[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 102 (Friday, June 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6960-H6969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 502, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 502

       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. 2771) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, 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 Appropriations. 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 for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI 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. 2771 
     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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask 
unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which 
to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 502.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 502 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 2771, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 
of 2008, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides H.R. 2771 with 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its 
consideration except for those arising under clause 9

[[Page H6961]]

or 10 of rule XXI. The rule also waives points of order against 
provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for three 
amendments, two offered by Republican Members and one bipartisan 
amendment.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, the legislation we will consider today, H.R. 2771, 
funds the legislative branch of our government. This includes funding 
for the House of Representatives so Members of Congress have the 
resources we need to serve our constituents.
  It includes funding for the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget 
Office, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Compliance 
and other government agencies.

                              {time}  0915

  The bill also takes a bold step forward and begins implementing the 
Speaker's Green the Capitol Initiative. For the first time ever, the 
House of Representatives will take steps to address the threats of 
global warming by ensuring the House operates in a carbon-neutral 
manner.
  The bill provides initial funding to Green the Capitol by switching 
to 100 percent renewable wind energy for the House's electricity needs, 
increasing the use of cleaner-burning fuels, and making congressional 
offices more energy efficient.
  This is necessary as Members of Congress must set an example for our 
constituents by being as environmentally friendly as possible, 
especially as we ask them to do the same in their own homes.
  Most importantly, however, this bill shows the Democratic majority's 
commitment to change the way our government is run. This bill 
demonstrates a commitment to fiscal responsibility, increased oversight 
and increased accountability.
  Madam Speaker, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
attested to, this bill is fiscally responsible. It provides an increase 
of only $122 million, or 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level. This 
is significantly lower than the 13 percent increase requested by the 
President. And much of the increase is attributable to unavoidable 
expenses that come in a Presidential election year.
  Reducing the President's budget request by nearly one-quarter of a 
billion dollars shows that the Democrats are committed to holding the 
line on unnecessary spending, while ensuring that government is still 
able to deliver services to the American taxpayer.
  While funding is increased by 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted 
level, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee chose to 
invest heavily in critical life and safety and security measures for 
the Capitol complex.
  The world changed on September 11, and we now know that the United 
States Capitol will forever be a target of a terrorist attack.
  We owe it to our staff members, our visitors, our constituents, our 
distinguished guests, and to ourselves to ensure that the Capitol 
complex is as safe and secure as possible.
  In a post-9/11 world, we cannot be too lax when it comes to securing 
the Capitol complex. Security enhancements are no longer an option. 
They are a necessity.
  The Legislative Branch appropriations bill provides almost $50 
million for security and lifesaving projects, including $5 million for 
new, interoperable police radios, $275,000 for utility, tunnel, health 
and safety process, $1.2 million for visitors escape hoods, $16 million 
for building security enhancements, $1 million for emergency exit signs 
and lighting in the Capitol, and $4.4 million in emergency lighting 
upgrades for the Rayburn Building.
  The bill also provides a 7.7 percent increase for the Capitol Police 
Department and a 23 percent increase for the Office of Compliance so 
they can ensure health and safety of the Capitol complex.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the defining traits of the Democratic 
Congress has been increased government oversight. As such, this bill 
provides the tools Congress needs to hold the government accountable to 
the American taxpayer.
  The Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee is determined to 
crack down on unnecessary spending by government agencies. The 
subcommittee held 11 agency budget hearings and is requiring government 
agencies to reexamine their needs based on priority, cost 
effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility.
  The bill provides for additional staff at the Government 
Accountability Office to enable the GAO to better support congressional 
oversight efforts and address important issues such as health care, 
changing security threats, education, and continued audit work on the 
war in Iraq.
  The Congressional Budget Office receives an increase in funding to 
better advise Congress on controlling runaway health care spending.
  Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz and I discussed CBO staffing in a 
colloquy during a Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday. We both agree 
that the current funding staff levels are insufficient to meet our 
needs. We'll work together with CBO Director Orzag to address the 
staffing and enhance this important agency's efforts in the future.
  The bill increases support for the Inspector General overseeing the 
Capitol Police Department. It also establishes a statutory Inspector 
General at the Architect of the Capitol. It is absolutely essential 
that there is stringent oversight of the Architect's office to improve 
its financial and management practices.
  The subcommittee is 100 percent committed to improving the oversight 
and completion of the Capitol Visitors Center. I have personally toured 
the Visitors Center, and it is a beautiful addition that, when 
finished, we will all be proud of. However, no Member of Congress is 
proud of how this edifice has been produced. The project has spiraled 
out of control due to an inexplicable lack of oversight and 
accountability in prior Congresses, resulting in unnecessary delays and 
massive cost overruns. This bill assures that there will no longer be a 
blank check and no questions asked.
  The subcommittee has held, and will continue to hold, monthly 
hearings, and the Architect will be required to submit a detailed plan 
to the House and Senate before one cent can be spent.
  Madam Speaker, this bill delivers on the promises that Democrats 
made. It's fiscally responsible. It focuses on life, safety, and 
security measures, and provides much needed accountability to the 
process.
  I would like to thank Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee 
and the full Appropriations Committee for all their hard work and 
thoughtful work that went into this legislation.
  In particular, I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida, 
Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz. She has been a true champion for the 
Democratic majority's efforts to bring efficiency, fiscal 
responsibility, accountability to the Federal Government, and to this 
Chamber.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is well thought out, well crafted, and sets 
the right priorities. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
unnecessarily and uncharacteristically restrictive rule. On Wednesday 
night, despite the protests and objections of Republicans on the 
committee, the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee did its level 
best to solidify the committee's status as the Graveyard of Good Ideas 
in this House by passing out the most restrictive rule for a 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill in recent history.
  Last year, when the Republicans ran the Rules Committee, we reported 
out a rule for consideration of the 2007 Legislative Branch in which we 
made in order all seven, that's seven out of seven, amendments 
submitted by Members of this body so that they could be considered and 
debated on this House floor. These amendments included four sponsored 
by Democrats and three sponsored by Republicans, making the rule and 
that process a completely inclusive and bipartisan product.
  The year before that, the Republican-run Rules Committee, nearly half 
of the 11 amendments submitted in it were made in order under the rule, 
with both bipartisan and Democrat-

[[Page H6962]]

sponsored amendments allowed to be debated there on the House floor.
  Madam Speaker, I wish I could claim to be stunned by the majority's 
enormous departure from the Republican-led precedent to increase 
inclusiveness and dialogue in the House on this particular 
appropriations bill which is, by convention, the only bill to come to 
this floor under a closed process.
  However, rather than honoring this tradition, on Wednesday the 
Democrat Rules Committee produced the most restrictive and closed rule 
in recent history. Earlier this week, 24 Members of this body submitted 
thoughtful and earnest proposals to improve this legislation to the 
Rules Committee. Additionally, Members tried to have their constituent 
voices be heard also by the committee, but they were turned away at the 
door because their amendments were submitted shortly after the 
arbitrary deadline.
  And out of these 24 amendments, only three were given the opportunity 
to be debated on the floor. In passing this rule, Democrats made a 
calculated decision not to make every single amendment in order like 
Republicans did the year before. They even voted to abandon the more 
relaxed standard of 2 years ago, when half of the amendments were made 
in order.
  So instead of making 100 percent of their colleagues' amendments in 
order, or even 50 percent of the amendments in order, this rule makes 
only 12 percent of the amendments submitted in order. This seems pretty 
meager in comparison to the grand promises made during last year by 
Speaker Pelosi to run the ``most honest and open Congress'' in history.
  Among the amendments rejected by the committee on Wednesday were two 
amendments offered by someone with more knowledge of the legislative 
appropriations than perhaps any other Member of this body, my friend 
and the former chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Georgia, Jack Kingston; an amendment by a Member of the Democrat 
majority, Mr. Cleaver of Missouri, that was made in order last year by 
the Republican majority, not this year; and a number of friendly 
taxpayer amendments by my good friend and colleague from Texas, the 
gentleman, Mr. Hensarling, that would have reduced the overall cost of 
this bill to the taxpayer.
  Madam Speaker, I do understand that the majority Democrats outnumber 
Republicans and have enough Members on the committee to win every 
single vote in the Rules Committee. And I understand that, as the 
majority, it is their responsibility to run the committee and the floor 
as they see fit. So all things being equal, I will not take exception 
to their new, heavy-handed approach to shutting down debate.
  However, the second-ranking member of this body, the majority leader, 
Mr. Hoyer, crowed to the media on December 5 that Democrats would 
``have a Rules Committee that would give opposition voices and 
alternative proposals the ability to be heard and be considered on the 
floor of the House.''
  Obviously, that is not happening. I believe every single Member of 
this body and, more importantly, the American people who send us here 
every 2 years have the right to know that when these grand promises are 
not being lived up to that those things will be noted on the floor. And 
they are, again, today.
  So while my service in the Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House may 
prevent me from being surprised when these campaign pledges are broken 
on a daily basis by the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee at the 
direction of Democrat leadership, I hope that the American people are 
still shocked and appalled that promises delivered in November and 
December were promptly forgotten in January, and that they continue to 
be ignored today.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to send a message to this 
new Democrat leadership that this restrictive debate in the people's 
House is completely unacceptable. Join me in voting ``no'' on this rule 
so that the Rules Committee can live up to the standards set by the 
Democrat leadership and pass out a rule that allows for debate on the 
issues and ideas of every single Member of this body, not just the ones 
that the Democrat leadership find politically convenient.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I enjoy the comments and the colloquy 
that my colleague from Texas and I and the rest of the committee engage 
in. We seem to have this conversation quite a bit these days.
  I'd like to remind the gentleman that, while it's true that we have 
made three amendments in order this year, two Republican and one 
bipartisan, last year there were four Democratic amendments made in 
order on this particular appropriations bill. The prior year, however, 
there were 11 amendments offered in committee, and only one Democratic 
amendment was offered in this bill.
  Why I raise this number, I want to point out that this is not unusual 
for this Legislative Branch appropriations bill to be a structured rule 
in prior years. And, in fact, there's good reason for that. My 
distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, mentioned in 
committee yesterday, in fact, that there is potential for demagoguery 
on both sides of the aisle on this Legislative Branch appropriations 
bill, and that he has agreed in the past, and this year, on a 
structured rule.
  Now, honorable men and women can disagree on the merit and the 
substance of particular amendments, the number of which are not as 
important as the fact that we are arguing about substantive language, 
about health and safety, about meeting our constituents' needs. And I 
think it's important that we talk about that substance, rather than 
just the number on the bill.
  And so, Madam Speaker, I think that we've done a good job producing a 
fiscally accountable bill for the Congress. In fact, the President 
asked for $275 million more than our subcommittee is providing under 
this legislation. The President asked for a 15 percent increase in this 
appropriation, and Congress saw fit to only offer 4.1 percent. I think 
the subcommittee has done a good job crafting this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the 
Honorable David Dreier.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from the Big D 
recognizing me, and I thank both of my friends for their management of 
this rule.
  I have got to clear my throat, Madam Speaker, because it was last 
night and early this morning that we had a freewheeling, very 
passionate, vigorous debate that took place on the Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill, as we all know. And we are here this morning 
addressing an issue which traditionally has, in a bipartisan way, been 
recognized that, as a measure to avoid demagoguery, should be brought 
up under a structured rule. It is the only appropriations bill that 
both Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized all along that we 
should do, and I am happy to say that we are proceeding with the other 
appropriations bills under an open amendment process.
  I will say that I am very, very troubled, very troubled, with the way 
that this has been handled. My friend from California has just said 
that this is a discussion that has been going on and on. We seem to 
have this same discussion back and forth. And I will tell my friend we 
could end it right here, we could end it right here if, in fact, as the 
gentleman from Dallas has just said, the promises that were made in 
last year's election were, in fact, kept. We don't have to continue to 
have this kind of debate over the rule if we would see the kind of 
compliance with the commitments that were made to the American people.
  Now, let me just say what did happen in the past on the issue of the 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill. As Mr. Sessions has just said, 
100 percent of the amendments that were proposed last year were, in 
fact, made in order. And the year before, the gentleman is absolutely 
right, there were 11 amendments submitted, but the gentleman said only 
1 amendment was made in order. No. One Democratic amendment was made in 
order of the 11 amendments, but there were Republican

[[Page H6963]]

amendments proposed, too, and there were 4 amendments made in order. So 
what I am saying is that this notion that somehow 11 Democratic 
amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules and only 1 
Democratic amendment made in order? That is wrong.
  The fact of the matter is we have worked very hard to ensure that 
every Member who has come forward with a responsible, thoughtful 
amendment that should be debated on the legislative branch 
appropriations bill could, in fact, have that opportunity. And that is 
what has happened in the past. I am very proud to say that last year 
every single amendment submitted to the committee was made in order. 
This year 23 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, 23 
amendments. And how many were made in order? It is very sad. Only three 
amendments were made in order.
  Now, let's look at some of the amendments that were denied, Madam 
Speaker. The distinguished chairman, former chairman, of the 
Legislative Branch appropriations subcommittee, Mr. Kingston, is here, 
and he came before the Rules Committee with some very thoughtful 
amendments.
  Now, my friend from California has just talked about the issue of the 
Visitors Center. Mr. Kingston, who has consistently raised very 
important questions about that in the past, said that we don't need to 
put $16 million, which, as was said in the dissenting views on this 
issue, is the tip of the iceberg, creating a chance to spend well in 
excess of $50 million, at the minimum of $55 million, for another 
building with an additional 200,000 square feet behind the Ford 
Building over here.
  Now, Madam Speaker, we are going to have an additional half a million 
square feet when we see completion of this Congressional Visitors 
Center. We all hope that it happens in our lifetime, but I will say 
that we are going to have an additional 500,000 square feet. And I know 
my friend from California said he has just been there.
  And, by the way, I should extend congratulations to the gentlewoman 
from Florida for the great job that she has done in working closely 
with Mr. Wamp on this issue. She testified, Madam Speaker, before the 
Rules Committee, and I appreciate her diligence on this, and I suspect 
that she would be somewhat concerned as well that the opportunity for 
an amendment process like the one that we have had in the past is being 
denied to a number of our Members, both Democrats and Republicans 
alike.
  Mr. Kingston, the former chairman of the appropriations subcommittee 
on the Legislative Branch, also offered an amendment calling for the 
Basic Pilot Program to be included, dealing with this notion that we 
impose on everybody else, Madam Speaker, the requirement that they 
comply with the Basic Pilot Program when it comes to this very serious 
issue of illegal immigration, and yet we are free of having to comply 
with that within the first branch of government. I think that is an 
absolute mistake, and that is what Mr. Kingston has been trying to 
address with his amendment.
  One of the amendments that troubled me most that was not made in 
order came from a very distinguished Democratic Member of this 
institution. I am proud of the fact that he represents my parents in 
Kansas City, Missouri. It is Reverend Emanuel Cleaver, who came before 
the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, and he said that he had been told 
by staff not to offer the amendment. He was very concerned about being 
there, and he said that he was somewhat confused, and, understandably, 
that does happen on occasion. I just told one of my staff members that 
the moment they tell me to do something, I automatically and 
instinctively do the opposite. But what happened in his case was that 
he felt somewhat concerned about coming before the Committee on Rules 
when so many people had told him not to do it.
  I have never seen a situation like this, Madam Speaker. The Chair of 
the Rules Committee Ms. Slaughter had to say to Mr. Cleaver that he was 
welcome at any time to come before the Rules Committee and offer an 
amendment. I thought that that was just a right that every Member in 
this institution had. And, unfortunately, while we made Mr. Cleaver's 
amendment in order in the last Congress, this new majority refused to 
allow Mr. Cleaver the opportunity to even have his amendment heard, 
even have it debated here, Madam Speaker.
  And that is why Mr. Sessions is going to offer an opportunity, if we 
can, to defeat the previous question, to take the Cleaver amendment, 
which deals with the very important priority that has been set forth by 
our Speaker that looks at the environmental standards for this 
institution. Mr. Cleaver simply says that prospectively we should have 
flex-fuel or hybrid vehicles purchased through the Members' 
representational accounts. It is an issue that should be debated here 
on the House floor. Again, we made that amendment in order last year, 
and it has been denied the opportunity this year.
  One other thing that I will say again that is very troubling about 
this so-called new era of openness. Our colleague from West Virginia, a 
very distinguished former member of the Committee on Rules, tried to 
submit an amendment to the Rules Committee, and Shelley Moore Capito 
was denied that opportunity at the door to even submit her amendment, 
recognizing that she was a few minutes, I think right around 30 
minutes, beyond the imposed deadline. I think the flexibility for 
Members is something that we always recognized, but has been denied 
here. But to have a former member of the Rules Committee denied an 
opportunity to even submit the amendment is, to me, Madam Speaker, 
undermining this entire spirit of openness.
  So, Madam Speaker, let me say I am going to encourage my colleagues 
to support Mr. Sessions in his quest to defeat the previous question so 
that we can give Emanuel Cleaver an opportunity to offer the amendment 
that was denied him by the Rules Committee.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California and I agree 
on one thing absolutely, and that is that Mr. Cleaver is a great Member 
of Congress and offers thoughtful amendments.
  The problem with his amendment was that it was simply unworkable. It 
required that vehicles be E85 ethanol-compliant. And, for example, in 
California, in Mr. Dreier's and my own State, there are only two gas 
stations that provide E85 fuel.
  I drive a hybrid. I think it is an important thing for Members of 
Congress to lead on this issue, but the fact is that the amendment was 
unworkable. We discussed that in Rules Committee yesterday. I discussed 
that with Mr. Cleaver, and, in fact, the committee did see fit not to 
make that amendment in order.
  The gentleman raises a number of other points, but I would like to 
talk about the $16 million and the FDA building that the gentleman 
raised and the fact that the appropriations subcommittee is, in fact, 
bringing fiscal accountability and better standards to the construction 
process of the Capitol, and that this proposal that the gentleman from 
California refers to was actually initially brought to the House by 
former Speaker Hastert. And, in fact, we are continuing the prior 
administration's priority in this area.
  The subcommittee has changed the way this building will be managed 
and procured in that the GSA will manage the construction and retrofit 
of this new building that is being acquired in order to provide swing 
space and allow the operations of Congress to continue as we revamp 
other buildings here in the Capitol complex. The $16 million in 
security enhancements this bill provides for the FDA building are 
critical if we are to use the building for additional House office 
space. The project was originally approved, as I said, by former 
Speaker Hastert and is now being carried forward in this bill. It is 
critical so that we can get the swing space ready for the House to use 
when we begin the badly needed renovations to the Cannon Building, 
which is nearly 100 years old, and to the Longworth Building, which is 
nearly 75 years old. We need flex space to move offices while those 
buildings are being renovated. The FDA building fits the bill.
  GSA is ready to invest $150 million in the renovations of this 
building. This additional funding is to bring security from the generic 
government building level up to meet the requirements of congressional 
office space. This is a long-term investment. If we don't put

[[Page H6964]]

this money into getting the FDA building ready now, we will have to 
delay much-needed renovations to our existing buildings.
  I would also say that I believe it is important for our staff to get 
the same kind of security that we would get as Members. We know that in 
the post-9/11 world, as we have talked about many times on the floor 
before, Members of Congress and this Capitol complex are targets, and 
it is imperative that we provide our staff with the same security that 
we ourselves demand.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  And let me, if I could, just respond to a couple of his points. First 
of all, the gentleman has offered some very thoughtful arguments on 
this issue, and I think that the fact that he has made these arguments 
underscores why the Rules Committee should have, in fact, allowed a 
debate on these issues to proceed.
  He began by talking about how unworkable the amendment that Mr. 
Cleaver has put forward by virtue of the fact that California has only 
two of these E85 stations. I know that the Cleaver amendment provides 
options, a hybrid vehicle, which the gentleman drives and obviously is 
able to get fuel very easily, and the option of looking at the flex-
fuel vehicles. And, obviously, if it is a flex-fuel vehicle, it has the 
ability to use others. They don't have to go to those two stations that 
exist in California.
  And I think that, again, that underscores the fact that we should be 
having this debate. We made it in order in the last Congress, and, 
unfortunately, they chose not to make it in order.
  And on the issue of the additional building, he has raised a lot of 
interesting arguments about that. Mr. Kingston would simply like to 
have a chance, as a former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Legislative Branch, to debate it.
  I thank my friend for yielding, and I will just say that I wish we 
would have a chance to have a free-flowing debate on this.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I want to point out that this discussion 
is interesting, and, as Mr. Dreier has said to Mr. Cardoza, it is 
worthy of debate.
  I want to ask my friend, were you here during the anthrax threat?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I was not.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, it is important because there is a little history 
here, Madam Speaker, but during the period of time in which much of the 
Longworth office was shut down and evacuated right in the wake of 9/11, 
I don't know how many Members, and perhaps Mr. Dreier knows, but we all 
had temporary offices in a building downtown, and I do not remember 
which building that was. But it was interesting. That was a direct 
threat to the United States Congress, and some of the offices were 
closed down for maybe a couple of months.

                              {time}  0945

  I moved my entire staff off premises. And so to say now that we have 
to construct expensive, unnecessary swing space just to fill in a gap 
is ridiculous.
  I want to point out that I think it's important for newer Members to 
realize there is a history, there is a precedent. And because of the 
Rules Committee shutting down this amendment and free speech, most 
Members won't know that we are trying to prevent something that we've 
already gone through before, and that is temporarily locating elsewhere 
in a secure premises.
  I wanted to commend Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the Chair, and the ranking 
member, Mr. Wamp, for what they have done on the CVC, the Capitol 
Visitors Center. It is a monstrosity; something we're all very 
disappointed in. When I was Chair of this committee, we tried our best 
to get our arms around it. One of the things that we all discussed is 
unfortunately it's kind of a bicameral problem. You don't have one head 
of the snake, one committee, one Chair who was fully responsible from 
alpha to omega.
  I commend the committee on what they've done on this. I do think that 
with this FDA building we are creating another CVC boondoggle, as 
already outlined and debated in the committee. Since 2002, we've been 
debating this unnecessary additional office space, this swing space. 
And at the same time, the committee of the same government agencies are 
involved in it that have given us the CVC. So not to allow that 
amendment on the floor is something, in my opinion, is worth voting 
``no'' on the whole rule debate.
  The other amendment that I offered, among the many amendments that 
were turned down by the Democrats, it's very important to say the 
people who talked about sunshine so much are now denying it on the bill 
that tells this institution and the public so much about ourselves. No 
one gets elected or unelected on leg branch politics, except it does 
show what your culture of leadership is. If you don't allow sunshine, 
if you don't allow an open rule, if you don't allow open debate on your 
own piece of legislation that governs the House, then how can you go 
around and pontificate from coast to coast what an open government 
you're going to bring the United States people?
  I know that the members of the Rules Committee and the members of the 
Appropriations Committee have somewhat been under a mandate, maybe even 
a gag order, by the leadership, but I would say there is huge hypocrisy 
and irony in this.
  Another important amendment that I offered has to do with the Basic 
Pilot Program. And I'll ask you this: Do you think that people who do 
construction for the Federal Government should have legal employees, or 
should they be allowed to have illegal aliens? Well, we know and the 
Chair would be interested to know about the situation in California, 
because it's been such a hot debate out there, and the folks who have 
been building the fence, that the folks who are constructing the fence 
were busted for having illegal aliens to build a fence to keep illegal 
aliens out of the country. That is absurd. Similarly, we see this all 
over the place on Air Forces bases and Federal institutions, where 
contractors come in, and after close scrutiny we find they are hiring 
illegal aliens.
  What the amendment would have done, which I believe would have wide 
bipartisan support, simply says that you need Social Security 
verification if you're going to do business with the Federal 
Government. No big deal, except for in this town and in this Chamber 
somehow that might offend some of our K Street friends, or should I say 
some other people's K Street friends. Because folks I know back home, 
they want Social Security verification. Unless you attack the job 
magnet, you're always going to have the attraction for illegals to come 
into the country.
  This would give us an opportunity to lead by example to say we're not 
going to let you do business with the Federal Government unless you 
have verified Social Security. And the program is run by ICE, the 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. It's called the Basic Pilot 
Program. Nothing controversial whatsoever. However, the Rules Committee 
is not even going to allow us to have a vote on it.
  I cannot believe that the people one year ago, indeed, 7 months ago, 
were campaigning out there, telling Americans the Democrats are going 
to deliver open and honest government, because this rule is anything 
but that.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I will say that it seems ironic to me 
that they blame the Democrats for everything, yet this proposal that is 
being put forward by the gentleman from Georgia was originated under 
the speakership of Mr. Hastert and was planned during that period of 
time. And, frankly, it was a good idea. It's something that needs to be 
done.
  The other point I would just like to make at the outset of my 
discussion here.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. No, I will not yield.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to know, is it in the Democrat budget?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[[Page H6965]]

  I also want to point out that Mr. Kingston is talking about 
immigration and the lack of accountability with regard to illegal 
workers on government projects. I would like to remind the gentleman 
that it is his President that is in charge of enforcement, it is the 
administrative branch of government that is in charge of adjudicating 
and prosecuting illegal aliens, and that it is their Department that is 
awarding the contracts. And so if the gentleman is concerned about 
this, he should talk to his President down the street. And with a 
single conversation, he should be able to get the administration to do 
what he wants, since he is of the same party.
  With regard to this building that we're talking about, when we had 
the anthrax scare here in Congress, I am aware that they actually had 
to displace Federal workers to house congressional employees in that 
building. That was only for a couple of weeks. To do this for months on 
end while a building is being renovated is simply unacceptable.
  Further, Mr. Kingston's amendment was argued in the subcommittee and 
it was put forward in the subcommittee and it was rejected by the 
subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. We need this swing space to be able 
to do the renovation. And I think this goes back to a very simple thing 
that Mr. Dreier said, that this can be demagogued.
  Clearly, we can have disagreements, but we need to do the right thing 
by the American people to provide for the safety of Congress. This $16 
million appropriation is for Capitol security. Either you support 
security for Members, for the staff and for the general public, or you 
don't. You either support security or you don't. And I say that the 
bipartisan workings of the committee were the correct action and that 
the amendment that the gentleman offered was previously rejected in 
committee.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman now seems to want to duck 
what Republicans have done for 12 years, and that is, take 
responsibility for that, which they should do. The fact of the matter 
is we're here asking for and we're in the Rules Committee asking for 
the ability to be able to debate these. We're not blaming anybody, 
except to say that we believe there should be a debate, an open and 
honest debate that would be good for the American people, which would 
avoid the gentleman having to be concerned about who is blaming who.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to thank my friend from Texas for his 
leadership on the Rules Committee and on this issue of wanting and 
demanding what the American people want, and that is an open process.
  I oppose this rule because I believe, Madam Speaker, that it stifles 
the ability for Members of this House to represent their constituents. 
The reason that it stifles them is because it doesn't allow for the 
kind of debate and the kind of voting on issues that we've just heard 
about.
  This is a good bill. I want to commend my classmate, Representative 
Wasserman Schultz, and Representative Wamp for their work; but it's not 
a perfect bill. And so we ought to move in the direction of making it a 
more perfect bill by allowing amendments, other ideas from this House 
to come forward.
  Madam Speaker, I'm sorry to say that this is just another example of 
what I have come to know and phrase as ``Orwellian democracy'' by this 
new majority. It's Orwellian democracy because they say one thing and 
they do exactly the opposite.
  What did they say? Well, what they said is that they would assure a 
fair and open process. Before the last election, Speaker Pelosi said, 
``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voice is silenced 
by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
rule.''
  So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency, 
or is it a broken promise?
  The chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, said before, ``If 
we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and 
the thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open 
rule.''
  So what's changed, Madam Speaker? What's different now? Is it 
political expediency, or is it a broken promise?
  Mr. McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, said, ``I would say to 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want to show some 
bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has some 
integrity, this should be an open rule. All Members should have an 
opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve 
the quality of deliberations on this House floor.''
  So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency, 
or a broken promise?
  Democratic Caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel, said before, ``Let's have an up 
or down vote. Don't be scared. Don't hide behind some little rule. Come 
on out here. Put it on the table. Let's have a vote. So don't hide 
behind the rule. If this is what you want to do, let's have an up or 
down vote. You can put your votes right up there, and then the American 
people can see what it's all about.''
  So what's different, Madam Speaker? Political expediency, or a broken 
promise?
  I offered an amendment that would be debated on this floor that would 
have reduced the amount of spending by 1 percent. It would have saved 
the American taxpayer $31 million. Now, $31 million may not seem like a 
lot in Washington, but back where I come from and across this Nation, 
$31 million is a lot of money. It would say to the American people this 
is a step in the right direction for fiscal responsibility. That was 
said before, what was said before by the now majority leader, Steny 
Hoyer, who said, ``We want to get the budget deficit under control. We 
have said fiscal responsibility was necessary, but we're not going to 
be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.''
  Madam Speaker, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you 
want to, and choosing when to do so is breaking a promise. An open 
promise shouldn't just be something that you talk about on the campaign 
trail.
  Madam Speaker, Americans understand that promises made on the 
campaign trail and promises that aren't kept in the heat of debate on 
the House floor are broken promises. And the American people are paying 
attention.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond to the 
gentleman from Georgia by saying that, in fact, the Rules Committee did 
offer Mr. Jordan's amendment from Ohio that one-ups the gentleman from 
Georgia. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia said he wanted to cut 
overall the entire operations in Congress and legislative branch by 1 
percent. Mr. Jordan offers a 4 percent cut. And so we made that in 
order so that the Congress can have the debate that Mr. Price from 
Georgia has indicated that he wants to have on the House floor.
  It is a very open process. And, in fact, I will tell you that this is 
a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Wamp and Ms. Wasserman Schultz came to the 
Rules Committee and indicated absolutely that they had worked on a 
bipartisan basis on this bill and that they thought that they had done 
a good job working on a bipartisan basis.
  We have, in fact, offered the debate. We will, in fact, have a debate 
on cutting overall administration. In fact, this is a responsible bill 
in that we have cut $275 million from the President's request, 11 
percent less than the administration asked for the operations of the 
legislative branch. This is a fiscally responsible bill. The committee 
has worked together to craft it in a bipartisan way, and I think that 
we in fact have a very good piece of legislation before the Congress 
today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Speaker, I do rise as the ranking member of the 
subcommittee in reluctant opposition to the rule. I say that because I 
am very

[[Page H6966]]

grateful for the work that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) have done on 
protecting the Appropriations Committee's prerogatives in this bill, 
particularly with, I think, the important recommendation to name the 
largest space in the new Capitol Visitors Center Emancipation Hall. We 
will talk more about that during general debate.
  But I am in opposition because only three amendments were ruled in 
order; that is, three out of 23, which is 13 percent. Last year it was 
100 percent; the year before last it was 45 percent. And that is not 
enough. Therefore, I am actually going to support the amendments that 
are offered.
  But I am going to support the bill. We did work in a bipartisan 
manner. This is a good bill. I am going to support the bill, but the 
rule is just not quite enough, to be honest with you. We should have 
had these amendments ruled in order. I say that respectfully because I 
think it is important that we try to open this up as much as possible.
  The structured rule is not a problem, but only three amendments being 
ruled in order is a problem. So I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
rule. I look forward to the general debate. I look forward to the 
passage of the bill with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz).
  Mr. CARDOZA. I would just like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Wamp) for his hard work on the bill. Clearly he and our 
chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, have done a good job 
working together on a bipartisan basis to craft a bill that will work 
for Congress and work for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we are quite open about what we wanted 
today. We wanted the rule to match the promise that the new Democratic 
majority had made. They asked for the ability to lead this country and 
to make this the most open, honest Congress in history. Yet we find at 
this time that the Rules Committee does not do that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to say I am somewhat concerned with the 
whole tenor of this debate. My California colleague has stood here 
through the entire debate not yielding time to a single Member, talking 
about the fact that we are going to have this freewheeling debate. I 
asked him to yield to me, when he obviously has a great load of time. 
Madam Speaker, he chose not to yield. That is clearly his right. But if 
we are interested in at least a modicum of civility in the debate, I 
always try my darnedest to yield to any colleague who asks me to yield 
during debate, because I think that is what we should do around here.
  I was simply going to respond when my friend said that Mr. Price was 
here decrying the fact that his amendment was not made in order, which 
had a more modest cut than the one that has been made in order under 
the Jordan amendment, that maybe some Members would determine that the 
$275 million figure to which my friend referred earlier, being below 
the President's request, is not quite enough, but that maybe the Jordan 
amendment is too much.
  Mr. Price simply wanted to have a chance, Madam Speaker, to say, 
gosh, maybe a little more modest cut than the one that is in the Jordan 
amendment should be considered.
  So, I just want to say that I, again, as Mr. Price said so well 
during this debate, promises were made about a new sense of openness. 
It is very, very unfortunate that those promises have not been kept, 
Madam Speaker.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my friend, 
the gentleman from California, that I, in fact, did yield to him 
earlier in the debate for quite some period of time and let him speak 
on my time prior. So, with that, I think we have, in fact, worked on a 
bipartisan basis. I am also willing to work and discuss with my 
colleagues.
  But, in fact, as the gentleman said, this legislative branch 
appropriations bill is one where you can, in fact, have shenanigans, or 
I think his word was ``demagoguery,'' and, in fact, we have a 
structured rule so that we limit that. We are, in fact, trying to have 
the most open process. I think we have succeeded in doing a better job 
than happened in the prior Congresses.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If I could inquire of the time remaining on both sides, 
please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes. 
The gentleman from California has 10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here today to say we 
believe the process should equal what the Democrats had said they would 
do. It did not.
  Secondly, we have problems with the bill because of the more than 7-
percent increase in spending over last year's level. We believe that 
that is excessive, at a time when we thought both sides agreed that 
fiscal sanity would be in order, especially in dealing with this body. 
So, the Republican Party is here today to say we think that is too much 
money.
  Madam Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so that I may amend the rule to make in order the very 
thoughtful amendments of my Democratic colleague from Missouri (Mr. 
Cleaver), which was made in order by the Republican-controlled Congress 
in the Republican Rules Committee last year.
  The amendment would encourage House Members to lease hybrid and other 
more economical vehicles. In this time of high gas prices and our need, 
the national desire, the need to reduce the reliance on foreign sources 
of energy, this House should have at least have the opportunity to 
debate such a thoughtful amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and the extraneous material printed just prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this point I would like just to yield 
briefly to our distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to 
respond.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the gentleman will yield, we were advised that the 
gentleman did not have any additional speakers.
  Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman is correct. I will yield him additional 
time to respond.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate that.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I just want to address my 
comments to the remark by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) where 
he indicated that there is a 7-percent increase in the legislative 
branch appropriations bill. That is factually inaccurate.
  If you take into consideration the $50 million rescission that we had 
in the CR for 2007, we are actually at a 2.4-percent increase. Not 
taking that $50 million rescission, which came out of the Library of 
Congress, we are actually at a 4.4-percent increase in this bill. So 
that is factually inaccurate. I want to make sure that we are dealing 
with facts. My colleague is incorrect.
  We have really made an effort, both Mr. Wamp and myself, at being 
fiscally responsible, recognizing that we are in a difficult fiscal 
situation and constraining our spending, but at the same time making 
sure we can focus on life, safety and security needs, and the 
protection and oversight responsibilities that we need to make sure we 
can do in this institution.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, without getting into an argument with 
the gentlewoman, we would just state the facts of the case. It is over 
$4 billion additional spending, this year over the last, and $4 billion 
is a lot of money to run this ship.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I would simply like to ask my friend, if a $4 billion 
increase

[[Page H6967]]

is, in fact, a 6.76-percent increase over last year's funding level, 
which does round out to be a 7-percent increase in the spending over 
last year's funding level, I just ask my friend from Dallas if that, in 
fact, is correct?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I believe it to be correct, but the fact 
of the matter is, whether it's a 6-percent increase or a 4-percent 
increase as the gentlewoman subscribes to, we believe that is not the 
proper way to grow this government.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
would just like to, again, say that I hope very much that my friends on 
both sides of the aisle will join in supporting Mr. Sessions in trying 
to defeat the previous question so that we can make in order the very 
thoughtful, environmentally sound amendment that has been offered by 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, there were several misstatements of fact 
in the last statements that were made here on the floor by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  This bill actually does not provide $4 billion for legislative branch 
appropriations, as the gentleman indicated, but $3.1 billion for the 
legislative branch. The actual spending for fiscal year 2007, including 
the supplemental but not rescissions, this bill is a $122 million 
increase, which is 4 percent of that amount. If the $50 million 
rescission in the fiscal year 2007 CR is included, the bill is only $73 
million, or 2.4 percent, above the prior year.
  We have provided in this measure fiscal responsibility, 
accountability, and security and life safety for the Members of 
Congress, for the general public and for our staff.
  I would also like to make a point that this bill represents a $276 
million reduction from the Republican administration's request on this 
matter.
  Madam Speaker, three principles guided the development of the 
underlying legislation: fiscal responsibility, security and life 
safety, and accountability.
  This bill makes smart decisions with taxpayer dollars. It provides 
the necessary resources for Congress to carry out its constitutional 
oversight responsibilities, something we saw sorely lacking in the last 
Congress. It ensures the Capitol complex is safe and secure. Most 
importantly, it allows Members of Congress to represent and serve our 
constituents in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 502 Offered by Rep. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative 
     Cleaver of Missouri or a designee. That amendment shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.      . None of the funds made available in this Act 
     under the heading ``House of Representatives--Salaries and 
     Expenses--Members' Representational A1lowances'' may be used 
     directly to provide any individual with a vehicle which is 
     not powered in whole or in part by alternative fuel (as 
     defined in section 301(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
     (42 U.S.C. 13211(2)), except under a lease in effect prior to 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

       (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 chanc 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.

  Mr. CARDOZA. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if 
ordered, on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 179, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 543]

                               YEAS--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)

[[Page H6968]]


     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Baker
     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boucher
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Carter
     Clyburn
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Doolittle
     Everett
     Gillibrand
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hunter
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     LaHood
     McGovern
     McHenry
     Miller, George
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Platts
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1033

  Messrs. TIBERI, GARY G. MILLER of California, and MANZULLO changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. WEINER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Upton was allowed to speak out of order.)


   Moment of Silence in Memory of the Late Honorable Guy Vander Jagt

  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the House today of the 
passing of Guy Vander Jagt, who died this morning. He served 18 years 
in this body representing most of west Michigan, a longtime member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, a very good friend of all of us, both in 
the Congress and after he left.
  I talked to his wife Carol last week. This was his cancer's second 
occurrence. He also leaves a beautiful daughter, Jinny, and I yield to 
Mr. Dingell.
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank my dear friend for yielding.
  This is a great loss to the country. Our friend, Guy Vander Jagt, was 
a distinguished Member of this body, a great public servant, and a 
friend of most of us here.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. RANGEL. The tear that you hear in the voice of the gentleman from 
Michigan is felt by everybody that knew Guy Vander Jagt. I was with him 
on Tuesday morning with his beautiful wife Carol, and I would want 
everybody who knew this man to know that there was a big smile on his 
face, that wonderful voice of his was resonant, and even though he did 
not stay lucid for long periods of time, the only thing, the only thing 
that he talked about was his House of Representatives.
  I really sincerely hope that those Members, Republican and Democrats, 
that had an opportunity to see a true Republican with the compassion 
and sensitivity and understanding that it takes all of us to make this 
Congress and this country work, that maybe those of us who knew Guy 
would make some kind of special effort to be tolerant with each other, 
which is what he was talking about, in hopes that new Members that 
never had the opportunity to enjoy that type of camaraderie will move 
in that direction.
  We will miss him, but those who knew him, we have a constant reminder 
that when things get rough for us on this floor, there was a guy like 
Guy Vander Jagt, and as strong as a Republican as he was, that he cared 
enough about this House to care for all us.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I would ask that we stand for a moment of 
silence in honor of Guy Vander Jagt.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 179, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 544]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher

[[Page H6969]]


     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Baker
     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boucher
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Carter
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Doolittle
     Everett
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     LaHood
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller, George
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Waxman
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). One minute remains in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.

                          ____________________