Bill Sali

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 645, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge everyone to just listen closely to what I have to say here. There are two reasons why the pay-for doesn't work that was in the bill last month. And these are a matter of court cases, and I want to remind everybody again, the one that went to the Supreme Court was a 9- 0 ruling. There are very few of those that come along. The first reason is because the courts have said you cannot go back and change a contract that has been made. You just can't do it, except in some very, very narrow areas that were recognized by the court. The other reason is because, in those narrow areas, you can't use that money in the State of Idaho. I don't care if you tax the oil companies to kingdom come. There is not a penny that was in that pay- for in that bill last month that would ever end up in Idaho. And that's the reason why I voted against that bill, because it would have left the State of Idaho--had we passed it, had it become law, it would have left the State of Idaho holding an empty bag. And let me tell you something, Madam Speaker, an empty bag will not pay a teacher's salary. It will not pave a road in the State of Idaho so that you can come visit Idaho and come visit the natural beauty there, which is amazing. Madam Speaker, this not about whether we're going to prefer Big Oil. It's not about priority. It's a matter of responsibility of the Congress of the United States. If you're going to come to my State, if you're going to come to my district and you're going to impose Federal administration on the lands that are in my district, then step up to the plate and have the responsibility so that you don't leave us holding an empty bag, so that you don't leave us without a tax base so that we can pay our teachers and pave our roads. It is the responsibility of this Congress, and the idea that we would come here with this bill under a closed rule and shut us out is a shame on this body.

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, continuing on the line of the previous speaker on this side, the bill that was before us last month, that did provide for secure rural schools funding, I did vote for it in committee because we were promised that it would have a different pay- for by the time it got to the floor and that PILT funding would be in at 100 percent. And I did vote against it when it got to the floor here because it didn't have a pay-for. What it had was a bunch of baloney in it. Now, the money that's supposed to come from Big Oil, as has been referred to by the other side, there's a Supreme Court case that is a 9-0 ruling that says that that money will never, ever, ever be used in Idaho. Madam Speaker, my district is over 62 percent federally administered land. I have counties that are over 80 percent federally administered land. Imagine what that does to the tax base for your schools. And that is the real problem that we're trying to address here. Well, the gentleman controlling time on the other side said, well, you know, we just can't include it this time and we included it last time, a month ago in the last bill and you wouldn't support it. Madam Speaker, these are real life people we're talking about. These are school kids whose teachers get laid off because the local school district can't afford to pay them. These are local road districts who are trying to figure out how to make roads so that when you come to Idaho to enjoy those public lands we can actually get to them. These are real people trying to deal with real problems. Madam Speaker, if this country wants to have federally administered land in the State of Idaho, I can tell you, I understand why. It is a beautiful, beautiful State. The recreation opportunities are great. There are places in Idaho that offer world- class recreation. But when are we going to take care of the people of Idaho? You want to blame it on a baloney pay-for that will never get money to Idaho? If we'd have voted for this and passed it last month and it had become law, you know what we would have given the people of the State of Idaho? An empty bag. They would never have gotten a penny of that money. So how will they pay for those teachers? How will they pay for those roads that you might want to drive on to come see the beauty of the State of Idaho? Madam Speaker, the idea that this comes down under a closed rule, that we can't even talk about it in this bill, we can't even offer another pay-for that would get real money on the ground in Idaho I think is a shame to this body.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, the country we live in is far too big to see all at once, and many of us have only heard stories of some of its subcultures, hidden treasures, and the uniqueness of thousands of local communities. One world that some of us never see is the dark world of human trafficking. Because trafficked persons look just like the rest of us, it is a difficult world to perceive. And yet, this underground global economy in persons is thought to involve as much as $132 billion a year, with profits from its trade reaching over $200 billion. This sordid culture, to which most of us are happily blind, crosses all national boundaries, including our own. Perhaps the most widely recognized form is sex trafficking of women into prostitution, but we must also recognize the trafficking of migrant workers, who are often deceived into leaving their homelands into forced, brutal labor without travel documents that give them the identity with which to escape. There is also the forcible use of children to beg for street gangs or work in dangerous conditions, and what I think is the most disgusting, the recent trend of Western tourists engaging in child sex tourism, traveling the world looking for children who are being held in prostitution by their captors. We like to think that we live in a modern and modernizing world, where barbarism is merely a bad memory. Yet, raw evil persists in our time. Ignoring human trafficking only pulls a shade over an already dark practice. But ignoring it makes it no less real and no less horrifying. The State Department's 2008 Trafficking in Human Persons Report reveals the truth, but sickens us at the same time. The report quotes one self-justifying American schoolteacher about his child sex tourism, ``I'm helping them financially. If they don't have sex with me, they may not have enough food. If someone has a problem with me doing this, let UNICEF feed them.'' America is not great because we are perfect or because we refuse to accept injustice when we see it. Child soldiers, 8-year old prostitutes, domestic slavery, this is all real, and you can read about it in the State Department's report. The problem does not go away when we close our eyes, so it is imperative that we open them and act on this problem. It's easy to think of this as a Third World problem. The numbers and the brutality are best gazed at from a distance, when we can shake our heads in horror and promptly change the channel to a different station. However, according to the State Department: The U.S. is a destination country for thousands of men, women, and children trafficked largely from East Asia, Mexico, and Central America for the purposes of labor and sexual exploitation. The Trafficking Victims Prevention Act of 2000 has been a great step forward in this fight, its purpose being to punish traffickers, protect victims, and prevent future trafficking. While the number of prosecutions has gone up and steps clearly have been taken to help the victims, we can make a significant move to prevent trafficking by ensuring that the U.S. is not a destination country. One way to further this goal is to create a Northwest Trafficking Task Force to coordinate these efforts on our Northwestern border, running across Washington, Idaho, and Montana. This thousand- mile border is often patrolled merely on horseback. Without adequate resources, we cannot effectively fight this problem; we must catch it at the border. We are morally responsible to ensure the God-given dignities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this country. We must have the vigilance to keep watch over these freedoms so that no form of human bondage is accepted or ignored. I humbly ask my colleagues to open their eyes, consider these facts, and stand with me against this horror of human trafficking here at home.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, it has come to my attention that France, long regarded as a bastion of protectionism, actually features some of the world's most inviting research and development tax credits. These credits are open to any company, whether they are American or French, and cover half of research costs up to 100 million euros. It is a sad state of affairs when American companies can't budget for long-term research costs because Congress has failed to make the R&D tax credit permanent, yet France offers impressive tax credits across the Atlantic to do the same work. Let's act now to make America's R&D tax credit permanent here in the United States so we will not lose our cutting edge to the Old World.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: Requesting Member: Bill Sali. The bill number: H.R. 2638. The account: Army National Guard, other Procurement, Army. The legal name of requesting entity: Idaho National Guard. Address of Requesting Entity: 4040 W. Guard St., Bldg. 600, Gowen Field, Boise, ID 83705. Description: Provided an appropriation of $1 million to upgrade current AB-FIST Trainers for the Idaho National Guard. AB-FIST trainers were fielded to the Idaho National Guard during the past decade to provide crew gunnery training for M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles to all units including the Idaho National Guard. Our current AB-FIST Trainers will become obsolete and not useable until they are upgraded to work with the upgraded Bradley Fighting Vehicles the Idaho National Guard will receive. Gunnery training for Bradley Crews is essential for the combat readiness of the Idaho National Guard. Requesting Member: Congressman Bill Sali. Bill Number: Defense Appropriations Bill, FY09 H.R. 2638. Account: Navy, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: BAE Systems. Address of Requesting Entity: 33964 N. Main Street, Bayview, ID 83803. Description of Request: Provide an appropriation of $480K in FY 2009 to fund the development of a shore based Large Scale Vehicle (LSV) Operations and Data Acquisition Enhancement at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD), Bayview, ID. Approximately, $140K for labor and $340K for material purchases will be required. Labor breakdown is as follows: Management: $8,000. Engineering Design: $8,000. Material Research & Purchasing: $4,000. Assembly: $120,000. This appropriation will fund a fiber optic link from the LSV radiated noise arrays in Lake Pend Oreille to the ARD shore based data acquisition laboratory and thereby replace an inefficient floating laboratory. This enhancement will greatly improve the utilization of resources during project testing at the ARD by eliminating the need for scientists and engineers to transit to the operations range on the lake for each underway and will improve the ability to monitor LSV range ambient conditions, from the ARD, reducing the number of weather terminated operations. Requesting Member: Bill Sali. The bill number: H.R. 2638. The account: RTDE,N. The legal name of requesting entity: University of Idaho, Microelectronics Research and Communications Institute located at Buchanan Engineering Laboratory, P.O. Box 441024, Moscow, ID 83844. The single most damaging threat to the U.S. Naval Fleet is surface and subsurface mines. As noted in a letter from the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Carderock, the Navy ``is actively developing technologies to enable electric power systems to meet future mission and affordability requirements of submarine and surface ships.'' In order to be successful, the impact of electric power and propulsion systems on electromagnetic (EM) signatures must be understood so that ships with such systems can operate successfully against mines and detection. The $1,600,000 in requested funds will be used to continue research and testing work with the Navy's Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD) at Bayview to generate numerical and analytical models of ELF signals in shallow and deep water environments in order to mitigate the mine threat and to naval vessels that use electric propulsion; these models will be verified experimentally at Bayview given the unique features of Lake Pend Oreille and the experimental capability of ARD. Approximately, $488,000 is for salaries, $105,000 for materials, supplies, computers, travel, publications, etc., $290,000 is for overhead and $675,000 is for subaward costs and $42,000 for tuition and fees. This is the last year of funding for this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Bill Sali. Bill Number: Defense Appropriations Bill, FY09 H.R. 2638. Account: Navy, RDT&E. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: BAE Systems. Address of Requesting Entity: 33964 N. Main Street, Bayview, ID 83803. Description of Request: Provide an appropriation of $1.5 million in FY 2009 to fund the development of a Test Support Platform for the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD), Bayview, ID. Approximately, $500K for labor and $1.0 million for material purchases will be required. Labor breakdown is as follows: Management: $20,000. Engineering Design: $50,000. Material Research & Purchasing: $30,000. Assembly: $400,000. This appropriation will be used to assemble a platform that will be used on Lake Pend Oreille in support of various projects working through the ARD. The existing ARD test support platforms are old and require significant configuration changes each time these barges are utilized for various projects. This request is intended to greatly improve the future project support that will be provided by the ARD by developing a modern test support platform configured with modern systems, acoustically isolated generators, and an effective laboratory space.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion here and I think the main issue we are dealing with is how do we end our addiction to foreign oil. Can we drill our way out of this problem; can alternatives be used to replace crude oil. I think those are the two primary positions that are being bantered about on this floor. As the American public is watching this debate, I am sure they must be quite baffled because both sides claim only they are correct. I think the answer, can we drill our way out of this problem, can alternatives be used to replace crude oil, the answer to both of those questions is probably ``kind of.'' Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I was at the Idaho National Laboratory. It is one of the premier nuclear and alternative energy research facilities in the U.S. Here is what the experts at the INL told me when I was there. They said wind energy is about a 2 percent energy solution. Solar is not much better, and it is a lot more expensive. They talked about hydrogen. Currently we generate hydrogen by burning natural gas. That actually loses energy. Today there is no good source for the carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide that they say is needed to develop other forms of alternative energy, unless we are going to burn coal, and coal is not included in this bill except that we are going to increase excise taxes on that coal. How will we get enough hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide to make alternatives a reality? Well, the folks at the INL said we will need to have next generation nuclear reactor facilities, not today's light water reactors that people are seeking to permit today. Next generation reactors operate at higher temperatures, and at those temperatures, chemistry and the reactions that take place, they take on new characteristics and that will allow the generation of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide in quantities that will make alternatives a reality. Here is the problem. According to the Idaho National Laboratory, next generation nuclear facilities are two to three decades away from becoming a reality. This bill does nothing to develop next generation nuclear reactors, and it doesn't really address the alternative energy in a meaningful way because of that. The bridge has to be made with crude oil and natural gas. The problem is this bill permanently locks up almost 90 percent of those offshore resources so it doesn't really address even our most limited need for crude oil. Mr. Speaker, we need crude oil for more than just gas and oil. No plastics will ever be made from a windmill. No industrial chemicals will ever come from solar panels. No ink for printing. No asphalt that we need to make pavement to drive those electric cars and hybrid cars on. Well, Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't deal with those energies. What does it deal with? Well, it increases taxes to the tune of about $18 billion. I wonder how many people in America believe that if we increase taxes on oil companies, that somehow that will cause them to reduce the price they charge for gas and oil. That is an absurd, absurd suggestion. In fact, what is going to happen is those taxes will go right down the pipeline, through the gas tank right into your gasoline tank where you will be paying higher prices for the gas and diesel that you need. It was suggested earlier that we use so much energy in this country. You have all heard T. Boone Pickens on television say, gosh, we burn so much of this crude oil. I am not ashamed that we use a lot of energy in this country. It has made us the most prosperous Nation on the face of the planet, and it has allowed us to help essentially every other country on the face of the planet at one time or another. And America has proven time and time again that with our prosperity, we will also be generous to other countries at the time when they need it. Without that prosperity, we would not be able to have that generosity. Using energy makes us prosperous. Just over a year ago, the Business Roundtable put out a report. Their conclusion was that to meet our energy needs for the future, we had better get our hands on every bit of energy we can from every source possible. That includes all of the alternatives. It includes nuclear. It includes crude oil and natural gas in increasing quantities. This bill does not get us there with any of those things. I guess the question at this point is what kind of future do we want for our kids and our grandkids. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this body, I am here to tell you that I want a future for my kids and grandkids where they will be prosperous. And for them to be prosperous, Mr. Speaker, we will need to get our hands on every bit of energy we can from every source possible, and this bill will not get that job done.

Mr. SALI. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for each side.

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SALI. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. SALI. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. SALI. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. SALI. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, today, millions of Americans will go to work, and the overwhelming majority of them will drive. No matter what type of car they use, tens of millions of Americans will use privately owned passenger automobiles to get to and from work and school, the stores where they shop, and the soccer fields where their kids practice. That's reality. That's here and now. We have to think about how to help the people that we represent today, the great majority of our fellow citizens for whom the past few months have been an energy nightmare. We are here today because my colleagues and I on this side of the aisle believe in what our distinguished leader has called the All-of- the-Above Energy Agenda. Many of us, including me, came here during the August recess to call on our friends in the majority to come back and work with us on an energy policy that would enable us to access America's incredible natural resources in an environmentally responsible way quickly and effectively. That's why I'm offering this motion to recommit so that the House may vote on the American Energy Act now. Madam Speaker, this is a question of stewardship. We all look forward to a future where fossil fuels are less prevalent. We're all working toward that future. We need to pursue solar and wind power, advance hydrogen fuel cell technology, and encourage nuclear energy so we can cut through the red tape and construct plants as soon as possible. All of these are components of the American Energy Act, and I rise to call for a vote on that act today. But the American Energy Act also calls for drilling right now. We need to drill--drill offshore, drill in ANWR, drill in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, drill in the new fields of North Dakota--aggressively develop oil sands and oil shale; we need to drill wherever there is a realistic promise of obtaining fuel for America's families. Let me give you some examples of why. According to an assessment conducted by the Minerals Management Service of technically recoverable oil and natural gas, the OCS contains 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Both could be obtained safely and in an environmentally sound way. In addition, there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or approximately 20 percent of the undiscovered technically recoverable resources in the OCS that are completely off-limits today, but the extreme lobby that seems to have a grip on the majority's energy policies won't allow us to go get it, and people suffer as a result. My motion to recommit promotes and offers effective incentives for energy conservation and more efficient use of our energy resources. It promotes all manner of alternative energy sources, and even establishes a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain. We fuel our cars and trucks and heat our homes and businesses because hardworking men and women take risks, drill for oil, refine it, store it, ship it and then sell it to individual customers. We need more of it--a lot more--now. We are all mindful that drilling won't make our energy problems disappear, but it will start us in the right direction. In the next few years, the oil that new drilling provides would start flowing into our fuel pumps. And in the interim, the fact that America is finally shattering our long-term dependence on foreign oil will send an unmistakable signal to friend and foe alike that America will use more of her own resources and thereby regain a degree of economic independence that we have lost for far too long. We have heard talk that there will be another new comprehensive energy bill from the Democrats. We also just took a break for more than an hour because there is not agreement across the aisle on what that bill will look like. Apparently, there are real questions whether the Democrat Members even support the proposal of Speaker Pelosi of a day ago. But I submit that now is the time to stop politicking, to do the right thing and vote on this motion to recommit right now. Everything the American public is asking us to do is included in this motion. America wants this all-of-the-above kind of legislation. Now a point of order has been reserved. That means that those across the aisle will try to beat this motion on a technicality. If we ask Americans, do you care more for an amendment to this river study bill that is totally free of technicalities or for Congress to finally vote to conserve, produce alternative energy and drill here and drill now, we all know they wouldn't care one whit about technicalities. They want energy. Earlier, Chairman Rahall said Republicans and Democrats have been too busy trying to blame each other for high gas prices. Well, I say America is blaming all of Congress for high gas and diesel prices. And I submit on my side of the aisle, by offering this amendment--that America wants--we're doing our part to make things right with the American people. I invite my colleagues across the aisle, don't sidestep this opportunity to do the right thing because of a technicality. Do the right thing. Vote for this motion to recommit so we can finally get the job done that the American public is demanding. Point of Order

Mr. SALI. Yes, in its current form.

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, today the low-income families and other disadvantaged Americans are disproportionately affected by high energy prices. Just to be clear, this is about low income. It's about the poor. It's about veterans, seniors and children. We have reached a point where our poorer citizens are spending greater and greater percentages of their limited income on energy. With the average cost of fuel more than $4.05 per gallon, some now have to determine whether they can get to work or even buy food. This price tag and the fact that this body hasn't done anything about it are wreaking havoc on the daily lives of Idahoans and Americans across the Nation. Just last week I talked to a woman from Idaho whose husband is disabled and not eligible to receive disability benefits. She is the sole source of income for her family. She was worried about just being able to afford to get to work. It's time for partisanship to be put aside. It's time for Congress to act, and it's time to increase American production of crude oil and natural gas.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Antonio Ysura, winner of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Young Entrepreneur Awards. Antonio encompasses the goal of the NFIB Young Entrepreneur Foundation (YEF) which encourages young people to consider careers in small business and entrepreneurship and to help further the education of these students. Antonio started his own photography business in Boise. In light of his successful business operation he was awarded a scholarship for higher education. He is only one of 416 high school seniors across the country to receive this distinguished award. YEF has encouraged and supported the entrepreneurial dreams of 1,900 students with scholarships totaling $2,200,000. I commend NFIB and YEF for this outstanding accomplishment and commitment to our youth. I am honored to take this opportunity to congratulate a leader of our next generation of small business owners. Antonio, I wish you much success in your future endeavors.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, Mother Teresa once said: ``Any country that accepts abortion is the poorest of the poor.'' On that basis, I fear that our own great country is in serious trouble. While current law forbids family planning agencies from using Federal funds for abortion, those same organizations are able to receive those title X funds for their other family planning services, even if the organizations also provide and even promote abortion. Today, as long as the bookkeeping of the two divisions is kept separate, these organizations can reallocate their resources and free up money for providing abortions. In other words, it appears that an accounting gimmick masks the way Planned Parenthood uses Federal dollars to fund its abortion services. As many know, Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion in the country, performing more than 264,000 abortions in 2005 alone. However, Planned Parenthood receives more than $336 million from the Federal Government each year. Planned Parenthood affiliates enjoy special access to discount drugs, grants through the title X program, and a 90 percent Federal Medicaid match for family planning activities. In effect, Congress is playing favorites by subsidizing the largest business in the abortion industry. Now, lest there be any confusion, abortion is an ``industry'' in every sense of the word. Abortion providers rake in over $400 million a year from women and girls who believe that they are receiving a simple health service. However, to the tune of $372 per abortion on average, abortion-providing businesses are turning a major profit. For instance, while Planned Parenthood reports that it is a ``not-for-profit'' organization, it had an ``excess of revenue over expenses'' of almost $56 million in 2005 and $112 million in 2006. Remember, this is the same organization that receives over $336 million in government grants and contracts each year. I find it outrageous that taxpayer dollars are subsidizing abortion in the United States. The absurdity of this abuse is illustrated by the long-standing Mexico City policy. Instituted by Ronald Reagan in 1984, this policy prohibits foreign aid from going to nongovernmental organizations which provide or promote services related to abortion. If we recognize the importance of prohibiting foreign abortion providers from receiving our taxpayer dollars, how can our domestic policy be any different? I also adamantly oppose funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood that is alleged to have committed substantial fraud. The former vice president of finance and administration of the Los Angeles Planned Parenthood affiliate estimates that affiliates in California overcharged State and Federal Governments by $180 million, despite internal and external warnings that its billing practices were improper. If Planned Parenthood is able to abuse its government support by as much as $180 million in California alone, imagine the possible magnitude of its fraud nationwide. The Federal Government clearly has a significant interest in identifying and recovering those excess payments. However, I believe that any funds that support abortion are ``excess payments.'' We in the Federal Government have no business providing money to help end a human life. As the Declaration of Independence makes clear, our Nation was founded on the idea that our Creator has endowed every person with ``certain unalienable Rights,'' the first of which is life. Now, 232 years after our predecessors signed that document in that First Continental Congress, now we have to ask, how is it possible that we in Congress are allowing the money of unsuspecting ordinary Americans to support businesses that specialize in terminating human life, when our Declaration of Independence recognizes that those are unalienable rights, the right to life? We in Congress are charged by our Nation with the responsibility to ensure oversight of Federal funds, and it is abundantly clear that providing ``excess'' funds to abortion providers is not the proper use of taxpayer dollars. I call on my colleagues here in the House to end taxpayer subsidies of abortion by ending Federal support for Planned Parenthood. Let us thereby begin to restore the richness of spirit that Mother Teresa spoke about so eloquently.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.