[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 154 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10050-H10058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1503 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1503

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of September 26, 2008, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of a measure making supplemental 
     appropriations for job creation and preservation, 
     infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other 
     purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for purposes of 
debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague; I 
understand that the customary 30 minutes was yielded to my friend from 
Pasco, Washington. And I would just like to state for the record that I 
will be managing the rule on this side, and so I would hope very much 
that my friend from Tampa might consider yielding to me.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will correct that. I will yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague and good friend from California, 
the ranking member on the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CASTOR. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1503.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1503 waives clause 6(a) of 
rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the 
same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This waiver would 
apply to any rule reported on the legislative day of September 26, 2008 
that provides for consideration or disposition of a measure making 
supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, 
infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a humble first-term Representative who 
represents hundreds of thousands of hardworking families and seniors 
who are caught in the center of an economic storm. For them, the 
economic squeeze did not arise last week or last month, but it has been 
ongoing for well over a year.
  I also rise as the daughter of parents who worked hard all of their 
lives and saved for retirement and, like millions of Americans, they 
are watching their savings dwindle and decline. And I rise as a parent, 
who, along with my husband, is saving for our children's college 
education.
  For students and families across America, the cost of attending 
college has risen. And as we look out to future years, like other 
parents, our college savings accounts for our kids feel a little less 
tangible now, and I fear that college for students may be a little less 
attainable unless we act in a bipartisan way this week.
  Many middle class American families are unable to even save now for 
retirement or their children's college fund because they've lost a job, 
or if they do have a job, the raise did not come, or the raise came, 
and it was not enough to meet the rising cost of living in America 
today.
  So at this time, as our country's leaders join together to develop a 
rescue plan--which has been dramatically altered from the beginning of 
the week when it was proposed in a two-and-a-half page proposal to 
spend $700 billion--we must join together, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan 
way to provide a lifeline to families as well.
  Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for everyday Americans. While 
stabilizing financial markets on the day of the largest bank failure in 
history is vitally important, correspondingly, stabilizing families and 
taxpayers is just as important. American families need a little 
breathing room, and they need a job if they're out of work. So it is 
our moral imperative, at this moment in history, to examine this modest 
stimulus proposal, create jobs back home through an infusion of cash 
for infrastructure projects, for unemployment benefits, and for health 
care dollars for Americans who have no other place to turn.
  This stimulus package will jump-start America's economy. And here's 
our action plan:
  First; jobs, jobs, jobs through infrastructure investments. We're 
talking about highways, transit capital grants, Amtrak, airport 
improvements. Do you know how many thousands of construction jobs have 
been let go and we have lost across America? This will put Americans 
back to work.
  We're also going to provide resources to our local communities to 
help them with clean water projects, sewer projects, the Corps of 
Engineers, Mississippi River and tributaries, and also vital--and I 
speak as a parent of two young daughters--school construction dollars.
  We also provide, as part of our action plan, energy development 
dollars for energy efficiency and renewable energy, electricity 
delivery, and reliability programs. That is the major portion of our 
economic stimulus proposal for American families.
  We will also provide unemployment compensation and job training 
dollars, which seems oh so modest because it totals merely $6 billion. 
It's modest in the face of a proposal this week to spend $700 billion, 
unfettered, at the beginning of the week.
  We will also respond to the least among us, Medicaid dollars. Now, 
that's a term that gets thrown around a lot, but I want the American 
people to understand that when we talk Medicaid--and you will hear the 
discussion here today will be FMAP, Federal Medical Assistance 
Percentage in Medicaid. What Medicaid is is largely health care dollars 
for children from poor families. Now, many middle class families are 
now slipping into that lower socioeconomic level today. Their parents 
don't have health insurance. If they're working, they're working maybe 
at a small business or part-time, and there is no other place to turn 
during this dire economic downturn.
  The least we can do, when we're discussing a bailout for Wall Street 
and for banks and financial markets, is to also consider, at the same 
time, a very modest proposal of $60 billion for America's families, for 
jobs, for health care for kids, seniors who have no other place to 
turn, and unemployment compensation.
  First, on jobs. You know, today's wages are stagnant; they're at the 
most stagnant point that they have been since World War II. Medium 
household income was .6 percent lower in 2007 than it was at the end of 
the 1990s. And even more troubling are the rising inequities of incomes 
among families in different communities. Data released from the Joint 
Economic Committee reports that over the past decade, median incomes 
for the richest households have risen while middle and low-income 
families have seen their income fall.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 9.4 million 
Americans--a 6.1 percent increase--in August, the highest it has been 
since 2003. This continues the unfortunate job loss for the

[[Page H10051]]

eighth consecutive month, with over 600,000 American jobs lost this 
year.
  Unemployment benefits under our action plan will be extended for 
merely another 7 weeks, a very modest proposal. It extended in every 
State an additional 13 weeks, and an additional 13 weeks in States with 
unemployment rates higher than 6 percent, like my home State of 
Florida.
  Florida families have been especially hard hit by the economic 
downturn. In the past year, Florida has lost over 100,000 jobs, and the 
unemployment rate continues to rise. The housing crisis has dragged 
down job opportunities in construction and other related fields, and we 
keep seeing continued joblessness and layoffs. At the same time, in 
Florida we have seen a 21 percent increase in families receiving food 
stamps over the past year, which is one of the highest increases in the 
Nation.
  But fortunately, under this stimulus plan, we're going to immediately 
take action to fund new jobs through infrastructure projects. See, 
investing in infrastructure can rapidly move people from unemployment 
rolls to payrolls. Just this week, we heard our Republican Governor, 
Charlie Christ, sent his DOT secretary to the Hill to meet with the 
bipartisan Florida delegation. She advised that there are projects 
ready to go, have been permitted, are ready to go. So this action plan 
will take those projects off the shelf and put people to work building 
roads, building bridges, sewer projects all across America.
  For hundreds of thousands of Floridians who are unemployed, and other 
Americans, they're still looking for work, and this package will help 
them find a job. It's that simple.

                              {time}  1345

  On health care, on the Medicaid portion which remember largely goes 
to health care services for children so they can get to the doctors' 
office, seniors in nursing homes and pregnant women, this stimulus 
package will improve and bolster that health care safety net at this 
critical time in our Nation's history. Unlike the hope of trickle-down, 
this action plan and economic stimulus project is a rapid and effective 
way to support those hardworking families.
  During the last economic downturn, the Congress approved $10 billion 
to temporarily enhance the health care safety net of Medicaid. This 
similar increase today will again provide vital, basic health services 
to families that need it most as quickly as possible. And at the same 
time, an increase in health care funding will help families who are not 
served by Medicaid but are taking up the slack in this economy, that 
are paying higher premiums and co-pays because the charity care in the 
emergency room, someone has to pay for that. And that usually is tacked 
on to the cost of the typical family's employer-provided health care 
cost. Higher co-pays and higher premiums are a direct result of many 
families in this country not having anyplace else to turn for health 
care.
  In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Center for Studying 
Health System Change released a report yesterday that says that 
employees are paying more medical expenses out of their own pockets. 
They're having a harder time coming up with money to pay their bills. 
The study displayed the mounting additional strain that medical care is 
placing on working Americans. It is estimated that 57 million Americans 
live in families struggling with medical bills, and 43 million of those 
have health insurance coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no secret across America that with stagnant wages 
and a higher cost of living, be it health care, be it higher gas 
prices, be it home heating oil, be it, in Florida, property insurance, 
that we have got to take action for them. And it cannot simply be a 
trickle-down rescue package. It also needs to be a very modest, but at 
the same time meaningful, support for families.
  When we are able to provide additional moneys to States for health 
care and for infrastructure and jobs, what this does is it takes the 
pressure off all other programs that are funded by our State and local 
governments, including education. In my State of Florida, they have had 
to cut billions and billions of dollars out of our State budget. 
Unbelievably, for the first time in many decades, this year the State 
of Florida ratcheted back the amount of money provided per student in 
our public school system. The State university chancellor of the State 
of Florida announced yesterday that there is a freeze on new students 
being allowed into the Florida college system because they simply do 
not have the resources during this economic downturn to provide a seat 
for new freshmen in our colleges and universities.
  Mr. Speaker, economists agree that any stimulus package must put 
money in the hands of those who will spend it right away in order to 
stimulate the economy. This package will do just that by focusing 
funding where it is needed most, creating jobs, jobs, jobs through 
infrastructure, enhancing the health care safety net for our children 
and our seniors and providing a lifeline to American families who are 
struggling during this economic downturn.
  At this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished Rules Committee 
colleague, my friend from Tampa, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, even though we went through that little bump with my colleague 
from Pasco temporarily handling it. And I have to say that this is 
obviously a very solemn, serious and difficult time for our Nation as 
we are in the midst of facing a financial crisis the likes of which no 
Member of this House has seen, probably even our oldest Members have 
not witnessed. Maybe we have a couple of people. Maybe Ralph Hall lived 
during the Depression. But it is something that most of us clearly have 
never witnessed before.
  People are likening this to the economic challenges that we faced 
following the Second World War. And we are attempting, as we all know, 
in a bipartisan way to deal with this issue. Our distinguished 
Republican whip, Mr. Blunt, is involved in these bipartisan 
negotiations so that we will be able to have a package emerge from this 
institution in a bipartisan way that will be able to stabilize the 
markets, respect the American taxpayer and ensure the kind of stability 
when people are seeking to keep their homes, run their small businesses 
and engage in the normal activities that exist in the United States of 
America.
  And it's with that as a backdrop, Mr. Speaker, that I have to 
paraphrase the statement of the former running mate of Ross Perot, the 
late Admiral James Stockdale, who, in the famous oft-quoted Vice 
Presidential debate in 1992, said: ``Who am I and why am I here?'' I 
would ask that somewhat rhetorically, Mr. Speaker, because we are here 
dealing with a very important issue. Of course job creation is priority 
number one. Making sure that we can stimulate our economy is a very, 
very important issue. But this is not the way to do it. And 1 hour ago, 
the United States Senate made that decision by defeating the motion to 
proceed in the Senate. So this is dead.
  The President of the United States put out a statement of 
administration policy in which he said that this measure would be 
vetoed if it were to get to the President. And it's not going to. And 
so that is why I ask, Who are we and why are we here? Because there is 
absolutely nothing but political posturing taking place.
  Mr. Speaker, it is being done in the most outrageous of ways in that 
we regularly show here something that was touted 2 years ago, but we 
never hear the majority Members talk about any longer, and that is a 
document called ``A New Direction for America.'' This document was 
designed to talk about the very important degree of openness and 
transparency that would exist if in fact the Democrats were to take 
control of the United States Congress. And unfortunately with where we 
are, we have completely eviscerated that entire concept of ``A New 
Direction for America.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we are all accustomed to hectic, get-out-of-town 
weeks. The heaviest lifting typically falls to weeks prior to district 
work periods, when we're all anxious to return home to hear from our 
constituents. But even under the circumstances, this week's proceedings 
are absolutely unprecedented. The emergency negotiations, as I 
mentioned, on a financial rescue package are very difficult. And they 
are very challenging. And we want to see it done in an appropriate way. 
But they have been made all the

[[Page H10052]]

more frantic because they're set against a backdrop of a year's worth 
of unfinished business right here in the House of Representatives.
  The Democratic majority has unfortunately shirked virtually every one 
of its core duties and obligations as legislators. Our most basic and 
fundamental job is the responsible and efficient spending of the 
taxpayers' dollars. That is the single most important thing that we do 
here, is responsibly, with the power of the purse, spending these 
dollars. This is done through the passage of 12 appropriations bills as 
we all know.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, how many of these 12 bills has the House passed as 
we began this very difficult week? One. Only one of the 12 
appropriations bills was passed. And how many have become law? Zero. 
Not a one. So we arrived at this last week of session for the fiscal 
year without enacting a single appropriations bill.
  The Democratic leadership had long since abandoned any plan for 
attempting to make progress on our constitutional power of the purse. 
Their solution? Write a bill to put off their duties for another 6 
months. They can't be bothered to do their jobs now or after the 
election. They want to wait until the fiscal year is half over before 
finally getting to work.
  So we started this week after what amounts to a 9-month vacation from 
responsible legislating. The Democratic majority decided to take three 
of the 12 appropriations bills, one of which never even went through 
committee, and slap them together. They tacked on $55 billion in extra 
funding for various causes, extended their fiscal deadline for 6 months 
and sent it up to the Rules Committee barely an hour before we reported 
it out.
  The entire body of their appropriations work for the entire year was 
put together in one bill, the bulk of which was delayed by half a year. 
They were kind enough to give us an hour before meeting on the rule at 
nearly 11 o'clock at night. It was on the floor the next morning. And 
voila. They put the entire Federal budget to bed as far as they were 
concerned.
  But that was Tuesday. What did we do yesterday? The Democratic 
majority's flawed tax extenders bill, and a $100 million mistake. In 
their rush to pump out bad legislation, the Rules Committee ended up 
passing out a rule and bringing it to the floor for a bill that no 
longer existed. Democrats and Republicans were actually voting on two 
different bills. The discrepancy, as I said, was over $100 million in 
tax increases.
  Now to many in this institution on the other side of the aisle who 
have this sort of tax-and-spend mentality, $100 million in taxes may 
seem to be very insignificant. But not to the American people. Not to 
the American taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, and certainly not at times like 
these. Fortunately this mistake was caught, and we returned to the 
Rules Committee to fix it. What other mistakes have gone unnoticed? We 
may never know until it's too late. But this is the very real risk when 
you jam through a flawed agenda in a frantic and haphazard way.
  And this bill is a perfect example of that.
  Having punted on appropriations and jamming through the tax extenders 
bill after two tries, now the Democratic majority is free to turn to 
everything else they meant to do this year. How do you do a year's 
worth of work in 1 week? For starters, you don't, Mr. Speaker. You just 
don't.
  There are a host of very critical issues that simply won't be 
addressed this week, such as our Nation's energy crisis. But you can 
certainly move things along by shutting down due process entirely. We 
did their hodgepodge appropriations bill without a single amendment or 
even a motion to recommit. We did their tax extenders bill without a 
single amendment either.
  Now we are considering a rule to waive the rules to allow the 
underlying bill to be expedited. Then we will consider a rule to bring 
up the underlying bill. Again, this is a bill that the President has 
said he would veto and a bill that is similar to it is not even going 
to get through the United States Senate. So once again, under a 
completely closed process, there is no opportunity whatsoever for 
Members to participate in any kind of real debate.
  What is the result of this haphazard way of legislating? First and 
foremost, there is clearly no deliberation. Now say what you want about 
this place, but the American people do send us here to think about, to 
discuss, to ponder and to try and work out a compromise in a bipartisan 
way as we proceed with what it is that we are trying to do. So no 
deliberation at all. I mean, there is no means for amendment. There is 
no means for open debate. Second, as we have just seen again from that 
tax extenders bill, mistakes are inevitable.
  This clearly goes beyond poor policy. And shirking our duties for 
another 6 months is clearly very, very poor policy. As yesterday's 
proceedings demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, we are also talking about the 
sloppy mistakes that are an inevitable result of shoddy work.
  The Democrats roundly criticized us for moving our agenda too quickly 
in the past few Congresses. They were particularly critical of not 
giving Members or the American people enough time to review legislation 
so this deliberative process could proceed.
  Now on this document which I pointed to when I first stood up here 
entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' this document, by the way, I 
would say to our colleagues, is still available on the Speaker's Web 
site. So if anyone would like to read a copy of ``A New Direction for 
America,'' I commend it to them.
  In this document, they promised this new direction, as I said. And it 
reads as follows: ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine 
bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration.

                              {time}  1400

  ``Rules governing floor debate,'' it reads, ``must be reported before 
10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea how ``2 hours'' equals ``at least 24 
hours,'' which is what was promised in this New Direction for America 
by Speaker Pelosi. It is that kind of math, long on promises, short on 
results, that got us into our current financial crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, as we consider today's underlying bill, amusingly called 
a stimulus bill by the Democratic majority, the American people should 
know it was written through the night and sent to us at 9:43 this 
morning. Not even Republican appropriators had seen it, so not even 
members of the Appropriations Committee have seen it.
  I just had a chance to look through it, and we have some unbelievable 
things we have found in this. Members should know the Democratic 
majority is rushing to cover up 9 months of nothing with a flurry of 
activity in these waning hours of the 110th Congress. They are 
resorting to draconian measures and shutting out all meaningful debate 
in this charade. They are pushing off the real work for another 6 
months. And they are producing such shoddy work that a $100 million tax 
increase is ``a mistake,'' and that kind of thing is appearing here.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one sorry week for the House of Representatives. 
I don't believe that the American people will be fooled.
  Now, of course, as my colleague talked about the importance of 
infrastructure construction, building schools, making sure that we 
provide relief to those who are truly in need and have suffered from 
the economic downturn that we all know is there, to do it in the way 
that is being done is, I think, a very, very sad commentary on this 
great deliberative institution.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. It is a martial law rule 
which is very, very unfair. We do need to, at the very least, give our 
Members an opportunity to have a chance to read this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important at this 
critical time in our Nation's economic history, in the history of what 
is going on in people's lives today, that we really try to rise above 
partisanship. That is what is going on right now. The White House and 
leaders here in the Congress are meeting on a very important economic 
package. This is a separate piece of that. We do intend to address it. 
We will stay here for as long as it takes.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CASTOR. I would be happy to yield for a moment.

[[Page H10053]]

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate that, because I appreciate her 
comment about rising above partisanship. I guess what troubles us on 
this side of the aisle is we are being denied any opportunity to even 
offer a bipartisan amendment to this bill, for example on the county 
roads and schools issue.
  I wonder, I would like to ask the gentlewoman, would she be willing 
to allow us on the Republican side to offer a single amendment, any 
amendment to this bill that was just provided to us at 9:43 this 
morning? That would sure go a long way toward bridging the gap that 
seems to be down the center aisle.
  Would the gentlewoman be willing to work with us on allowing us any 
opportunity to amend this bill?
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentleman, and reclaiming my time, Mr. 
Speaker, we did consider the amendment in the Rules Committee on a 
couple of occasions. It was not accepted.
  What is important right now is our leaders meet to focus on the 
economic condition of this country and that we do not get bogged down 
in the process. The American people cannot wait for these costly, time-
consuming debates. They are out of work, they need to get their kids to 
the doctor's office, and we will stay and work here for as long as it 
takes to provide that additional relief to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida, and I 
certainly associate myself with her remarks with regard to this very 
important stimulus bill.
  I want to rise in strong support of the rule allowing for H.R. 7110 
to be considered, but I would particularly like to focus on the FMAP, 
or the Medicaid provisions of the bill, which would provide important 
financial assistance to cash-strapped States in order to maintain their 
Medicaid programs.
  Medicaid provides over 61 million Americans with access to medical 
care and specialized support and services. It protects our most 
vulnerable populations, our poor and disabled.
  Unfortunately, as State economies face growing fiscal pressures, the 
Medicaid programs in many States are threatened and millions of 
American citizens are in danger of losing access to the health care 
coverage that they desperately need. These cuts affect not only those 
already on Medicaid, but also those who will come to need it as the 
economy continues to plummet. As people lose their jobs, they also lose 
access to employer-sponsored health care coverage, forcing more people 
to turn to Medicaid for their health care needs.
  A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 
increasing the national unemployment rate by 1 percentage point 
increases Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment by 1 million. At a time when 
States are already struggling to balance their budgets, this type of 
change in unemployment rates would increase State spending by 
approximately $1.4 billion.
  H.R. 7110 will provide a temporary FMAP increase to help avert cuts 
to State Medicaid programs. In effect, we are increasing the Federal 
share. This is a proven strategy for stimulating the economy. A similar 
provision was passed in 2003 by the Republican Congress and signed into 
law by President Bush as part of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act. So I essentially consider this a bipartisan effort. 
Studies have shown that the temporary increase then provided the 
funding needed to successfully avert or limit cuts to State Medicaid 
programs and helped stimulate the economies of the States back in 2003.
  Mr. Speaker, the FMAP provision included in H.R. 7110 is an important 
measure that will help provide much-needed fiscal relief to our States 
and help protect access to health care services for some of our most 
vulnerable citizens. And it is an economic stimulus. It basically means 
that more money would be available to the States to cover more people, 
and that means more jobs. It means the actual delivery of health care 
services serves as a major stimulator of the economy.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support the rule, as 
well as the underlying bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to as I do this engage in a colloquy with my good friend 
from Hood River, Oregon, who has long been a great champion of 
something known as the Secure Rural Schools Program, something that has 
enjoyed very strong bipartisan support. In fact, five Democratic 
members the Rules Committee are cosponsors of legislation designed to 
address that.
  I will say that obviously we know that as we deal with this economic 
downturn, everyone has acknowledged it, there are many things that do 
need to be addressed. And we know that FMAP is one of them, dealing 
with Medicaid reimbursement to our States, infrastructure construction, 
as I said, working to do what we can to stimulate economic growth.
  We happen to believe very strongly that it is also essential for us 
to do all that we can to stimulate private sector economic growth. Now, 
I know that that term may be difficult for some in this institution to 
comprehend, but we do have a $14 trillion, that is with a T, a $14 
trillion economy in the United States of America. We are the world's 
only complete superpower. And we are going through extraordinarily 
challenging economic times. But we need to remember that our goal with 
the package that we put together in dealing with this financial crisis 
will be one that is designed to create stability, security and 
confidence in our credit markets and in the overall financial system. 
No doubt about that.
  My State of California, the West and other parts of the country are 
dealing with the fact that the Washington Mutual Bank was just taken 
over, and I have to say having spoken with top leaders at J.P. Morgan, 
I am very grateful that all of those deposits are in fact secure with 
J.P. Morgan's acquisition having taken place there. But we know in 
other areas there is a lot of uncertainty.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we want to do what we can to put 
into place policies that will encourage private sector economic growth. 
Unfortunately, this so-called stimulus package that has been presented 
to us is one that is focused on public sector economic growth.
  Again, many parts of it we support. It is very key for us to have an 
infrastructure system in this country if we are going to encourage the 
private sector movement of goods in the country and for people to be 
able to move around. We know that these are very important items. But 
there are many, many other things that we need to do to deal with 
private economic growth.
  Now, I talked about the procedural problem that we have and the fact 
that this New Direction for America has been eviscerated by the actions 
that we are taking here, and that has been the case for the entire 
Congress, tragically. But we just now had, as my friend from Hood River 
said very well, received this at 9:43 this morning, so a number of us 
are having a chance to look at this.
  My friend just pointed to me on page 12, the fact that we have 
something in this bill known as the 21st Century Green High Performing 
Public School Facilities for the Department of Education, which would 
allow for the construction of so-called green schools, putting roughly 
$3 billion, $3 billion in this, to build schools in the Mariana 
Islands, Micronesia and other spots. And I know that the package that 
my friend from Hood River, Oregon, has been championing, working with 
our Rules Committee colleague Mr. Hastings on for secure rural schools, 
has a cost of about $3.1 billion over a 4-year period.
  So we are just finding these things out in this measure. To me, it is 
beyond the pale that they would come forward without allowing a single 
opportunity to work in a bipartisan way.
  I congratulate my friend from Tampa for talking about the need for us 
to work in a bipartisan way. She is absolutely right. I totally concur 
with that. Unfortunately, this legislation is doing anything but that.
  I would like to now yield to my friend from Hood River, Oregon, a 
great champion of the Secure Rural Schools Program.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank my friend from California for his 
leadership in the Rules Committee and his steadfast support for rural 
community schools. Even though you don't necessarily represent a rural 
district, you have certainly shown your interest in my State and in 
helping out.
  I guess one of the issues that arises today, it is sort of hard to 
figure this

[[Page H10054]]

floor anymore and the Democrat majority, because the Democrat major 
lectured us in the Rules Committee last night and down here on the 
floor all day, saying we are not going to put rural schools 
reauthorization funding in the $60 billion tax extenders bill because 
it is not paid for, and we are not going to do this and we are not 
going to do that. So they raised $60 billion in taxes to cut $60 
billion in taxes. So that was the reason then, not paid for.
  Now we have dropped upon us a bill that most of us are just getting 
to see for the first time that is at least 46 pages long that spends 
$60 billion. $60 billion. I guess we will borrow more money from China 
to do it. And I don't see a single offset in here.
  I would ask if the gentlewoman for Tampa would yield to a question. 
Is there a single offset in here to offset any of this $60 billion?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to 
yield to my friend from Tampa if she would like to explain exactly how 
this is going to be paid for.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, similar to the administration's $700 billion 
emergency economic rescue package, this emergency stimulus package, to 
provide jobs to the American people, to enhance the health care safety 
net, this is an emergency situation.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I began my 
remarks by talking about the fact that we are dealing with a very 
serious economic downturn and a financial crisis in this country, and 
very serious attempts are being made to work in a bipartisan way. We 
have Republican representation. I know Speaker Pelosi and those at the 
White House are working on this.
  Now, to liken this $60 billion package that was just dropped on us, 
which is designed to dramatically increase public spending, with the 
effort that Democrats and Republicans alike are pursuing to try and 
deal with the economic challenges that we face as a country when it 
comes to the confidence level of markets and people who are losing 
their homes, is just preposterous.
  I would be happy to further yield to my friend from Hood River.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank the gentleman, because clearly we 
weren't going to get the answer, and I will give it to you. There are 
no offsets here. There are no offsets here, it's $60 billion in 
spending, which apparently is okay for the Democrat majority to do 
after 2:15 in the afternoon in Washington, D.C., but earlier we were 
told we couldn't fund a 100 year-old commitment to rural counties and 
school districts because there wasn't an offset. That was this morning 
when they dealt with the tax extender.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, it was not only this morning, 
but it was last night. It has been day in, day out in the Rules 
Committee. We have repeatedly offered an amendment that five Democratic 
Members of the Rules Committee have cosponsored as legislation that the 
gentleman has. Yet they have refused vote after vote upstairs in the 
Rules Committee to allow us to deal with this very important issue of 
secure rural schools.
  I am happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I will tell you what I hear when I go home: Why 
does the Federal Government make promises it can't keep? Why does it 
start new programs when it doesn't take care of the programs it has in 
place?
  This is a real-time perfect example. This program, identified on page 
12 of this bill, would allocate $3 billion for this green school 
program. Now, I am actually one of the cochairs of the Renewable Energy 
Caucus. I believe firmly in renewable energy, I am a fan of it.
  There is probably more renewable energy in my district than anywhere 
in the State of Oregon, and the State of Oregon is about to be leader 
in the country in wind energy. All of that is good. Conservation is 
good. I believe in it fully.
  But what happens here is you are starting a new program for $3 
billion, and you are throwing over the cliff the people in rural 
America, the 4,400 counties, 600 school districts in 42 States who had 
a commitment with this Federal Government, dating back 100 years, where 
there are forested lands, that revenues would be shared, and that the 
Federal Government would be a good partner, a good neighbor.
  That's why Theodore Roosevelt, when he created the great forest 
reserves, said the only way they will continue to survive and thrive is 
if the local communities are brought into the process. For my 
colleagues who may be from the east coast, understand this is a map of 
the United States. It shows Federal landownership.
  Look at how much is owned by the Federal Government in the western 
States versus the eastern States. If you had 55 percent of your State 
owned by the Federal Government, and it was in forests that you, the 
Congress, are refusing to allow proper management of, this is what you 
end up with. This is after the Egli fire in 2007. These children are 
out where the fire burned. In the southern part of my district today, 
there's 500,000 acres that are ready to do this, because they are dead, 
in our Federal forests.
  The legislation that I had hoped to get a bipartisan opportunity to 
offer a bipartisan amendment in a House that should be bipartisan would 
restore the county Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act, a part of which allows for collaborative 
organizations, including environmental groups, to work with local 
communities to develop plans to get in and manage the forests so we 
don't burn them all up. If you care about greenhouse gas emissions, as 
I know many on that side of the aisle does, stop allowing your forests 
to burn up.
  I would have, if given the opportunity, substituted the $3 billion 
that you are going to send out to every State in the country, and 
especially to areas that I recall Jake Abramoff used to lobby for, the 
Mariana Islands and everywhere else, I would have substituted that $3 
billion and put it in place to keep a pledge and promise and commitment 
to the rural communities in this country and their schools and their 
sheriffs' departments and their search and rescue departments, and 
their teachers.
  Because, you see, we have got to quit in this Congress starting new 
programs and not taking care of the old ones. We have got to stop 
breaking promises and commitments to the people of this country. It 
could have started here. When I hear, oh, gee, I wish this were all 
bipartisan, and I wish that, you know, process didn't matter, I've just 
got to call it the way I see it.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to thank my 
friend for his very thoughtful contribution.
  Here we are dealing with these very, very serious and important 
challenges that exist all over the country. The gentleman has come 
forward with Democratic and Republican support for his effort, and it's 
being denied, once again, under a process that really undermines the 
deliberative nature of the institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, please, how much time is left 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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. I thank the gentlelady very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for the American people and my 
colleagues here to understand just what we are discussing. I am 
delighted that the gentlelady from Florida indicated, she used the 
word, the appropriate word, it is the economic emergency stimulus 
package. What we are doing right here is to insist that we are able to 
move that package forward as quickly as possible.
  To my good friend from Oregon, I think it's important to note that we 
do care about rural schools. In fact, we had a bill by Peter DeFazio to 
fund those rural schools. Of course, it was not responded to warmly by 
our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  But what we do have, as was indicated, $3 billion to green our 
schools. Whether they be rural or whether they be urban, that creates 
jobs much that

[[Page H10055]]

is the public-private partnership that this economic stimulus package 
addresses.
  Now I stand here wearing several hats. One, my whole area now in the 
gulf region has been impacted by Hurricane Ike. Hurricane Gustav came 
through and a number of other hurricanes.
  We need this emergency economic stimulus package. Let me tell you 
why, very briefly, and I think it's important for us to realize, 
whatever the government does, it has impact in the private sector. If 
we put $3.6 billion to purchase buses and equipment to the American 
people, it is the private sector that will provide that for us. This is 
an emergency economic engine.
  As a chairperson of the Transportation Security and Infrastructure 
Protection Subcommittee, I can tell you that airport improvement grants 
are crucial in determining major safety and security. That is the 
private sector that will be put to work. Now, some 84,000 Americans 
have lost their jobs.
  It is important to have an extension of unemployment benefits to help 
these people restart their lives to pay their rent or mortgage. It is 
equally important to fund Amtrak and public housing, then, of course, 
to break down this thing called highway infrastructure, crumbling, that 
is, by its very nature, a partnership with the private sector.
  Thousands upon jobs of contractors, of engineers, architects and 
designers will be working to put the Nation's crumbling infrastructure 
back to work, and fixing crumbling schools. I have 180 schools out 
because the power is down. That's an infrastructure issue that needs to 
be fixed and rebuilt.
  What we are doing here is responding to the emergency needs of 
America. This is an economic stimulus package that is thoughtful, that 
is sound, and it addresses the concerns of the American people.
  My people, or these people in the gulf region, are strong, they are 
resilient, they are rebuilding. But I must say to you this economic is 
something that we need. It is crucial that we begin to put America back 
together again.
  I am supporting this legislation because it balances the needs of 
America, but, yet, yields to the concept of public and private 
partnership. It helps a broken system with Medicaid assistance because 
it recognizes that people who are unemployed cannot provide for 
themselves.
  Pass this same-day rule and pass the stimulus package.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Pass this stimulus package, because on 
behalf of the gulf region and all of those, the gulf region, the 
Midwest who suffered horrific devastation by Mother Nature's 
devastation, this economic stimulus passage is needed today, not yet 
today, not tomorrow, but needed today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here in strong support of this economic stimulus 
package, which will have an immediate effect on our economy by creating 
investments in infrastructure projects that can start fast, meet 
existing needs and create jobs. These projects provide short-term 
benefits by putting people to work, buying goods, and leave behind 
long-term infrastructure assets that will benefit Americans for years 
to come.
  Outside of the crumbling schools that will be repaired, the water 
projects, the transit, the advanced battery technologies, et cetera, I 
want to just mention the one that I am thinking right now about the 
most, highway infrastructure, $12.8 billion for our Nation's crumbling, 
aging, highways and bridges, to improve our safety and reduce traffic 
congestion. In my district, there are 13 bridges on the deficient list 
that was released after the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota.
  If we can spend $12 billion a month in Iraq, certainly we can come up 
with this $12.8 billion to repair the bridges that our school buses, 
our trucks carrying commerce, and our family vehicles are going across 
every day. This will be a job-creation program whose jobs cannot be 
outsourced. We would be rebuilding the value of our own country, nation 
building here at home, and creating jobs for our people that cannot be 
sent abroad.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend from 
Tampa how many speakers she has remaining.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, we are done with speakers on our side.
  I would like to submit for the Record a copy of a letter from the 
Republican Governor from the State of Florida, Charlie Crist, who 
writes: ``I am writing to you in the last days of the 110th Congress to 
reiterate my support for congressional action regarding the Federal 
Medical Assistance Percentage,'' the Medicaid portion of this bill.

                                       Office of the Governor,

                              Tallahassee, FL, September 25, 2008.
     Hon. Alcee Hastings,
     House of Representatives, 2353 Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart,
     House of Representatives, 2244 Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmen Hastings and Diaz-Balart: I am writing to 
     you in the last days of the 110th Congress to reiterate my 
     support for Congressional action regarding the Federal 
     Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP).
       As you will recall, the impact of seven hurricanes in 2004 
     and 2005 and subsequent reconstruction has disproportionately 
     affected Florida's FMAP allotment, resulting in $213.5 
     million in additional state expenditures in federal fiscal 
     year 2009. Furthermore, continued decline is expected in 
     2010. For every percentage point reduction in federal support 
     for Florida, our state loses approximately $150 million and 
     makes it increasingly more difficult to serve residents who 
     need care. This reduction in the federal share of Medicaid 
     funding has placed additional pressure on the state during 
     these economic times.
       Our goal is to continue to provide quality services to 
     those currently receiving benefits, and those who just now 
     find themselves in need of assistance. Florida continues to 
     seek a temporary increase in its FMAP and hopes to work with 
     you on a longer term solution to address natural disaster 
     implications to the FMAP allotment. As Congress considers 
     providing relief for states, I ask for your support in 
     ensuring FMAP relief in a manner that will best enable 
     Florida to serve the most residents in need.
       I appreciate your willingness to work on this issue as well 
     as other matters impacting our great state.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Charlie Crist.

  Mr. Speaker, I will reserve until my colleague from the Rules 
Committee has made his closing statement.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my friend is going 
to provide her closing statement, I would inquire, how much time do I 
have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are, as I pointed 
out at the beginning of the debate on this issue, faced with a very 
serious economic downturn. A crisis of confidence exists in our 
financial markets. An attempt is being made in a bipartisan way to deal 
with that at this very moment. We all hope that there can be a 
resolution that ensures that taxpayers are not going to be unfairly 
saddled with a responsibility, and that the government is not going to 
expand its reach any further.
  As we look at those bipartisan negotiations going on right now 
between the two bodies, including the White House, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, it seems to me that we need to recognize that what 
we are engaging in here is little more than posturing. Yes, we all 
acknowledge that there are things in this measure that are very 
important that we need to address, but this is not the way to do it--in 
an overnight package that was presented at 9:43 this morning, 46 pages 
long, rammed through the Rules Committee with a partisan vote, and 
already terminated in the United States Senate, and with the President 
of the United States stating that if he were to get this measure, he 
would, in fact, veto it. So I wonder why it is that we are here.
  The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has twice 
this week, before the Rules Committee, said that the most famous line 
from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous speech was, ``We have nothing 
to fear but fear itself,'' but, he said, the line that got the greatest 
ovation was, ``We must take action.''

[[Page H10056]]

  It is very clear that we do need to take action. But action should 
not be taken in a way that completely undermines the deliberative 
process.
  There were mistakes that were made in the past Congresses, and I will 
acknowledge that. Some of those mistakes that were made led to the 
establishment of this document called ``A New Direction for America.''
  This ``A New Direction for America'' has just been obliterated. It is 
absolutely worthless, because it has been thrown out the window, a 
commitment made that has been ignored.
  I want to say that I hope that we can defeat this rule. We are going 
to try to defeat the previous question. Recognizing that this Nation 
needs to use more of its natural resources while looking to the future 
with renewable sources of energy, Republicans are advocating an all-of-
above approach. We believe that this legislation will lower the price 
of gasoline, which is what fuels America's cars today.

                              {time}  1430

  If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule 
to allow a resolution which will prevent Congress from skipping town 
until we pass comprehensive legislation that will bring down the high 
cost of energy for American consumers. My colleagues will have the 
opportunity to support giving States the opportunity to explore and 
extract energy resources right off their own coasts, opening America's 
Arctic energy slope, extending renewal energy incentives, supporting 
research for alternative clean fuels, and minimizing unnecessary 
litigation that delays or prevents American energy production.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials inserted into the Record prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, the economic crisis for many American 
families did not begin this week. The economic squeeze has been ongoing 
for a long time. For example, just this summer in my district in the 
Tampa Bay area that I have the privilege to represent, we held 
foreclosure workshops for families facing foreclosure, maybe they had 
just gotten their first notice. I was shocked, hundreds of families 
showed up at the workshop where we sat them down with a lender, one on 
one, to try to begin that workout period. It was great. They could get 
a little grace period, they could get a little breathing room. I heard 
numerous stories about a lost job in a family, something that was 
completely unanticipated.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time when our Nation's leaders are meeting in a 
bipartisan way with the White House, the leaders here in the Congress, 
the folks at Treasury, listening to experts from all around the country 
and listening to everyday, average Americans weigh in on this emergency 
situation, I think it is very important that all of our colleagues hear 
the American people.
  If you vote for this rule and the underlying bill, I think everyone 
here can prove that they are listening and hear the American people and 
understand their struggles today, understand that they have lost jobs. 
And that's what this package will provide--jobs, jobs, jobs. We are 
going to expedite infrastructure projects across the country, bridge 
building, road building, put a lot of these folks that have been put 
out of work in the construction sector back to work.
  Health care, health care services for our children and for our 
seniors that do not have any place else to turn. Hear the American 
people, hear their voices. It is not just health care for those 
children and the seniors that have nowhere else to turn, but it takes 
the burden off all the rest who are paying higher copays and higher 
premiums. They won't have to pick up that tab that is being put upon 
them unfairly because everyone is going to the emergency room for 
primary care. Hear the American people.
  I think that most of the Nation's leaders are taking this very 
seriously. They are meeting right now to address the emergency. But 
part of the emergency response must be carving a modest sliver directly 
for people at home.
  At the beginning of the week, the administration came with a 2\1/2\ 
page proposal for $700 billion. People got to work. Everyone understood 
that was unreasonable. You can't give a blank check. So they went back 
to the drawing board and ratcheted it back, and they keep working on 
it. But think about it, $700 billion that a lot of experts thought was 
okay for Wall Street, largely; and what we are asking for here is $60 
billion for families, for jobs, for health care for kids and our 
seniors, to give breathing room for unemployment compensation for a few 
more weeks to, hopefully, get them through this emergency.
  I really do appreciate the White House's response to this because 
yesterday after their meeting, they did not rule out this stimulus 
package. They don't like what the Senate is doing. It is a little 
different there, but this is serious business. Do you hear the American 
people?
  It is our moral imperative at this time of emergency to hear the 
American people. Now, most of us weren't around during the Great 
Depression, but I know there are many people who are students of 
history and love to read about FDR and how he handled that crisis. 
Hopefully we are not there yet. Hopefully these times are not as dire 
as the times that I heard about from my parents and grandparents.
  But let's act now to ensure that we do not face such hard times.
  Mr. Speaker, do you hear the American people? Do you hear what they 
are saying about their retirement accounts? Do you hear what they are 
saying about their saving for college for their kids?
  I hope all of our colleagues hear the American people, support this 
rule, support this job creation and infrastructure investment package. 
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 1503 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 2. It shall not be in order in the House to consider a 
     concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of either 
     House of Congress until comprehensive energy legislation has 
     been enacted into law that includes provisions designed to--
       (A) allow states to expand the exploration and extraction 
     of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf;
       (B) open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale 
     reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and 
     extraction;
       (C) extend expiring renewable energy incentives;
       (D) encourage the streamlined approval of new refining 
     capacity and nuclear power facilities;
       (E) encourage advanced research and development of clean 
     coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies; 
     and
       (F) minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably 
     delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     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 amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the

[[Page H10057]]

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

  Ms. CASTOR. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. 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 the resolution, if ordered, 
and motions to suspend the rules with regard to H.R. 4120 and House 
Concurrent Resolution 214, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 198, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 654]

                               YEAS--222

     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
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     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.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     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
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     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)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     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)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cantor
     Costa
     Cubin
     Gingrey
     Mitchell
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Richardson
     Tierney
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Weller
     Wexler

                              {time}  1501

  Messrs. KUCINICH and THOMPSON of California changed their votes from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 650, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye'' and on rollcall 654, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). 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. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 203, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 655]

                               YEAS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono

[[Page H10058]]


     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     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
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--203

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     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)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     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)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     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
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Petri
     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
     Shuler
     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)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cannon
     Costa
     Cubin
     Gingrey
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Richardson
     Scott (VA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Waters
     Weller
     Wexler

                              {time}  1511

  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.

                          ____________________