[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 80 (Thursday, May 15, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H3891-H3903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2642, 
                 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1197 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1197

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2642) making appropriations for military construction, the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other 
     purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 
     in the House, without intervention of any point of order 
     except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion 
     offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or 
     his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment 
     with each of the three amendments printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The 
     Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. 
     The motion shall be debatable for two hours equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion except that the Chair shall divide 
     the question among each of the three House amendments.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of the motion to concur 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the motion to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3.  The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
     may insert in the daily issue of the Congressional Record 
     dated May 15, 2008, such material as he may deem explanatory 
     of the motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentlewoman from New 
York is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1197.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1197 provides for the 
consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act of 2008.
  The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendment with three House 
amendments. The rule provides 2 hours of debate on the motion 
controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides for a 
division of the question on the adoption of the three House amendments 
listed in the Rules Committee report. The rule also provides that the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations may insert in the 
Congressional Record dated May 15, 2008, such material as he may deem 
explanatory of the motion.
  Madam Speaker, with a deep appreciation for the importance of the 
legislation before us today, the Rules Committee has reported out a 
rule that allows for a full, thorough debate on three amendments 
critical to the future of our Nation. This process will give each 
Member ample opportunity to vote their conscience on whether to fund 
the war or not, place conditions on our Iraq policy or not, or choose 
to support veterans over millionaires.
  The legislation we are about to take up was forged with the idea of 
consensus. It meets the spending requirements made by President Bush, 
including the $5.8 billion that he asked for to strengthen the levees 
in New Orleans. In addition, it does not include a single earmark, 
except those explicitly requested by Mr. Bush's administration.
  On the other hand, the legislation is not a blank check because it is 
important to remember why we are really here today. This is the sixth 
year of the war in Iraq. More than 4,000 United States service men and 
women, 28 from my district alone, are dead. Tens of thousands have been 
wounded and physically disabled, and far too many suffer from post-
traumatic stress disorder and a host of other mental health issues. 
What's more, the civilian death total is devastating. Millions, not 
thousands, of Iraqi men, women and children are dead. Millions more 
have been forced into camps or other countries that will accept them.
  At a time of economic emergency, when the American family is under 
siege, the war continues to be waged at

[[Page H3892]]

a staggering cost to the American taxpayer and at the expense of our 
economic security.
  A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported on the Bush 
administration's practice of paying off supposedly independent military 
analysts to shade the truth about what was really happening in Iraq. 
This administration was so concerned that Americans would find out the 
truth that they paid former U.S. military personnel to read from 
prescreened, whitewashed Pentagon talking points to hide from the 
American people what was happening in their name.
  This may be the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history, 
and the American people overwhelmingly are calling for it to end. They 
have seen that this insurgency is far from nearing the end. They were 
told, ``Trust us. The Iraqi war revenues will pay for reconstruction.'' 
Yet the American people are feeling the pinch as their hard-earned tax 
dollars finance the rebuilding of a foreign nation while their 
country's own economy and infrastructure are falling apart. They were 
told, ``Trust us. We will make sure your sons and daughters have the 
equipment they need.'' Yet we have all seen the reports of desperate 
searches through junk heaps to refit ill-equipped armored vehicles. And 
we have all heard the tales of worried mothers scraping together the 
family savings to purchase adequate body armor for their children.
  They were told, ``Trust us. We will ensure that our fighting men and 
women will be taken care of when they return home.'' Yet we all 
remember the disgraceful images of Walter Reed Hospital, the recent 
reports of appalling living conditions for troops stationed in the 
barracks at Fort Worth, Texas.
  Under such circumstances, it would be an abdication of our duty to 
perpetuate a clearly unacceptable status quo. For that reason, the 
legislation we take up today represents a break from the past and a 
renewed chance of changing a stale, stagnant situation.
  It does, indeed, provide immediate funding for our soldiers in Iraq 
and Afghanistan who are currently in the field. However, while the 
needs of our troops will always be at the forefront of our national 
priorities, funding for this war must not come in the form of a blank 
check. This funding only comes with conditions that will begin the 
process for ending this war.
  The supplemental requires that troops begin redeployment from Iraq 
within 30 days, with a goal of completing a full withdrawal in 18 
months. We do this not because we concede 1 inch to those who would do 
our Nation harm or because we lack the will to fight for our national 
security, we do this because basic respect for our military demands it. 
No longer will they be asked to fight an open-ended conflict whose 
finish line keeps moving.
  And in keeping with this respect for our troops, the legislation 
mandates that soldiers must be properly rested and equipped to meet the 
administration's own standards for combat readiness before 
redeployment.
  Furthermore, we will honor the parents who continue to serve our 
Nation by finally providing full funding for the military day care 
centers.
  This legislation also keeps our promises to our veterans. Part of the 
cost of waging war is ensuring that our men and women in uniform have 
the resources that they need to resume their lives upon their return 
home. The bill before us dramatically expands the education benefits 
that veterans of the United States military will receive under the new 
GI Bill. Not only do our troops deserve this benefit and much more, but 
every dollar we spend on education today will come back to bolster our 
economy tomorrow. It is also an investment.
  And I would add that this provision is fully paid for by asking the 
wealthiest, who saw their tax rates drop 19.6 percent in 2004, they 
have saved around $126,000 since that time, we are asking them please 
to give us $500 to help fund the GI Bill of Rights.
  At no time ever before in the history of this country have we been 
burdened with massive tax cuts for the wealthy during a time of war. 
Obviously this has been a new idea of this administration. These 
actions of fiscal incompetence by the Bush administration left this 
country's economy struggling, and American families are paying the 
price. And no families are paying it more than the families of the men 
and women who are fighting this war. No sacrifice has been asked from 
any of the rest of us.
  Rising levels of sustained joblessness require us to extend 
unemployment benefits to those workers who understandably cannot find a 
job. This bill does just that.
  Additionally, up until this point, the American people have been 
unfairly asked to shoulder the full weight of the reconstruction effort 
in Iraq. The underlying legislation requires that U.S. reconstruction 
aid be matched dollar for dollar by the Iraqi Government, removing some 
of the pressure from families already struggling to make ends meet.
  Furthermore, it prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in 
Iraq, blocking this administration from saddling the American people 
with a costly occupation long after the Army is gone.
  Our fellow citizens have been sent to fight a conflict and a war far 
away from home, and we owe them not only our support and our deep 
thanks, and not only with words, but with the deeds that we commit to 
in this Congress. This bill is about who we are as a society and the 
values that we hold.
  I am proud to support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I 
ask my colleagues to do the same.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to begin by expressing my great appreciation to my very 
dear friend, the distinguished and very able Chair of the Committee on 
Rules, my friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter).
  And with all due respect to my distinguished committee Chair, I am 
compelled, not surprisingly, to rise in the strongest possible 
opposition to this rule.
  Over the last 1\1/2\ years, my colleagues Messrs. Diaz-Balart, 
Hastings, and Sessions have stood right here at this lectern and 
opposed many, many deeply flawed rules. We began this Congress very 
inauspiciously as the leadership jammed through the opening week agenda 
before even bothering to set up the Rules Committee, allowing Ms. 
Slaughter to become Chair of that committee. From the very outset, 
there has been no pretense of concern for due process, not an inkling 
of respect for the rules of this House.
  While we started at a low point, we have sunk lower and lower with 
each subsequent rule. One by one the Democratic leadership has trampled 
the rules and traditions of this body in an effort to shut down debate, 
cut both Republicans and Democrats out of the process, and jam through 
poorly constructed bills that rarely, rarely, if ever, become public 
law. I frequently marvel at each new low and assume that we have 
reached the rock bottom. As we have considered new forms of restrictive 
rules crafted under an ever-more restrictive process, I have often 
thought, ``This one takes the cake. The Democratic leadership couldn't 
possibly stoop any lower than this.'' Until the next comes, shutting 
down due process to an even greater degree.
  So this time I'm not going to say that this rule is the absolute 
bottom of the barrel. I don't doubt that with a little more time and 
effort, based on the track record we've seen, the Democratic leadership 
will find a way to trample the rules and traditions of this House even 
more thoroughly. I will say that this is clearly the worst example that 
we've seen in the last 17 months since they have been in charge.
  But before I get into the details of this egregious rule, Madam 
Speaker, I think it's important to discuss why it even matters what 
kind of a process is used to craft legislation and hold votes. I know 
the inner workings of the Rules Committee are thought to be so arcane 
that even some of our colleagues consider them to be a little too 
``inside baseball.'' In fact, the distinguished Chair just spent all of 
her time talking about the bill itself. She didn't talk about the fact 
that they're trampling on the rights of Republicans and Democrats. 
Start talking about rules and procedure and regular order, and most 
Americans' eyes, and even some of our colleagues', start to glaze over.
  So to illustrate why process matters, I will use another set of rules 
that are

[[Page H3893]]

more widely understood as an example. Even before the advent of the 
television show Law & Order, most of us were familiar with the basics 
of our criminal justice system. We're all familiar with our basic 
rights enshrined in the Constitution. We cannot be held without a 
charge. We're protected from self-incrimination and unlawful searches 
and seizures. We must be read our Miranda rights when placed under 
arrest. These basic rights are fundamental, fundamental, Madam Speaker, 
to American democracy. We know that there can be no justice without a 
fair process, and we know that the protection of the rights of the 
individual is more important than the outcome of any one particular 
case.
  The Bill of Rights and the laws that have been enacted to uphold it 
aren't just a cryptic system of rules and regulations. They guarantee, 
Madam Speaker, they guarantee our civil rights and they guard against 
tyranny. Without a fair process, power is abused and rights are 
abridged. Process matters, Madam Speaker. Process matters because 
process is democracy.
  The rules of the House were established for the very same reason. 
They ensure that the American people, through their elected 
representatives, have a say in the crafting of laws that govern them. 
The rules guard against abuses of power, and they ensure that the 
legislative process is transparent and fair. Thwarting due process is 
not just arcane political maneuvering around obscure, complicated rules 
that no one should care about. It subverts the principles of 
representative democracy. Let me say again, Madam Speaker, the rule 
that we are considering at this moment very clearly subverts the 
principles of representative democracy.
  The Democratic leadership's casual disregard for these rules and 
principles has faced growing criticism in the media. Last week the 
Politico accused them of ``breaking promises,'' promises for an open 
legislative process that followed regular order and the rules of the 
House. Not surprisingly, the paper cited today's underlying bill, the 
supplemental appropriations, as Exhibit A in the Democrats' assault on 
an open and inclusive process, which was promised at the beginning of 
this Congress. That's not my saying that; that's an independent 
newspaper that made that statement.
  Even before the new lows of the supplemental, another publication, 
Investors Business Daily, reported recently on the leadership's 
``widening power grab,'' accusing them of ``anti-democratic'' behavior, 
running a ``dictatorship,'' and ``showing little or no concern for 
holding actual votes or building consensus on issues.'' Now, Madam 
Speaker, those are pretty harsh charges coming from a newspaper that is 
clearly a very independent publication. And they go on to say that this 
is all being done in an effort to ``manipulate Congress.'' Madam 
Speaker, ``dictatorship'' and ``anti-democratic,'' those are pretty 
harsh words, but they are clearly warranted.
  The process used to craft the underlying supplemental appropriations 
bill has been atrocious. Committee work was completely abandoned. 
Without a single hearing, without a markup, without so much as 
consulting Mr. Lewis and the committee members, this bill was concocted 
behind closed doors. Zero input, zero deliberation, zero consultation. 
The Senate, of course, won't stand for that kind of treatment and 
intends to hold a markup later today before proceeding with its floor 
debate. But the Democratic leaders in this House apparently deem this 
to be a lesser body, with no right to due process.
  The Democratic leadership intended to bring this bill up last week. 
They had to pull it from the schedule because fiscally conservative 
Members within their own caucus were outraged at the contents. A week 
later, Madam Speaker, a backroom deal has now been struck, bringing the 
remaining Democratic Members on board. How? Bringing Members on board 
by imposing a tax on small businesses in this country, which is exactly 
what this is. You see, Democrats love to stir up class warfare by 
justifying the small business tax as just a tax on the rich. Unless, of 
course, we are talking about millionaire farmers, and then they like to 
give them massive government payouts, which is what they did just 
yesterday in the farm bill.
  To add to their inconsistency, they actually waived their own PAYGO 
rule to fund the farm bill subsidies, and today they refuse to waive 
the same PAYGO rule and use it as an excuse to levy massive tax 
increases on small businessmen and women in this country. Only in 
Washington would such logic be employed.
  We became aware of the rough outline of this tax increase, along with 
every other provision of this bill, only through press reports. Some 
have reported a $183 billion price tag on this bill. Others have said 
it would be costing at least $250 billion. Various outlets reported on 
various provisions. But we didn't get a chance to see for ourselves 
what was in this massive bill until 3 p.m. yesterday. In fact, the 
distinguished former Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, the now 
ranking member, my good friend, Mr. Lewis, came before us. Within the 
hour before that 3 p.m. meeting, he had just gotten the copy of the 
measure.
  Most egregious of all, we're not actually considering a bill here 
today. We will be voting on three amendments to a Senate amendment to 
an old House bill that has already passed but was never enacted. Did 
you catch that? If it sounds gimmicky and underhanded, that's because 
that's exactly what it is. In fact, this morning I heard our colleague 
Mr. McDermott on National Public Radio, where he said the crafting of 
this is tantamount to John Kerry's very famous line in which he said 
``I voted for it before I voted against it.'' The Democratic leadership 
knows that a vote on their full package would never pass; so they 
plotted a way around an actual vote on final passage.
  For anyone who missed that, let me repeat. The House of 
Representatives will not be permitted a vote on the full underlying 
proposal. When Investors Business Daily calls this a dictatorship, they 
seem to have a point.
  So what exactly is in this $183-250 billion bill that comes to us 
without any due process and will pass without a vote? Who can say for 
sure? But I know that at least $62 billion in new entitlements are 
included; $11 billion in unemployment insurance, and our friend Mr. 
Weller will be talking about this in a few minutes; and at least $51 
billion in benefits for veterans. Clearly, these are very, very 
important issues that need to be addressed.
  I don't doubt that the Democratic majority will try to claim that 
Republicans don't care about our veterans or those facing economic 
hardship. We hear that time and time again. To the contrary, these are 
such critically important issues for us that we passionately believe 
that we must address them in a serious and deliberative way. It is 
simply not good enough to slap together a proposal without a single 
moment of testimony or debate, throw some money at our problems, and 
call it a day.
  The very critical issues addressed in this bill, from funding for 
Iraq and Afghanistan to international food assistance to the 
tremendously important domestic programs, all of these deserve a 
substantive, deliberative process. We should have an opportunity to 
examine which of these are truly emergencies and which should be 
included in the regular appropriations process. And all of them should 
have the benefit of an open debate to ensure that we are addressing our 
priorities effectively.
  This rule allows for none of this, Madam Speaker. It thwarts the 
rules and traditions that were put in place to guard against abuses of 
power, and it blocks consideration of even a single amendment, 
including the very thoughtful and responsible alternative proposed by 
the man sitting to my right here, the distinguished ranking member of 
the committee, Mr. Lewis. He's offered a clean supplemental 
appropriations bill which simply provides our troops the funding they 
need without bogging it down with all kinds of unrelated items or 
adding new policy that prevents them from carrying out their mission.
  Our hope is to get this critical funding to our troops before 
Memorial Day, which is fast approaching. That's not an arbitrary 
deadline and it's not a gimmick. Our military commanders have told us 
that they desperately need this funding now, and we want to be able to 
go home for Memorial Day and tell our veterans and our military 
families that we passed a clean bill that funds our troops and their 
mission. We

[[Page H3894]]

want to tell them we crafted a bill without regard to politics, without 
regard to providing political cover or fodder for political ads. We 
simply gave the troops the funding they desperately need. Now, Madam 
Speaker, that's exactly what the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
Lewis, should be able to provide, and I'm going to seek an opportunity 
for him to do just that.
  But, unfortunately, the Democratic majority can't advance their 
flawed policies without shutting down the process. So they prefer 
closed rules to open debate. They prefer backroom deals to the 
transparent committee process. They prefer hollow, ill-gotten victories 
that die after the House vote to substantive, bipartisan legislation 
that is enacted into law. That's exactly what we need to do, Madam 
Speaker.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I am going to urge a ``no'' 
vote on the previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, 5 years ago in a well-orchestrated 
public relations stunt that featured landing on an aircraft carrier, 
President Bush proclaimed, ``In the battle of Iraq, the United States 
and our allies have prevailed.''
  Just 2 weeks ago, on the fifth anniversary of ``Mission 
Accomplished,'' the White House could only express exasperation that 
anyone would even make a fuss that 5 years have gone by and we're still 
in Iraq, deeper than ever.
  Well, here's why people are making such a fuss, Madam Speaker: Over 
4,000 American service men and women killed in Iraq; over 30,000 of our 
troops wounded or maimed; a continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq; and a 
mission that is never ending, never defined, and completely open-ended.
  Ironically, the USS Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier where 
President Bush declared victory in Iraq, was just deployed last week 
for another tour of duty in the Persian Gulf.
  Today this House will have a choice to make, whether to continue this 
war well into next year. Today we will choose whether to support the 
George Bush strategy of keeping the war going until he can safely get 
out of town.

                              {time}  1045

  Once again, U.S. forces are engaged in some of the most intense 
combat since the height of the insurgency. Once again, they are 
battling Iraqi militias, not al Qaeda, in the markets, homes and 
alleyways of Baghdad. April 2008 was the deadliest month for Iraqi 
civilians since last August.
  The U.N. now reports that 4.7 million Iraqis have been forced by 
violence to leave their homes. Roughly 2 million of them are refugees 
in neighboring countries. And another 2.7 million are internally 
displaced.
  What is worse, we don't even have the decency to pay for this war, 
which has created a mountain of debt that American taxpayers will be 
paying off for years to come. This generation's mistake is becoming the 
next generation's burden.
  Currently the war costs $2.4 billion each and every week. Reports 
estimate that the costs of this war, even if we could bring it to an 
end over the next 2 years, will exceed $3 trillion when we take into 
account rebuilding our broken military and addressing the needs of our 
military veterans.
  Billions for the care of the severely wounded.
  Billions for the care of veterans traumatized by war.
  Billions to staunch the flow of suicides by young men and women who 
have served in Iraq.
  And billions more to rebuild and re-equip our Armed Forces.
  Why can't the Iraqi Government, which is currently running a huge 
surplus, do more to rebuild their country?
  Madam Speaker, I am holding office hours across my congressional 
district in Massachusetts. These are mainly small towns and 
communities. Every weekend I meet a steady stream of constituents who 
come in and who want to talk about the war. People are so disappointed, 
so frustrated and so angry that this war is still going on. And it is 
not just Massachusetts. It is Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi and 
every other State in the Union.
  Now I know, Madam Speaker, that there will be opportunities today to 
support strong conditions on the war and the redeployment of our 
troops. We will have the opportunity to vote in support of greatly 
expanded educational benefits for our military veterans and for a 
generous response to the emergency global food crisis.
  And I thank Chairman Obey for those initiatives.
  But Madam Speaker, I cannot vote for one more dime for this war. 
Enough is enough. Before he leaves town, George Bush should bring our 
troops home.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I notice my colleague doesn't spend any 
time at all talking about the rule which is being considered at this 
time and shutting down democracy which we all aspire to in Iraq and 
other places in the world.
  With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the author of the very 
important measure that will be made in order if we are able to defeat 
the previous question, a clean supplemental, my good friend from 
Redlands, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. 
Lewis.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding me this time.
  Perhaps the most important counsel I have ever received came from my 
dear friend and mentor, Dr. Adeline Gunther. ``Gram,'' as we called 
her, was the founder and guiding light of the University Religious 
Conference located near the UCLA campus. Gram said to me, ``Always 
remember, Jerry, what you are not willing to do in order to win.''
  Think about that. What you are not willing to do in order to win.
  Those running the Democratic leadership of the House need desperately 
to learn that lesson. So enamored with their power after 12 years out 
of the majority, the Democrat majority is now moving rapidly in the 
direction of reinventing the authoritarian system that was a part of 
their control for the previous 40 years.
  The outrageous movement of the Iraq supplemental to the House floor, 
without consideration by the Committee on Appropriations and under a 
closed rule, is the case in point.
  The supplemental began as a $108 billion request for funding 
requirements for the troops for the remainder of 2008. This must-pass 
emergency legislation has now grown to somewhere near $250 billion. A 
whole array of legislative provisions has been added that could have 
been and should have been addressed by way of regular order during the 
appropriations process.
  Unfortunately, the supplemental will bypass the Appropriations 
Committee altogether, and through use of parliamentary trickery, avoid 
the inconvenient input of Democrat and Republican Members who have real 
expertise in the subject areas involved.
  Regular order is designed to ensure that people's voices and 
interests are heard on serious public policy questions as they move 
through the legislative process. To have the Democrat leadership cut 
off the people's right to be heard by such a crass parliamentary set of 
maneuvers results in great harm to the Appropriations Committee and 
seriously undermines the credibility of the world's most admired 
legislative body.
  Only three or four Members, at most, have provided serious input 
throughout this misguided process. All Members, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, should be enraged by this arrogant demonstration of 
dictatorial control. I know from private conversations with many of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle that there is a great deal of 
frustration among Democrats with Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi for 
their excessive and abusive control of this process.
  Madam Speaker, let me assure you that my colleagues and I will 
continue to exercise every tool available to us to protect the 
established traditions of the House and the fundamentals of our 
democratic system. It is clear that Speaker Pelosi is willing to do 
anything, including stifling the voices of nearly every Member of the 
House, to win.
  I urge all of my colleagues to remember the words of my mentor, Dr.

[[Page H3895]]

Adeline Gunther, who said, ``Always remember what you are not willing 
to do in order to win.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the Rules chairwoman for yielding to me.
  Fourteen million dollars in an hour, 24/7, over 5 years, $10 billion 
per month, 4,000 dead Americans, tens of thousands of wounded warriors, 
untold sacrifice of military families, innocent civilians in Iraq 
killed by the hundreds of thousands, and one of the worst humanitarian 
crises in the world. That is the cost of this war.
  And do you know, the President says that he has sacrificed, too. Yes. 
He has sacrificed. He has given up golf.
  And the President has determined to veto the bill when it gets to him 
because it includes really a patriot tax on people who make over $1 
million. They are going to help to pay for things like an expanded GI 
Bill for our veterans that come back, a GI Bill that will cost about 5 
months in Iraq over 10 years, and yet the President has said that he 
wants to----
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield for a question?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes.
  Mr. DREIER. I would just like to remind my colleague that 82 percent 
of the people who fall in the category about what she has just 
mentioned are small business men and women. And I think we need to 
realize this is a small business tax.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I take back my time.
  We are talking about people who are making over $1 million to pay a 
small sacrifice for this war where our military families are paying a 
huge sacrifice.
  The question really is, though, what are we doing there? What is the 
mission of our young men and women? Who is the enemy? Who is our ally? 
What does victory even look like?
  I am not going to vote for another penny for this tragic war except 
to bring our troops home or to resolve the humanitarian crisis our 
government has helped create. I am not voting to give more to the real 
winners of this war, the Halliburtons and the Blackwaters. And I am 
disappointed about my amendment to stop funding Blackwater. This 
company raises the question, is it the policy of the United States to 
let companies like that get away with murder? We should cut that 
contract and bring our troops home.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget, my friend from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in strong opposition to this 
emergency supplemental spending bill that not only would bust the 
budget with billions in nonemergency spending, but it would also raise 
taxes on small business. I can't think of a worse time to implement a 
tax increase, with a weak economy that is struggling to create and grow 
jobs.
  Republicans will not support this bill. The President will veto this 
bill. Yet the Democratic leadership brings it to the floor and 
continues to play politics with funding for our troops.
  The President's request, submitted 15 months ago, was for $108 
billion. The Democrats, once again, can't help themselves. And they 
have added an additional $6.6 billion of this. And to add insult to 
injury to the American taxpayer and our troops in harm's way, this 
amount actually reduces the President's request by $3.5 billion.
  I guess that's what you get when a bill is written unilaterally and 
in secret.
  If the majority brought us a clean supplemental with just funding for 
the troops, it would undoubtedly have been passed with a big bipartisan 
vote and sent to the President before Memorial Day so there is no 
disruption in funding. That should be what we're doing, and not playing 
politics with funding for our troops.
  That is what a majority would do if they were serious about passing a 
bill and not playing politics.
  But that is not what the Democrat majority has done here. Instead, 15 
months after the President asked for the troop funding, the majority 
has brought a bloated bill to the floor that will cost the American 
taxpayer $250 billion over the next decade.
  This is a bill they wrote in secret, without allowing committee 
markups, while only allowing Members 18 hours to review a bill that 
would provide an amount equivalent to 26 percent of the spending in 
last year's regular appropriation bills, and without allowing the full 
House to work its will in an open and Democratic process.
  It violates the budget passed by the majority by adding $6.6 billion 
to the amounts assumed for the war supplemental for the House-passed 
budget resolution. And the Democratic leadership has decided to lard 
this bill up with $66 billion in mandatory spending.
  While they raise taxes to pay for the GI benefits, this bill adds 
billions in funding that has nothing to do with the war and is not 
fully offset.
  So they say they are meeting the PAYGO rules. But they don't meet it 
for all the other spending in this bill. Mandatory spending does not 
belong in war emergency supplementals. The mandatory provisions in 
question deserve serious debate as stand-alone bills.
  Why are they hiding this in a war supplemental? They should be proud 
of these provisions and let them withstand the full light of day 
through the regular committee process. And if increasing spending by 
over $66 billion wasn't enough, they are proposing to raise taxes on 
Americans as well, to tax and spend rather than paying for this 
increase with reductions in other spending.
  The last thing we ought to be doing today is raise taxes. They will 
say this is a tax on millionaires. But this tax is going to hit small 
businesses. These are the job creators in America. This is the worst 
thing we can do as this economy is struggling.
  Yesterday the House waived the PAYGO rule to give farm subsidies to 
millionaires.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yesterday, the House waived the PAYGO rules to 
give farm subsidies to millionaires.
  Today, the House wants to enforce PAYGO to raise taxes on small 
businesses. I fear for this institution. The majority is taking us down 
a slippery slope. And I don't think they are going to be able to put 
this genie back in the bottle. The committees have been ignored. The 
budget has been ignored. The rules have been ignored. What is next?
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Today I rise in strong support of the rule and of the domestic 
priorities the House will consider today as a part of H.R. 2642
  I strongly support provisions to expand and improve the GI benefits 
for veterans education. Our veterans who have served our country in 
combat and who are looking to begin to complete their college education 
deserve GI benefits.
  I also strongly support provisions which provide vital support for 
workers by extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks. 
In the district that I represent in California, east Los Angeles and 
the San Gabriel Valley, unemployment rates are above 8 percent.
  This legislation will help to keep food on the table for our families 
and our workers affected by the declining economy. This legislation 
also appropriately includes a moratorium on seven misguided Medicaid 
regulations. More than 170,000 people in my district alone in 
California rely on Medi-Cal for their health care. And although Healthy 
Families serves more than 19,000 children in my district, another 
18,000 children remain uninsured.
  If the regulations go into effect in Los Angeles County, we will also 
devastate our Los Angeles Unified School District and our public 
hospitals who serve many working class people.
  I am pleased that today we are prioritizing education for our 
veterans, the health of low-income Medicaid

[[Page H3896]]

beneficiaries, and of course our families and working families. I 
strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and provisions 
which address pressing domestic needs.
  I strongly disagree that small business owners and wealthy 
millionaires are going to be heavily impacted by this resolution. That 
is the Republican playbook, trying to tell you that somehow we are 
going to harm those people that are requiring and calling out for our 
assistance. This bill addresses their issues.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me say in the name of saying they are 
taxing the rich, the facts show it. Eighty-two percent of the people 
who fall in that category are small businessmen and women. That's just 
the facts.
  With that, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from 
Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), the ranking member of the Income 
Security and Family Support Subcommittee of Ways and Means.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I 
also rise to oppose the way that the House majority, the Democratic 
majority, is managing this legislation, bringing forward a fiscal year 
irresponsible supplemental bill.
  I would note, as I recall, on January 29, the Speaker of the House 
made a statement on the bipartisan economic stimulus package that was 
about to pass, and Speaker Pelosi said, ``Let's hope for the Senate to 
take their lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally 
responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf 
of meeting the needs of the American people.''
  I agree with the Speaker that we should act in a way that is timely, 
temporary and targeted.
  Unfortunately, that's not what the House is being offered today. In 
addition to a large tax increase, the bill before us today includes an 
untargeted and overly expensive extension of unemployment benefits.
  Consistent with the Speaker's call for targeting help to those who 
need it most, I introduced legislation and offered an amendment in the 
Ways and Means Committee to focus extended unemployment benefits on 
people and States with relatively high or fast-rising unemployment 
rates.
  Combined with regular unemployment benefits available in all States 
under my amendment, a total of 39 weeks of benefits would be available 
to unemployed workers whose jobs are hardest to find. On Main Street 
U.S.A. that helps those who need the help most. Yet this targeted 
approach was rejected by our Democratic colleagues, the majority on the 
committee.
  Why target benefits? Why target benefits to only relatively high 
unemployment States? For the same reason, the Democratic legislation 
proposes longer benefits in high unemployment States because workers 
there have a harder time finding new jobs and thus are in need of 
extended benefits.
  Targeting is especially important today since today's national 
unemployment rate is a low 5.0 percent with a third of all States 
having unemployment rates below 4 percent. That national unemployment 
rate is well below the lowest prior level when such a program was 
created in the past. I have a note in 2002 it was 5.7 percent, and, 
again, today's unemployment rate is 5 percent.
  This targeted approach that I offered is also more fiscally 
responsible. The untargeted Democratic approach costs at least twice as 
much as a targeted approach and, as the Congressional Budget Office has 
reported, the Democrat legislation will require State tax increases to 
pay those additional costs.
  The bill before the House would require State tax increases, State 
tax hikes, totaling $1 billion over just next 5 years.
  If this program is extended, as all such temporary programs have 
been, the tax increases required will only grow. The Speaker was right, 
we need to act in a way that is fiscally responsible and targeted.
  Unfortunately, this legislation before us today achieves neither of 
these goals and adds to budget deficits and requires payroll tax 
increases. We can and should do better than this.


   Congress Has never Extended Unemployment Benefits at Today's Low 
                           Unemployment Rate

  Democratic leaders want to extend unemployment benefits nationwide, 
with the Federal Government picking up all of the $16 billion tab.
  Since the 1950s, Congress has created 7 special or ``temporary'' 
extended benefits programs, which can double the length of total 
unemployment benefits from the 26 weeks to 52 weeks--or longer--per 
laid off worker. The logic of these programs is to provide additional 
weeks of benefits when jobs are relatively hard to find.
  Today's national unemployment rate is a relatively low 5.0 percent. 
Congress has never created a temporary extended benefits program at 
such a low unemployment rate. The next lowest unemployment rate when 
such a program was created in U.S. history was when the last such 
program was created in March 2002. The unemployment rate then was 5.7 
percent--significantly higher than today's 5.0 percent unemployment 
rate.


Today's U.S. Unemployment Rate Is significantly lower Than Average Rate 
              At Start of Prior Extended Benefit Programs

  It is also useful to compare today's relatively low 5.0 percent 
unemployment rate with average rates when prior special Federal 
programs started. When such programs started, average unemployment 
rates were far higher than the Nation's unemployment rate today.
  Today's unemployment rate (5.0 percent) is more than 2 percentage 
points below the average unemployment rate in the month when Congress 
chose to start such special programs (7.3 percent).


Today's Unemployment Rate Is below the Average for All of the 1980s and 
                                 1990s

  The current unemployment rate is so low it is actually below the 
average of entire recent decades.
  If you look at the 1980s and 1990s--two decades that saw record job 
creation in the U.S.-- and average all the months, you find those 
decades actually had higher average unemployment rates than today's 5.0 
percent rate.
  If such a program should exist today--when the Nation's unemployment 
rate is quite low by historical standards--when should it not? Creating 
such a program now is in effect an argument for permanently extending 
unemployment benefits, which would require at least $12 billion more 
per year in Federal spending and payroll taxes, in addition to State 
payroll tax hikes.


Today's 5.0 Percent Unemployment Rate Does Not Reflect an ``Emergency''

  The Democratic leadership is suggesting that a special ``emergency'' 
nationwide extended unemployment benefit program is needed because 
today's job market is so weak.
  Actually, only 20 percent of all months in the past four decades had 
unemployment rates below today's level. So if today's job market 
constitutes an ``emergency,'' then the U.S. economy has almost always 
been in a similar or even worse emergency situation throughout the past 
four decades. That's a hard case for even the biggest economic 
pessimist to make.


 Today's Unemployment Rate Is below the Average throughout the Clinton 
                             Administration

  Democratic Members are always trying to take credit for the strong 
economy of the 1990s, even though it was the Republican Congress and 
its policies of tax relief, spending restraint, and welfare reform that 
actually promoted record economic growth and budget surpluses.
  But let's accept the Democratic rhetoric for a minute that the 
Clinton era economy was just about the best ever.
  What was the average unemployment rate during the 8 years of the 
Clinton Administration? 5.2 percent--which is above today's 5.0 percent 
rate. Did a special extended benefits program operate throughout the 
Clinton Administrations? No. Did a special extended benefits program 
operate during all the months when the unemployment rate was 5.0 
percent or higher? No again.


Current Employment Conditions Are better Than in 1996--Which President 
     Clinton Called the ``Healthiest'' Economy ``In Three Decades''

  It's worth considering another reason why Democratic leaders are so 
determined to argue that today's economy is so bad: Politics.
  Compare today with 1996: 20 million more employees; a lower 
unemployment rate; a lower long-term unemployment rate; and fewer 
average weeks of unemployment. All better today than the 1996 levels.
  But what did President Clinton, then running for a second term, think 
about the U.S. economy in 1996? In his State of the Union Address that 
year he said: ``Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three 
decades.'' (January 23, 1996) So when a Democrat is in the White House 
running for reelection, the economy is healthy and strong. And of 
course no one calls for a special extended benefits program.
  But with a Republican in the White House, and despite better economic 
statistics today,

[[Page H3897]]

Democrats portray the current economy as another Depression. Here's how 
Senator Chuck Schumer put it: ``The bottom line is that this 
administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert 
Hoover.'' (Press Release, March 7, 2008)


   The Democratic ``Emergency'' Extended Benefits Program Is poorly 
                                targeted

  Despite today's relatively low unemployment rate, there are 
reasonable, arguments for extending unemployment benefits in areas 
where jobs are scarce. That's the approach Republicans proposed in the 
Ways and Means Committee, but which Democratic Members rejected. This 
approach would expand a current program that targets Federal funds for 
extended unemployment benefits on States with high unemployment rates. 
Temporarily expanding that program would provide more help to workers 
where jobs are scarce and the added help is needed most.
  Early on, Speaker Pelosi seemed to agree with the need for such a 
``targeted'' approach. In her January 29, 2008 statement on the 
bipartisan economic stimulus check package, the Speaker said: ``Let's 
hope for the Senate to take their lead from us and be disciplined, 
focused, fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and 
targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American people.''
  Unfortunately, the proposed Democratic program does not follow this 
``targeted'' approach. Nearly all of its benefits--more than $12 
billion of the $14 billion in total benefit spending (not counting 
administrative costs) in the coming year--would be paid regardless of 
local unemployment rates. That's poorly targeted, and not fiscally 
responsible.


Under the Untargeted Democratic Program, Federal Benefits Would Be Paid 
            in Many States with very low Unemployment Rates

  One key reason why the Democratic program is poorly targeted is 
because extended unemployment benefits would be paid in all states, 
regardless of the availability of jobs there.
  In March 2008, a full 15 States had unemployment rates under 4 
percent. Another 17 States had unemployment rates between 4.0 and 4.9 
percent. That makes 32 States--two thirds of all States--with current 
unemployment rates under 5 percent. Those are very low unemployment 
rates by any measure. Another 13 States have unemployment rates between 
5.0 and 5.9 percent.
  That leaves just 6 States with unemployment rates of 6 percent or 
higher, which is the Democratic Members' own definition of ``high 
unemployment.'' Under their own criteria, 45 States today are ``low 
unemployment'' and only 6 are ``high unemployment'' (includes D.C.). 
But all States would receive Federal funds to pay extended benefits to 
workers.


  Current Long-Term Unemployment Rate Is below the average Since 1980

  Democratic Members have suggested that record numbers of workers 
today have been out of work for long periods. Actually, the current 
share of all workers who are long-term unemployed--defined as those who 
have been out of work for more than 6 months--is below average.
  The average long-term unemployment rate for all months since January 
1980--covering nearly three full decades, and including two of the 
longest expansions in U.S. history--was 1.0 percent. So in the average 
month in the past generation, 1 percent of the labor force had been out 
of work for more than 6 months.
  How does that compare with today? The long-term unemployment rate in 
April 2008 was 0.9 percent--below the average for the past generation. 
That means fewer current workers are long-term unemployed than in the 
typical month in the past 28 plus years.
  That's hardly the case Democratic Members have been making for what 
an ``emergency'' situation this is. In fact, current conditions are 
better than average when it comes to assessing how many American 
workers are unemployed for long periods.


  Long-Term Unemployment Today Is below Level in 1994 When Democratic 
        Leaders ended the Extended Benefits Program They Created

  Some Democratic Members seem to think whether you support creating a 
special extended benefits program--and under what terms--determines 
whether you support workers or not. One even said it was 
``unconscionable'' to try and target extended benefits to only those in 
high unemployment States, as Republicans have proposed and even the 
AFL-CIO apparently supports.
  Yet when Democrats last held a majority in Congress in 1994 they 
created a special Federal extended benefits program. The Democratic 
Majority in Congress back then allowed that program to expire in April 
1994. But back then a significantly GREATER share of unemployed workers 
were long-term unemployed than today--21 percent then versus less than 
18 percent today.
  Was it ``unconscionable'' to ``turn off' that prior special program 
in April 1994? Weren't they ``leaving workers out in the cold'' or 
``shutting them out'' or whatever metaphor Democratic Members use now 
against those who support a more targeted approach today, when 
conditions are objectively better in terms of long-term unemployment?


The Untargeted Democratic Extended Benefits Program Would drain federal 
                         unemployment accounts

  Some Democratic Members claim there are ``plenty'' of Federal funds 
to pay for these benefits. Are they right?
  To answer that, you have to ask ``what are the chances this special 
program will last only 12 months as advertised?'' A key fact is since 
1970 none of the 5 special programs created by Congress ended as 
originally proposed; every one was extended. So chances are high that 
program created now wouldn't stop after just 12 months, either.
  In fact, the average total duration of such programs is about 30 
months. The untargeted Democratic program would cost about $1 billion 
per month. So if its length is ``average,'' the total cost will reach 
$30 billion. That's almost the balance in the Federal unemployment 
trust funds today.
  But remember this program would start at a record low unemployment 
rate. Also, such programs tend to operate until the unemployment rate 
falls to the level where it started, or less. So let's assume the 
program starts now and runs as long as one following the 2001 recession 
that started and stopped only when the unemployment rate fell below 5.0 
percent. That program would operate for 47 months--from now until April 
2012--cost $47 billion or more and fully drain the Federal unemployment 
trust funds, which currently hold just $35 billion.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Amendment 3 concerns unemployment compensation. It's 
estimated that in the first 6 months of this year, 1.3 million 
Americans will exhaust their benefits. The number of long-term 
unemployed Americans is almost twice as high now as it was in the last 
recession.
  This is targeted at the long-term unemployed wherever they live. The 
Republican approach, Mr. Weller's approach, the President's opposition, 
it's not targeted. It misses tens of thousands of people who are 
unemployed for more than the 26 weeks. I come from Michigan with a high 
unemployment level. I want all the unemployed long-term to be covered 
wherever they live.
  I think it's time that the minority and the President get out of the 
offices they reside in and get into the shoes of typical American 
families.
  I read a letter that came from a person in Roseville whose husband 
had lost his job as a machinist:
  ``With the job market as bleak as it is today, the fear that 
unemployment benefits may run out is something no family should have to 
face. My husband has been actively seeking work since his layoff, but 
there's simply nothing to be had right now. I've never seen him look so 
sad and upset in all our nearly 30 years of marriage. The President and 
Congress must be made to understand that what is happening to the 
workers of this country, and most especially, to the people of Michigan 
is not something they've chosen for themselves.''
  Opposition to extension of unemployment compensation is 
unconscionable. I urge support for amendment 3.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
is remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. In light of the fact there is much more time remaining on 
the other side, may I ask the distinguished Chair if she might proceed 
and yield some of her time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to 
support this very important rule.
  I congratulate the very strategic design of the Appropriations 
Committee. This is tough, and I thank the Rules Committee for listening 
to us as we presented our amendments.
  But I rise today to say that war is ugly. But we applaud and 
appreciate the young men and women on the front lines. We forever honor 
them. Just a few minutes ago I was in a room listening to returning war 
veterans from Iraq, and they gave us these words, horrible stories, 
such as calling the

[[Page H3898]]

Iraqis hajis or sand niggers, telling us about the impact on their 
families, how many families were destroyed, how many have attempted to 
commit suicide.
  I offered an amendment that many focused on the idea that everything 
we have asked the soldiers to do under the 2002 resolution has been 
done, and, therefore, it should expire. The President has no more 
authority to continue this war.
  Then I wanted to debunk the actions of what happened to the Vietnam 
vets and call for a national day of celebration, a national day of 
honor for all the returning war heroes that will come home. This is 
what we should be doing today as we vote against the funding of this 
war in Iraq. It is important to stand for these soldiers.
  But I am glad that we have extended GI benefits for veterans' 
education. Some of them were telling us that they are now being denied 
these benefits because of a general discharge, because of their 
opposition to the war. Yes, it is valuable because we move on to help 
Americans in this bill as well, extending unemployment compensation, 
getting rid of these cuts in Medicaid and making sure that we don't 
damage specialty hospitals that are in our rural and inner city areas 
who are helping us.
  I am grateful to what the Appropriations Committee did on world and 
food hunger. It is a disaster, and they moved it up higher than what 
the President asked for. We had a briefing on world hunger and it was 
appalling what is going on around the world. I am grad that we have 
monies for refugee assistance and the Merida funding.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The Merida initiative is funding for this 
horrible drug war between Mexico and its own citizens that's spilling 
over into the United States. I am appreciative of these dollars, but, 
my friends, we have got to stop the utilization of drugs here in the 
United States.
  It looks like it's McDonald's where they send these various drugs. 
When I say that, I am not talking about McDonald's, but I am suggesting 
that the pinpoints of where these drugs are dropped off in the United 
States, it is tragic. As we send more money and more money to Mexico, 
we have got to begin to devise a new policy for drug opposition here in 
the United States.
  Vote against the funding for the war. The underlying other amendments 
are very good.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1197, Rule 
providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642--
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008. While I offer my support for 
amendments No. 2 and No. 3, I must oppose amendment No. 1. While 
amendments 2 and 3 contain provisions beneficial to the American 
people, designed to improve our economy and protect our young men and 
women, amendment 1 continues a disastrous policy of providing 
unrestricted funding to continue the Bush administration's war in Iraq.
  I oppose amendment No. 1 because I stand with the American taxpayers 
who have paid over $600 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I 
stand with the 4076 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death 
because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. 
Last May, I was proud to vote for H.R. 1591, a supplemental spending 
bill that would have provided funds for our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, which included a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. 
troops. Though this bill passed the House by a clear majority, the 
President opted to veto this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I must oppose amendment No. 1. This amendment provides 
a total of $162.9 billion for the Department of Defense for FY 2008 and 
FY 2009, funds that are handed over without any strings. The amendment 
does not withhold funding for the Iraq war, a war that so many of my 
colleagues in Congress oppose, and which only 32 percent of Americans 
now support. The amendment does not require that war funds can only be 
used for the responsible redeployment of American troop's home from 
Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am 
proud of that vote. I have consistently voted against the 
administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding 
through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular 
appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more 
rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing 
national priorities. I cannot support legislation that provides the 
President with the resources to prolong his ill-advised war effort 
unrestrained.
  I rise today in strong support of amendment No. 2. This amendment 
lays out a responsible U.S. policy toward Iraq, requiring that troops 
begin redeployment from Iraq within 30 days, with a goal of completing 
the withdrawal of combat troops by December 2009. As a Member of both 
the Out of Iraq and the Progressive Caucuses, I am proud to vote for 
legislation that, like other measures passed by this Congress, begins 
the process of withdrawing U.S. men and women from Iraq.
  In addition, Madam Speaker this legislation specifically requires 
that any agreement between the United States and the government of Iraq 
committing future U.S. forces must be specifically authorized by 
Congress. The governments of Iraq and the United States announced their 
intention to forge a ``strategic framework agreement,'' a long-term, 
bilateral pact, to be completed by July 31, 2008. This negotiated 
agreement is to be based on the ``Declaration of Principles for a Long-
Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of 
Iraq and the United States of America,'' signed November 26, 2007, by 
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and President Bush.
  Under the Declaration of Principles, the parties will negotiate a 
security agreement, under which the United States will support the 
Iraqi government and security forces in providing security and 
stability and fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The 
Declaration of Principles envisions an agreement setting forth a wide-
ranging set of commitments, which will cover issues including politics, 
economics, and security. In hearings before the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, administration officials have indicated that the President 
intends to negotiate this agreement as an executive agreement, not 
subject to Congressional approval. It is essential that any agreement 
which commits future U.S. troops to the defense of Iraq is outside the 
purview of existing authorizations, and such an agreement must be 
submitted to the Congress for approval. This legislation also prohibits 
the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, amendment No. 2 requires that the Iraqi government 
step up and pay its share of Iraqi reconstruction efforts. I am 
concerned that the United States has paid and continues to pay a 
disproportionate amount for Iraq reconstruction, especially when the 
Iraqi government reportedly has a $25-30 billion budget surplus this 
year. To date the United States has appropriated more than $45 billion 
for Iraq reconstruction. American funded reconstruction programs have 
included: the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.
  Iraq is a resource-rich nation. Though still facing problems 
including a lack of technology, damage from previous mismanagement, the 
effects of looting, and water intrusion, Iraqi oil production is 
currently at around 2 million barrels per day. The price of oil has 
skyrocketed to over $100 a barrel and Iraqi oil exports are generating 
an estimated $56.4 billion this year alone, according to the GAO, yet 
it is U.S. taxpayers who continue to foot the bill for Iraqi 
reconstruction. The government of Iraq is stashing its money in global 
banks, including a reported $30 billion in the U.S., instead of 
investing this money in the development of crucial Iraqi 
infrastructure. This legislation requires the Iraqi government to take 
responsibility for the future of its own nation.
  There are a number of other key provisions in this amendment. It 
requires the President to reach an agreement with Iraq to subsidize 
fuel costs for U.S. Armed Forces operating in Iraq so that our military 
pays what Iraqis pay. It requires that troop's meet the Pentagon's 
definition of ``combat ready'' before they are deployed to Iraq; 
Prohibits troops from being deployed longer than Pentagon guidelines 
recommend; and requires that troops spend adequate time at home between 
deployments. This legislation makes substantial strides toward cleaning 
up contracting in Iraq, expanding current law to make all contractors 
working in war zones subject to prosecution for offenses that would 
otherwise be in violation of U.S. law; extending the statute of 
limitations for fraud cases during wartime; and amending the Federal 
criminal code to prohibit profiteering and fraud involving contractors 
overseas. In addition, it prohibits interrogation techniques not 
authorized in the Army Field Manual, a provision necessary in 
eliminating torture.


                            Amendment No. 3

  Madam Speaker, the third amendment to H.R. 2642 provides over $21.2 
billion for much needed domestic programs and foreign aid. By extending 
unemployment benefits, expanding veterans' education benefits, and 
placing a moratorium on the Bush administration's seven Medicaid 
regulations; this amendment gets us closer to where the Economic 
Stimulus package should have taken us.

[[Page H3899]]

  This amendment will provide increased funds for food aid, military 
hospitals, and the reconstruction of the Louisiana levees.


                         international food aid

  As many of you know, we are facing an international food crisis. 
According to the International Monetary Fund, IMF, global food prices 
have increased an average of 43 percent. In fact since March 2007, 
wheat has increased by 146 percent, soybean has increased by 71 
percent, corn by 41 percent, and rice prices have increased by 29 
percent, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  Many factors have played into this crisis. In China, India, and other 
emerging markets experiencing rapid economic growth, consumers are 
increasing their demand for food, oil, and energy supplies. Rising 
energy costs have directly raised the cost of agricultural production. 
Adverse weather-related events have lowered crop yields, particularly 
affecting wheat harvests. Depreciation of the U.S. dollar accounts for 
part of the increase in U.S. food prices, while increased production of 
biofuel has raised the price of corn.
  Sadly, approximately 1 billion people--or one sixth of the world's 
population--subsist on less than $1 per day. Of this population, 162 
million survive on less than $0.50 per day. Overall, increased food 
prices particularly affect developing countries, and the poorest people 
within those countries, where populations spend a larger proportional 
share of income on basic food commodities.
  That is why I, along with other Hunger Caucus members hosted a forum 
on the food crisis and what it is doing to our children. We met with 
leaders of the international aid community to come up with pragmatic 
solutions to the global hunger crisis, both in the short-term and the 
long-term.
  In my district I submitted an appropriations request for the Houston 
Food Bank to expand their collection and distribution of food to the 
good people of Houston. We each have to do our part, not only in our 
district by supporting much needed programs and organizations, but 
across this great Nation and the rest of the world.
  This amendment would give $9.9 billion, $496 million above the 
President's request for the State Department, USAID and International 
Food Assistance. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age that 
children are going hungry. We have millions of dollars to bailout Bear 
Stearns, let's find that same money to help our families and our 
children.


              Expanded GI Benefits for Veterans Education

  As champion for veterans, I am especially pleased to see the 
expansion of education benefits to veterans under the GI bill.


                   Extended Unemployment Compensation

  The number of Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over 
the last year, and the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 
since the beginning of 2008. This supplemental would extend 
unemployment benefits for workers who have exhausted their benefits by 
up to 13 weeks in every state as well as an additional 13 weeks in 
states with high unemployment.


       protecting the medicaid safety net act of 2008 (h.r. 5613)

  The Bush administration sought to cut services and payments to 
American families by adding seven different Medicaid regulations to the 
stimulus. This amendment places a much needed moratorium on those 
regulations giving back to our seniors, families, and those with 
disabilities as well as cut payments to safety net providers.


                           refugee assistance

  $675 million, $454 million above the President's request, to address 
the refugee crisis in Iraq and elsewhere.


                                 Merida

  This amendment would give $461.5 million, $88.5 million below the 
President's request for the initiative to provide counter narcotics and 
law enforcement assistance in Mexico, $400 million, and Central 
America, $61.5 million.


                         Military Construction

  The $4.6 billion for military construction, $2.2 billion over the 
President's request, including $939 million for BRAC, over $210 million 
for the military child care centers that the President announced in the 
State of the Union but never funded, and $992 million for military 
hospitals to prevent the types of problems that faced Walter Reed.


                           bureau of prisons

  This $178 million urgently needed to meet rising incarceration costs 
and growing inmate population. The administration would have paid for 
these costs with cuts to state and local law enforcement funding.


           Cleaning up Contracting (H.R. 3928 and H.R. 5712)

  Increases accountability and transparency in Federal contracting by 
requiring companies that receive more than 80 percent of their revenue 
from the Federal Government to disclose the names and salaries of their 
top officers, and requires Federal contractors to report violations of 
Federal criminal law and overpayments on contracts over $5 million.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I understand that my good friend from 
Cleveland was unable to get time from his side of the aisle.
  And so at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Cleveland, the Democratic Presidential candidate, Mr. Kucinich.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I regretfully oppose this rule, not 
because I lack appreciation for the work of my colleagues in trying to 
craft a bill that would get consensus, but because we are right back to 
where we were in January of 2007. We made a commitment that we would 
take control of this Congress and would end the war. Now, with this 
bill, we are saying we will set a goal of 18 months from now. So what 
happens 18 months from now? We have to end this war by stopping the 
funding.
  In this bill we are telling the Iraqis they are going to have to pay 
for the reconstruction. We are telling the Iraqis they are going to 
have to give a discount price for oil, so they are going to subsidize 
the war against their own country.
  We are losing a lot in this war, not only hundreds of billions of 
dollars, not only the lives of our troops, not only the injuries, but 
we are also losing our sense of humanity and compassion. There have 
been over 1 million innocent Iraqis killed as a result of this war.
  Vote against this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I support this rule, in part, because it 
allows Congress to finally rein in an out-of-control policy by the 
administration in Iraq.
  For too long our Congress has stood by while an administration has 
pursued a course in Iraq fraught with peril, with no plan for its 
conclusion, with no plan for resolution, with no meaningful plan for 
international involvement, to end this problem in Iraq. While Congress 
has not reined in this administration, the American people have been 
raising a hue and cry for relief from this negligent lack of plan in 
Iraq.
  I came across, a few weeks ago, some work that some citizens had done 
to provide an exit strategy from Iraq. This is a plan called A 
Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. It was organized by a group of 
citizens, a woman from Carnation, Washington, named Darcy Burner. It is 
endorsed by considerable military thinking, endorsed by Major General 
Paul Eaton, U.S. Army, retired, former Security Transition Commanding 
General in Iraq; Dr. Lawrence Korb, a former Assistant Secretary of 
Defense in the Reagan administration; Brigadier General John Johns, 
specialist in counterinsurgency and nation-building; Captain Larry 
Seaquist, U.S. Navy, retired, former commander of the USS Iowa and 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning.
  Here is a plan that has considerable parallels to the amendment we 
will be allowed to offer to finally having some responsible plan to end 
the war in Iraq. A meaningful timetable, a statement about permanent 
bases, meaningful requirements for not overburdening our military. It's 
time, simply, for Congress to act. This rule allows us to do so. We 
should pass it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire again how much time is 
remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to 
the very distinguished gentlewoman from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny 
Brown-Waite).

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the rule. I am the lead Republican on the post-9/11 Veterans 
Education Assistance Act. Congress needs to increase benefits for those 
fighting in our military to cover the true cost of a college education, 
and that is what that bill does.
  Despite my obvious support for this provision in the supplemental, I 
am

[[Page H3900]]

saddened because I cannot vote for its passage as part of amendment 3 
today. I cannot because the Democrats have chosen to include an 
egregious tax on small businesses in amendment 3. While claiming this 
tax is for American's veterans, in reality the majority of it is paying 
for their penchant to send foreign aid money to governments, many of 
whom do not support the United States of America.
  However, when the fortunes of this Nation's veterans are at stake, 
the majority always seems to play games. There is no need for this tax, 
and certainly it is not welcomed at a time when our economy is 
struggling. But unfortunately, the tax-and-spend folks are here at it 
again, and this is part of the largest tax increase in history.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has any 
more requests for time.
  Mr. DREIER. Yes, we have a couple of speakers and then I am going to 
close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me yield to my very good friend from Wichita, who is 
a member of the Appropriations Committee and who has worked long and 
hard here, for 1 minute.
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Madam Speaker, Washington is broken and it needs to be changed. This 
rule is poorly devised and the underlying bill is poorly conceived. 
This bill did not go through the committee process, it is unprecedented 
and it violates the intent of the rules of the House.
  Why is this important, Madam Speaker? Well, the American people would 
not allow the Democrat leadership to cancel the next election. The 
American people would not allow one person to determine who our next 
President is going to be; but on a smaller scale, that is exactly what 
has happened on this bill.
  The Speaker of the House has determined what is in this bill, not the 
appropriate committee. An election was cancelled. There was no vote. 
The representatives of the people did not have a voice in this process. 
We did not have any committee hearings. This is not the democratic 
process. Washington is broken and it needs to be changed.
  The rule accepts this violation of our own House rules, that's why I 
ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because Washington is 
broken and it needs to be changed. We have to change the process here 
because Washington is broken and it needs to be changed.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I hope the House will forgive my laryngitis 
today.
  Madam Speaker, I have just heard complaints from the minority side of 
the aisle about the process by which this proposal is being brought to 
us. This criticism about process comes from the same crowd that brought 
a $40 billion proposal to the floor 2 days after 9/11 without ever 
running that proposal through either the appropriations subcommittee or 
the Appropriations Committee. That criticism comes from the same 
crowd----
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. No. I didn't interrupt you. You always ask someone to yield 
in order to interrupt their train of thought. I would appreciate if you 
would stop doing that with me.
  Mr. DREIER. That is not my goal, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin controls the 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, ahead of time, I will not yield to anyone 
until I have completed my statement.
  This criticism on process comes from the same crowd that stood by and 
allowed 30 pages of unread material to be surreptitiously and 
anonymously slipped into a conference report on the defense bill after 
the conference report had completed action, language which insulated 
the drug industry from liability in cases where their products injured 
the health of customers.
  This comes from the same crowd that several years ago blocked the 
ability of this House to vote on a single matter that had anything at 
all to do with the most significant domestic appropriation bill, the 
Labor-Health-Education bill. They simply wrapped it into other items 
and refused to allow the House to work its will on any piece of that 
proposal which had more than 500 programs which were insulated from 
House review.
  This comes from the same crowd that brought three supplemental 
appropriation bills to the floor without running those bills through 
the Appropriations Committee or subcommittee.
  Now they say that they want one vote on the package all put together. 
Well, let me tell you, what we are trying to do is to avoid Members 
having to look at everything in one package. What we are trying to do 
is to give them a straight up-or-down vote, a clean shot on the issue 
of whether you want to provide funding for the war or not. It is a 
procedurally neutral approach. If you want funding for the war, you 
vote ``yes'' and if you don't want it, you vote ``no.'' That way you 
can't hide on that issue. It stands out there alone, and people see 
where you stand.
  We are also having a separate vote on whether or not we should impose 
conditions on the administration in exchange for the use of that money, 
straight up-or-down vote, clean shot at it, can't hide behind any other 
issue.
  And thirdly, we are taking the administration's other requests and 
two priorities of our own and putting them together in a third 
amendment, again separate, not tied into a big package, out there so 
that Members can choose up or down whether they want to do that or not. 
I make no apology for that.
  Now we are being lectured about the fact that this is a bloated bill. 
Out of all of the appropriated items in this bill, all but $2 billion 
are requested by the administration. Congress has the temerity to be 
asking to spend 1 percent of the appropriated amount in this bill. The 
rest the President takes ownership of.
  Secondly, we are being told, Oh, it's terrible because we've taken a 
military bill and ``larded'' it up was the term that the gentleman from 
Janesville used, that we larded it up with unemployment compensation 
and with the expanded GI Bill. Well, I suppose additional unemployment 
compensation benefits may look like lard to a Member who makes $165,000 
a year; but to people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits 
and have been out of work for 6 months, it doesn't look like lard to 
them; it looks like basic bread, and I think we should be ashamed of 
the fact that we haven't provided this sooner.
  It also may look like lard to the gentleman from Janesville for us to 
say that we want to provide expanded education benefits to the GIs who 
fought this war. But I would remind every Member of this House, this is 
the first war in my knowledge where we have never had any sense of 
shared sacrifice. The only people in this society who are being asked 
to sacrifice are the veterans and the military families. They have been 
sent to Iraq and Afghanistan again and again and again, and we have the 
quaint idea that we ought to be able to take 6 percent of the cost of 
that war to date, 6 percent, and devote it to expanding education 
benefits for people who have sacrificed by wearing the uniform of the 
United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. We pay for that by providing what the majority leader 
refers to as a patriots' premium, a one-half of 1 percent increase in 
taxes for the most fortunate people in this society who make more than 
a million bucks a year.
  If you think that is even a close question, whether we ought to put 
the GIs before those fortunate folks, then it is no wonder you lost the 
seat in Mississippi 2 days ago.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me begin by apologizing to my friend from Wausau. The notion of 
engaging in debate on the House floor is something I feel strongly 
about, and I am always happy to yield to people when they make requests 
for me to yield. I was simply asking my friend to

[[Page H3901]]

yield because of the fact that the $40 billion post-9/11 supplemental 
about which my friend complained and referred to as ``this crowd'' came 
to this floor under unanimous consent, a bipartisan agreement.
  And the three supplemental appropriations, Madam Speaker, about which 
my friend referred, never, never, denied a motion to recommit to the 
minority. And I ensured as chairman of the Rules Committee at that time 
the right of the minority would, in fact, be maintained.
  Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from 
Auburn, Washington, the former sheriff, David Reichert.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. 
Yesterday the Culberson-Reichert-Shays Iraqi reconstruction amendment 
was offered and subsequently ruled out of order before the Rules 
Committee.
  The intent of this amendment was to allow for the recent gains in 
Iraq to continue and at the same time reduce the burden on American 
taxpayers. Since April 2003, United States taxpayers have spent more 
than $46 billion in reconstruction in Iraq.
  This amendment would have allowed us to begin to reduce American 
taxpayer dollars going to Iraq for reconstruction. This amendment would 
have directed that U.S. taxpayer dollars going to Iraq, to come to Iraq 
in the form of a loan. It would have enabled the Iraqis to still have a 
steady flow of reconstruction funding should they be unable to draw 
down their own funds.
  Now is the time, especially with skyrocketing oil prices, for the 
Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for their own 
reconstruction. In order for the Iraqi Government to stand up their 
economy, they must take the responsibility, they must bear the costs 
for reconstruction of their own country, not the American taxpayer. I 
oppose this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I inquire, is the distinguished Chair of the Rules 
Committee the final speaker for the majority?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Let me say at the outset, and again the last thing I want to do is 
offend my friend from Wausau by asking him to yield at any point, but I 
would be happy to yield to him if he wants to respond to what I am 
about to say. And that is, the fact of the matter is we have in this 
Congress the single highest number of closed rules in the 219-year 
history of the Republic. Never before has this, has the United States 
Congress had such a period of closed rules. I will tell you, it is 
absolutely outrageous. Why, because we were promised something that was 
much, much different than that.
  On a supplemental appropriations bill, my good friend, the chairman 
of the committee said, ``The majority leadership decide to obliterate 
the legislative process. They discarded a bipartisan committee product, 
and they threw in unrelated, partisan political items that 
characterized a full partisan agenda. They have taken abusive power to 
a new level.''
  Madam Speaker, let me say that when we did that, we provided the 
minority a right to have a bite at the apple, a motion to recommit. 
They had an opportunity to offer a proposal. I will tell you it is just 
plain wrong to see what has been taking place here.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question so I 
can amend the rule to simply give Republicans one simple bite at the 
apple, something we always guaranteed the now-majority.
  Mr. Lewis, the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, 
introduced a bill on Tuesday, H.R. 6062, a clean supplemental, to 
provide troop funding without strings and extraneous spending. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order 
an alternative motion to concur by Mr. Lewis which would simply state 
that the House concurs in the Senate amendment with an amendment 
consisting of the text of H.R. 6062. This way the House has the 
opportunity to send the Senate a clean supplemental to get our troops 
the money that they desperately need without the hocus-pocus, three-in-
one vote political gamesmanship that we have before us at this moment.

                              {time}  1130

  It's simply the right thing for us to do to send that clean 
supplemental.
  Madam Speaker, at this point I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
have the text of the extraneous material and the amendment included in 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it's just one simple bite at the apple, 
something we always guaranteed the Democrats when we were in charge. 
It's one amendment. We're just trying to help the Democratic majority 
become the majority that they promised that they would be. It's not too 
late. Let them do it, Madam Speaker.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, let me say to my colleagues, voting for 
this rule gives the President not only what he has asked for the 
funding of the troops, but allows the people in the House who oppose 
that to have an opportunity to vote ``no.''
  We also note, in response to Mr. Reichert, that it does have an 
orderly withdrawal of troops beginning in December 2009, ending in 18 
months.
  This is a well-crafted piece of legislation of which I am extremely 
proud. I urge everyone to vote for the bill and rule and the underlying 
bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 1197 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

       Strike section 2, re-designate section 3 as section 2, and 
     add at the end the following:
       Sec. 3. Prior to consideration of the motion specified in 
     section 1, and without intervention of any point of order, it 
     shall be in order for Representative Lewis of California or 
     his designee to offer the motion specified in section 4. Such 
     motion shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 4. The motion referred to in section 4 is a motion to 
     concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 with an amendment 
     striking the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
     amendment and inserting in lieu thereof the text of H.R. 6026 
     as introduced on May 13. 2008.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

[[Page H3902]]

       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I am pleased 
to 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. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 1197, if 
ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 5614, H.R. 406, 
and H.R. 5872.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 195, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 323]

                               YEAS--224

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

                               NAYS--195

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bono Mack
     Carnahan
     Crenshaw
     DeGette
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Hulshof
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (KY)
     Mack
     Myrick
     Rush
     Wynn

                              {time}  1157

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed her vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 200, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               YEAS--221

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

[[Page H3903]]


     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--200

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono Mack
     Crenshaw
     DeGette
     Gerlach
     Gillibrand
     Hulshof
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (KY)
     Mack
     Myrick
     Rush
     Wynn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1205

  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.

                          ____________________