[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13887-13895]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6052, SAVING ENERGY THROUGH PUBLIC 
                       TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2008

  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1304 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1304

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 6052) to promote increased public 
     transportation use, to promote increased use of alternative 
     fuels in providing public transportation, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 6052 
     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.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of Thursday, June 26, 2008, for the Speaker 
     to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     relating to:
        (a) a measure concerning the Commodity Exchange Act and 
     energy markets; and
       (b) a measure concerning the issuance of oil and gas leases 
     on Federal lands or waters.


[[Page 13888]]

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart of 
Florida. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CASTOR. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1304 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public 
Transportation Act of 2008. The resolution provides for 1 hour of 
general debate controlled by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and makes in order five amendments submitted for 
consideration.
  The rule also permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules relating to two important measures: one, a measure concerning the 
Commodity Exchange Act and energy markets; and two, a measure 
concerning the issuance of oil and gas leases on Federal lands or 
waters. This authority is needed because House rules allow for bills to 
be considered under suspension only on Mondays, Tuesdays, and 
Wednesdays. In order for the House to consider the bill today on 
Thursday or on any other day, the House must adopt a rule granting 
specific permission.
  Madam Speaker, hardworking Americans all across this great country 
are being squeezed by this painful Bush economy that has brought on 
increased costs for housing and for health care. My colleague from 
Florida can attest to the rising costs of property insurance for 
Floridians and other Americans, and of course, gas prices are socking 
it to our neighbors back home.
  Now, many of the reformers here in Congress have been standing up to 
the White House and have been urging them for years to change direction 
and to focus on long-term solutions to our energy challenges. But the 
oil men at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and their Big Oil 
allies have had a stranglehold over our country's energy policy, and 
unfortunately, families and businesses across America are paying the 
price.
  Now, some bipartisan progress has been made here in our new-direction 
Congress over the past year and a half. One of Speaker  Nancy Pelosi's 
first initiatives was to establish a new bipartisan Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Climate Change, which has been extremely 
productive. Democratic reformers also pushed through a historic 
increase in the required gas mileage of 35 miles per gallon for our 
cars. Now, better gas mileage for our cars alone should save families 
from $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump and should slash consumption 
in America by 4 million gallons per day, but it cannot happen soon 
enough. The sad thing is this technology has existed for years. Cars in 
Japan travel almost twice as far on a gallon of gas.
  What has been missing here in our country is the political leadership 
to make these necessary changes. So many of the changes we have been 
fighting for have been blocked by the White House and by their Big Oil 
allies.
  Remember, just 7 years ago, the administration's Energy Task Force 
met behind closed doors, and it consisted of former oil company 
executives and of other oil executives, like Ken Lay of Enron. The 
administration also fought to keep the other identities secret. Saving 
American families money through innovation was not a priority. 
Conservation was not a priority--the Vice President made that clear--
and public transit and public transportation were not priorities. They 
were stuck in the past then, and they still are today because what has 
been their answer to high gas prices? Their recommendations today are 
the same as they were 7 years ago: More drilling; more of the same.
  Now, as the reformers in this Congress continue to fight for a new 
direction in energy policy, inexplicably, the White House announced 
yesterday that it opposes today's public transit bill, the Saving 
Energy Through Public Transportation Act. What a shame on the White 
House, because expanding public transportation use is one of the most 
promising ways to reduce energy consumption and reliance on foreign 
oil.
  Now, with the White House's $4-per-gallon premium, even more 
commuters are choosing to ride the train and to bus to work rather than 
to ride alone in their cars. According to two recent studies, America 
already saves up to 1\1/2\ to 4 billion gallons of gasoline annually. 
That's more than 11 million gallons of gasoline per day due to public 
transit.
  Ridership across America is way up. 2007 was the highest ridership in 
public transportation in 50 years. Light rail riders are way up in 
Denver, Seattle, Portland, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Francisco, 
Charlotte, and in many other communities. And my colleague from Miami 
will be pleased to hear that South Florida posted a 20 percent increase 
over last year in ridership in March and April. Transit agencies are 
also using more alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that 
improve the air we breathe and that aid America's energy independence.
  Our transit bill on the floor today and under this rule will lower 
fares and will expand routes and frequency so public transit is an even 
more attractive alternative during this time of high gas prices.
  So I urge my colleagues to continue to stand up to the White House, 
to support this rule and our first bill today, the Saving Energy 
Through Public Transportation Act.
  Madam Speaker, our second bill today under this rule is entitled 
``Use It or Lose It.'' In the bill, we are calling the bluff of the 
White House, of Big Oil, and of other prominent Republicans who claim 
that oil companies are being blocked from drilling for oil and gas and 
that that is somehow related to gas prices. Well, after the White House 
announced that policy last week, one commentator called it a massive 
fraudulent and pathetic excuse for an energy policy.
  You see, 68 million acres are already leased and have the potential 
to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 4.7 billion 
cubic feet of natural gas each day. Now, if 68 million acres are 
already open to drilling, please do not insult the intelligence of the 
American people by claiming that the oil companies need more.
  The truth about America's energy policy and the White House policy is 
that Big Oil has stockpiled supplies and has pocketed profits. A report 
has been generated by the Committee on Natural Resources, entitled 
``The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and 
Pockets Profits'' of June 2008. If American families and businesses are 
interested, they can obtain this report on the Internet at 
resourcescommittee.house.gov.
  The chairman of the Natural Resources Committee is Nick Rahall of 
West Virginia. It's his bill. The bill forces oil and gas companies to 
either produce, to use it or to release the leases, to lose them, the 
leases they've been stockpiling. These companies can't obtain new ones 
unless they can demonstrate that they are diligently using the ones 
that they already have.
  Now, what was particularly interesting, Madam Speaker, is that, last 
year, the administration's own energy department, the Energy 
Information Administration, issued a report that determined that 
opening more areas would not have a significant impact on gas prices. 
The 2007 report of the administration's Energy Information 
Administration, titled ``Annual Energy Outlook 2007, with Projections 
to 2030'' can be found at www.eia.doe.gov/oaif/aeo/.
  In fact, Madam Speaker, just yesterday, the director of the EIA 
reconfirmed the 2007 report and noted that

[[Page 13889]]

expanded offshore drilling in the U.S. will not affect oil and natural 
gas prices very much at all.
  I would like to submit yesterday's reconfirmation by the EIA director 
of the 2007 report.

                  [From Bloomberg.com, June 25, 2008]

          Offshore Drilling Won't Affect Prices Much, EIA Says

                            (By Tina Seeley)

       Expanded offshore drilling in the U.S. won't affect oil and 
     natural-gas prices much, the head of the Energy Information 
     Administration said.
       Guy Caruso, speaking today at a press conference in 
     Washington, said his agency had considered the effect of more 
     drilling in a 2007 report. Higher energy prices this year 
     might change the results, although the time needed for 
     resource development would damp any outcome, he said.
       ``It does take a long time to develop those resources,'' 
     Caruso said. ``Therefore the price impact is muted by that.''
       President George W. Bush last week proposed expanded 
     drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and development of 
     energy sources in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as 
     a response to record prices. Crude-oil futures hit a record 
     $139.89 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange on June 
     16.
       Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican 
     presidential nominee, has expressed support for more 
     drilling. His potential Democratic opponent, Senator Barack 
     Obama of Illinois, opposes more drilling.
       ``The projections in the OCS access case indicate that 
     access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions 
     would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and 
     natural gas production or prices before 2030,'' the agency 
     said in its 2007 report.
       The Energy Information Administration is the statistical 
     arm of the U.S. Energy Department.

  Madam Speaker, this sounds all too familiar: the Bush administration 
ignoring information generated by its own agencies. They've been 
downplaying, ignoring climate change, possibly intelligence, and now it 
comes as no surprise that they're playing games on energy policy as 
well. Thanks to the administration's years of inaction and 
incompetence, America is left with record prices for consumers and with 
record profits for oil companies with disastrous national security 
consequences.
  Now, the third bill we will consider today as part of our energy 
package is a direction to the administration, encouragement, as we 
continue to stand up to the misguided policies of this White House.
  Our third bill today encourages the White House to take more 
aggressive action in regulating the energy futures market. This is our 
first step in tackling the outrageous speculation that is occurring 
that many experts have noted could help reduce the price of gas at the 
pump.
  This is our package today. We look forward to the debate.
  At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend 
from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  With gas prices averaging over $4 a gallon, more and more Americans 
are using public transportation for their commuting needs. Reports from 
Metropolitan transit systems throughout the country are showing a 
significant increase in ridership, in some cases as much as 15 
percent--and perhaps even higher--over last year's figures. At the same 
time, highway vehicle miles traveled declined by 2 percent.

                              {time}  1045

  Meeting this increased demand for public transportation is causing a 
burden on local transit agencies which, just like commuters, must pay 
record fuel prices to pay for buses and subway trains and light rail.
  To help meet this increased demand for public transportation, the 
underlying legislation, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation 
Act, would provide $1.7 billion in funding to increase public 
transportation use across the United States. Transit agencies would be 
able to use those funds to reduce transit fares or expand transit 
services.
  I think this funding is important for communities throughout the 
country, certainly the community I'm honored to represent. Recently, 
Miami-Dade County, the 12th largest public transit agency in the 
country, announced that bus routes would be cut and others adjusted due 
to the rising cost of fuel. So this at a time when more and more 
commuters are looking to use public transportation, but public 
transportation systems are definitely being affected by the rise in 
energy costs. So it is my hope that the $36 million this legislation 
would provide South Florida would help reestablish some of the routes 
that were cut and would expand others so that commuters would have a 
more reliable public transportation system.
  To further promote the use of public transportation, the legislation 
establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and 
requires all Federal agencies to offer transit passes to Federal 
employees working in urbanized areas with fixed route transit systems.
  To help alleviate the reliance on gasoline to power our transit 
systems, the bill will increase the Federal share for clean and 
alternative fuel transit projects. This will also have the beneficial 
effect of reducing transportation-related emissions.
  I would like to congratulate Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member 
Mica for working together to draft a bipartisan bill that both sides of 
the aisle can support. This legislation, the underlying legislation, 
will be a great benefit to transit systems throughout the country at a 
time when they are needing additional funding.
  Madam Speaker, once again, the bipartisan spirit of the bill, the 
underlying legislation, never made it past the doors of the Rules 
Committee. Yesterday, the majority in the Rules Committee only allowed 
one minority amendment to be debated today, while allowing three 
amendments from the majority.
  Before the new majority took control of the House in January of 2007, 
they published a document called ``A New Direction for America,'' which 
set out their promises to the American people. Page 24 of that document 
says, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that 
allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment 
process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, 
including a substitute.''
  Yet here we are today with a process that, contrary to their promise 
to the American people, blocks a full and fair debate and allows only 
one minority amendment. Actually, this one minority amendment is the 
only one the majority has allowed the minority to offer all week. Four 
bills, one amendment.
  Actually, it is more like six bills, one amendment, because this rule 
will allow the House to debate two additional bills under suspension of 
the rules, one against speculation in the oil market, and we have to 
speculate on what it says because we haven't seen it. And the 
majority's bringing those bills to floor without allowing the minority 
to offer any amendments or a motion to recommit.
  So, at a time when gas prices are hitting almost daily records, the 
majority should be offering a ``full and fair debate'' on this critical 
issue, a debate that considers ideas from both sides of the aisle, of 
all Members of this House, to help reduce gasoline prices.
  Polls across the country are consistent with a recent poll that I saw 
that said 71 percent want their elected leaders in Washington to focus 
on ``increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering 
the cost of gasoline and electricity.'' But instead, the majority is 
offering no-new-energy legislation, obstructing debate, and impeding 
solutions to the energy crisis, contrary to what the American people 
wish.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule, which 
continues to block the minority from offering more than one amendment 
and blocks a thorough debate on the critical energy situation facing 
the Nation.
  At this time, I reserve.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
courtesy in permitting me to speak on this

[[Page 13890]]

rule as I rise in support of this integral part of a comprehensive 
approach that has been offered by the majority party to deal with the 
energy challenges we face today.
  It is important that we think of this in a comprehensive fashion 
because there isn't one silver bullet that's going to solve America's 
energy challenges, especially when it has taken years to paint us into 
this corner.
  It should be made clear that, first and foremost, this is not just 
more about increasing supply, not just more drilling. Some of my 
Republican friends are talking about draining America dry and turning 
the rest of our energy future over to large oil companies who already, 
as the gentlewoman from Florida points out, control 68 million acres of 
land that is available for exploitation. Just ExxonMobil alone had $40 
billion of profit. Were they spending it on existing leases to increase 
supply? They spent $36 billion buying back their stock and found, what 
was it, $10 million to invest in alternative energy. Significant irony 
here, I think.
  One of the items that we've been involved with in the last 18 months 
is to work to give Americans more choices for their energy, to beef up 
opportunities for wind, solar, and tidal, in addition to those 68 
million acres already available.
  We're working on new technology. Three times the House has passed 
legislation, I'm pleased to say, that has included my provision to 
close the Hummer loophole that actually subsidizes the purchase of the 
largest, most energy inefficient, expensive vehicles like the Hummer 
and, instead, would spend that money to encourage alternatives like 
hybrid technology.
  We need to be serious about not wasting more oil than any country in 
the world. You know, it's ironic, after the Democrats seized control of 
Congress we had to fight with this administration and our friends on 
the other side of the aisle to just increase fuel efficiency standards 
to 35 miles a gallon, that basically remained unchanged for 35 years. 
Our Republican friends, when they were in control, actually made it 
illegal to even study increasing fuel efficiency standards. It is 
stunning when we think today of the price Americans are paying at $4 a 
gallon that they refused to allow us to even study making cars more 
gasoline efficient.
  Well, we broke through that. The irony is now George Bush is claiming 
credit for something that he resisted, but even if we give George Bush 
credit for what we forced him to do, it took George Bush longer to get 
to 35 miles to a gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to 
the moon.
  We hear about now, all of the sudden, they're flip-flopping and 
interested in more offshore drilling. This is interesting. George Bush, 
the first, put in place an executive order that prohibited it. George 
Bush, the second, reaffirmed it at the insistence of his brother, Jeb 
Bush, as my friend from Florida well knows. The President could now 
overturn that executive order if he wished. The Governor of Florida, 
since Florida controls the first three miles of State land, could start 
drilling 3 miles off the Florida coast if they were really excited 
about doing it.
  Well, it's important that we've got this legislation today about 
using or losing oil leases. I strongly support the part of the puzzle 
that deals with conservation, because with less than 3 percent of the 
world's oil reserves we'll never be able to drill our way out of this. 
The irony is that even if we started drilling more today, every expert, 
every expert agrees that it will take 7 to 10 years for any of this oil 
to trickle into the system.
  In this legislation, we are putting more resources to help mass 
transit, putting more resources to give consumers choices.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is part of a comprehensive approach. Democrats 
have been working since we returned to power to increase fuel 
efficiency and with other alternatives for energy.
  I welcome a broad, far-ranging debate about what Republicans did when 
they were in control for a dozen years in the House, especially the 6 
years of the Bush administration, they were in complete control, their 
energy bill of 2005 when they were running the show, in contrast with 
what we've already been able to accomplish with just the last 18 months 
and what we propose to do in the future.
  Support the rule. Support the underlying bill. I look forward to that 
debate.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to my good friend from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. I thank the gentleman from Florida.


                Congratulating the Fresno State Bulldogs

  I'd like to rise in opposition to this rule, but before I do that, 
I'd like to take just a moment to recognize the accomplishments of the 
Diamond Dogs of Fresno State. The Central Valley's own Fresno State 
Bulldogs entered the College World Series and left as world champions.
  The Bulldogs, who barreled into the College World Series with nothing 
more than the burden of proof on their side, showed not only that they 
belonged in the series but that they were nothing less than the best 
team in the Nation.
  The Fresno State Bulldogs have triumphed in the face of adversity and 
have achieved the greatest victory in College World Series history. 
Their achievement has spoken louder than words and will become a 
testament to all those who seek to be better, to reach further, and to 
soar higher than ever before.
  I share this, not only because of the great sense of pride I feel 
from the Fresno State Bulldogs' outstanding accomplishment, but because 
I believe their story is truly an inspiration for all. Our Fresno State 
Bulldogs' story is not one of miracles. It is a testimony of the 
strength of the human spirit. It is a force that can overcome any 
obstacle, even when faced with seemingly insurmountable odds.
  Congratulations to the Fresno State Bulldogs.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I was sitting here, waiting to congratulate the 
Fresno State Bulldogs, and unfortunately, we ran out of time on that. 
But I had the opportunity to be able to listen to the other side of the 
aisle's arguments, and I can't help but think back to 2006, because 
there's a lot of hot air here in Washington, as we know, but in 2006 
the Democrats said, if you put us in power, we're going to get our 
troops out of Iraq, we're going to surrender in Iraq, and we're going 
to just turn it over to the terrorists in Iraq.
  Two years later, we're still in Iraq, Madam Speaker, because the 
Republicans stood up to the Democrat majority and said we're going to 
try to win and achieve victory in Iraq. We're still trying to do that, 
and it's very difficult.
  The other thing that the Democrats also promised in 2006 is that they 
had a real plan to lower gas prices. Well, in 2 years, we have managed 
to double the price of gasoline, and in California, we're getting close 
to paying $5 a gallon. So I'm assuming that today's rule is the 
unveiling of this plan to lower gas prices.
  However, the plan that you have before us and all that we continue to 
hear is that we blame the Texas oil men in the White House. Give me a 
break. You must have better legislation than that today. If this is 
your plan, to blame the White House, to blame oil speculators, to blame 
oil companies, American oil companies don't control the world's oil 
supply. The world's oil supply is controlled by foreign governments 
that, for the most part, are hostile towards us.

                              {time}  1100

  So if you have a plan to deal with these foreign governments, 
hopefully, we can see it today. If you have a plan that's going to 
somehow miraculously lower oil prices, maybe we're going to see that 
today because, right now, your plan is not working real well.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.

[[Page 13891]]

  The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 2 
additional minutes.
  Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, today, the price of gas is $5 a gallon, and 
we would like to see the plan today, Madam Speaker. I hope that this 
rule will unveil this plan, but unfortunately, the legislation that's 
before us today is a scam. It's a complete and total scam.
  The longer that we continue to blame the White House, the longer that 
we continue to blame the oil companies, the longer that we continue to 
blame everyone else but ourselves--we ourselves are to blame; we should 
look in the mirror. This Congress should take dramatic steps to open up 
supply that would bridge ourselves to the next generation of energy, 
Madam Speaker. That's what we should be doing here today.
  The American people aren't going to buy these arguments, but they are 
going to continue to be buying $5 gas until we decide, as a Congress, 
to do something about it.
  With that, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland, a leader on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Cummings.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I just want to take a moment to make it clear that I support H. Res. 
1304. It provides for a structured rule, and I fully support the rule.
  As I was sitting here, I had to change my remarks in my head because, 
as I was listening to Mr. Nunes, I could not help but think about the 
people in my district of Baltimore, only 40 miles away from here, who 
aren't worried about whose fault it is. What they are concerned about 
are solutions to their problems so they can get back and forth to work, 
so that they can go shopping, so that they can do the things that they 
would normally do. I think that this rule and then this bill are a 
major step in the right direction in trying to help them.
  In a sense, I kind of agree with Mr. Nunes. I'm not anxious to do a 
lot of blaming because the people I represent get tired of watching C-
SPAN; they get tired of the back and forth, and they simply want the 
Congress to come together to find solutions to their problems.
  Yes, it is true that gas prices have risen to more than $4 per 
gallon. The Joint Economic Committee, on which I also serve, has 
reported that households can expect to spend as much as 25 percent more 
on gasoline this year than last year. This is a tremendous burden for 
the many households that I represent, and they simply cannot bear it. 
If, as I fear, these prices represent a new paradigm, we, as a nation, 
must urgently assess how we can adjust to ensure our economy can 
continue to grow while we conserve energy.
  I believe that one of the best adjustments we can make is to support 
the increased use of public transit, which already saves the United 
States the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline per year. 
Unfortunately, in many areas, such as my hometown of Baltimore where 
public transportation already provides more than 93 million annual 
trips, transit agencies face budget constraints that are limiting their 
ability to grow to meet the new demand.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the Federal 
contribution to public transit services totals less than 20 percent of 
all revenue accruing to these services. Local governments contribute 
nearly half of the revenue needed to provide public transit, but these 
governments are facing funding constraints.
  H.R. 6052 would provide an additional $1.7 billion in Federal funding 
for public transportation in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, funding that 
is essential to ensure that we can keep our Nation moving while 
conserving fuel.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill that 
increases Federal investments in public transit.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It is my privilege to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished lady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, today, the national average for a gallon 
of gas has reached $4.07. With your average vehicle tank holding 18 
gallons, that translates to $75 to fill your tank. This is on top of 
skyrocketing food costs and, now, increases in both our natural gas and 
electricity bills at home.
  Many American families simply cannot afford these prices. Yet we 
stand on this floor without allowing debate on a comprehensive solution 
for the American people. This country is tired of partisan maneuvering 
and is tired of Congress just saying ``no.''
  Madam Speaker, Americans are downright mad. Some may argue that high 
gas prices are an incentive to make Americans drive less or that high 
energy costs are an incentive for businesses and homeowners to utilize 
more green practices. High energy and gas prices also cause businesses 
and jobs to move offshore where natural gas is cheaper.
  I firmly believe in investing in technology that will move us away 
from our Nation's dependence on petroleum, but during this transitional 
period, we must also increase our domestic supply and fuel our economy. 
No one can deny that energy is something that we all use and need. 
Americans expect this Congress to do everything within our power to 
address these high gas and energy prices.
  Madam Speaker, we should not leave here for the Fourth of July recess 
without increasing our own natural resources. Bring relief to the 
American people. Keep our Nation competitive and open for business.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Vermont, a member of the powerful Rules Committee, Mr. 
Welch.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my colleague from Florida, and I admire 
her leadership on energy issues, among many other issues.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about two things. One is an 
amendment that I offered to this bill that's been incorporated into the 
manager's amendment.
  This bill recognizes that one of the steps that we have to take, long 
overdue, is to build up our public transportation system. It's going to 
provide relief to commuters; it's going to help our environment; it's 
going to create jobs.
  The amendment that I offered and that Mr. Oberstar incorporated into 
the manager's amendment would allow funds to be used by local 
transportation authorities, like the Chittenden County Transportation 
Authority, to retrofit their equipment and facilities in order to 
improve energy efficiency and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Those 
would be specific purposes for which authorized funds may be used.
  Specifically, it means that an organization like the Chittenden 
County Transit Authority in the Burlington area could retrofit their 
buses and be more fuel efficient. They've been trying to do that. A 
shortage of funds has kept them from achieving all of their goals. It 
would also allow the transportation authority in that State and in 
other States to build a natural gas pump station locally. This, we 
believe, is a very important part of the legislation presented to you.
  Second, we're having, in the process of this debate, an ongoing 
discussion about energy. The fact is--and I think we all know this--in 
the past when we've had crises around energy, it has never produced a 
lasting and durable response. There has been an immediate response but 
nothing lasting, whether it was after the OPEC organization in the 
early '70s, after the Gulf war or after Katrina. Usually, a crisis does 
produce a response. It hasn't. We know the time has passed as to when 
we can look the other way.
  What accounts for the high cost of energy? The reality is there are a 
number of factors. The weak dollar is one, because of our current 
account deficit. Speculation is another. There has been a massive 
increase in speculation in the commodities markets in general, in

[[Page 13892]]

oil in particular, where it's gone from folks who are delivering the 
product or who are receiving the product, to financial speculators who 
see that there is money in playing that game.
  There has also been an increased demand with globalization. China and 
India are building their economies. They're using more energy. But 
there has also been a significant failure of leadership to move us away 
from an oil-dependent economy. The reality is, what we need to be doing 
here in Congress is addressing both the short-term steps that we can 
take as well as the long-term need for a new energy policy.
  So what are the specific things that we can do in the short term? 
One, we can stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
diminish demand. We've done that. That will have a positive impact in 
reducing demand. Second, we can limit speculation. We should be putting 
limits on how much the speculative players can influence price, not 
only because there is significant expert testimony that that is adding 
a premium to the cost of a gallon of gas or to a gallon of home heating 
fuel, but that it also is creating a potential bubble where innocent 
participants and pension funds may see the value of their assets 
suddenly diminish when the market goes south. So we will be considering 
later anti-speculation legislation that will be helpful as well.
  Third, the ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation. Our friends on the 
other side have been making a big argument about the need to increase 
production. You know, there is not any disagreement here that part of 
our transition from an oil-based economy to a carbon-free economy has 
to include the continued production and use of carbon-based fuels, 
including oil. No question about it. The issue here is whether or not 
we need to increase lands that are available when we have 68 million 
acres already under lease, permitted, where all the oil companies need 
to do in order to produce more oil is to put metal to the Earth. This 
is 68 million acres, Madam Speaker, as you know, that is both onshore 
and offshore.
  So the argument is that we need to be opening up a national park and 
starting to drill there or into other coastal areas when we have 68 
million acres already available, but for reasons that only the oil 
companies--the leaseholders--are aware, those are not producing needed 
oil and natural gas for our citizens. It's estimated that the amount of 
oil that's available under those 68 million acres is 4.8 million 
barrels.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. So what we need to do that also is a long-term 
energy policy is to increase mileage standards and take away the tax 
breaks that are going to the oil companies and steer them to 
alternative agency. Incidentally, ExxonMobil, which made $40 billion 
this year, spent $32 billion buying its stock back rather than 
producing oil on these leaseholds.
  We also have to have a new energy policy so we can keep our money at 
home. We're sending $1 trillion to the oil-producing states like 
Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, not particularly our friends. If we 
keep that money at home, we're going to strengthen our economy.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes 
to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, due to higher fuel costs, the two largest 
utility companies in Oklahoma recently announced a monthly rate 
increase of $16 on average, with more increases expected this fall. 
This is just the latest example of how the pain at the pump is 
spreading to the other necessities of life. This added expense for fuel 
in business is being passed along to consumers, who are now being hit 
with a double dose of soaring prices.
  However, when given the opportunity to pass meaningful energy 
legislation, this majority has chosen to introduce the ``Bus Fares for 
Bureaucrats'' bill, which will spend $1.7 billion in tax revenues to 
reduce fares in public transportation systems. While I'm sure this will 
benefit the bureaucrats in D.C. who write these laws, I'm more 
concerned about the farmers in western Oklahoma, where there is no 
public transportation system to speak of.
  As of today, my constituents are paying upwards of $4 a gallon for 
gasoline to fill their cars and $4.66 a gallon for diesel to fill their 
tractors and trucks. Are we to tell them that they not only have to pay 
higher prices for gas and electricity but that now they have to 
subsidize people in big cities with the luxury of access to public 
transportation?
  As long as demand continues to rise, the price for oil will continue 
to climb without increasing supply. The answer to this problem is 
clear: We must increase our domestic supply of oil by allowing the 
exploration of new oil reserves and by increasing the capacity of our 
refineries.
  A recent Los Angeles Times Bloomberg poll stated that 68 percent of 
registered voters support opening up more land for oil and gas 
drilling, including off the Nation's coast. It's time for this majority 
to start listening to the demands of the American people and to open up 
more land for oil exploration.
  It's also necessary to encourage the development of alternative 
energy, such as wind or nuclear power. Oklahoma is currently the number 
nine generator of wind power in this country, producing 689 megawatts 
per year. There are other States that have the potential to produce 
more wind power than that but that choose not to install wind turbines 
because they consider them unsightly.
  However, I guarantee you that any Oklahoma wheat farmer who earns 
money from both his crops and the wind turbines on his land will tell 
you his wind turbines are beautiful.

                              {time}  1115

  Right now, America produces 20 percent of its energy needs from 
nuclear power while France produces 78 percent, 78 percent. That's 78 
percent less energy they need to import from other countries. So, not 
only are they able to produce more than three-quarters of their 
electricity needs in France, they are able to do so in a clean, 
efficient manner with minimal harmful emissions.
  This leads me to my most important point. If electricity that lights 
your house or the gas that powers your car is produced in America, new 
jobs are created, and we are becoming less dependent on foreign oil. 
It's time for America to get back in the business of energy production. 
I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition on H.R. 5656, ``To 
Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels Act,'' so we can bring 
this essential piece of legislation to the House floor for a vote. The 
rising cost of gasoline is the single biggest challenge we face in this 
country, as every American who has been to the pump in the last few 
months knows, and it's time for Congress to rise to the challenge to 
come up with real solutions.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you for yielding time.
  It's interesting that we stand here and talk about public 
transportation. I represent northeast Tennessee, a rural area, and I 
tell you the people who live in northeast Tennessee don't have access 
to public transportation.
  People in rural America are hurting. Young families are hurting. 
Senior adults are hurting. Small businesses are hurting. Sheriffs' 
departments and police departments are hurting.
  Let me tell you about two groups. The first is Vern Long. Vern lives 
in Jefferson County, Tennessee. I met with him last Saturday when I was 
back home in the district. Vern is an Iraqi war veteran. He has a wife 
and a child. He lives in Jefferson County and drives to Knoxville, 
Tennessee to work every day. He makes $8 an hour. He's an apprentice 
electrician. He wants to go on to be an electrician. He has to drive 
into Knoxville, and it costs him $90 a week, $90 a week to fill up his

[[Page 13893]]

tank. He told me, ``Congressman, if the Congress doesn't pass an energy 
bill to bring these gas prices down, I may have to go on welfare and 
quit my job. And I want to protect my family. I want to be there to 
protect my future.''
  Let me tell you about Sheriff Steve Burns. Sheriff Burns is from 
Greene County, Tennessee. I met with him last Saturday. He told me he 
put his budget together for Greene County this past February and March. 
He said, if it passes in the county commission as he presented it, he 
will be $50,000 in the hole because of high gas prices.
  Public transportation bills to send bureaucrats to work in Washington 
will not help rural America. America is hurting. We need an energy 
policy. We don't need more excuses, and we don't need more bills that 
make it sound good and look like we're trying to do something here. We 
need an energy that actually uses American oil, natural gas, coal-to-
liquid technology, clean coal technology. We need to use nuclear power. 
Yes, we need green energy. We need all of the above. The American 
people are demanding action, real action, not excuses from Washington.
  Please, I beg the majority. Let's take this burden of high gas prices 
off of people like Vern Long and off of sheriffs' departments like 
Sheriff Steve Burns'. Let's pass some real energy legislation. No more 
excuses.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that, under the 
underlying bill, we provide extensive assistance to rural America. It 
is clear that folks in rural America oftentimes bear the brunt of high 
gas prices brought on by this unfortunate Bush economy and by the 
failure of leadership over the past 6 to 8 years. The underlying bill 
provides over $100 million for rural America to expand the alternative 
use through public transportation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  I thank again my distinguished friend for having yielded me the time 
this morning, and I thank all of those who have come to debate on this 
important legislation.
  Madam Speaker, the problem is, when the process by which legislation 
is brought to the floor is unfair, especially when the issue being 
dealt with by the legislation is as important as is the issue today, 
many Members' ideas are shut out, oftentimes ideas on which they have 
worked for months or years, and in this instance, they are ideas and 
proposals to bring down the cost of energy and the cost of gasoline. 
That's why process, something that may sound often theoretical, can 
have a significant impact on policy. In this instance, an unfair 
process is denying Members the opportunity to bring concrete ideas to 
the floor, for debate, to lower the price of energy. That's one of the 
reasons we are so disturbed, why we think it's so unfortunate that the 
process on an issue as important as this that the majority has chosen 
to utilize to bring this legislation to the floor is so unfair.
  On almost a daily basis, Madam Speaker, the cost of gasoline is 
breaking new records. Americans are now paying over $4 a gallon for 
gasoline. Yet the majority fails to bring legislation to the floor that 
will actually lower gas prices or decrease our dependence on foreign 
sources of energy.
  We believe it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering 
prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing cost of 
gasoline. So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the 
previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to 
rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move 
to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, which would 
repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternatives fuels, introduced by 
Mr. Hensarling of Texas. This legislation would reduce the price of 
gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced 
alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar 
sands, and coal-to-liquid technology.
  Madam 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. Madam Speaker, by voting ``no'' 
on the previous question, Members can take a stand against high fuel 
prices and in favor of debating legislation to actually deal with that 
crisis. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The reformers in this Congress are working for solutions and are 
casting aside the politics of the past, and for the first time in a 
decade, they are setting the right priorities for American families. 
See, American families are caught in this very unfortunate Bush economy 
that is squeezing them, whether it's health care, the rising cost of 
housing, and, of course, gas prices.
  This New Direction Congress, led by Democrats, is on the side of 
middle class families, and we are responding to their call for change 
in the direction of this country. But, Madam Speaker, it has not been 
easy. It has not been easy in these final years of the Bush 
administration. A number of times we have stood up to the 
administration to repeal the massive subsidies to the big oil companies 
and instead take that money and invest it in new renewable energies and 
biofuel technologies because one of the most promising ways to end our 
dependence on foreign oil is in the creation of renewable energy 
sources. But we were blocked by the White House and Big Oil.
  But we are not going to give up. If we had given up, the reformers in 
this Congress would not have been able to push through the first 
increase in fuel economy standards in over 30 years. The increase of 35 
miles per gallon for each automobile will save American families $700 
to $1,000 at the pump when fully implemented.
  American families are clamoring for a bold, new direction in energy 
policy. It is vital to their family budgets, and we know now, as, 
unfortunately, the leaders of the country have had to traipse over to 
Saudi Arabia and ask for more oil, that this is vital to our national 
security. So the contrast between the policies of the past and our 
forward-looking efforts could not be more clear.
  But, Madam Speaker, it is so easy to be frustrated by the misguided 
policies of this administration over the past 8 years and by their 
political gimmicks where they pretend that drilling for oil in new 
areas is the answer to high gas prices when their very own Energy 
Department dismisses the idea as untrue. After all, there are 68 
million acres already open and currently leased to oil and gas 
companies. So why here at the end of this administration would we give 
Big Oil even more?
  Madam Speaker, American families are counting on us. So I ask my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to back up your rhetoric with 
support for our bipartisan bills today, to provide American families 
with greater opportunities to use public transit by lowering fares and 
by increasing the frequency of buses and trains in their neighborhoods. 
Reject the oil drilling gimmick for what it is, and urge this President 
to address the oil speculators that are causing a run-up in high gas 
prices. My colleagues, stand up to the powerful interests, and end the 
practice of using energy policy as a way to support Big Oil. Instead, 
help our families; help our communities; enable researchers and 
innovators to lead us to a cleaner, safer, and more affordable future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and of the 
underlying legislation. Chart a new direction for America on energy. 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:

[[Page 13894]]



Amendment to H. Res. 1304 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5656) to repeal a 
     requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition 
     of alternative fuels. All points of order against the bill 
     are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     member of the Committee on House Oversight and Government 
     Reform; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if 
     offered by Representative Waxman, which shall be considered 
     as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Ms. CASTOR. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  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 the resolution, if ordered, and 
suspending the rules with regard to H. Res. 1291.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 198, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 462]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     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)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Speier
     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
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     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
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     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
     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
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg

[[Page 13895]]


     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Burgess
     Cannon
     Davis, Lincoln
     Forbes
     McDermott
     Rush
     Space
     Stupak

                              {time}  1152

  Messrs. ADERHOLT, BONNER and DONNELLY changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam 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 230, 
nays 196, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               YEAS--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     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)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     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
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     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
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     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
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cannon
     Forbes
     McDermott
     Price (GA)
     Rangel
     Rush
     Space
     Taylor


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1202

  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.

                          ____________________