaiming and restoring the land as well as water resources.
  As this legislation progresses, I further encourage Members to look 
specifically at the royalty provisions. We do not want to undermine the 
financial viability of U.S. mining. Our modern, high-tech economy 
continues to depend on minerals, and this is the importance of making 
sure that we have a hardrock mining industry that is strong and able to 
supply all of these minerals.
  I commend Chairman Rahall for his work. I commend Chairman Costa for

[[Page 28998]]

crafting a new mining law that reflects modern values, as well as goals 
that benefit taxpayers, the public lands, as well as the mining 
industry.
  This is an important piece of legislation, long overdue; and I 
encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to support it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, we hear it here again, every 
single member of the new Democrat majority talking about their desire 
to tax, a new tax of 8 percent on this industry which has been 
described as the final death nail which will disseminate the remnants 
of an already sadly diminished domestic mining industry, and here we 
go, tax them at 8 percent, put the death nail in.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Heller).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
rule for H.R. 2262.
  The State of Nevada is the fourth largest gold producer in the world, 
ranking behind South Africa, Australia and China.
  But this bill is bad for Nevada, bad for this important industry, and 
bad for the families that I represent. Who here doesn't think that 
China wouldn't love to immediately see these jobs moved overseas? Who 
doesn't think that South Africa would like to see these foreign 
investments moved to their country, and who here in these Chambers 
doesn't think that Australia would love to see mineral exploration move 
from the United States to their country?
  This legislation hurts, perhaps even kills, the domestic mining 
industry and, with it, the towns and communities in northern Nevada and 
western rural America.
  The proposed royalty structure, this new tax, would levy a new 8 
percent gross royalty payment to this industry, all this despite the 
fact that not one witness testified before the House Natural Resources 
Committee in favor of it. Let me repeat that. Not one witness came 
before the committee to testify in favor of it.
  This untried, untested, new tax would hardly bring funds to the 
Federal Treasury, because when mining communities are decimated, there 
will be no royalties to collect. Everybody knows that 8 percent of 
nothing is still nothing.
  I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee that was ruled out of 
order because of fuzzy math that my colleagues used to enforce PAYGO. 
That amendment replaced the 8 percent gross royalty tax with a more 
modest 5 percent net proceeds of royalty. This amendment is good for 
three reasons.
  First, the net proceeds system is modeled after Nevada's proven and 
successful program. Why reinvent the wheel and ignore a model that 
encourages production rather than jeopardizes it?
  Second, a net proceeds system provides flexibility for the mining 
operation when commodity prices are down. This protects the good jobs 
in rural communities like Elko, Eureka, Lander, Humboldt, White Pine 
and other counties in Nevada.
  Third, my amendment would help prevent significant revenue and job 
losses for States. Their proposed 8 percent gross royalty, this new 
tax, will cripple States like California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, 
New Mexico, in addition to exporting our jobs overseas.
  But somehow, CBO scoring my amendment at zero somehow runs afoul of 
PAYGO rules. The majority party seems to want to waive this in every 
other circumstance.
  This bill, this rule, is simply bad policy, unless you want the 
mining industry to suffer. If passed into law, the effect will be to 
hurt the mining industry in the same way we have hurt the automobile 
industry, the same way we have hurt the steel industry, the same way we 
have hurt the seafood industry in coastal regions or, perhaps, the 
textile operations in the Southeast.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose destroying State budgets, oppose job 
loss in rural communities, and oppose the decimation of our domestic 
mining industries.
  Oppose the rule on H.R. 2262.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, having, as I said, held extensive hearings on 
this issue over the last 10 months, I think it's important that we 
respond to the comments that were made from my good friend, the 
gentleman from Nevada.
  We did have witnesses who testified on the issue of royalty. We had 
several witnesses that indicated that an 8 percent royalty would not be 
unreasonable, some even said perhaps too low.
  Taxpayers for Common Sense actually urged a higher rate. James Otto, 
a royalty consultant to governments around the world, stated that he 
would normally counsel a country to impose a gross royalty of between 2 
and 5 percent. However, he did say that a proposed 8 percent might not 
necessarily be too high. Why? Because a depletion allowance, depletion 
allowance, which is a tax break, enjoyed by the hardrock mining 
industry in the United States is significant.
  Mr. Otto pointed out that the depletion allowance works like a 
negative royalty. Perhaps only four countries in the world offer such a 
lucrative tax break, in this case, to our mining industry. This would 
be offset by a potential 8 percent.
  A Congressional Research Service witness indicated that royalties for 
oil and gas and coal operators in the United States, and we want to 
keep these oil and gas and coal operators doing their good work, is 8 
percent and more in some cases. Therefore, the fact that no royalty is 
charged, I think, needs to be taken into account. After all, these are 
public lands. No one wants to put the hardrock mining industry out of 
business. Nevada does a wonderful job, and we want to keep all those 
operations that are good stewards of the land in business.
  This is fair, it's equitable, and it's what's taking place in other 
countries. I think it's important that we note that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, day after day we come down to the floor 
and we hear about all the new taxes, all the new rules and regulations, 
all the things that have to take place by this new Democrat majority, 
but I think we fail to recognize that what happens is that when you tax 
something, you get less of it. When you put more rules and regulations 
on something, less good things happen.
  In this case, we are going to have an 8 percent tax on the industry; 
4 percent tax on the new operations, 4 percent tax on the existing 
operations. The overwhelming indication that we have is that it will 
make us look more like Europe, and we are told that's a good thing, I 
guess.
  The bottom line is that we spend a lot of time gnashing our teeth 
together trying to talk about jobs in country. Just yesterday, the 
Rules Committee, after we had done this bill, we had a trade adjustment 
assistance bill. We tried to bend over backwards, which some of it I do 
support, trying to make sure that those workers who have lost their 
jobs as a result of world competition in trade and manufacturing, that 
we do all we can do to help these employees who lost their job.
  Yet the very next bill is this bill that literally will decimate 
workers' jobs in the West. I am sure what we will do is in a few years 
we will come back and say, oh, my gosh, we just can't compete. Let's 
now give them what we just did yesterday, trade adjustment assistance. 
It just keeps going on and on and on.
  I suggested yesterday, will suggest today, let's not tax this. Let's 
not tax this industry for the benefit of the government. Let's let the 
industry be healthy. Let's let the industry compete globally. Let's let 
this industry provide those necessary and needed resources, precious 
metals and precious resources to the development and the benefit of the 
United States of America, including our United States military.
  Let's not tax this at 8 percent so that we allow manufacturing not to 
have to go overseas to get those precious, hard metal products that 
they need to ensure that manufacturing is taken care of in this 
country. Let's not tax this industry to where it decimates it, to

[[Page 28999]]

where there are no jobs in this country, to where America has to seek 
these precious metals and hard metals overseas.
  We believe that what you have got today is a circumstance where the 
new Democrat majority can't wait to tax this industry at 8 percent, 
which will see the industry go into demise. We think that is an obvious 
plan that they have had. They didn't just pull this out. This is 
something that they have had, been working on a long time.
  The Republican Party opposes this new tax. We oppose the diminishment 
of the industry. We oppose what will eventually happen as a result of 
American manufacturers having to go overseas to seek new markets, many 
times countries which are not close friends and allies of the United 
States. We see a day when we will not only lose jobs but will be held 
hostage for the precious minerals that we need, which will provide not 
only our country the things it needs but perhaps the military and our 
industrial complex with the things that will keep America strong.
  We oppose this bill. I believe that what you have heard today is not 
only Members state that equivocally, but we will continue to say to the 
Members who are listening to this argument, please vote ``no'' on the 
rule, and please vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia, chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall.
  Mr. RAHALL. I first thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) 
and the Rules Committee for fashioning a rule today which provides for 
a free and open debate on a historic measure, refining the Mining Law 
of 1872.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) who has so ably 
taken the reins of leadership on the Subcommittee on Mines and 
Minerals, a subcommittee I once chaired over 20 years ago. We had 
extensive hearings at that time across the country, including in 
Alaska. And the gentleman from California has conducted himself in the 
same fashion and with the same knowledge of this bill. I certainly 
thank him for his help.
  This legislation, it should be noted, is sponsored by, or, rather, 
enjoys the support of a number of Members from both sides of the aisle 
and from all political persuasions. It should be noted that Members 
from mining States affected by this legislation support this bill, 
including the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), who just spoke.
  The rule does make a number of amendments sponsored by Members from 
the other side of the aisle in order that touch upon key features of 
the legislation. Indeed, the Rules Committee was very generous, 
extremely generous to the other side.
  We are going to have a vote on the amendment today that will continue 
the 19th century practice, for example, of giving away mineral-rich 
public lands, the deed of which lies with all American citizens, for 
$2.50 an acre. That is an amendment that we will debate at the proper 
time. I say to my colleagues that this is not a Democrat or a 
Republican issue. It is a nonpartisan issue. It is bipartisan. Indeed, 
similar legislation has passed this body, not this Congress, but 
previous Congresses, by large, overwhelming margins.
  We are dealing with a law that has been relatively unchanged that was 
enacted when Ulysses S. Grant resided in the White House. Union troops 
still occupied the South. The invention of the telephone and Custer's 
stand at Little Bighorn were still 4 years away.
  In 1872, Congress passed a law that allowed people to go on to public 
lands in the West, stake mining claims, and if any gold or silver were 
found, mine it for free or to purchase those claim mine lands for as 
little as $2.50 an acre.
  Let me speak for a moment on the process leading up to our 
consideration of this matter; a fair process, I might add. The genesis 
of H.R. 2262 dates back to 1879, 7 years after the enactment of the 
mining law of 1872. At that time, Congress created the first major 
public land commission to investigate land policy in the West. One of 
its major recommendations included a thorough rewrite of the 1872 law, 
which, even then, was believed by many to undermine efficient mineral 
development.
  Several decades later, in 1908, President Roosevelt created the 
National Conservation Commission to study Federal land policy in the 
West, and it, too, made a number of recommendations for reforming the 
mining law.
  Again, in 1921, a committee appointed by the Director of the Bureau 
of Mines recommended a series of reforms developed in concert with 
mining industry representatives interested in improving the mechanics 
of the law. Following this effort, the next call for reform came at the 
onset of World War II, when then Secretary of the Interior, Harold 
Ickes, endorsed a leasing system for hardrock mining.
  In 1949, the Hoover Commission recommended a series of changes to the 
mining law. This effort was succeeded by the President's Materials 
Policy Commission in 1952, which also recommended revisions, including 
placing hardrock minerals under a leasing system.
  Once again, the criticism centered on inefficiencies in mineral 
development caused by the law. Beginning in 1964 and 1977, Congress 
went through another period of debate on the mining law reform until 
1977, when efforts collapsed.
  In 1985, this gentleman from West Virginia became Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources, and delved into the 
matter. I conducted a large number of hearings, including in four 
western States. It was not until 1992 that I brought a bill to the 
House floor for consideration.
  Following that effort, on November 18, 1993, the House passed my bill 
by a vote of 316-108. Unfortunately, during that 103rd Congress, a 
House-Senate conference committee on mining law reform was unable to 
reach a final agreement.
  We were then shut out, locked down on the consideration of any 
meaningful mining law reform during the 12 years of a Republican 
majority in this body. This Congress, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Costa) became the chairman of the subcommittee that I once chaired 
and took up the reform banner. He held a number of hearings, took 
testimony from 33 witnesses, and subsequently, the Committee on Natural 
Resources marked up H.R. 2262.

                              {time}  1100

  Subsequently the Committee on Natural Resources marked up H.R. 2262 
over one 2-day period and considered countless Republican amendments. 
Nobody was denied their ability to offer amendments. I repeat: Nobody 
was denied their ability to offer amendments.
  The legislation considered at the time was offered to Members and 
their staffs well ahead of time for ample dissection. I will stack this 
record up to anyone's with respect to the consideration of the bill by 
this body. Again, I defend our process as fair, as accountable and as 
transparent as a process can be in the House of Representatives, just 
as this legislation is worked and drafted in the same manner.
  I urge adoption of this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we understand this meaningful reform 
that's going on, a new 8 percent tax on the industry. We get that. The 
Republican Party understands that there will be a loss of jobs, loss of 
manufacturing base in the United States of America. And we know that 
that's part of the meaningful reform that the new Democrat majority 
wants and expects. This is not a new subject: taxation, spending at 
record levels that are taking place by this new Congress, combined with 
an incredibly poor record on efficiency for the bills that will be 
signed into law.
  That's why the President of the United States has issued his 
administrative policy from OMB that says they're not going to sign this 
bill; they're not going to sign this into law because of the loss of 
industry jobs, the lack of competitiveness that the United States of 
America will have with hard metals, and the high taxation that would be 
imposed that will kill the industry.

[[Page 29000]]

  We get it. Perhaps that's meaningful reform to the Democrat Party. 
That's loss of jobs, lack of ability for America to be competitive with 
the world and high taxation. And that's not our idea of good reform.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the gentlewoman from 
California that I have no additional speakers at this time, and so I 
will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for 
H.R. 2262 and the underlying legislation in hopes of reforming the 1872 
Mining Law.
  Chairman Rahall has been working toward this goal for many years, and 
I have tremendous respect for the expertise and dedication he has 
brought to this effort. I offer this support, though, with some 
reservations about the bill.
  I favor cleaning up abandoned old mines, and we have more than our 
fair share in Colorado. And we need funding to achieve this worthwhile 
goal.
  But I am concerned that generating this revenue by an 8 percent 
royalty may defeat the purpose of the bill. If mining moves offshore, 
which some economists tell us could happen, we won't have any mining 
from which to collect the royalties.
  And I'm also concerned about the thousands of jobs, of high-paying 
manufacturing jobs, that are generated by mining.
  We need to reform this old law. It's way overdue. I reiterate my 
support for this legislation, which has many, many positive attributes 
and is a good step towards reforming the law. But let's be sure we 
don't create one problem while we are solving another.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to reserve our time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I'm the last speaker on this side, so if the 
gentleman would like to close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate not only the debate that's 
taken place today, but also your demeanor in this wise consideration. I 
appreciate the gentleman from New York very much.
  Mr. Speaker, what we're debating here today is yet another 
opportunity for the new Democrat majority to raise taxes in this 
country, to put consumers at a disadvantage, and to raise more money 
for their Big Government plans and programs that they have.
  New taxation is not something that is new to the Democrat Party. 
That's their mission: grow the size of government, to tax people.
  What's interesting today is the debate that has taken place about the 
words ``meaningful reform'' that were necessary to justify the taxation 
that will take place.
  The Republican Party opposes this bill. The Republican Party opposes 
new taxation. The Republican Party recognizes again today that we know 
that market forces will come into play yet again today, not only to 
further diminish this industry, which, by and large, is located in the 
west of our country, which means a loss of jobs in the west, which 
means that it will diminish, not only the few jobs that remain, but 
will make America in a less competitive circumstance as related to the 
marketplace of the world.
  But what we've heard today that has been just very interesting were 
remarks by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) where he talked 
about his knowledge of what the manufacturing base of this country 
needs, and that is, many times, the hard minerals that are directly 
affected by what this bill will do.
  Raising taxes means that there will be less opportunity for people to 
go and mine these operations because the cost efficiency as it relates 
to the world marketplace will not be available to those companies. So 
what will happen is there will be a new taxation, this 8 percent tax. 
There will be a diminishment of the mining industry in America, and 
then there will be those people who utilize those raw materials, they 
still have a need to produce the products which they need, which many 
times are not only in the best interest of the United States of 
America, but also to produce products that will help the United States 
military and our infrastructure who now will have to go overseas to do 
business with countries that are not exactly our closest of friends and 
buy their products.
  So once again, what we see is a philosophy that is followed by the 
Democrat Party, not just the new majority of the Democratic Party, but 
an old philosophy that, let's go and find a way to reform an industry 
and to tax them out of existence, to lose jobs in this country to where 
we have to come down to the floor and beg for further government 
assistance to take care of people, and then we whine and moan about the 
jobs that have been lost overseas and how this had something to do with 
trade.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, we had an 
opportunity, the gentleman, Mr. Dreier from California; the gentleman, 
Mr. Diaz-Balart from Florida; the gentleman, Mr. Hastings from 
Washington; and myself and we said, why don't we do something that 
would be proactive to keep jobs in this country. Like, let's not do 
things that would put us at a disadvantage. Like, let's do things like 
lower taxation, for instance, with depreciation policies, tax policies 
that would allow us to be on an even footing with other countries who 
we compete with.
  That fell on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. It fell on deaf ears because, 
really, what this is about is getting more money to run this Big 
Government policy that the new Democratic majority wants to put in 
place.
  We recognize that what's happening is that at this time we have a log 
jam of all these bills as they try and get to the President's desk.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question 
so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation 
with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees and move 
forward on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill for 2008.
  This week, a number of news publications, including the National 
Journal, reported that the Democrat leadership intends to play 
political games and to send a three-bill pile-up consisting of Labor-
HHS, Defense and Veterans funding bills to President Bush so that they 
can try and leverage strong Republican support for the military and 
veterans funding to sneak a bloated Labor-HHS bill that proposes an 8 
percent increase in spending over current funding past President Bush 
and this Congress. Once again, not just more taxation, more spending.
  While the House Democrat leadership plays politics, however, our 
Nation's veterans are paying the price. The Senate has already done its 
work and appointed conferees for the Veterans appropriations bill. And 
for every day that House Democrats allow the veterans funding to 
languish without conferees for their own political advantage, our 
Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million that could be put to bear to help 
them for the intended reason why we're spending the money. That would 
be used for veterans housing, veterans health care, and other important 
veterans support activities.
  The American Legion and the VFW have already made multiple requests, 
along with Republican Members from this House, urged Speaker Pelosi and 
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Reid to end their PR campaign and begin 
work on this conference report for veterans funding. Unfortunately, it 
appears as though all these commonsense requests have fallen on deaf 
ears and our Nation's veterans are being forced to pay the price for 
continued Democrat partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.
  I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to defeat the 
previous question so that we can put partisanship aside and move this 
important legislation forward without any further games or gimmicks. I 
know that this is a bold idea that hasn't yet been focused directly by 
Democrat pollsters or agreed to by moveon.org, but I think our veterans 
deserve nothing less.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material appear in the

[[Page 29001]]

Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to say that we are 
discussing H.R. 2262, and it's about more than protecting water quality 
and preserving the environment, which it does. It also takes into 
account industry concerns and provides economic assistance from mining 
communities. One- third of the revenue created by this bill will go to 
a community assistance fund to help mitigate the social and economic 
impacts of this legislation.
  Both the Rules and Natural Resources Committees held hearings on this 
bill, during which time Republicans and Democrats were given the 
opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. In fact, the Natural 
Resources Committee held four hearings on this bill that stretched over 
five different days. During this time, they adopted a bipartisan set of 
amendments.
  After the bill made its way through the legislative process and 
maintained bipartisan support, the Rules Committee allowed for seven 
amendments to be considered on the floor. These seven amendments 
address major issues in the bill. This will give opponents the 
opportunity to debate on the floor the merits of key issues of the 
bill. Of the seven amendments allowed under this rule, more than half, 
five, are Republican amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that this bill is long overdue. It should 
have been passed decades ago. But it's never too late to strengthen 
current law so that it preserves the environment, protects communities, 
and addresses public safety. This legislation does all three.
  I commend Chairman Costa and Chairman Rahall on crafting a balanced 
and bipartisan bill. This legislation is proof that we can reap the 
benefits of our Nation's abundant natural resources while also 
preserving them for future generations.
  Metals like gold, silver and copper help make this country what it 
is, Mr. Speaker. How we manage these resources going forward will make 
us what we are in the future.
  With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and 
on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

            Amendment to H. Res. 780 Offered by Mr. Sessions

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. MATSUI. I yield back the balance of my time and 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. SESSIONS. 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 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adoption of H. Res. 780, if ordered; and approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 194, not voting 17, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1027]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)

[[Page 29002]]


     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Berry
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Cubin
     Gohmert
     Hensarling
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Moran (VA)
     Paul
     Skelton
     Weller
     Wilson (OH)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. KINGSTON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GUTIERREZ and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. SESSIONS. 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 224, 
noes 195, not voting 13, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1028]

                               AYES--224

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi

[[Page 29003]]


     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Butterfield
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Cubin
     Gohmert
     Hensarling
     Jindal
     Paul
     Pence
     Weller
     Wilson (OH)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1149

  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.

                          ____________________