[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 24]
[House]
[Pages 32297-32301]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 6, ENERGY 
                 INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 846 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 846

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6) 
     to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing 
     in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, 
     promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing 
     greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy 
     Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative 
     energy, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
     thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention 
     of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of 
     rule XXI, a single motion offered by the Majority Leader or 
     his designee that the House concur in each of the Senate 
     amendments with the respective amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader 
     and the Minority Leader or their designees. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to 
     final adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of the motion to 
     concur 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.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against 
consideration of the rule because the rule contains a waiver of all 
points of order against the bill and its consideration. Therefore, it 
is in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific 
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated. 
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of 
consideration.
  The gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Vermont each will 
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
  After that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: ``Will the House now consider the resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office says that 
there are unfunded mandates in this bill, but we really don't know 
what's there because we got this thousand-page bill, thousand-page 
bill, just about 12 hours ago.
  As we know, we have a House rule that says we are supposed to get a 
bill like this 72 hours before instead of 12. Common practice has been 
if you can't get 72 hours, then at least 24. We've cut that in half, 
just 12. And most of that was during the time when most of us were 
asleep. I can guarantee you that few, if any, in this body have read 
this bill; yet we are voting on it, a billion dollar bill that 
virtually nobody knows what's in it.
  We do know, however, and that's the reason this point of order lies 
against the bill, there are unfunded mandates in the bill.
  We also have rules with regard to earmarks air-dropped in a bill like 
this. It's not a conference report of an appropriation bill but an 
actual bill where they are dropped in at the last minute. The truth is, 
with a bill that's over a thousand pages long, we simply don't know 
what's in there; yet we are being told we have got to pass it, we've 
got to move this thing today. That's simply wrong.
  I would like the assurance of those from the Rules Committee that 
there are no unfunded mandates in the bill or there are no earmarks 
that have been added to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, this point of order is really 
essentially about whether or not we are going to consider the rule and, 
ultimately, the Energy Independence and Security Act. In fact, I would 
say that it may well be an effort by folks who are opposed to the 
legislation to find a way to kill the legislation itself. We believe 
that this legislation should proceed.

[[Page 32298]]

  The fact is that the other side had absolute control in this body or 
had a majority in this body for 12 years, enjoyed control in both 
bodies and in the administration for the past 6, for most of that 6, 
and did not come up with an energy policy that did anything other than 
raise the cost of oil, home heating oil, gasoline, increase our 
dependence on foreign oil, weaken our national security and contribute 
to global warming. This legislation is about changing the direction of 
American energy policy, and the issues that have been raised in this 
legislation are ones that have been debated outside of this body for 
several years.
  The legislation now brings to this body for its consideration such 
topics as increasing fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, green 
buildings, cellulosic agriculture-based energy efforts that will be 
vital to the farm sector and rural sectors of our economy.
  So we believe that the House is going to have an opportunity to vote 
on this point of order and reach its judgment about whether it wants to 
proceed on the important question of changing the energy policy in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would gladly yield to the gentleman if he 
will answer the question if there are any unfunded mandates in this 
bill in violation of the rules, had the rules not been waived, or if 
there are any earmarks in the bill.
  Would the gentleman answer that question? Are there unfunded mandates 
in the bill or any earmarks in the bill?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am not aware of any earmarks in the bill. I'm 
completely unaware of any earmarks in the bill. There is CBO 
information suggesting that the unfunded mandates, which is a separate 
one, is not within any of the rule provisions as it applies to the 
public sector, maybe as it applies to the private sector.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  Let me read from the CBO: ``These provisions also contain several 
private sector earmarks. CBO estimates that their aggregate costs would 
well exceed the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act for private sector mandates, $131 million in 2007, adjusted 
annually for inflation.
  There is the answer to the question of unfunded mandates. They are in 
the bill. We're waiving those points of order so we can get around 
that.
  I would suggest that at some point you've got to say, are we living 
up to the promises that were made at the beginning of the year?
  Now, the majority has made a habit, and I don't blame them, of saying 
this is what you Republicans did while you were in the majority. That 
is true. Many of us stood here and raised these same points of order 
when our own party did it. I would love to see on the other side 
somebody stand up and say this is the wrong thing to do. If it was 
wrong when Republicans did it, it's wrong when Democrats do it.
  With regard to earmarks in this legislation, nobody has been able to 
do anything more than a cursory read of a thousand-page bill that we 
got just 12 hours ago. But in the biofuels subtitle, we've found a 
university-based research and development competitive grant program. 
This grant will be for universities to conduct research and development 
of renewable energy technologies for ``trees dying of disease or 
insects infestation as a source of woody biomass.'' This grant is for 
universities that are near ``trees dying of disease or insect 
infestation as a source for woody biomass.'' That smells a lot like an 
earmark to me. It sounds like there is probably just one university, a 
particular university, or two that meet that qualification. That is 
certainly an earmark. And that's why these rules were waived again to 
get around that kind of thing.
  The Democrats put in some good earmark rules at the beginning of the 
year, but your rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce 
them. And that's the problem here. We are not enforcing our own rules.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the 
gentleman, if he would be so kind, I have been reviewing the bill since 
it was made available to us last night, and I was wondering, that 
earmark that he referred to, if he has any idea where it would be.
  Mr. FLAKE. I have no clue.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I will continue looking, then.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I know it's a very difficult thing. That is a 
very large bill.
  That earmark is somewhere in here. We have no idea where. My guess is 
there are a lot more of them.
  Let me just talk about one other one. Another questionable provision 
that looks like an earmark to me is a provision terminating the 
remaining portions of the New York Liberty Zone tax incentives program. 
The House-passed previous version of the energy bill gave New York a 
tax credit of $2 billion to build a rail line from JFK to Lower 
Manhattan.

                              {time}  1030

  The bill now purports to reduce the cost of the New York tax 
provision to $1.1 billion, but the result is only true thanks to some 
very creative drafting. In fact, passage of the bill would still let 
New York keep a total of $2 billion of Federal taxpayer money, with at 
least $900 million of that coming between the year 2018 and 2019.
  Again, that creative drafting is somewhere in this document that we 
got last night, 12 hours ago. And we're expected to go through this and 
make sure that it complies with the rules. Why are we doing this? Why 
are we doing this when we have very specific rules?
  And as I mentioned, I was the first to commend the majority for 
putting in some good transparency and accountability rules in January. 
I felt they were better than what we did last year. But your rules are 
only as good as your willingness to enforce them, and there seems to be 
no willingness here. That's the problem.
  So I would be glad to hear from the other side. I will retain my time 
and hope to hear an explanation of whether or not there are actual 
earmarks in the bill or unfunded mandates.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Vermont has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am going to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor). But before I do, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Arizona; I would like to thank him for the good work 
that he has done on earmarks that he did when he was a member of the 
majority and now as a member of the minority.
  But I would also remind the gentleman that, in fact, under the 
leadership of the current Chair of the Appropriations Committee, there 
has been a massive change in direction on earmarks. In fact, it's been 
a reason why some of the budget bills took longer than last year 
because there has been an exhaustive effort to go through and identify 
anything that can be called an earmark to allow Members who wish to 
address it to raise their points.
  What I've said to the gentleman is that we are unaware of any 
earmarks in this legislation. And I appreciate your late-night work at 
finding provisions that, as you have presented them, you're 
characterizing as possible earmarks. I am aware of absolutely no 
earmarks.
  The so-called unfunded mandate, there is language in a letter, Mr. 
Speaker, from the CBO that suggests that there may be a slightly above 
the threshold under the rule, but that's a decision that this body can 
make and will make. It's incidental, not significant, to the overall 
policy.
  So having said that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida 
(Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, and I rise 
in support of the Energy Independence and Security Act and this rule.
  Today, we break the stranglehold that Big Oil and the special 
interests have had over Washington, D.C. and over our country's energy 
policy.

[[Page 32299]]

  We're going to hear many maneuvers today and protestations, delay, 
resistance, points of order because this is a fundamental shift in the 
Nation's energy policy.
  The contrast between the policies of the past and our forward-looking 
bill could not be more clear. Remember just 7 years ago when the 
administration's Energy Task Force met behind closed doors? It 
consisted of oil executives, and the administration fought to keep 
everything secret. Renewable sources of energy were not a priority, the 
Earth's climate change was not a priority, and the recommendations 
involved more drilling, more mining, more of the same, which led to 
record gas prices for our families, and record profits for oil 
companies, and disastrous national security consequences.
  In contrast, our ground-breaking effort today sets our country on a 
path towards energy independence, particularly from the Middle East and 
the most volatile parts of this world.
  Better gas mileage for automobiles is the cornerstone of our bill. 
That alone will save families from $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump, 
and that is great news for our neighbors back home.
  What has been missing is the political leadership and the political 
will to make this happen in America. So today we will cast aside the 
politics of the past and for the first time in decades set the right 
priorities for America. This bill repeals the subsidies to the big oil 
companies and instead invests in renewable energy and biofuels 
technologies.
  And to the folks back home in Florida, whom I have the privilege to 
represent, we're going to demonstrate here today that there is no need 
to put our tourism economy and beautiful beaches at risk to more oil 
drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead, we're going to rely 
on American ingenuity and resourcefulness.
  The status quo in Washington is not acceptable anymore, and we will 
chart a fundamental new direction on energy policy.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady's comments that we have 
finally removed special interests from the energy field with this bill, 
when you have a bill like this, I guarantee you it's full of special 
interest provisions, many of which we haven't discovered yet.
  I mentioned you have one earmark in here, a grant for universities 
that are near ``trees dying of disease or insect infestation as a 
source of woody biomass.'' I would suggest it's probably one particular 
university in mind, or some special interest, that an earmark will be 
going to. The New York Liberty Zone provision is another special 
interest provision.
  I would also make the point that this is technically not a conference 
report; there wasn't a conference. This is a House amendment to a 
Senate amendment to H.R. 6, if I'm not mistaken. What that means is the 
point of order that I would have liked to have raised against the 
provisions that may include earmarks in the bill doesn't lie against 
the bill because it's not a conference report, because it's a House 
amendment to a Senate amendment. That's another creative way to get 
around the rules that the majority themselves have put in place.
  If you say that there are no problems with this bill, why are we 
waiving all points of order against it? Of course it's to hide things 
in it. People should be skeptical whenever they see something a 
thousand pages long, a thousand pages long that nobody, not anybody on 
the Rules Committee, not anybody anywhere has had the opportunity to 
read, 12 hours, 12 hours to read that. I don't think Evelyn Wood, with 
a speed-reading course, or anybody could get through this. And when the 
majority can simply say, We're not aware of anything, I mean, you can 
take the Fifth, you can plead the Fifth in court, but I don't think you 
can do it here. I don't think that that flies, certainly not outside of 
the Beltway. Certainly people around here should be skeptical of a 
multi-billion-dollar bill with special interest provisions rife 
throughout it that we've had 12 hours to review before voting on.
  When all the majority can tell us is, We're not aware of things in 
there, let me remind the majority that we had an instance earlier this 
year, or several instances, where the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee signed off on an appropriation bill saying, There are no 
earmarks in this bill, which prevented us in the minority from actually 
lodging a point of order against the bill, after Members had already 
issued press releases claiming credits for their earmarks in the bill.
  So clearly you can pass some good rules, which you have, but you have 
got to enforce those rules, and they're not being enforced here. That's 
why we should uphold this point of order and not move forward and 
proceed with this bill. You cannot put a thousand-page bill, give it to 
us with 12 hours to review, with problems rife throughout it, and not 
have problems.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a long time coming. As a 
freshman Member of this body, I am proud to rise in support of the rule 
and this energy legislation that will make significant strides in our 
effort to address global warming, save our families money on their 
energy bills and at the pump, and bolster our national security by 
mapping out a more energy-independent future for our country.
  This energy bill includes a long overdue increase in CAFE standards 
and improves vehicle efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 
2020, the first increase of this kind since 1975. This significant 
increase in vehicle emission standards will save American families 
between $700 and $1,000 per year at the pump, reduce oil consumption by 
1.1 million gallons per day by 2020, which is one-half of what we 
currently import from the Persian Gulf. And these new standards will 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 28 million of 
today's average cars and trucks off the road.
  Science tells us that CAFE increases are possible and necessary, and 
we must implement them now. And while implementing necessary 
environmental protections, this legislation will preserve tens of 
thousands of American manufacturing jobs in places like Avon Lake, 
Ohio, where my constituents produce passenger vans.
  This bill will provide our auto manufacturers domestically with the 
tools and incentives they need to produce the vehicles of tomorrow here 
in the United States, keeping jobs at home, and allowing us to all move 
forward together. Keeping high-paying auto manufacturing jobs in this 
country will in turn help retain hundreds of thousands of related jobs 
in the electronics, steel, textiles, glass, plastics and rubber, and 
countless other sectors that produce auto parts, while also laying the 
groundwork for jobs in the future.
  The American people have spoken loud and clear that we cannot turn a 
blind eye to the crisis of global warming and astonishing gas prices 
squeezing the budgets for our working families.
  I urge support for the rule and the bill.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let me just make one point with regard to special 
interests, that they have been removed from this process. Because we 
were trying to get copies of this legislation and couldn't yesterday, 
we couldn't get it from the majority, so many of the Republicans were 
actually getting excerpts and pieces of this legislation from firms 
along K Street, from the special interests themselves. They seemed to 
have copies before we in the majority did. There is something wrong 
with this process. We only get it last night from the majority, but we 
were getting it yesterday from special interests downtown who already 
had copies of it, or portions, at least.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
we have remaining on our side.

[[Page 32300]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of this 
legislation, the bill, H.R. 6, and also on the rule.
  H.R. 6, as you know, will lower energy costs, strengthen our national 
security, and reduce global warming emissions, and create what I say 
are ``green collar'' jobs. Major investments in renewable energy could 
create over 3 million jobs in 10 years. It would also eliminate the 
outsourcing of good-paying jobs.
  Here I am in a classroom in East Los Angeles. If we have the 
political will to do this now, why can't we put our money where our 
mouth is and help the American public better understand that this new 
technology, the greening of our country, should be made available to 
everyone? Leave no one left behind, whether in the Bronx, whether in 
East Los Angeles, across this country. There is a whole new wave of 
emphasis and trust and hope that we here in the Congress are going to 
do the right thing.
  I don't have any earmarks. I know my staff has worked very diligently 
with our committee and as a member of Energy and Commerce to see that 
we do the right thing. We spent laborious hours working on this 
legislation.
  I ask for Members to support the bill and the rule.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his comments and his 
arguments here on this point of order, and also for the work that he 
has done.
  I happen to believe that process does matter, but I also think 
substance matters, and they have to go together. Ideally, when we're 
working in a perfect world, they do. But one of the major reasons that 
we don't have an actual conference committee report is because our 
friends in the other body refused to go to conference, refused, refused 
to go to conference to discuss our energy future, Mr. Speaker. How is 
that right? Is that a proper use of process?
  The reason we are here and the way that we're here is because there 
has been a decision made by the majority of the American people that 
they want a new energy policy, and the basic question for this body is 
whether we want to give that new energy policy or we don't.
  The best process is going to get the best bill, but it takes 
cooperation on both sides. And if we have, in the other body, a refusal 
to even go into conference, it leaves leadership in this body with a 
single choice: do nothing and capitulate, or move ahead.
  On this question of earmarks, we have given you as much assurance as 
we can possibly give you that there are not earmarks in here. We have 
the CBO letter about so-called unfunded mandates in the private sector. 
That's going to be a decision for the body.
  I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the question 
of consideration will be followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the 
rules and passing H.R. 3505.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 188, not voting 29, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1134]

                               YEAS--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     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
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     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)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     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
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     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
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--188

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     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
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     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
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     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
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     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
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Baird
     Bishop (GA)
     Carson
     Clay
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Engel
     Fattah

[[Page 32301]]


     Feeney
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (WI)
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Platts
     Souder
     Weiner
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1107

  Messrs. GILCHREST, BURTON of Indiana and McHENRY changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________