[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 24]
[House]
[Pages 32301-32311]
[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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 846.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 846 provides for consideration of the 
Senate amendments to H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act. 
The rule provides for a motion by the majority leader to concur in the 
Senate amendments with the House amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, 
controlled by the majority and minority leaders, or their designees.
  Mr. Speaker, many Members of this body have worked long and hard to 
change the direction of energy policy in this country. I can't mention 
them all, but I would be remiss not to pay special acknowledgment to 
the Speaker, to Mr. Dingell, and to Mr. Markey.
  Mr. Speaker, this House in a very short time will have an opportunity 
to turn the page on generations of energy policy. Perhaps the best way 
to characterize what has been the U.S. policy on

[[Page 32302]]

energy is captured by looking at a photograph that serves as a 
metaphor. What it shows is the United States hand in hand with OPEC 
producers, on whom we have become increasingly reliant and dependent, 
pursuing an energy policy of drill-and-drill, consume-and-consume, 
spend-and-spend; all with ever-escalating and budget-busting expense 
inflicted on our families and businesses; all with reckless denial, 
reckless denial, to the environmental damage that we are doing by this 
policy to the Earth we all share; and all with cavalier disregard to 
our national security by depending on regimes that are not our friends.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill brought before you does two fundamental things 
in changing the direction of energy policy. It says that we are going 
to consume less by taking practical steps, long overdue, to increase 
mileage standards, to allow American families going to and from work, 
picking up their kids, going to daycare, bringing them to soccer games, 
to travel in safe vehicles manufactured by American workers that get 40 
percent more miles per gallon. Mr. Speaker, that will save the average 
American family $700 to $1,000 a year.
  Second, by making a strong national commitment to renewable energy, 
to having energy that we produce, that we keep our American dollars and 
our American jobs here at home, and by investing in cellulosic ethanol, 
wind and solar and technologies that have shown promise to give us the 
energy we need, the jobs we require and the environmental improvement 
that is essential, this turns the page on what has been an overdue time 
for change in our energy direction in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the current system just ain't going to work. The ever-
escalating cost to our families is not sustainable. In December of 
2002, the price of a gallon of gas was $1.48. Today it is about $3.09. 
Five years ago it cost an average Vermont family about $600 to heat 
their home during the winter. It is over $1,500 to $2,000 now.
  The environmental damage is indisputable. With 4 percent of the 
world's population, we are still consuming about 20 to 25 percent of 
the world's energy, and we generate roughly 6 billion tons of carbon 
dioxide into the air each year.
  Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to be sending so many American dollars 
abroad; $500,000 every minute from the pockets of American consumers 
and American businesses go to countries that provide us with the oil 
that we need, when they are not particularly good friends of ours. That 
is $500,000 every minute, $30 million every hour, $5 billion every 
week.
  This energy bill turns the page from a country that has been 
excessively dependent on oil consumption to a country that is going to 
be self-confident in its people, in its resources and its ingenuity, to 
take on the energy challenge and turn it into energy opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank the gentleman from Vermont, my friend, Mr. Welch, for the time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, fairness, openness, sunshine, transparency, 
bipartisanship, those are just some of the words the new majority used 
to describe the way they were going to run the 110th Congress. Today, 
just as we have seen during much of the new majority's stewardship of 
the House during this year, those have been, at best, hollow promises.
  The rule we are considering is being called something similar to a 
standard conference report rule by the majority. Now, Mr. Speaker, 
normally considering a conference report under such a rule would not 
cause much controversy, but this is not a conference report. It never 
went through the usual conference process. The majority never named 
conferees, never held a conference meeting nor gave the minority the 
chance to offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, we met until late. We heard from 
our friends on the other side the aisle that, well, it is not a 
conference report because Republicans in the Senate didn't want a 
conference. But Mr. Barton was there. He is, as you know, the ranking 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and he said ``I certainly 
wanted to be part of it. I wanted to be part of the conference.'' So, 
again, the blame was on the Republicans, even though, last I heard in 
November, it was the Democrats that won the majority in the House and 
in the Senate.
  During their campaign, the new majority promised that they would 
allow for regular order for legislation. They even put their campaign 
promise in a book called ``A New Direction for America,'' and yet they 
have consistently broken their campaign promises. And today is no 
exception.
  Now, the rule specifically breaks two promises made by the majority 
during the campaign. First, they said in ``A New Direction for 
America,'' ``House-Senate conference committees should hold regular 
meetings at least weekly of all conference committee members. All duly 
appointed conferees should be informed of the schedule of conference 
committee activities in a timely manner and given ample opportunity for 
input and debate as decisions are made toward final bill language.''
  Now, why is it important, this difference between a conference report 
and what is being brought forth today? Again, the majority is saying 
that because the Senate couldn't go to conference, they were using this 
procedure in lieu of a conference, of a real conference.
  Now, debate is structured like a conference report, and they are 
trying to argue that we are treating this bill like a conference 
report. But here is how this process differs: Republican Members were 
never given an opportunity to review the entire text, as conferees 
would have been; this bill is being considered with less than the 24 
hours promised by the new majority for conference reports; there is no 
list of earmarks in the bill, as would be required in a conference 
report; and there is no list of air-dropped earmarks, as would be 
required in a conference report.
  That is why it is important, what we are dealing with. It seems 
somewhat technical, but it is extremely important that a mechanism is 
being used that has circumvented the conference process. Circumventing 
the conference committee not only blocks Members from debating and 
amending the legislation in the committee, but it blocks the minority 
from using one of the few legislative tools at our disposal, which is, 
obviously, as I have said, the motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, the one time we considered such a rule in the 109th 
Congress, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, closed his 
speech opposing the rule by saying things would be different under the 
new majority. I think his words are particularly relevant today. He 
said, ``We should have a more open process. We should have regular 
order. We should have hearings. We should have committee markups. We 
should do this the right way. I hope that in the next Congress that we 
will set a new standard, one that we can all be proud of, Democrats and 
Republicans alike.''
  Well, as I said, I think those words are particularly relevant today, 
because they point to the vast difference between what was promised and 
the reality of the performance of the majority in this Congress, and we 
are already 1 year into that performance of the new Congress.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, this is not regular order, certainly not what the 
majority promised. I urge my colleagues to oppose this transparent 
procedural ploy so that we may have a full and open debate on this 
critical issue of importance to the Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  This is a historic debate. This is a historic day in the history of 
the United States. Today, we debate energy independence and global 
warming for the first time in a serious way in

[[Page 32303]]

our history. This legislation will accomplish things that will send a 
signal to the world.
  In this bill, we will increase the fuel economy standards of the 
vehicles Americans drive from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per 
gallon. We will produce enough ethanol and cellulosic fuel that we can 
substitute for oil that by the year 2030, when both provisions are 
completely implemented, we will be backing out twice the oil that we 
import on a daily basis from OPEC, from the Persian Gulf. What a signal 
to OPEC, twice the oil from the Persian Gulf eliminated in one vote.
  And, at the same time, because of the efficiencies in light bulbs, in 
heating, in cooling, in furnaces, in all appliances, in buildings, in 
homes, we will in this one vote meet 35 percent of our entire goal by 
the year 2030 in reducing greenhouse gases to protect the planet from 
global warming. We will meet in this one vote 35 percent of the entire 
goal between now and 2030. What a moment for this Congress.
  It will unleash a technological revolution in new technology so that, 
rather than importing those technologies, we will be exporting those 
technologies. It will send a signal to our consumers that we are not 
going to stand by and allow them to be tipped upside down and have 
money shaken out of their pocket by OPEC as the price of oil has gone 
from $26 a barrel in President Bush's first year in office to over $90 
a barrel today. Every week, the American consumers send $5 billion 
overseas to OPEC and other countries; $5 billion a week.
  This bill today is really a signal to OPEC that we now mean business. 
And it is a signal to the rest of the world that we are serious about 
global warming, and it is a signal to our citizens that we are going to 
begin to create those new green jobs in our country so that we can 
produce the products that are going to revolutionize the energy sector.
  So make no mistake about it as you cast this vote, my colleagues, you 
are casting the most important energy and environment vote of your 
career, and you will be remembered for this vote. So I ask you to give 
a signal to the American people that this Congress, when the 
Republicans took over in 1995, imported 43 percent of its oil; now we 
import 61 percent of our oil. It just keeps going up and up and up. So 
if we are to turn a corner historically and to engage these issues of 
energy efficiency, these issues of energy independence, these issues of 
global warming, this is the vote. One vote, later on today. I urge an 
``aye'' vote by all of the Members of this body.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if this were the 
serious effort that our distinguished colleague has just mentioned, the 
majority would permit amendments, would permit discussion, would permit 
a conference on this critical issue, if it were the serious effort that 
has been described by the previous speaker. Instead, we see a process 
to shut out debate, to shut out amendments, to shut out ideas. That is 
not the serious effort just described.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished colleague on the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend from Florida 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule as was 
described by my friend from Florida that allows not a single amendment 
to be offered on the floor of the House today and in opposition to the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill won't become law, and it shouldn't become law. 
Its priorities are all wrong. It won't lower gas prices; it is going to 
increase them. It totally ignores nuclear power as a non-emitting 
energy source. It totally ignores hydropower as a clean, non-emitting 
energy source. It raises taxes by unknown billions. And, Mr. Speaker, 
it gives a tax credit to people for riding their bikes to work. I am 
sorry, but gas prices and climate change aren't going to be fixed by 
making people ride their bikes to work.
  This isn't a plan to make America energy independent and to free us 
from foreign oil. It is just a dream for the political left in this 
country. And let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, it raises taxes, it is anti-
nuclear and anti-dams, it forces people out of their cars, and gives 
tax credits for riding their bike to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address an issue, the Secure Rural Schools 
issue. And you might ask, why do I want to address that issue, because 
it has nothing to do with energy. And that is a very good question. It 
has nothing to do with energy, but it is in this bill. It is another 
cynical way the Democrats have approached this issue.
  Time after time this year, Democrat leaders have attached Secure 
Rural Schools to bills they know will never become law, like this bill, 
and blocked attempt after attempt to put it in bills that will become 
law. The way this bill is written, it abandons our rural schools and 
communities and it moves in the program.
  Don't take my word for it. Just last Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi told the 
Oregonian newspaper in Portland, Oregon, during a visit to Portland 
that ``where we go from here is to see how we can phase this system 
out.''
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the full text of the article for printing in 
the Record.

                  [From the Oregonian, Nov. 28, 2007]

             Pelosi Says Health Care Change Can Start Here

                           (By Harry Esteve)

       Oregon could become a leader in the drive to establish 
     centralized computer health records for everyone who gets 
     medical care, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday in 
     Portland.
       Pelosi, D-Calif., stressed the importance of records as a 
     way to save billions of dollars in health care costs, reduce 
     medical mistakes and ensure better care in rural communities.
       ``Electronic records are essential to improving health 
     care,'' Pelosi said. ``This is the future. I see Oregon 
     taking the lead in that future.''
       Pelosi made her comments after holding a round-table 
     discussion with a group of medical experts, hospital 
     administrators and elected officials, including U.S. Rep. 
     David Wu, D-Ore., and Gov. Ted Kulongoski. The discussion, 
     held at Oregon Health & Science University's South Waterfront 
     office tower, was closed to the media.
       Pelosi's visit to Oregon was part of her ``innovation 
     agenda,'' an effort to boost technological progress, such as 
     more broadband access and alternative energy systems, and to 
     increase the number of scientists, mathematicians and 
     engineers coming out of U.S. schools.
       At the same news conference, Kulongoski announced the state 
     has received a $20 million federal grant to install broadband 
     cable at rural hospitals and clinics throughout the state. 
     The grant, from the Federal Communications Commission, would 
     allow a doctor in a remote part of the state to send a 
     digital MRI image to a specialist at OHSU Hospital, for 
     example.
       Kulongoski said the grant and Pelosi's initiative are part 
     of a widespread movement toward better communication in the 
     health care industry. He said he saw a recent study that 
     showed savings of $1 billion in Oregon alone if electronic 
     health care records were in place.
       In Oregon, as with much of the country, recent attention on 
     medical issues has focused on the escalating cost of health 
     care and the rapidly rising number of uninsured or 
     underinsured.
       After talking to reporters for about five minutes, Pelosi 
     answered two questions. One was about the trade-off between 
     her goal of improved record-keeping and efforts to make 
     health care more affordable to everyone. The other was on an 
     unrelated topic: federal timber payments to Oregon counties.
       Pelosi said the push for centralized medical records would 
     not take away from efforts to give health coverage to 
     millions of people who lack it. Medical experts say the 
     ability to transfer records with ease is as important as 
     other medical breakthroughs, such as new medicines or 
     therapies, Pelosi said.
       ``We're not talking about this as some kind of elitist 
     thing for people who already have health care,'' Pelosi said. 
     ``We're talking about it as essential.''
       Pelosi all but brushed off the question on timber payments. 
     Oregon's congressional delegation has been pushing to keep 
     federal payments to counties that used to receive millions of 
     dollars from logging on national forests.
       That program expired, although Congress passed a one-year 
     extension this year.
       ``Where we go from here is to see how to phase this system 
     out'' over the next few years, Pelosi said Tuesday.

  Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leaders of this House need to stop with 
these false promises regarding rural schools. Let's get serious. Let's 
keep the promises that were made, the full promise, not one that 
dwindles towards nothing.

[[Page 32304]]

Let's get it done as relates to rural schools in a responsible way 
before the year ends and before this program expires.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we stand today on the verge of 
a new energy horizon, one that promises a more secure America, an 
America with thousands upon thousands of new manufacturing and high-
tech jobs, an America with lower and more stable energy prices, an 
America at long last responding to the threats of global warming. But 
this America will only be realized by ushering the legislation before 
us into law.
  This bill reflects a bold vision, a vision to respond to many of the 
gravest threats facing our Nation, a vision befitting the United States 
Congress, the world's greatest deliberative body.
  There is much to laud in this legislation. This bill would increase 
American energy independence, strengthen national security, lower 
energy costs, grow our economy, and create new jobs, reduce global 
warming. Now, the focus on the renewable electricity standard 
provision: a Federal RES is long overdue, and I thank you for your 
commitment to this provision. Thank you to my Democratic and Republican 
colleagues who joined me in offering this amendment in August and to 
the 220 Members who supported its passage.
  In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that we are not here 
to defend the status quo; we are here to lead. We are here to ensure 
America's standing as a model of ingenuity, creativity, cutting-edge 
thinking, and revolutionary ideas. Failing to usher this legislation 
into law I fear will threaten that standing.
  The renewables revolution which we will be ushering in through this 
bill and the RES provision is good for business, it is good for the 
environment, and it is good for the security of our Nation, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we stand on the verge of a new energy horizon. 
One that promises a more secure America. An America with thousands upon 
thousands of new manufacturing and high-tech jobs. An America with 
lower and more stable energy prices. An America at long last responding 
to the threats of global warming.
  But this America will only be realized by ushering the legislation 
before us today into law.
  This legislation reflects a bold vision. A vision on the scope needed 
to respond to many of the gravest threats facing our Nation. A vision 
befitting the United States Congress, the world's greatest deliberative 
body.
  There is much to laud in this legislation. The first increase in CAFE 
requirements in over 30 years, which will save American families an 
estimated $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump. An historic commitment 
to American biofuels that will fuel our cars and trucks.
  And, of great importance to me and my constituents, the inclusion of 
a renewable electricity standard. An RES, as it is known, requires 
electric utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity through 
renewable resources and energy efficiency measures.
  I would like to thank the Speaker in particular for her commitment to 
this provision, the several colleagues who joined me in offering this 
as an amendment in August, and the 220 Members who supported its 
passage at that time.
  Opponents of an RES claim that it would increase electricity costs 
for consumers. Study after study has shown the contrary. It has 
consistently been found that a strong Federal RES could actually save 
American consumers money. A recent study conducted by the Union of 
Concerned Scientists found an RES would save consumers $13 billion to 
$18.1 billion on electricity and natural gas bills cumulatively by 
2020. In March, the energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie projected 
that consumers would save more than $100 billion with an RES in place. 
They also found that with more diverse energy sources and a decrease in 
fossil fuel consumption, reduced demand for natural gas would lower 
prices by as much as 20 percent by 2026.
  And while consumers are saving money, a Federal RES also helps make 
our Nation safer and less dependent on foreign sources of energy. 
Almost all new electricity generation in the last decade has been 
fueled by natural gas. The biggest sources for future natural gas 
supplies are Iran, Russia, and Qatar, which together hold 58 percent of 
the world's natural gas reserves. Increasing the production of domestic 
energy from biomass, solar, wind, and other renewable sources helps us 
reduce our dependence on foreign countries, thereby securing America's 
energy independence.
  The requirements under this RES start modestly, and increase 
gradually. It includes many provisions both to help utilities meet the 
requirements, and to reward those utilities that meet the requirements 
ahead of schedule. It allows States, many of whom have moved far ahead 
on this issue, to have standards that are more rigorous. It has support 
from the business community, the labor community, the faith community, 
and the environmental community.
  It is an idea, Madame Speaker--like all included in this 
legislation--whose time is long overdue.
  My colleagues, we are not here to defend the status quo. We are here 
to lead. We are here to make the difficult decisions necessary to 
ensure America's continued standing as a model of ingenuity, 
creativity, cutting edge thinking, and revolutionary ideas. Failing to 
usher this legislation into law will, I fear, threaten that standing.
  Passing this legislation today should not be considered one of the 
difficult decisions we have to make. And to those for whom it is a 
difficult decision, I urge you to join me and the millions of Americans 
across the country who recognize that the renewables revolution is good 
for business, is good for the environment, and is good for the security 
of our Nation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It has been almost a year now, and we have had a lot of discussion 
throughout committees and so forth on a number of areas that would 
promote green technology, and I want to say that I share your 
commitment. I think it is critical that we move in that direction. CAFE 
standards are good. Improving better gas mileage for our vehicles is a 
good thing. Unleashing American ingenuity is a good thing to solve our 
energy problems. But we should not be picking favorites. This Congress 
should not pick favorites at the outset with the new development of all 
these technologies. We need to be technology neutral in this approach, 
and this bill does not do that. It seeks to pick favorites, and it also 
does a number of things that would be devastating to our oil and gas 
industry as it exists today.
  Let's be truthful with the American public. We are not going to see 
energy independence in the short term. We have to manage strategically 
our energy dependence. The provisions, such as getting rid of the 6 
percent domestic manufacturing deduction for our oil and gas companies 
and our refineries would be devastating to our industry. Getting rid of 
the foreign tax credit provision as applied only to oil companies is 
going to be devastating. This will deny the ability of our oil 
companies to deduct their foreign taxes, in effect creating double 
taxation on our companies.
  What does this mean? The big companies are the ones that have the 
technology to drill in deep water, to improve our supply; the smaller 
companies partner with them. If the big companies can't do it, smaller 
companies won't be able to do it. And what are we going to do in the 
short term? The green technology that we all want is not there yet. So 
we have to strategically manage our dependence, and this bill will 
actually increase our dependence on foreign oil based on a number of 
these provisions. There is nearly $13 billion in new taxes on our oil 
and gas companies. This is critical. This is going to hurt our energy 
security.
  So for these reasons, I oppose the rule and I oppose the underlying 
bill. Let's work in a bipartisan way to get a good piece of energy 
legislation.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, there are three critical priorities that 
this Congress faces: our independence from foreign oil sources, 
addressing global warming, but also American competitiveness. I believe 
that solar energy technology offers one of the best solutions to 
challenging these great, great problems that we have.

[[Page 32305]]

  Now, as the House takes up this energy independence bill, I commend 
the commitment that this legislation makes to solar energy. This bill 
authorizes new research and development into solar technologies. The 
bill authorizes programs to help train a qualified solar workforce to 
install and maintain these technologies, not just in Arizona, but 
across the country. This bill also contains some tax incentives from my 
Renewal Energy Assistance Act that will help solar become more 
affordable, not just to homeowners, but also to businesses. This is 
what is so critical to spur the innovation and investment that is vital 
to the creation of our reliable solar market for the country, not just 
Arizona. But with over 350 days of sunshine every single year, it is 
critical that we harness the power of the sun.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wonder how Congress could 
possibly consider addressing an energy bill that has no energy in it.
  The House is considering energy legislation which does nothing to 
expand domestic energy production, develop nuclear or coal-to-liquids 
technology, and only increases our Nation's dependence on foreign oil 
and hurts American jobs and the economy.
  While promoting the use of alternative energy is a worthy and long-
term goal, by mandating and increasing renewable fuels 36 billion 
gallons by 2022 without concern to the fact that this technology does 
not exist today and with almost no consideration of cost or price to 
consumers, it is not the right direction for our country or the 
Nation's energy industry.

                              {time}  1145

  In addition, the renewable portfolio standards mandates in this 
legislation, which only nine States can currently meet, can increase 
the cost to Oklahomans by a whopping $900 million.
  Given our country's current energy needs and our long-term goal of 
energy independence and security, it is imperative for us to increase 
our domestic production of crude oil and natural gas while exploring 
innovative and renewable energy technologies.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the American people are painfully aware 
that the 110th Congress inherited a failed energy policy. They feel the 
pain at the pump, they feel the pain in their heating bills, and they 
know our country is dependent on foreign oil. They know that is 
dangerous for us. They know that the oil will run out some time, and 
they know that fossil fuels are damaging our environment and causing 
health problems. They know that Congress has not increased miles per 
gallon standards for 32 years.
  Now Americans want to know what Congress is going to do. Americans 
want to know if we are going to continue to fiddle, to delay, to stall, 
as some in Congress wish to do, or will Congress be bold and show 
leadership?
  This 110th Congress must confront these problems or history will 
judge us harshly. The leadership is here. The time is now. The bill is 
good. I urge my colleagues to step up and forward into our future by 
voting ``yes.''
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last November Democrats looked the 
American people in the eye and they promised, they promised they would 
lower gas prices and become energy independent. Instead, gas prices are 
almost a dollar higher at the pump and America is more dependent on 
foreign oil than ever.
  This new Democrat Congress has failed miserably; unless, of course, 
you count promoting energy-efficient light bulbs and threatening to sue 
OPEC, for whatever that is worth.
  To be fair, there are good things in this bill, such as increasing 
gas mileage for cars and trucks and extending Republican tax incentives 
to encourage more energy-efficient technology and more renewable energy 
such as solar, wind, biomass and geothermal.
  But this bill is disappointing because it launches yet another attack 
on Texas and American energy producers who are trying to create jobs 
and explore for new energy here in America. It also cripples the 
emerging biodiesel industry which is important to the Nation as we seek 
alternatives to gasoline.
  Let me tell you this: OPEC is going to love this bill. OPEC is going 
to love this bill, but families who are going to pay more at the pump 
and pay higher electric bills at home are going to hate it. Thank 
goodness this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.
  We need more energy, a balanced approach, not more higher gas prices 
and higher electric prices. This bill deserves to be defeated.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, 
his leadership on this bill and for yielding me this time.
  Listening to the debate here on the rule, as I sat through the 
hearing last night in the Rules Committee, I am, frankly, more than a 
little disappointed in the discussion that has taken place.
  First of all, this is a very large and complex bill, but the vast 
majority of this bill has actually already passed the House at least 
once, some of it twice. We have had 11 committees that have been 
involved in this process. It has not somehow been ``sprung'' on people. 
There is a large stack of paper that represents the bill, as is the 
case in most complex legislation. But most of it is familiar to the 
staff. It is familiar to the Members, if they choose to have been 
involved with this issue. It has been here before.
  The process that has taken place is not one that we would have 
desired, but the Republicans in the Senate decided that there would not 
be a conference committee. But there has been a process that has gone 
on which I don't think it has been fairly characterized, frankly, where 
there has been extensive back-and-forth, where House and Senate staff 
committee members from the various jurisdictions met since September, 
have met in the same room going over these details. And, in fact, you 
can verify this is you talk to staff members on both sides. Republican 
staff members have been able to influence what has been going on here. 
Indeed I think majority staff members will acknowledge positively the 
technical expertise that has been provided and print out changes 
Republicans have influenced. But all of that is sort of swept away and 
ignored. That is wrong.
  Fundamentally, we want to talk about what we are for. This deals with 
a significant increase in CAFE standards. There is lots of new energy 
here because we focus the alternatives on the energy sources that need 
tax support. And we pay for it, although it is scaled down from what 
has already passed the House. I think people ought to look at the 
Record.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished leader on the issue of energy in 
this Congress, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Just yesterday, OPEC told the world 
that $90 oil is okay and they won't be increasing production. They want 
$100 oil. They want more.
  Now, on the surface, Americans will say, Thank God. We have a 
Democrat energy bill coming to help us as energy prices continue to 
skyrocket as we move into the cold winter months. However, what hope 
does H.R. 6 actually give to young families with high home heating 
costs? Unquestionably, nothing.
  What hope does H.R. 6 bring to poor folks living in rural and urban 
America that struggle to afford fuel to travel to work, to drive their 
kids to school and do Christmas shopping? Absolutely nothing.

[[Page 32306]]

  What relief does H.R. 6 bring to seniors living on fixed incomes who 
struggle to make mortgage payments and stay warm? Absolutely nothing.
  What does H.R. 6 do for rural and urban seniors who kept their 
thermostats at 58 degrees last winter with temperatures below zero 
because that is all they could afford? Nothing.
  What does H.R. 6 do to prevent the tragedy that happened in my 
district last year when an elderly gentleman living alone tried to keep 
warm on a subzero night by putting coal in his wood-burning stove and 
perished when his modest home burned? It does nothing to prevent that.
  What does H.R. 6 do for small business owners and manufacturers who 
happen to be high energy consumers to remain competitive and be able to 
keep America's best jobs here? It does nothing.
  What does H.R. 6 do to the large manufacturers who have to compete in 
the global marketplace and provide jobs for middle-class America and 
compete against countries with cheap labor and cheap energy? It does 
nothing. In fact, it will continue to push more jobs offshore to 
countries like India and China where energy is cheaper and more 
accessible.
  The working men and women of America who struggle to heat their homes 
and travel to and from work deserve action from this Congress. We need 
to provide them with available and affordable energy not 4 years from 
now but today.
  Yes, Congress is the reason we have the highest world energy prices 
because we have continually locked up our abundant supplies of gas and 
oil and coal, increasing our dependence on unaffordable, high-priced 
oil and gas from foreign countries.
  H.R. 6 is not an energy bill. Efficiency standards, conservation and 
renewables are vital to our future, but they are 4 and 5 years down the 
road before they provide energy. Americans need energy now, not 
tomorrow. We have the highest prices in the history of this country; 
and folks, I am going to tell you, they are going higher. The height 
has not been reached. We are going to have more than $100 oil because 
OPEC is in control because we have decided that we are not going to 
produce energy for America; we are going to buy it from those who are 
holding us hostage. This bill has some good futuristic parts, but 
nothing in the next 5 years to heat and cool this country and allow 
Americans to drive to work affordably. We need an energy bill.
  I challenge the bill Democrats, let's do a bipartisan bill and let's 
argue the points. Let's bring affordable energy to America.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, every revolution has a start. May 25, 1961, 
John F. Kennedy, with full confidence in Americans' ability to 
innovate, said we are going to go to the Moon in 10 years.
  Skip ahead a few years, December 6, 2007, the day we are starting a 
clean energy revolution to give America economic growth through 
technological progress, and that progress is happening all across 
America. In every State, that progress is going to take place, because 
this bill is going to help innovators.
  Let's take a quick run-through where: In Michigan, where General 
Motors plans on building the plug-in hybrid that you can drive 40 miles 
with zero gasoline and get 100 miles per gallon with batteries designed 
in Massachusetts.
  In Florida, California, Arizona, Mississippi, a whole host of States, 
where the Ausra Technology Company has designed a solar thermal process 
to make C02-free solar energy within 10 years to be competitive with 
coal-based electricity. For those who say we can't do energy 
everywhere, where the sun shines, solar thermal energy will work, 
including in my State, the State of Washington.
  We move forward, virtually every State in the country has the 
potential for biofuels, and here is a picture of the Imperium Biofuels 
Company. It is located in a former dying timber town of Grays Harbor, 
Washington. It is the largest biodiesel plant in the world, something 
America can be proud about, that we will expand.
  And lastly, emerging technologies, some of which people have not 
heard about. This is a picture of a wave power buoy on the coast of 
Oregon. We have enough energy in the Pacific coast in a 10-by-10 mile 
stretch to power all of the electrical needs of the State of 
California. And this doesn't even start to talk about gains from 
efficiency.
  This bill will help Americans insulate their homes, make sure they 
are using fairly efficient lighting, and make sure that their furnaces 
and air conditioning are efficient. And a new report just out this week 
says that we can cut by 50 percent our growth. Pass this bill and start 
this clean energy revolution.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished 
member of the Rules Committee for yielding to me.
  I have, in the 23 years that I have been in this body, engaged in, I 
would say, approximately two dozen, maybe three dozen, debates on 
various energy bills. Almost every Congress we have some sort of energy 
bill that comes before this body.
  I have to say that my heart is sad today because, in the debate so 
far in this Congress on energy legislation, it has been fairly one-
sided. It has been the majority trying to put their blueprint for 
America on energy in the committee and on the floor and in the Rules 
Committee with really no input and no debate from the minority party.
  I understand that the majority in the House has the right to work its 
will. We are not the other body, the Senate on the other side of the 
Capitol. We have a Rules Committee that is two to one plus one. We 
stack the deck so that the majority can make things happen. And that's 
a good thing.
  But the majority has responsibilities. One of the responsibilities is 
to hear the minority and give the minority the opportunity to have 
input and to have a debate and have their ideas voted on.
  In this Congress on energy legislation, the only Republican amendment 
that has been debated on the floor of the House is the motion to 
recommit. In the last energy bill, we were given a motion to recommit 
and we offered a full substitute that had clean coal technology, 
alternative fuels technology, that had some real energy, had some 
supply incentives. That motion to recommit was defeated, but at least 
it was debated. The rule before us today does not give the minority an 
option to have a motion to recommit. The rule before us today does not 
give the minority an option to have a substitute amendment.
  Once again we are on the floor of the House with one of the major 
components of our economy, energy legislation, and it is the majority 
way or no way. Well, I hope we would vote this rule down and go back to 
the Rules Committee and let us have either a Republican substitute, a 
Republican motion to recommit, some amendments, the Shimkus amendment 
on alternative fuels, the Upton amendment on renewable portfolio 
standards. They were all offered in the Rules Committee last night. 
They are substantive and real. They would improve the bill if they were 
allowed to be made in order. But this rule once again is a closed rule 
with one amendment, a Democrat substitute, no motion to recommit.
  The underlying bill is over a thousand pages. The underlying bill had 
not been seen in public until about 8:30 last evening. Obviously you 
can't digest a thousand-page bill overnight. I have been reading the 
table of contents trying to look at some summaries what is in the bill. 
Most is recycled. It is things that have been here before, but there 
are some new things.
  There is some provision for the State of New York, for example, in 
the tax title that diverts State income taxes that would normally be 
paid to the

[[Page 32307]]

Federal Government, they are kept by either the State or the City of 
New York, and it is worth about $2 billion. There has been no debate on 
that.

                              {time}  1200

  Now, I've got to give Chairman Rangel, I would assume I would give 
him credit for easing the tax burden of the people of his city and the 
people of his State. But there's not been a public debate on that. 
That's just a little $2 billion deal in the tax title of the bill. It 
may have showed up, it may have been there all along, but I just saw it 
reading through the summary about 10 minutes ago.
  So I don't think, if you're going to have a major policy debate on 
energy, which is worthwhile, and if the majority wants to change the 
energy policy, that's worthwhile too. But there ought to be a real 
debate and there ought to be real amendments, and we ought to let this 
body vote. This rule doesn't do that. This rule doesn't do that.
  And most of the things that are being extolled in the bill are things 
that were in the energy policy act 2 years ago. They're being extended. 
They're being expanded. That may or may not be a good thing, but we 
ought to have a debate about it.
  Do we really want to put a 36-billion gallon mandate for renewable 
fuels that can't be met by the current technology on the backs of the 
American people? This bill does that.
  I'm all for renewable fuels. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 had an $8-
billion gallon mandate for renewable fuels. The market is exceeding 
that. But it's a stretch to go from 8 billion, which is current law, to 
36 billion. And the technology doesn't currently exist. So maybe we 
ought to have a debate, maybe we ought to have some off-ramps, some 
triggers that we set the goal, but make sure that we have the ability 
to meet that goal before we put that mandate in.
  On the renewable portfolio standard for electricity generators, it 
only applies to investor owned; doesn't apply to nonprofits and to co-
ops. I don't think that's a good idea. It doesn't allow all forms of 
renewable. For example, new hydro is not included as a renewable. You 
know, some sort of a clean coal alternative which would be an 
alternative form is not included. It's very restrictive.
  The wind part of this bill, we're for wind power. The Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 expanded the tax credit for wind. This bill rescinds part 
of that. So there's a renewable form that they're being regressive.
  So just in summary, I would hope that the majority understands that 
being in the majority gives you the right to set the agenda, but it 
shouldn't give you the right to stifle debate so that the minority has 
absolutely no input. And in this bill that's before us today, the 
minority in the House of Representatives has had zero, nada, zip, no 
input; and that's not good for democracy.
  So I hope that we'll defeat the rule, take it back to the Rules 
Committee, let's have a debate. Let's have some amendments made in 
order and then bring a real energy bill that's bipartisan back to the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in strong 
support of the underlying bill, the Energy Independence and Security 
Act, whose provisions, in the main, have been debated, reviewed, talked 
about and considered in this House for a year.
  This legislation, while not perfect, and no legislation is, 
represents a historic opportunity to move our country toward a secure 
future. The bill marks a turning point in the Nation's history and 
answers the call for change that the American people sounded in 2006.
  The harsh partisan rhetoric from the other side, Mr. Speaker, is a 
product of the same obsolete thinking which produced our existing 
energy policy, which has kept this country funneling petrodollars to 
countries that fund terrorism.
  The people of my home State of New Hampshire are pressed by soaring 
gas prices; they're facing a cold winter. But they understand that 
energy independence, our economy and our national security are 
inseparable.
  With this bill we take a firm stand for real security, for healthy 
families, for a thriving economy, and for a sustainable future for our 
planet. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for the bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  With regard to the protests, really the outrage that is being heard 
from this side of the aisle, the origin of that is because of the 
unfairness of the process, the fact that the minority has been, as was 
very, I think, clearly explained by the ranking member of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee when he just spoke, Mr. Barton, the minority has 
been shut out. And this is an extremely important issue for the Nation. 
And if there is going to be a new energy policy, the new energy policy 
must be developed by the representatives of the American people in a 
way that represents, not only a strict numerical majority that controls 
the process of the House by virtue of the existence of the Rules 
Committee, et cetera, the ability to close out debate, but that it has 
to reflect genuine majority opinion. And that is reflected in the 
United States of America when there is dialogue, discussion, and 
agreement in a bipartisan fashion. So that's where the complaining, the 
outrage is coming from.
  And I would remind our friends on the other side of the aisle that 
this is too important an issue to have such an exclusivist process 
being used to develop it. Apparently, there is no genuine interest in 
passing a law, in having a law passed, become law, legislation become 
law; but, rather, there is interest in the exercise of press releases, 
of passage by the House, perhaps like we've seen with much of the 
appropriations process where, certainly in the 15 years that I've been 
here, I don't recall one bill having been sent and signed at this stage 
of the session.
  But anyway, I wanted to remind my colleagues as to the origin of the 
outrage, of the discontent felt by the minority side of the aisle.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota, a woman who has been a leader on this 
issue for years, Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and 
this historic bill's commitment to clean, renewable energy and its 
positive impact on strengthening our national security and our economic 
prosperity.
  One of the most important aspects of this bill is the appropriately 
aggressive renewable fuels standard it contains, which builds upon the 
first renewable fuel standard passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
which I supported. And it recognizes the contributions that rural 
America is ready, willing and able to make toward meeting our Nation's 
energy needs.
  Like many of my fellow South Dakotans, like so many Americans, I 
strongly support expanding our commitment to the production and use of 
renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. This legislation will 
mandate that we produce at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels 
in this country by the year 2022, and 1 billion gallons of biodiesel by 
2012.
  For the past 2\1/2\ years we have seen how the first renewable fuel 
standard, an initial step forward reforming our Nation's approach to 
energy production, has resulted in tremendous technological change and 
tremendous opportunities. The new RFS will continue to drive the 
development of new and efficient processes to turn rural America's 
natural abundance into energy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this bill, in large 
measure because of this renewable fuel standard which reflects a 
compromise with the Senate that improves the structure of the standard, 
while retaining the overall volume and schedule of the Senate bill. The 
RFS contained in the provisions we consider now include a 9 billion 
gallon requirement of conventional biofuels in 2008 to address the 
serious circumstances faced by the industry today. It accelerates to 
2009 and

[[Page 32308]]

2010 the start dates for advanced and cellulosic biofuels and their 
significant greenhouse gas reductions. It increases the total overall 
mandates in the intervening years, through 2016; and, importantly, it 
includes specific targets for biodiesel.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and to 
support this historic legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to rise today in support 
of this rule because last November the American people sent a new 
majority to Congress with a clear mission, to reduce our energy 
dependence on foreign oil, fight skyrocketing energy prices, and to 
protect our environment. The landmark legislation before the House 
today makes good on that goal.
  You know, in my district, we're able to buy wind power on the back of 
our electric bill. My wife and I burn 20 percent soy biodiesel in our 
home heating oil in our furnace. We're driving an American-made hybrid 
car which today gets 33 miles per gallon, although one can get 35 if 
one drives a little slower with a gentle foot on the accelerator. These 
things are attainable now. The technologies, many of them are available 
now.
  We had a woman call our office and say, I'm all excited; I just got a 
flex fuel vehicle. Where can I get some flex fuel? And my staff had to 
tell her that there were two pumps in New York State for E-85.
  There's plenty of supply. We've heard in front of the select 
committee that there's a surplus right now of both biodiesel and 
ethanol, but not the infrastructure to get them to market. And so we 
need to put the supply and the demand together, and that will produce 
more incentive for people to develop these biofuels. I believe that 
they can be produced, and they are being produced, in fact, by several 
producers in my district.
  This sweeping array of provisions on this bill includes two historic 
measures. First of all, the first CAFE standard fuel economy increase 
in three decades, which will save drivers $1,000 at the pump and cut 
Persian Gulf oil imports in half. And for the first time we will adopt 
a renewable energy standard so we can replace the polluting electric 
generation plants we rely on today with domestically produced power 
that helps us fight climate change.
  With energy prices burdening our working families, dependence on 
foreign oil continuing to undermine our sovereignty, I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and this bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I spent two good decades working 
professionally in renewable energy, and I know the great potential that 
new energy technology offers. The steps we're taking today will improve 
the world for future generations.
  We should all feel proud as we pass this bill that will benefit our 
economy, our security, our children, and our planet. When future 
generations look back on the actions we're taking today, they will see 
it as a monumental first step away from centuries of consumption and 
exploitation and towards a bright and clean future.
  I'm very pleased that this bill includes incentives for renewable 
energy, higher fuel economy standards for vehicles, a 15 percent 
renewable energy standard, and my bill, which will encourage 
groundbreaking research and geothermal energy. States like California 
have blazed the trail on these issues, and now everyone else can 
follow.
  I support this bill, this rule, and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, most folks think of ``CAFE'' as a place to 
eat. Well, our cars and our trucks have been eating too much energy and 
emitting too much pollution for far too long, while our planet and our 
pocketbooks take a beating. Fuel efficiency standards have not been 
increased since 1975 when Paul Simon began singing ``Still Crazy After 
All These Years.''

                              {time}  1215

  Well, it is still crazy that 32 years later fuel economy standards 
have not been increased and we cannot get more miles per gallon despite 
both our dangerous overdependence on foreign oil and the growing threat 
of global warming. We need 21st-century fuel economy standards for 
21st-century vehicles. And thanks to this bill, many of those vehicles 
will be fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrids, following the lead that we 
have taken with the Plug-in Partners campaign in Austin, Texas.
  Texans alone will save $2 billion at the pump when these standards 
become fully effective. And consumers across America will save billions 
more from the requirement in this bill that utilities generate at least 
15 percent of their energy from renewable energy. Keep in mind that 
even Governor Bush signed a renewable energy portfolio in Texas, and 
Texas is currently ahead of the country on this issue.
  A green light for green energy encourages a new generation of job-
creating innovation that we can export to the world--reducing our 
reliance on fossil fuels and, maybe even more importantly, fossilized 
thinking that we have heard so much of here this morning.
  This bill will reduce the threat of both global war and global 
warming.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, while the process has been difficult, this 
rule is worthy of support, and the underlying bill is a test of our 
will to solve the cataclysmic challenge of our time: global warming.
  This rule and this bill give us many tools, from fuel efficiency to 
alternative fuels to renewable energy standards. They also incorporate 
thoughtful, thorough appliance efficiency standards reported on a 
bipartisan basis by the Commerce Committee and previously enacted by 
this House.
  As co-author with Fred Upton of the light bulb provisions, let me 
underscore how important they are. In this bill, we ban, by 2012, the 
famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent bulb, which emits 10 percent 
of its energy as light and wastes the remaining 90 percent. Sounds like 
this House. We phase out remaining inefficient bulbs by 2014, and by 
2020 light bulbs will be three times more efficient, paving the way for 
the use of superefficient LEDs manufactured in the U.S. by 2020.
  Mr. Speaker, it takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb and even less 
time to vote ``aye.''
  Importantly, the bill gives the Department of Energy the authority to 
craft a rule to give the lighting industry the flexibility to sell a 
range of bulbs, but there are protections. The rule must save as much 
energy as a flat requirement that all bulbs be 3 times more efficient 
than today's bulbs. And if DOE doesn't get its act together, the flat 
requirement will automatically became law.
  Though I believe that Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs) are an 
important technology, the intent of these standards is that at no time 
will CFLs be the only lighting choice available to American consumers. 
The bill also requires that DOE find ways to minimize the amount of 
mercury in CFLs and provides incentives for high-efficiency lighting to 
be manufactured in the United States.
  I would like to thank Senators Bingaman, Boxer and Congressman Upton 
(who has been my partner in all things light bulbs) for their tireless 
work on these provisions.
  Finally, I'd like to thank Jay Hulings, my Legislative Director and 
Committee staff--notably John Jimison on the House side, and Deborah 
Estes on the Senate side--for their long hours and dedication to 
getting this job done.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my 
friend again for yielding and all of

[[Page 32309]]

those who participated in this debate on this rule that is so critical 
in the sense that it is bringing forth legislation of extraordinary 
importance to the Nation. Unfortunately, it has been brought forth in a 
process that has been most unfair and ultimately exclusivist, and that 
does not lead to good policy.
  I have a friend who always remarks that in government, personnel is 
policy. I have realized now how process becomes policy when it is so 
exclusivist, not allowing the genuine will of the House to move 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing an AMT 
patch for the millions of American taxpayers who face the unintended 
consequences of that tax.
  The AMT was enacted in 1969 to prevent a small number of wealthy 
taxpayers from using legitimate deductions and credits to avoid paying 
taxes altogether. Back then, the tax affected only 155 people, the 
``super rich.'' The AMT was never adjusted to match inflation; 
therefore, the AMT is affecting more and more taxpayers. Without fixing 
the AMT problem, 25 million taxpayers will be hit by the AMT, costing 
the average taxpayer an additional $2,000. In Florida alone, it will 
affect over 1 million taxpayers, 6.5 times more than in 2005.
  The longer we wait to fix the AMT, the longer it will take for the 
IRS to make the necessary changes to tax forms and to process tax 
returns under any changes to the law. As of now, the majority's failure 
to pass an AMT fix will force the IRS to delay processing tax refunds 
until mid March at the earliest. This is likely to delay returns for 21 
million taxpayers who currently will be subject to the AMT but who, 
with the patch, would not have to pay the AMT. That comes out to about 
a $75 billion interest-free loan to the Federal Government paid for by 
the American taxpayer.
  We urgently need to fix the AMT so that American taxpayers will not 
have to wait to get their hard-earned money back from the Federal 
Government. I urge my colleagues to help move this important 
legislation and oppose the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart), appreciate his arguments, and will close on behalf of our 
side.
  There are two arguments that I heard in the course of this debate. 
One was about process and procedure. I happen to believe that process 
and procedure is important. It's important not in its own right; it's 
important for what it can do to help us in this body create better 
legislation. But process can be abused. It can be abused when the goal 
is not to make a better bill; it's to obstruct the passage of any bill. 
And the choice that had to be made by leadership on this side, 
particularly in view of the decision in the other body to refuse to go 
to conference, was whether to accept that use of process that 
obstructed consideration of energy legislation this country needs or to 
move ahead. They made the right choice.
  Second, this legislation, a thousand pages, as Mr. Diaz-Balart and 
others mentioned, they had some fun holding up the bill. Mr. Speaker, 
the vast majority of that 1,000 pages contains provisions that have 
been considered in many cases passed by this House of Representatives. 
What this bill is is a compilation of the work that many people in this 
body have been doing for years. What's different is that it is actually 
coming to the House floor for a vote.
  Substantively, this legislation does turn the page on energy policy. 
I showed a picture in the beginning. It's a metaphor really for the 
energy policy that we have had in this country for generations. It's 
the American administration hand in hand with OPEC leadership, OPEC 
countries, pursuing a policy of drill-and-drill, consume-and-consume, 
export our dollars and import their oil.
  If we turn the page, we are going to have a new picture. We are going 
to have a picture of the American Congress and the American 
administration hand in hand with American farmers who are driving their 
tractors, creating energy alternatives. It is going to be a picture of 
the American Congress with young engineers who are creating better, 
more efficient appliances. It is going to be a picture of the American 
Congress and American families who are driving to and from their soccer 
games, to and from work, to and from day care in safe vehicles, 
manufactured by American workers, that get 40 percent higher mileage, 
saving that family $1,000.
  We know, we know that this is a hat trick. If we change our energy 
policy and we act like a confident Nation, not a dependent Nation, we 
can protect the planet, reverse global warming. We can create good jobs 
and keep American dollars at home, and we can increase our national 
security by reducing our dependence on regimes that have no particular 
interest in the security of the United States but whose primary 
interest is in the dollars from American consumers and American 
businesses.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 846 Offered By Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution, 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, shall be considered to have been taken from the 
     Speaker's table. A single motion that the Mouse concur in 
     each of the Senate amendments with the respective amendment 
     specified in section 2 of this resolution shall be considered 
     as pending in the House without intervention of any point of 
     order. 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. The amendments referred to in section I are as 
     follows:
       ``In lieu of the. matter proposed to be inserted for the 
     text of the bill, H.R. 6, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the `Stealth Tax Relief Extension 
     Act of 2007'.

     SECTION 2. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR 
                   NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) (relating 
     to special rule for taxable years 2000 through 2006) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2006'' and inserting ``2006, or 
     2007'', and
       (2) by striking ``2006'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``2007''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

     SECTION 3. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 
                   EXEMPTION AMOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) (relating 
     to exemption amount) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``($62,550 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``($66,250 in the case of taxable year's beginning in 
     2007)'', and
       (2) by striking ``($42,500 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting; 
     ``(44,350 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.''
       ``In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted for the 
     title of the bill, H.R. 6, insert the following: ``To amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide individuals 
     relief from the alternative minimum tax.''.''
                                  ____

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

[[Page 32310]]



        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.

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 adopting House Resolution 846, if 
ordered, and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4253.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 192, not voting 23, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1136]

                               YEAS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     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
     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
     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 (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     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
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     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
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     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
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     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
     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--23

     Baird
     Bean
     Boyda (KS)
     Cantor
     Carson
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Feeney
     Fortenberry
     Granger
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Scott (GA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1248

  Messrs. BARRETT of South Carolina and BACHUS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PAYNE and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD 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.

[[Page 32311]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 195, not voting 18, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1137]

                               YEAS--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     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
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     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
     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
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     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
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     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
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     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
     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
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     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
     Lampson
     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)
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     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
     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--18

     Baird
     Boyda (KS)
     Carson
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Feeney
     Fortenberry
     Granger
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
is 1 minute remaining on the vote.

                              {time}  1255

  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.

                          ____________________