[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H3535-H3543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1388, GENERATIONS INVIGORATING 
                     VOLUNTEERISM AND EDUCATION ACT

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 250 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 250

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1388) to reauthorize and reform the national 
     service laws. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
     rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for 
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 250.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 250 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education, or 
the GIVE Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of 
general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor.
  The rule makes in order 11 amendments which are listed in the Rules 
Committee report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment is 
debatable for 10 minutes except the manager's amendment, which is 
debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a vital piece of bipartisan 
legislation that directly affects all of our communities and the lives 
of millions of Americans.
  Legislation that strengthens our communities helps educate our future 
generations, teaches our youth to prepare for and respond to 
unthinkable tragedies and fosters the growth of respect and compassion 
throughout our entire society.
  The GIVE Act will help launch a new era of American service and 
volunteerism. The bill answers President Obama's call for Americans of 
all generations to help get the country through the economic crisis by 
serving and volunteering in their communities.
  The GIVE Act reauthorizes, for the first time in 15 years, our 
country's investment in community service and volunteerism. As a 
cochair of the National Service Caucus, it is a pleasure to call 
attention to the tremendous work of those involved at every level and 
in every program of the corporation.
  Service programs not only help each of our communities but also 
provide training that could lead to future careers. Many individuals 
who are involved in service at a young age continue in public service 
careers and in service programs throughout their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, service and volunteerism are the bedrock of emergency 
preparedness and national security. In times of strife, the American 
people have always shown a spirit of service and ingenuity. Investing 
in service and volunteer programs prepares us to handle any crisis.
  We must focus on building our national capacity, and harnessing the 
enterprising spirit of the American people is a good way to do so. In 
the wake of a catastrophe, a first responder is likely to be a 
civilian. A neighbor is likely to be the first one to provide 
assistance. By building up our service and volunteer programs, we are 
taking proactive steps to bolster our national security and capability 
to weather a disaster now and in the years to come.
  We saw firsthand the importance of having trained volunteers in the 
wake of the 2005 hurricanes, Katrina and Rita. These forever changed 
thousands of lives and communities in the gulf coast. We also witnessed 
an outpouring of support and compassion from individuals who were 
touched by this immense tragedy.
  Following the devastation in the gulf coast, more than 92,000 
national service volunteers contributed over 3.5 million hours of work 
to the recovery effort. They repaired neighborhoods. They rebuilt 
lives.
  Since September of 2005, over 4,070 National Civilian Community 
Corps--or NCCC--members have served more than 2.1 million hours in the 
gulf coast on over 830 relief and recovery projects. Through programs 
such as AmeriCorps State and national, Volunteers in Service to 
America--or VISTA--and NCCC,

[[Page H3536]]

servicemembers address critical needs in our communities.
  AmeriCorps and NCCC members are disaster trained and available for 
immediate deployment in the event of a natural disaster anywhere within 
the United States, just as they were to the gulf coast.
  In fact, NCCC teams have responded to every national disaster, 
including the recent fires in my home State of California. Disaster 
relief and emergency response now accounts for over 60 percent of the 
NCCC portfolio. Over $42 million worth of hurricane recovery resources 
have come from AmeriCorps and NCCC alone, which is millions more than 
we have spent on the entire program nationwide. This is a clear return 
on our investment.
  These exceptional young men and women are especially trained in 
disaster preparedness and organizing local volunteers into an effective 
recovery operation. These programs continually put more back into the 
community than we put into them. The GIVE Act shows Congress' support 
for their heroic and continued efforts and ensures these programs 
continue for years to come.
  The GIVE Act of 2009 will strengthen the emergency preparedness and 
response training of our country's NCCC participants. The changes will 
also help the program continue to grow.
  The legislation expands the scope of NCCC to specifically include 
disaster relief, infrastructure improvement, environmental and energy 
conservation and urban and rural development.
  The GIVE Act also establishes four new service corps, including a 
Clean Energy Corps to encourage energy efficiency and conservation 
measures; an Education Corps to help increase student engagement, 
achievement and graduation; a Healthy Futures Corps to improve health 
care access; and a Veterans Service Corps to enhance services for 
veterans.
  This bill includes a Call to Service Campaign to encourage all 
Americans to engage in service and to observe September 11 as a 
National Day of Service and Remembrance.
  The bill seeks to tap the growing pool of baby boomers reaching 
retirement that wish to continue serving their country and provides 
real alternatives to traditional employment at a time when jobs are 
scarce. The GIVE Act also seeks to engage our future generations in 
lifetimes of service. Engaging young men and women is vitally 
important. The Education Awards, which will be increased in this bill, 
encourage our youth to apply the skills that they learn at volunteerism 
to a successful education and the lessons they learn in school to 
improving their communities.
  The GIVE Act specifically seeks to make a difference, not only by the 
services that are provided but by who we are engaged in serving. It 
seeks to exponentially increase the numbers of disadvantaged and at-
risk youth participating in service. Each one of these valuable young 
men and women will take the respect and compassion that they learn at 
service programs back to their schools and to their families and be a 
seed of inspiration amongst those who need it most.
  We cannot pass up the opportunity to better our future generations. 
Service programs provide an opportunity to give our youth the most 
valuable lesson of all, positive personal experience.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of the great work of AmeriCorps members, 
extraordinary things are happening all around America. The corporation 
supports such important nonprofit organizations as Habitat for 
Humanity, City Year and the American Red Cross.
  National service participants have built homes, healed wounds, worked 
in national parks and taught elementary school kids. These volunteers 
are part of the backbone of our country. With very little funding, 
service participants leverage millions of dollars and perform crucial 
work in classrooms and in areas of our Nation hit by disaster.
  The service programs and new initiatives in H.R. 1388 help address 
some of our Nation's toughest problems, from poverty and unmet 
education needs to natural disasters. Just this week, The New York 
Times and the Wall Street Journal pointed to the rise in the number of 
volunteers nationwide. Many who have been laid off or are in between 
jobs have joined volunteer programs to stay connected to their 
community and learn new skills. Some have even benefited by gaining 
employment through their work as volunteers.
  The GIVE Act will expand these opportunities as well as health care 
access, provide seniors with help living independently, enhance 
services for veterans, and help build a clean, green, energy-efficient 
economy.
  As a result, I hope that my colleagues will support the rule and the 
underlying legislation. The spirit of service has been renewed at a 
time of economic challenges, and it is time for our government to 
foster a continued dedication to our country's prosperity through 
national service.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  It can sometimes seem that we are surrounded by news of selfishness 
and greed. I think, very appropriately, and I will discuss this later, 
the American people are outraged by an example of really cynicism 
intertwined with greed in this AIG example. More about that later.
  However, those individuals, those few individuals, those cynics who 
utilized taxpayer dollars to give out bonuses for AIG, those really few 
individuals, Mr. Speaker, when you think about it in comparison to the 
myriad of individuals who really commit themselves to the service of 
others through volunteerism, those who serve are a beacon of compassion 
and hope for us all. Community service is one of the most gratifying, 
rewarding, fulfilling ways people can spend their time and their 
efforts.
  Community service has always been a vital pillar of American society. 
It's one of the things that distinguishes the United States and exalts 
the American people.
  Volunteers all over the United States dedicate millions of hours to 
their contemporaries in the hope of making people's lives better. 
Through their selfless work, volunteers help improve the lives of 
millions of Americans. In 1993, the Congress, with my support, passed 
legislation creating AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and 
Community Service to administer and coordinate Federal service 
community programs.
  Since then, almost 500,000 Americans have served with thousands of 
not-for-profit organizations, public agencies and faith-based 
organizations nationwide.

                              {time}  1100

  These citizens tackle many unmet needs in our communities. They 
provide for our youth through tutoring, mentoring, and after-school 
programs. They provide for the disadvantaged by building homes for the 
needy and reaching out to misguided youth. They conduct neighborhood 
patrols; they care for our environment; respond to disasters, engage 
citizens in public, health, safety, and emergency preparedness 
services. And they support those who have served and continue to serve 
our Nation in the Armed Forces by meeting the needs of our Nation's 
veterans, active duty servicemembers, and their families. They do, 
oftentimes, exemplary work.
  The underlying legislation, known as the Generations Invigorating 
Volunteerism and Education Act, referred to as the GIVE Act because of 
its initials, will reauthorize the national service programs 
administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service. 
This reauthorization sets the goal to recruit 250,000 volunteers for 
AmeriCorps by 2014. It will also create service opportunities for 
middle school and high school students through the Summer of Service 
program.
  The legislation emphasizes the critical role of service in meeting 
the national priorities of emergency and disaster preparedness, and it 
will help improve program integrity.
  I am pleased that the committee, the Committee on Education and 
Labor, worked in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize this program and to 
include provisions that will make the programs more effective and 
efficient, responding to State and local needs with performance 
orientation.
  It goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that when there is a willingness to 
work together and to negotiate, we can bring

[[Page H3537]]

forth good pieces of legislation with bipartisan support.
  I know the majority is trumpeting this rule with which we bring this 
underlying legislation to the floor because it will allow Members to 
debate all of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee 
by Republicans. And that's appropriate. Nevertheless, I remind my 
colleagues the majority does this when the underlying legislation is 
uncontroversial.
  Even though the majority promised to be the most open Congress in 
history, if the majority is so proud of this rule, then they should 
allow a more open process when controversial bills come before the 
floor as well.
  I urge Americans everywhere, regardless of whether they take part in 
AmeriCorps, to volunteer and give back to their communities. The 
rewards are extraordinary to both the volunteer and to the community. 
As Winston Churchill said, ``We make a living by what we do, but we 
make a life by what we give.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman from California for the time and 
for her leadership on this bill. I also want to thank my good friend 
from across the aisle, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for his thoughtful words about 
this bill and about the amazing character of the American people to 
serve and reach out to others in their communities through 
volunteerism.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, will unite Americans during these challenging 
economic times through service and volunteerism in our communities. And 
I am pleased that this Congress is moving swiftly to reauthorize and 
expand national service programs managed by the Corporation for 
National and Community Service.
  I am particularly supportive of two initiatives that are included in 
this bill that I sponsored in the last Congress.
  The first proposal requires the Corporation to conduct a study to 
identify specific areas of need for displaced workers, and to identify 
how existing programs and activities carried out under our national 
service laws can better serve displaced workers and the communities 
affected by plant closings and job losses.
  Communities in Ohio and across our Nation are being devastated by the 
economic downturn, and it's essential that we support new opportunities 
for Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
  Our workers who have toiled for so long in manufacturing plants have 
unique skill sets and leadership capabilities that can be of great 
value when utilized through service projects.
  In Ohio, we face an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent. I eagerly look 
forward to seeing how new service programs like this will help us help 
our displaced workforce.
  The second proposal requires the Corporation to consider whether an 
area has a mortgage foreclosure rate greater than the national average 
when considering grant applications from States and other eligible 
entities.
  Ohio has been particularly devastated by the mortgage crisis and 
ranks 10th in the Nation in home foreclosures. According to recent 
statistics, my congressional district is projected to have over 5,000 
foreclosures in the coming year.
  In a time when so many of our communities are struggling, we need to 
pursue every avenue available to make sure that the cities and towns 
with the greatest needs have access to the assistance that we can 
provide.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will go a long way to energize and 
create new opportunities for Americans to build confidence and assist 
in our country's recovery.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at 
this time to yield 5 minutes to a distinguished colleague from the 
Rules Committee, who has brought to our committee great wisdom and 
tenacity, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida for his gracious 
comments. It's a joy to serve on the Rules Committee. It's a joy, 
actually, to serve with all the folks on the Rules Committee. I am 
learning a great deal. We have some very talented people on that 
committee.
  I do have to say, though, that I disagree with many of my colleagues 
about this rule and about this bill. I appreciated the comments that 
have been made. I particularly appreciate my colleague giving the 
definition from Winston Churchill because I use that definition often 
when I write volunteers to congratulate them on what they do.
  To quote it again, ``We make a living by what we do, but we make a 
life by what we give.'' The word ``give'' is the important word here.
  I looked up the definition of volunteer, and it says ``a person who 
voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.'' 
The second definition is ``a person who performs a service willingly 
and without pay.''
  What this bill does is expands dramatically the government's role in 
an area that I don't think the government should be dealing with. Our 
colleague from Ohio just said this is an opportunity for people who 
have lost their jobs. Well, I think it's important that we encourage 
volunteers, but this is a paid job.
  This is a government-authorized charity. And it concerns me a great 
deal because I see our taking over what is being done voluntarily by 
people--this, and in the budget. The President wants to tax people who 
give money to volunteer organizations and to charities. He says that's 
okay because the government's going to pay it.
  We're pretty soon going to have a government that controls everything 
in our society. That's not what America is all about.
  When de Tocqueville came here in the 1800s--and he is quoted over and 
over--he said he never saw a society with so many associations. Those 
are voluntary associations. We have Ruritan clubs, Civitan clubs, 
Rotary clubs. They do their work without pay. That is what America's 
all about.
  What we are doing is creating a 1984 because we're setting up paid 
volunteers. That's not what America's about.
  Someone sent me an e-mail last night and said we need to give this 
GIVE Act a new name: People Audaciously and Insidiously Demanding 
Vituperously Outlandish, Laughable, Unsustainable, Needless, Totally 
Egregious and Extortionary Recompense Act, or the PAID VOLUNTEER Act. 
That is what this is all about.
  That is not what America is all about. We need to be encouraging 
people to be volunteers and not be paid for it.
  The other concern that I have is that there is no accountability in 
this bill. The Learn and Serve program that is already in existence was 
rated the lowest rating possible--not performing; results not 
demonstrated by OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool.
  Yesterday, in the committee, the gentleman from the Education 
Committee made a big deal about the fact that these programs are going 
to be evaluated by PART. But they've already been evaluated, and 
they've been evaluated as basically no good and as wasting money.
  The AmeriCorps National Community Corps Program was rated as a low 
rating, of not performing, and ineffective by OMB's PART program. OMB 
defines a rating of ineffective as programs not using your tax dollars 
effectively. Ineffective programs have been unable to achieve results 
due to a lack of clarity regarding the program's purpose or goals, poor 
management, or some other significant weakness.
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to 
establish evaluation programs. I know. I was in education for a long, 
long time. It is difficult to do that. These programs are not 
establishing credible evaluation programs. We demand that of our 
education programs, we demand it of teachers. No Child Left Behind has 
the most egregious kinds of evaluation programs that we hear about all 
the time.
  Here, we are spending $27,000 dollars per person; $27,000. In North 
Carolina, I think we are spending about an average of $7,000 dollars 
per child in public education. That may not be the most up-to-date 
figure, but it's something like that. And here we are going to pay 
$27,000 dollars per person for these volunteers? What about that?
  I know that probably hospitals in my community and other groups that 
use

[[Page H3538]]

volunteers extensively don't spend hundreds of dollars for volunteers, 
let alone $27,000.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield an additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman for yielding additional time. As I 
said, one of my concerns is here we are in a time when we need to be 
looking at every single dollar we spend. I take that approach every 
day. I don't care if the Federal Government is flush with money, we 
should be very careful with every penny we spend.
  The American public are watching us like never before. And here we 
are, about to put these programs out. One of the concerns I had, too, 
is how the people are going to be counted. Again, where is the 
evaluation?
  In the rule that was adopted yesterday, it said that this bill adds 
language to promote community-based efforts to reduce crime and recruit 
public safety officers in the service opportunities.
  Well, I wonder if every community-watch program in the country, which 
can have hundreds of people in them who do very little, but they 
perform an important service for their community. They may be assigned 
an hour a week to do something. Are they going to be part of these 
250,000 volunteers? That's not at all clear. But I have a suspicion 
they're going to be counted if they can get to that magic number. And 
they will say, Look, we have 250,000 people.
  But the effectiveness is not being gauged, and I think this is a 
tremendous waste of money where we could be doing this for a lot less.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I'd like 
to make a couple of comments. First of all, we aren't paying 
volunteers, we're supporting an infrastructure that removes barriers to 
service. We're making volunteers more accessible and more effective by 
creating an infrastructure in which everyday citizens can volunteer and 
be effective, without having resources, prior experience, or formal 
training.
  Also, one of the GIVE Act's major themes is to increase transparency 
and accountability in national service programs, particularly in 
showing program outcomes. Section 179 of the Act establishes 
performance measures for each national service program and a framework 
for ensuring that Federal dollars go to high-performing programs.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to my fellow Rules Committee colleague, 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. Today, I rise in support of the Generations Invigorating 
Volunteerism and Education, the GIVE Act, and the rule. I thank 
Chairman Miller for his leadership in introducing this bipartisan 
comprehensive legislation, which answers President Obama's call to 
launch a new era of national service and volunteerism.
  I'd also like to thank Congresswoman McCarthy for her efforts as 
chairwoman of the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee to 
expand opportunities for all.

                              {time}  1115

  The GIVE Act's new programs, expanded capacity, meaningful 
incentives, and innovative approaches will allow us to come together 
and rise to the challenges we face. It also represents a historic call 
to action that reaches out to all Americans from all walks of life and 
asks them to commit to service.
  During these difficult times, our Nation needs the help of each and 
every one of us more than ever. The generosity, energy, and goodwill of 
the American people has fueled our Nation throughout its history and 
seen us through our darkest hours. If we want to restore our economy, 
rebuild our schools, and revitalize our neighborhoods, we must once 
again draw on this powerful spirit of service that pervades the 
American psyche. The GIVE Act harnesses the power of America's two 
greatest natural resources, our ingenuity and our work ethic, to 
generate a new era of national service.
  More than 15,000 of my fellow Coloradans are strengthening our 
communities, helping others, and serving unmet needs in our 
neighborhoods through 147 national service projects in our State: more 
than 9,000 in Senior Corps, 2,500 in AmeriCorps--and I have had the 
opportunity to work with a number of AmeriCorps volunteers in our 
schools--and 4,200 in Learn and Serve America. This legislation will 
allow even more Coloradans to participate by creating thousands of new 
opportunities to volunteer and offering training in green energy 
products, veterans services, and community services across the 
communities, health and wellness initiatives as well.
  As a former chairman of our Colorado State Board of Education, I am 
particularly pleased with the establishment of the Summer of Service 
program which will engage middle and high school students in volunteer 
activities in their communities. The Youth Engagement Zones will 
capitalize on the largely untapped energy of American youth, especially 
disadvantaged high school students and out-of-school youth, and put 
them to work in service of our communities.
  Again, I applaud the efforts of all those involved in the crafting of 
this historic bipartisan legislation, and encourage our body to pass 
both the rule and the bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 5 minutes to a brilliant new Member of this House who is already 
leaving a mark on Congress by facing the important issues of our day, 
Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his 
leadership as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague from Florida will offer 
my legislation to help recoup the $165 million in taxpayer dollars that 
were paid out as AIG bonuses as part of the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, when the latest unemployment figures came out and were 
released earlier this month, America saw its jobless rate soar to over 
8.1 percent. That is the highest percentage that we have seen in over 
25 years in the United States. This equates to approximately 12.5 
million Americans who are currently out of work. Against this grim 
backdrop, AIG has announced that it intends to pay out $165 million in 
bonuses to its employees, with a number of those employees receiving 
more than $3 million. To date, $55 million in Federal money has been 
used to pay AIG employees directly. Additionally, AIG expects to see 
total bonus payouts to its financial products division increase by 
nearly $15 million over the next year.
  Mr. Speaker, most troubling is that this $165 million comes directly 
out of the nearly $170 billion that U.S. taxpayers have given to AIG 
over the last 8 months. In only 8 months, $170 billion.
  In early March, AIG announced a corporate loss of nearly $62 billion. 
That is the single greatest quarterly loss in U.S. history of any 
corporation. While Americans are struggling to put food on the table, I 
wonder if they are going to be able to ever see the repayment of their 
investment in the companies that they are participating in, companies 
like AIG who are paying bonuses, which is the height of 
irresponsibility. This money belongs to the American public. It does 
not belong to the executives at AIG. So I, like my constituents, am 
shocked. I am shocked at the corruption, especially when AIG's actions 
come at the expense of America's public. To pay bonuses which in some 
circumstances can be as high as $6.5 billion is really antithetical to 
what the U.S. Government should stand for and the very reason the U.S. 
Government was lending this money in the first place. Allowing AIG to 
spend taxpayer money on paying these bonuses can only be seen as 
reckless incompetence.
  The legislation will do three things:
  Number one, it is going to require that the Treasury Department 
recoup all of the bonuses that have been paid.
  Number two, no more excuses. It will require the Treasury Department 
and the Treasury Secretary to sign off on any future bonuses with his 
signature.
  And, number three, it would require the Treasury Secretary to sign 
off on any future contracts as a part of any ongoing TARP legislation. 
That is where accountability is needed for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, we were sent here by our constituents to bring 
accountability back to government and protect the taxpayers from 
reckless spending. I strongly urge my colleagues to do just

[[Page H3539]]

that. They should vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  We have a chance to do this today, Members. This is the issue of 
urgency today. This is nothing but bad government incompetence. It is 
not acceptable for the Treasury Secretary to throw his hands up in the 
air and walk away from this. Congress should act today. We should move 
forward, vote ``no'' on the previous question, and defeat the rule so 
that we can consider this very important legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. At this time it is my privilege, 
Mr. Speaker, to yield an additional 2 minutes to Dr. Foxx of North 
Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Again I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
  It is interesting. I had intended to say something about this 
sounding to me like AIG in many ways. I didn't realize that my 
colleague from Minnesota was going to say that when he got up to speak. 
But I wanted to point out the purpose of this program as stated in 
section 1201. It is to: Support high-quality service-learning projects 
that engage students in meeting community needs with demonstrable 
results, while enhancing students' academic and civic learning; and 
build institutional capacity, including the training of educators, and 
to strengthen the service infrastructure. That is the purpose.
  When you get over in the evaluation section, it is pretty nebulous. 
One of the interesting things that I find is that they are saying that 
if the program doesn't perform, if they received assistance for less, 
they mean fewer, than 3 years, and is failing to achieve the 
performance measures, then they give them technical assistance. They 
give them technical assistance for 3 more years, and then they make 
some decision about whether they are going to continue funding the 
program.
  I think we are setting up AIG programs all over this government. We 
just happen to know about AIG because of the egregious situation that 
has come up. But we have a potential AIG program right here. We are 
funding these people. We have no way to evaluate it. The expectations 
are not set out to begin with, and that is a great failing in this 
program.
  So I can tell you that if we examine this program closely, we could 
show at least as much or maybe more money being abused by this program 
than is being used by AIG. The American people should be up in arms 
about all of these programs that we are funding from which we get no 
value.
  Now what we are getting, we are employing a lot of bureaucrats, a lot 
of bureaucrats at high salaries. I call that high-priced welfare. But 
we are not getting a good return on our investment, just like we 
haven't gotten a good return on our investment from AIG.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, let me 
just say this is not AIG. The bill on the floor today is the GIVE Act. 
And to compare AIG to the GIVE Act is absolutely, astoundingly 
ridiculous.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady 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. Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure this 
morning of visiting with a number of youngsters from the Youth Build 
Program. They participated with Mrs. Obama yesterday in building a 
home.
  It is interesting, when you speak of the words GIVE, that you can 
equate it to an organization such as AIG that simply takes. So I rise 
today to support the rule and the underlying bill. And let me explain 
to you what this means to America.
  How many of us can raise our hand and say that we understand what 
USAID means, or we understand what the Peace Corps means or AmeriCorps? 
And how many countless hours of youthful enthusiasm did we see after 
Hurricane Katrina? I know, because I am from Houston, Texas, and the 
thousands and thousands of survivors and evacuees that came, we were 
inundated, rightfully so and enthusiastically so, by these volunteers 
and by these workers from these many different aspects.
  Unregulated? No. Much of this will be volunteer service. Much of this 
will be educating people about service. Much of this will be doing what 
young people across America have asked us to do: Give them something to 
do. And that is what this bill intends.
  I am delighted to have joined as a cosponsor in the recent days. I am 
delighted to have been able to work on a specific amendment that is 
incorporated in the bill that reaches out to the underserved like 
Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving Colleges, because 
America is a potpourri, it is a mosaic of so many different people with 
so many different histories, people who are already bilingual, who can 
speak to people who are in need, refugees, people who are fleeing 
oppression. There are so many different aspects of letting young people 
help other young people or young people help children.
  As the cofounder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, this bill 
specifically provides for enhanced community services with AmeriCorps, 
Learn and Serve America, VISTA, the National Civilian Community Corps, 
and Senior Corps.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the right direction for America in the 21st 
century. Be reminded that we ask not what this country can do for us. 
We don't equate AIG's insensitivity to the American taxpayer to this 
bill that gives everybody the opportunity to say, what can I do for my 
country, America the beautiful? That is what this bill is all about.
  I am so proud to stand alongside of this kind of legislation, because 
as our military forces are on the front lines, I want Americans to be 
able to stand on the front lines of this Nation, helping those who 
cannot help themselves. That is what this GIVE bill is all about. And I 
think we need to go around with a GIVE Bill button like I have got the 
Youth Bill button saying, Yes, We Can.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1388, the 
``Generations of Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act or the 
`GIVE Act'.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congresswoman McCarthy 
for introducing this important legislation, as well as the Chairman of 
the Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman George Miller, for 
his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will expand the already highly 
successful volunteer programs that empower community activists and 
improve the education and economic conditions of cities throughout the 
United States. It supports and increases funding for key community 
services programs, including AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, 
VISTA, National Civilian Community Corps, and Senior Corps.
  The GIVE Act creates opportunities for green jobs that will 
contribute to energy conservation and environmental protection. It will 
create critical educational opportunities for disadvantaged youth and 
will create incentives for students to improve their communities.
  Every year, more than 70,000 Americans participate in the AmeriCorps 
program alone, which provides relief to cities during natural disasters 
and reinvigorates communities. Over 50 million American volunteers 
build homes, organize food-drives, and improve schools through national 
service programs. The GIVE Act will broaden the opportunities for 
students and activists to participate in national service via education 
rewards that keep up with soaring costs of universities and Summer 
Service programs. After Ike and Katrina, thousands of local students 
worked to help rebuild communities and provide necessary services to 
distressed families. The GIVE Act is the critical lynchpin in 
sustaining this civic activism.
  Specifically, the GIVE Act would expand the job opportunities for 
Volunteers in Service to America, or VISTA, to re-integrate youth into 
society, increase literacy in communities through teaching 
opportunities in before and after-school programs, and to provide 
health and social services to low-income communities. VISTA is a 
critical step toward poverty alleviation, and the GIVE Act will equip 
it with the resources to fulfill its obligations.
  I am pleased to see that my colleague, representative Cuellar, 
revised the legislation to increase the number of volunteers from 
75,000 to 250,000 members and added provisions for unemployed 
individuals to be included in the national service workforce, a step 
that will be a critical step to combating the employment crisis 
afflicting millions. I am also pleased that Congressman Miller further 
specified that the increase in volunteers is not just designed for 
AmeriCorps, but for all national service programs such as the Peace 
Corps and Opportunity Corps, and also included language to promote 
community based efforts to reduce crime and recruit public safety 
officers.
  In addition, the GIVE Act will create 4 new service opportunities 
including a Clean Energy Corps, an Education Corps, a Healthy Futures

[[Page H3540]]

Corps, and a Veteran Service Corps. These volunteer opportunities will 
further improve environmental protection, health-care access, and 
services for veterans. These new service corps will address critical 
concerns in low-income communities. I am very happy that Congressman 
Teague revised the legislation to aid veterans in their pursuit of 
education and professional opportunities, and help veterans with the 
claims process, and assist rural, disabled, and unemployed veterans 
with transportation needs. Moreover, the GIVE Act will recognize 
colleges and universities that are strongly engaged in service through 
grants and rewards that will in turn improve educational access in the 
United States.
  I am pleased to see the retention of my language from the 110th 
Congress that gives special consideration to historically black 
colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal 
universities, and colleges serving predominantly minority populations. 
So strong are these universities' support of service, that ``veritas et 
beneficium,'' or ``truth and service'' in Latin, is inscribed on their 
insignias.
  The GIVE Act will create a Campuses of Service Program that will 
encourage and assist students in pursuing public service careers. It 
will also focus on recruiting scientists and engineers to keep America 
competitive for years to come. The Act will expand the Senior Corps as 
a way to keep Older Americans including seniors engaged in public 
service, and will create a Youth Engagement Zone to increase the number 
of young students in volunteer services.
  Moreover, it expands the focus of The National Civilian Community 
Corps to include disaster relief efforts and infrastructure improvement 
to allow quicker and more effective responses to disasters like Katrina 
and Ike that devastated numerous communities in the United States. 
Finally, the Give Act will launch a nation-wide Call to Service 
Campaign that encourages all Americans to engage in national service 
and to recognize September 11th as a National Day of Service and 
Remembrance.
  I am honored to cosponsor this legislation that will add service 
before self to America's future leaders. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I intend to vote ``no'' on the previous question on this particular 
rule. I don't have any big problem with the rule, but it is my 
understanding that Mr. Diaz-Balart will, if it is defeated, offer an 
amendment to the rule that will address a topic that isn't the subject 
of the GIVE Act, but the AIG bonuses.
  Yesterday, the country was roiled by the fact that a company that has 
received $175 billion has handed out to 73 individuals bonuses of $1 
million or more. Multiple pieces of legislation were introduced 
yesterday to put a stop to it. We see a lot of gnashing of teeth on the 
other side of the Capitol like, ``How could this happen? We didn't know 
it happened.'' We have some Senators introducing bills to tax these 
bonuses at 100 percent. But, Mr. Speaker, we know how this happened, 
and yesterday we filed legislation and Mr. Diaz-Balart's amendment 
would move the process along. In deference to the gentlelady who just 
spoke, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can consider the 
GIVE Act and we can also talk about the Nation's economy, which is 
critical.
  But we know that when the stimulus bill was passed, there was an 
amendment offered, a bipartisan amendment, by Senators Wyden and Snow 
that would have said that if there are in fact these egregious 
bonuses--and think about it for just a minute. You run a company into 
the ground and participate in causing the greatest economic crisis 
since the Great Depression, and you get millions of dollars in bonuses. 
I would like that job, and a lot of people that I represent would like 
that job.
  There was a provision in the stimulus bill that would have said that 
if you give out these egregious bonuses, there is going to be an excise 
tax of 35 percent. It goes to conference. All of a sudden, that 
provision is then gone, and what is inserted in section 111, paragraph 
3(iii) is that: No bonus that was agreed to or negotiated prior to 
February 11 will be subject to this restriction.
  Does anybody think that the bonuses that were just given out that 
were the subject of a CNN report on January 28 was negotiated after 
February 11? It is ridiculous. They knew it was going to happen. They 
let it happen. And now that the public has somehow said we don't think 
this should happen, we have a lot of finger-pointing going on on 
Capitol Hill.
  Yesterday, I filed a Resolution of Inquiry directing the Secretary of 
the Treasury to hand over all of the documents leading up to why this 
transpired, why it was permitted to transpire. And we hear the 
Constitution being bandied about. ``We can't interfere with contract 
law.'' I am going to tell you, since the beginning of this Congress, 
the 111th Congress, if you are an auto worker, even though you had a 
contract to make X number of dollars to build automobiles in this 
country, we violated those contracts and said let's cram those down if 
you want to get Federal assistance.

                              {time}  1130

  If you lied on your mortgage application when you went to the ABC 
bank, and they gave you a $100,000 mortgage, and they said, ``you lied 
to get that mortgage,'' we just passed a piece of legislation that 
says, ``we don't care if you lied. If you get in financial trouble, we 
are going to cram down the mortgage, and you don't owe the bank 
$100,000 anymore.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 30 
additional seconds.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Clearly, those are contracts. We can mess with those 
contracts. We can mess with people that are working hard every day. We 
can mess with people that lend money so people can have the American 
Dream of homeownership. But we can't mess with 73 people who directed a 
company into near bankruptcy and needed $175 billion of my 
constituents' money and your constituents' money. But that is okay. We 
can't mess with those contracts.
  Please defeat the previous question and support Mr. Diaz-Balart's 
amendment.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that both sides of this 
aisle are absolutely outraged about what happened at AIG, absolutely 
outraged. We agree with you on that, definitely. And we will be taking 
action immediately. In fact, I have been informed that we will be 
having a Rules meeting this afternoon. But let's get the GIVE Act 
through. Let's do the rule on this and move forward.
  With that, I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first yielding 
myself such time as I may consume, I'm very happy that we have gotten 
the message to the majority leadership and that they have set a Rules 
meeting, we have just been informed, for 3 p.m. to address this issue. 
It shows that the rules protect the minority and that the minority can 
bring issues of great importance to the American people and get the 
attention of the majority. So I'm glad that the majority will be 
addressing this at 3.
  But we don't have to wait until 3. It is 11:30. We can address it 
now. And then after we address it--we are not saying that we won't pass 
the GIVE Act. But let's address at 11:30, not at 3 in the Rules 
Committee, this issue that is of great importance to the American 
people.
  I yield 2 minutes to my friend, Dr. Foxx, from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague. I agree with him. 
I think this should be dealt with right now. This is something we very 
much agree on. And my colleague from California, I think, has just made 
the case for why this bill should not be passed. She said, let's get 
this on through. Let's move it through. That is the same thing we heard 
about the stimulus: We don't have time to wait; we have got to move 
this on through.
  Every time the majority wants to get something passed that ought not 
to be passed, they are ramming it through. That has been the whole 
story of this session.
  I just want to share with you from the White House OMB, Washington, 
ExpectMore, their program assessment of the AmeriCorps National 
Civilian Community Corps. It says, ``not performing, ineffective, the 
program has never conducted a comprehensive evaluation. Compared to 
other AmeriCorps service programs, this program is very

[[Page H3541]]

costly. Performance goals are not measurable.''
  Ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Speaker, these are not my words. These 
are coming from OMB. We know the program is not effective, and we are 
going to be spending $3 billion. With AIG, the contention is $165 
million. It is a pittance compared to the money that is going to be 
spent on this program. And the program says ``and such sums.'' That, 
ladies and gentlemen, means any money they want to spend. It is open-
ended. They can spend anything.
  I want to say, again, what is happening here is that we are confusing 
government work with public service. Yesterday our colleague from the 
Education Committee said, ``well, this program gets kids in middle 
school, it moves them into high school and moves them into that, and 
eventually they get a government job.'' We are teaching people to go to 
work for the government through this program. What a shame. Shame on 
us. This country was not built on working for the government. It was 
built on volunteering and on the private sector. We are taking this 
country over with the government.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
  I inquire of the gentleman, does he have any speakers?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I'm ready.
  Ms. MATSUI. So you're ready to close.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us 
brings to the floor the GIVE Act, which is a bill to reauthorize the 
National Service programs. And the majority on our side supports that. 
I support that legislation. It is a good piece of legislation. It has 
the support of the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, 
and we are in support of the underlying legislation.
  What we are saying, though, is that--and by the way, I reiterate that 
I'm pleased that we have caught the attention of the majority 
leadership and that they have convened a rules meeting for 3 p.m. to 
deal with the issue of AIG, the outrage of the AIG bonuses. At a time 
when the Federal Government is propping up AIG with over $170 billion 
in taxpayer funds, it is unconscionable that AIG is giving its 
executives bonuses, some of them which are over $1 million.
  That is why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. We don't have to wait until a rules meeting and then who 
knows when they will bring to the floor--if they do--legislation. We 
don't know what it will say.
  What I'm saying is that right now we can amend this rule and allow 
the House to consider H.R. 1577, a bill by my colleagues, 
Representatives Paulsen and Lance, that will require that the Treasury 
Department implement a plan within the next 2 weeks to recoup the AIG 
bonuses. And in order to prevent another bonus controversy, the bill 
will require that any future bonus payments from TARP funds be approved 
by the Treasury Department in writing, including any contractual bonus 
obligations.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, Americans are rightfully upset over the use of 
taxpayer funds to give executives million-dollar bonuses. They expect 
the administration will keep a watchful eye on the proper use of 
bailout funds. Just 2 weeks ago, the President's spokesman said that 
they were confident that they knew how every dime was being spent at 
AIG. Well, obviously, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't seem to be the case. 
That is the reason that I am calling for Members of this House to vote 
``no'' on the previous question.
  The Paulsen-Lance legislation is just another example of how the 
responsible and vigilant opposition, the Republicans, we are working to 
provide transparency and oversight of taxpayer funds in the TARP 
program. We must demand that the administration provide proper 
accounting of TARP funds. Americans deserve to know how their tax 
dollars are being utilized.
  Now, if Members support transparency and oversight of taxpayer funds 
in the TARP program, then they should vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle said they have 
discovered the issue, and they are calling a rules meeting at 3 p.m. to 
deal with it. We don't know what they are going to be bringing forward. 
But we have brought forward legislation. Our colleagues have filed 
legislation, Representatives Paulsen and Lance, to deal with this issue 
today and to require the Treasury Department to recoup those 
unconscionable bonuses within 2 weeks. And we should vote on it today.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
to make a statement: Enough is enough. Enough of these bailouts so that 
millionaires can become billionaires and billionaires can give their 
cronies bonuses with taxpayer dollars. Enough is enough. And we can 
vote on it right now, Mr. Speaker.
  By the way, we will vote on the amendment on the legislation with 
regard to volunteerism. This does not negate that. But before, we must 
and we should address the issue of the unconscionable bonuses by 
defeating the previous question.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and 
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this reauthorization, the first in 15 years, 
takes programs and infrastructure that touch so many lives and builds 
off its foundation to greatly increase the quantity and improve the 
quality of service that we, as a Nation, work to provide.
  National Service is a proven return on our investments. With this 
bill, we will broaden those involved in service across the country, and 
in doing so, foster the values of civic engagement and duty that can 
change a life and a community.
  This bipartisan legislation is truly a win-win for all those involved 
and for our country. It makes excellent improvements to an already 
successful Corporation for National and Community Service. It improves 
access and support for organizations and grant applicants, and most 
importantly, reassures our valued servicemembers that Congress supports 
them and their work in our communities.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California, Ms. 
Matsui and I also thank her for her passion and dedication to 
increasing our country's commitment to community service and 
volunteerism.
  Mr Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
bill, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act.
  As we all know, our country is at a significant crossroads of the 
likes we've never known. And my own district has been hit like no 
other.
  My district is saddled with the nation's highest foreclosure rates 
and drops in home equity, unemployment rates approaching 20 percent, my 
dairy farmers are in crisis, and we have the worst drought in a 
century.
  There is an unmistakable feeling of despair in every coffee shop I 
visit. My constituents are hurting and need help getting through this 
economic crisis.
  But beyond the housing, infrastructure, and other assistance to 
stimulate my district's economy, we will surely benefit from the 
countless Good Samaritans who are willing to answer our country's call 
to service and help communities most in need.
  To that end, I proposed two amendments to ensure that the hardest-hit 
areas of the country such as mine would not be overlooked.
  All told, my amendments added home price declines as an eligible 
criteria; defined ``severely economically distressed areas'' to include 
staggering foreclosure rates, home price declines, and unemployment 
rates; and most importantly, waived the matching grant requirements in 
economically distressed areas where it is impossible to raise any local 
funding.
  And thanks to my good friend from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, the 
``distressed areas'' definition was further expanded to include areas 
that lack basic needs such as water and electricity.
  Together, these changes put the hardest-hit districts such as mine on 
the volunteer map. And it will give us the ability to enlist a cadre of 
willing volunteers to provide my constituents and my community with the 
support and assistance they need to overcome these trying times.
  I would like to thank my friend and fellow Californian, and Chairman 
of the Education

[[Page H3542]]

and Labor Committee Mr. Miller--and his staff--for supporting my 
proposals and including them in the manager's amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that these are tough times for our 
country. But with opportunities like this where we can tap the American 
spirit, promote community service, and come together to give those in 
need a hand up, I know we will be able to rebuild our communities, 
recover from this economic disaster, and come out stronger at the end 
of the day.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall, 
     without intervention of any point of order, consider the bill 
     (H.R. 1577) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     pursue every legal means to stay or recoup certain incentive 
     bonus payments and retention payments made by American 
     International Group, Inc. to its executives and employees, 
     and to require the Secretary's approval of such payments by 
     any financial institution who receives funds under title I of 
     the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage without intervening motion except (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                  ____

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

  Ms. MATSUI. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 182, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 131]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--182

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen

[[Page H3543]]


     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Baca
     Becerra
     Berman
     Boustany
     Cardoza
     Costa
     Cuellar
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Miller, Gary
     Napolitano
     Olson
     Ortiz
     Pastor (AZ)
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Serrano
     Sires
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1214

  Messrs. WILSON of South Carolina, WITTMAN, GOODLATTE, BARTON of 
Texas, BRADY of Texas, YOUNG of Alaska and Mrs. BACHMANN changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BERRY and RUSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained at the 
White House today and was not present for votes on the Motion on 
Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 1388 (rollcall 
131). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248, 
noes 174, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 132]

                               AYES--248

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--174

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boustany
     Cardoza
     Costa
     Gallegly
     Hinchey
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Olson
     Sanchez, Loretta

                              {time}  1227

  Mr. LAMBORN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________