The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PERSONAL EXPLANATION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1323 on July 14, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. DANNY K. DAVIS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast votes on the following legislative measure. If I were present for roll call votes, I would have voted in the following manner for the following vote:
Roll 534, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: Tierney of Massachusetts Amendment. I would have voted ``aye'' on this amendment that would restore U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction and Operation and Maintenance accounts to Fiscal Year 2011 levels, offset with a $140,000,000 reduction to Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy activities and a $92,790,500 reduction to Department of Energy's Fossil Energy Research and Development activities.
Roll 535, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: Graves of Missouri Amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment that would reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Construction account by $1.75 million and increase the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $1 million.
Roll 536, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: Scalise of Louisiana Amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on that amendment that would increase the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $6.36 million and reduce the expenses account for Supervision and Administration by the same amount.
Roll 537, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: Woodall of Georgia Amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment that would reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $4,900,000 and increases the spending reduction account by the same amount.
Roll 538, July 11, 2011: On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 2354: McClintock of California Amendment I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment that would zero out all funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in addition to eliminating or severely reducing another 13 accounts in the bill, all of which would cut over 10 percent from the total funding in the bill.
____________________
