[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10281-10285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 URGING U.S. ACTION AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 989) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the United States should adopt national policies 
and pursue international agreements to prevent ocean acidification, to 
study the impacts of ocean acidification, and to address the effects of 
ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and coastal economies.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 989

       Whereas the world's oceans have absorbed more than a 
     quarter of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere 
     since the start of the Industrial Revolution;
       Whereas the increased absorption of carbon dioxide by the 
     world's oceans alters the form of nutrients and chemicals in 
     the oceans and results in ocean acidification;
       Whereas ocean acidification threatens carbonate-forming 
     species such as coral, shellfish, and marine plankton, and 
     may cause major ripple effects throughout marine ecosystems 
     and food webs, ultimately affecting the largest marine 
     organisms and many commercial fisheries;
       Whereas ocean acidification will affect the growth, 
     reproduction, disease resistance, and other biological and 
     physiological processes of many marine organisms;
       Whereas ocean acidification will be accelerated in Arctic 
     waters because carbon dioxide is more soluble in colder 
     waters and lower salinity diminishes the capacity of oceans 
     to buffer against acidification;
       Whereas over 60 percent of the United States population 
     lives in coastal States and could be affected by changes to 
     marine ecosystems;
       Whereas coastal communities depend on revenue from the 
     fishing and tourism industries, which rely on the health and 
     stability of marine ecosystems;
       Whereas commercial and recreational fisheries contribute 
     more than $73,000,000,000 annually to the United States 
     economy and support more than 2,000,000 jobs in the United 
     States;
       Whereas coastal tourism and recreation produce 
     $70,000,000,000 in annual revenue in the United States;

[[Page 10282]]

       Whereas coral ecosystems are a source of food for millions; 
     protect coastlines from storms and erosion; provide habitat, 
     spawning, and nursery grounds for economically important fish 
     species; provide jobs and income to local economies from 
     fishing, recreation, and tourism; are a source of new 
     medicines; and are hotspots of marine biodiversity;
       Whereas 500,000,000 people worldwide rely on reefs for 
     food, income, and protection;
       Whereas coral reefs support an estimated 25 percent of 
     marine species globally and produce a net global economic 
     benefit of about $30,000,000,000 per year;
       Whereas if current trends in global emissions of carbon 
     dioxide continue, corals could be functionally extinct by the 
     middle to the end of this century; and
       Whereas the Congress has recognized the need to address the 
     impacts of ocean acidification by enacting the Federal Ocean 
     Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 as part of 
     Public Law 111-11: Now, therefore be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the United States should adopt national 
     policies and pursue international agreements to prevent ocean 
     acidification, to study the impacts of ocean acidification, 
     and to address the effects of ocean acidification on marine 
     ecosystems and coastal economies.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


                             General Leave

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a resolution before us that deals with a problem 
of extraordinary dimensions having to do with the health of our oceans. 
I want to thank Chairman Rahall, Chairwoman Bordallo, Majority Leader 
Hoyer, Subcommittee Chair Brian Baird and their help in getting a 
resolution to the floor to deal with this extraordinary threat.
  We know how much Americans today are feeling heartsick about the 
damage to our gulf and perhaps the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the 
oil spill we are now suffering.
  But what our resolution attempts to do is to focus on another perhaps 
worse threat to the oceans today associated with the burning of fossil 
fuels, and that is the sad, unalterable, unambiguous, scientifically 
certain fact that our oceans are becoming more acidic, substantially 
more acidic, as a result of carbon-based pollution from our burning of 
oil and coal and other fossil fuels.
  Because what we have learned in our research--and we have had a 
number of hearings on this--is the scientific community is telling us 
that, because of carbon dioxide pollution that comes from burning oil 
and coal, what happens is that the carbon dioxide that is coming out of 
our smokestacks and our tailpipes is going over the oceans and then is 
going into solution into the oceans of the world.
  Fully over a quarter of all the carbon that we have burned, after 
digging it out of the ground and piping it up from below, has now found 
its way into the oceans. This is a scientific fact. All scientists, 
Republicans and Democrats, agree on this. As that carbon dioxide goes 
into the ocean, it creates acid, it creates acidic conditions. Today, 
the oceans are almost a third, 26 percent, more acidic than they were 
before we started to burn fossil fuels.
  Now, the disturbing part of this is that acid, as you can imagine, 
does not seem a safe, benign condition in our oceans. The bad news is 
that the scientists have told us in our investigations that this 
acidification of the oceans is now increasing at dramatic rates. The 
oceans are 26 percent more acidic than they were before we started to 
burn coal and oil. But by the end of the century, by the end of my 
grandchild's lifetime, the oceans will be 100 percent, they will be 
twice as acidic as they have ever been during humans' time on Earth. 
And this is presenting extraordinary danger to humans because we have 
an attachment to the oceans.
  And what we are being told by the scientific community is that the 
danger of these acidic conditions are that it makes it difficult, if 
not impossible, for huge swathes of the life in the ocean to survive. 
The reason is that large parts of the ocean community depend on taking 
calcium carbonate out of the water. They precipitate--that's a 
scientific term--they precipitate calcium carbonate into their shells.
  Coral reefs take calcium carbonate to make coral reefs. Clams take 
calcium carbonate out to make shells. Perhaps most importantly, large 
amounts of the plankton that are the base of the food chain take 
calcium carbonate out to make the little structures of their bodies 
that make these little shell-like forms.
  And as the water becomes more acidic--and this is what's disturbing 
and this resolution is intended to focus America's attention on--as the 
waters become more acidic, these life forms actually dissolve in the 
acidic water of the oceans. We are now approaching the area, the level, 
where the acidic waters of the Pacific, Atlantic, Southern, Northern 
oceans will actually dissolve these life forms.
  Let me tell you how dangerous this is. Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the 
director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has 
come to us and actually shown us photographic evidence of shells, the 
little calcium carbonate sources of 40 percent of the base of the food 
chain. She showed us pictures of these little creatures actually 
dissolving in water that will be as acidic as it will be at the end of 
the century if we don't change things.
  Now, there is no mystery about this. It's a scientific fact that the 
waters are becoming more acidic because of carbon dioxide, and it's a 
scientific fact that large parts of the Earth's oceans are dependent on 
this phenomena of taking calcium to form their life.
  So what does that mean to us? Well, what it means to us in our 
grandchildren's lifetime is if we don't change what we are doing in an 
industrial basis, we will have significant reduction in mankind's use 
of the oceans, because fully 500 million people in the world depend on 
their protein from the oceans. Many Americans, including 2 million 
Americans, make their livelihood from the oceans that are going to be 
in jeopardy because of ocean acidification.
  Seventy billion dollars a year of the U.S. economy is dependent on 
what is now jeopardized by the oil spill today in the gulf. But when 
you see those shrimp farmers and oystermen and fishermen whose 
livelihoods are at jeopardy in the gulf coast today, it is all the 
fishermen around the world whose livelihood is jeopardized by ocean 
acidification.
  Let me note some of the scientific evidence about this. I will quote 
from Dr. Richard Feely of Texas Tech. Quote, ``Already we've seen water 
showing up off the coast of northern California that's acidic enough to 
actually start dissolving seashells. It's thought that this kind of 
corrosive water showing up will become more and more common.''
  A quote from Nature magazine this year: ``By mid-century, if we 
continue emitting carbon dioxide the way we have been, entire vast 
areas of both the Southern Ocean and the Arctic Ocean will be so 
corrosive that it will cause seashells to dissolve,'' close quote.
  Quote from Nature: Quote, ``In decades, rising ocean acidity may 
challenge life on a scale that has not occurred for tens of millions of 
years,'' close quote.
  Perhaps the most disturbing quote I have heard is from Ken Caldeira, 
an oceanographer from Stanford, who basically has told me we're heading 
for something he likens as an ocean full of weeds because of the 
destruction of these multiple life forms.
  And the one that's most telling to what we are seeing today in the 
gulf, a quote from Donald Waters, a commercial fisherman who fishes for 
red snapper and king mackerel out of Pensacola, Florida: Quote, ``This 
is a devastating ghost lurking in the shadows

[[Page 10283]]

that would change our whole lives,'' close quote.
  So what we have today is a resolution by the House that we need to 
adopt policies and move forward in efforts to reduce this evil that is 
now lurking in the oceans of ocean acidification. We know what the 
culprit is; it is carbon dioxide. We know what the solution is, which 
is new clean energy technologies that we can embrace to try to reduce 
this pollution. And we know the ultimate outcome if we do not act, 
which is that our grandkids are not going to have an ocean as we know 
them.
  And, personally, I can tell you it's already hit my State. Our oyster 
production now in the State of Washington has been severely dampened, 
probably because of ocean acidification that prevents the oyster larva 
from surviving. We don't know this for an absolute certainty yet, but 
this is the kind of thing that we are starting to see happen.
  We are better than this. We know what the oceans mean to us, and we 
do not intend to leave behind an ocean without the Creator's creation 
of coral reefs and all the other creations of the ocean. So I commend 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 989 would urge the United States to adopt national 
policies and pursue international agreements to prevent ocean 
acidification to study the impacts of ocean acidification and to 
address the effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and 
coastal economies.
  As stated in the resolution, Congress passed the Federal Ocean 
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act last year. This legislation 
authorized funding for research activities to better understand ocean 
acidification. This is to the tune of approximately $76 million.
  I would stress that, prior to adopting national policies and 
international agreements which could adversely impact American jobs, 
the administration needs to continue its efforts to conduct research to 
better understand ocean acidification to ensure that efforts to address 
its effects do not necessarily harm the United States economy. We have 
dedicated significant money for this over the course of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
commend this to the House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman help me understand why 
this resolution is needed at this time. I don't want to try to debate--
I appreciate your passion for this topic. It's evident and I appreciate 
that.
  But given that we already passed the Federal Ocean Acidification 
Research and Monitoring Act and authorized some $76 million, why the 
need for this additional resolution?
  Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman will yield, it's a great question, and 
the answer is clear.
  You look at Americans who today have it really deep in their hearts 
what's happening in the gulf. I know in your district, all of our 
folks, Republicans and Democrats, understand the damage that's being 
occasioned.
  What Americans are not aware of yet is this other looming potential 
disaster in the oceans. We believe it's important for the U.S. Congress 
to go on record to say we, in fact, are going to deal with this, not 
just in a research component--and I appreciate the gentleman's pointing 
it out; we have passed a component to increase our research.
  But research is not enough. We need action in the oceans. We need to 
reduce our carbon pollution in the oceans. And simply studying this 
problem is not enough. We can't study the problem for the next several 
decades and let the oceans die. So that's the reason for this 
resolution.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. And if the gentleman will respond to another 
question.
  It talks in the very first sentence, ``Expressing the sense of the 
House of Representatives that the United States should adopt national 
policies.'' By ``national policies'' does the gentleman mean the cap-
and-trade?
  What are national policies, in your mind?
  Mr. INSLEE. Well, there are numerous policies that could deal with 
this problem, and our resolution does not specify any particular 
policy.
  We look to the bipartisan efforts that we hope will succeed here in 
an effort that will reduce what causes ocean acidification, which is 
carbon pollution. There are many policies that can do that.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Would cap-and-trade be one of those?
  Mr. INSLEE. A cap could be one of those, but there are many other 
policies that could be beneficial, many of which have already passed 
the House of Representatives, including our efforts to start building 
electric cars in America rather than China, building lithium ion 
batteries. We are opening up our first plant in Michigan where we are 
putting to work hundreds of out-of-work autoworkers.
  All of these are great policies. We do not specify in this resolution 
any particular policy.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, I concur with the gentleman and the 
idea that we need to pursue green technologies. In my opinion, that 
includes nuclear technologies, getting the regulatory bodies out of the 
way so that we can pursue the adoption of natural gas vehicles and 
other types of things and technologies that would truly help our 
environment.
  I would simply also, Mr. Speaker, suggest that when the 
characterizations of where the scientific community is on this--I do 
personally object to the quote ``all scientists agree,'' end quote.
  I don't think that is the case. From my purview and my perspective, I 
don't believe that, quote, ``all scientists agree.'' I do think there 
is still debate in the scientific community, and I think that's a 
healthy thing along the way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address remarks in 
debate to the Chair and not in the second person.
  Mr. INSLEE. May I inquire how much time we have remaining on our 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 11\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I want to thank the sponsor of this resolution. He has 
been a leader on this. And the fact is, they say that politicians think 
of the next election, statesmen think of the next generation.
  This resolution is about the next generation. And the next generation 
and the generation after that need to have an Earth that they can 
inhabit that's similar to the Earth that was inhabited by our 
predecessors, because we are polluting it. And we need to be careful 
about what we are doing to the ocean. It's the last frontier, and we 
are polluting it greatly.
  I want to bring up the work of a lady, no relation to me, whose name 
is Dianna Cohen. Dianna is in Barcelona, Spain, and she is doing an 
exhibition on plastics. She is the founder of a group called the 
Plastic Pollution Coalition.
  The fact is, plastics break up and spread poisons and toxins that 
threaten our sea life, our marine life, get into our systems through 
our ingesting and eating those animals, and are a threat to our own 
present existence. When plastics are produced and they are put into the 
atmosphere and into the environment and end up in the ocean, they 
threaten us.
  So what she has done in Barcelona, Spain, on the 8th of June, which 
is World Ocean Day, is have an Ocean of Plastic exhibit and taken 
plastics from the ocean and created art. It is teaching students there 
about the dangers of plastics, the threat to our ocean life and to our 
marine future.
  I commend Dianna Cohen for her work. I commend Mr. Inslee for his 
work, being a statesman and looking

[[Page 10284]]

out for the next generation and for Mother Earth, which we have a duty 
to preserve.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have about this 
resolution is the vague nature of what these so-called national 
policies would be. Again, I would like to ask the gentleman if he would 
respond to a question.
  Is H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey bill, one of the, quote, ``national 
policies''?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. INSLEE. Well, the national policies will be decided by this 
Congress rather than just myself or the gentleman. This will be a 
decision, the policies that we will make, hopefully, on a bipartisan 
basis.
  The resolution does not pertain to any particular policy. There are 
probably a thousand good ideas here. We hope to find the best thousand 
and put them all to work.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to just make a couple of points. First off, I want to 
make clear that there really is no scientific debate or uncertainty 
about a couple of physical facts, and I just want to make this pretty 
clear. You can really search the world over, and you really will not 
find any scientist who will dispute the conclusion that when we put 
carbon dioxide into the air, much of it ends up in the ocean and 
dissolves and creates more acidic conditions. That's an established 
scientific fact. The second scientific established fact is now, because 
of some of the great work done in part by NOAA on behalf of the Federal 
Government, we are finding that the oceans are becoming more acidic.
  I met the NOAA ships when they docked in Seattle about a year and a 
half ago when they came in. They did very specific studies where they 
dipped little containers in the water at various places in the water 
column. They bring it up and they do a pH experiment to determine its 
acidity. We did this as juniors and seniors in high school. This is 
very well established science. That is an established fact. There is 
really no debate in the scientific community about this.
  Now, there is a question of how soon the coral reefs will disappear. 
Is it 40 years? Is it 60 years? Is it 100 years? There is still 
scientific research to be done on that, but we know at some point the 
acidity changes the ability of these life forms to exist in the water. 
That is very disturbing because vast amounts of the ocean is dependent 
on these creatures at the bottom of the food chain. At least 15 percent 
of food from around the world comes from fish that are dependent on 
coral reefs, and when they're gone, the fish are gone. When 40 percent 
of the plankton are gone, the salmon are gone that my people like to go 
out on a Saturday and catch. I can tell you with a scientific certainty 
that my people do not want to risk the survival of salmon because we 
continue this pollution policy without dealing with it. That is a 
political certainty. So I think there is plenty of certainty.
  Now, what policies we adopt on this, the gentleman knows there are 
many things to do. One of the policies that we have adopted on our 
energy bill would call for research to find out if there is a way we 
can sequester carbon dioxide from burning coal, for instance, so that 
if we can bury the carbon dioxide from the coal, we can continue the 
burning coal. That is part of our energy bill that we passed in the 
House of Representatives, just one of the policies of many we have.
  One other comment I want to make. There is a lot of disagreement in 
the House about climate change and the science of climate change. We 
understand that. But I want to make people understand that this 
resolution has to do with a connected, but separate, phenomenon. If you 
don't think there is any climate change, if you believe that the 
melting of the Arctic in the tundra and Greenland is not associated 
with burning carbon dioxide, that's fine; but this issue we ought to 
have total bipartisan consensus on because there really is no 
disagreement about where the carbon dioxide goes. A substantial amount 
of it goes into the ocean and makes acidic conditions.
  So I am hoping we have bipartisan consensus on this. This is related, 
but you don't have to be a believer in climate science to understand 
the clear acidification science. When you add carbon dioxide to the 
water, it makes it acidic. We learned this in high school. And now it's 
time for us to do something about it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, there have been some assertion that this 
is a worse threat than what's going on in the gulf. The most immediate 
threat to the oceans, at least that we see, is what's going on with the 
oil spill in the gulf. And it is nothing short of shocking that this 
President has yet to even call the leader of British Petroleum. Why he 
can't even make a call after nearly 50 days is truly absolutely 
shocking.
  Again, I think we need to continue to have a debate and talk about 
the need to address the acidification in the oceans, but I do find that 
this House resolution is ambiguous when it talks about adopting 
national policies, which I think is a thinly veiled attempt to say that 
we should be adopting the cap-and-trade bill.
  Further, I find that this bill is redundant in terms of the fact that 
Congress passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring 
Act last year, authorizing money to the tune of some $76 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point and make sure 
Members know we are not advocating any particular policy. What we are 
advocating here is that we, on a bipartisan basis, take the blinders 
off to a problem that we have to face on a bipartisan basis. You can't 
run or hide from ocean acidification. The oceans will have 150 percent 
increase in the acidity of the oceans if we don't find a bipartisan 
solution to this problem. We will have more CO2 in the 
oceans than the last 650,000 years if we don't find some bipartisan 
solution to this problem.
  So we just think the first step of any solution is recognizing the 
problem. We think we ought to recognize reality. We ought to take the 
blinders off, and we ought to take the first step of recognizing the 
problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the gentleman who is 
presenting this bill and his clear passion for this. But, Mr. Speaker, 
when it says in the very first sentence that the United States should 
adopt national policies, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is clearly an 
attempt to try to say that we should be passing the cap-and-trade bill, 
which I am totally opposed to.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill; I don't think 
it's needed. We have made a commitment, on behalf of the United States 
of America, with the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and 
Monitoring Act that was passed in an omnibus bill last year. The money 
has been set aside. The administration needs to do its work, and I 
would encourage them to do that. This is an issue that does need to be 
addressed. We don't try to dismiss that in any way, shape or form; but, 
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not needed at this time, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. To close, I would just like to comment. We're going to 
have lots of debates about the right policy to deal with this problem, 
but the country that put a man on the Moon should not be the country to 
blind itself to an obvious problem. And we are going to be swallowed by 
this and the oceans are going to be swallowed by this unless we first 
recognize the problem. It's a simple bipartisan step to say we've got a 
problem, we've got to work together to solve it. Let's do that. I 
commend this and move the motion.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, most of us know how the build-up of carbon 
dioxide in the

[[Page 10285]]

Earth's atmosphere is causing global temperatures to rise.
  Less well known is how the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 
changing the chemistry of the oceans.
  Because the oceans absorb atmospheric CO2.
  In a way, this is beneficial: reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide 
slows down the global warming effect.
  But as the oceans absorb CO2, the oceans themselves become 
increasingly acidic.
  And the increasingly acid ocean waters can actually eat away the 
carbon shells of corals and a myriad of other sea life.
  The people I represent live on islands surrounded by coral reefs.
  Coral reefs protect us from storms and provide habitat for fish and 
shelled animals that are a traditional source of food.
  The existence of coral reefs attract hundreds of thousands of 
tourists to the Northern Mariana Islands each year.
  Economists have valued our coral reefs at up to $70 million annually. 
Yet each year the oceans grow more acidic that economic value is being 
eroded.
  I thank Mr. Inslee for focusing on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 989 and national and 
international policies to prevent ocean acidification.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 
989, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
United States should adopt national policies and pursue international 
agreements to prevent ocean acidification, to study the impacts of 
ocean acidification, and to address the effects of ocean acidification 
on marine ecosystems and coastal economies.
  We know ocean acidification occurs as a consequence of high levels of 
man-made carbon dioxide emissions. But we do not know the full 
ramifications of ocean acidification. As H. Res. 989 suggests, the 
United States should pursue national and international activities and 
agreements to develop a full body of scientific research in addition to 
the work that will be done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration as part of the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and 
Monitoring Act of 2009.
  H. Res. 989 emphasizes that we must do more monitoring and research 
on ocean acidification in order to protect and preserve the ocean, 
which serves as a source of food, income and cultural identity for 
hundreds of millions people living in the United States and around the 
world.
  As Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for Asia, the Pacific 
and the Global Environment, I know firsthand how important it is for 
the U.S. Congress to act as a primary supporter of efforts aimed at 
curbing climate change and its consequences, including ocean 
acidification. And in representing a district whose livelihood and 
heritage were shaped by the South Pacific, preserving the ocean 
environment will always be one of my paramount concerns. I urge my 
colleagues to join with the 53 Members who have already cosponsored H. 
Res. 989 and support its passage.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 989.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________