[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 102 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7855-H7862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3081, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN 
       OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 617 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 617

       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. 3081) making appropriations for the Department 
     of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 
     11 of rule XVIII, except as provided in section 2, no 
     amendment shall be in order except: (1) the amendment printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution; and (2) the amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, 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 
     and except that an amendment printed in part B of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules may be offered only at the 
     appropriate point in the reading. 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. In the case of sundry amendments 
     reported from the Committee, the question of their adoption 
     shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the 
     question. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro 
     forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate, which 
     shall be controlled by the proponent.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 3081, the Chair may 
     reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
     under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart. All time yielded for consideration of the rule is 
for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 617.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 617 provides for consideration of H.R. 3081, the 
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2010, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.

[[Page H7856]]

  The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its 
consideration except those arising under clause 9 or clause 10 of rule 
XXI. The rule also waives points of order against provisions in the 
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The bill makes in order the amendment printed in part A of the 
committee report and the amendments printed in part B of the committee 
report accompanying this resolution. Each amendment is debatable for 10 
minutes. Finally, the rule also provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we will consider today, H.R. 3081, 
funds the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and related programs 
for fiscal year 2010.
  This bipartisan bill reflects four key priorities: it protects our 
national security and combats terrorism; provides critical resources to 
meet global health and development challenges; ensures adequate 
oversight and accountability of our foreign assistance; and most 
importantly reforms and rebuilds America's diplomatic and development 
capacity.
  In total, the bill provides $48.8 billion for fiscal year 2010. This 
is $3.2 billion less than the President's request, and $1.2 billion 
below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level including supplemental 
funding, a reasonable level of funding during these unprecedented 
fiscal times.
  To protect national security and combat terrorism, the State-Foreign 
Operations appropriations bill provides $2.2 billion to Israel, 
provides $2.7 billion in assistance for Afghanistan and $1.5 billion 
for Pakistan, and it provides $1.8 billion total in economic and 
security assistance for Egypt and Jordan, two of our key allies in the 
Middle East.
  It also requires a report on the status and progress of diplomatic 
efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and it 
continues a reporting requirement on bilateral and multilateral 
sanctions against Iran. Further, it prevents the Export-Import Bank 
from providing financing to any energy producers or refiners that 
contribute to Iran's refined petroleum resources.
  The bill also continues to take aim at the war on drugs by setting 
aside $319 million for Mexico and Central America for counternarcotics 
and law enforcement programs. It also includes $520 million for 
Colombia to fight narcotics and criminal gangs and to promote 
alternatives to drug production.
  The State-Foreign Operations bill makes great strides in increasing 
global health by providing funding increases for international HIV/AIDS 
treatment and prevention, tuberculosis and malaria prevention, safe 
water and hygiene, and child and maternal health programs. These global 
health investments are critical, not just in saving lives overseas, but 
in protecting the health of countless Americans from disease.
  The State-Foreign Operations bill also ensures that the United States 
continues to meet our moral and humanitarian obligations abroad. The 
bill provides funding for countries facing long-term development 
challenges, improving foreign agriculture and food security programs 
and helping countries struggling with food shortages, supporting basic 
education needs, helping displaced people around the world with food, 
water, shelter and other basic needs, and providing lifesaving 
assistance during worldwide natural disasters.

                              {time}  1300

  It also provides $450 million for the Peace Corps. This is $77 
million above the President's request, which accelerates the 
President's commitment to expanding the Peace Corps, one of the most 
valuable programs our government can fund.
  The lack of capacity in our civilian agencies has resulted in an 
increased reliance on American troops to carry out diplomatic missions. 
Besides placing an additional workload on our already overburdened 
troops and taking their focus away from their critical core missions, 
it is not in the best interests of our Nation to place diplomatic 
missions with our military.
  Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff have all stressed the need to increase the capacity of 
the State Department and USAID. As such, the bill provides resources to 
hire 1,000 new State Department personnel and 300 new USAID personnel 
so our country can take the necessary steps to begin rebuilding and 
restoring our diplomatic capabilities that we shortchanged and 
underappreciated for far too long.
  Finally, the bill also improves and continues the Democrats' 
commitment to oversight and accountability. It provides nearly $150 
million for activities of the Inspector General of the Department of 
State and USAID, as well as for the Special Inspectors General for both 
Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction. In addition, this bill reverses 
years of accounting gimmickry through supplemental appropriations. 
Instead, it provides upfront, honest and transparent accounting of the 
true costs of meeting our critical foreign policy and national security 
initiatives.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. In these tough economic times, it 
is also a fair bill. And, most importantly, this is a bipartisan bill 
that goes a long way towards restoring the strength and capabilities of 
the United States both here and abroad.
  I commend the chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey, for her admirable efforts in 
ensuring our needs are met, both here and abroad, and to ensure that 
the national security and foreign policy commitments of the United 
States remain strong for many days to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardoza) for the time.
  I would like to thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger for 
their efforts on this important legislation. This bill provides almost 
$50 billion in funding for a number of U.S. government programs and 
activities, including the State Department, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, foreign economic and military assistance, 
contributions to international organizations, and international 
broadcasting programs.
  In today's world, foreign assistance is as important to our national 
interest as it is ethical. I am pleased that the legislation recognizes 
our shared democratic values and our special friendship with Israel, 
and includes $2.2 billion in Foreign Military Financing programs, FMF 
assistance, for that great friend and ally.
  Our aid to Israel is especially important as the ruthless tyranny in 
Iran threatens to wipe it off the face of the map and rockets continue 
to rain down on Israel from terrorist groups, whether they be Hamas or 
Hezbollah. Israel is a true friend and partner of the United States, 
and we must now, more than ever, show unwavering support for our 
friends, not only through this legislation, but through every other 
available means.
  I am deeply concerned about the funding provided in this legislation 
to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Without determining that 
the agency does not have members of Hamas on its payroll, U.N. agencies 
such as that, for example, such as the so-called Human Rights Council, 
a club of tyrannies, do not deserve American taxpayer support, just 
like the useless embarrassment that is the Organization of American 
States.
  Now, there are some good things, very good things in this 
legislation.
  The legislation provides $165 million in Economic Support Funds, for 
example, for Haiti, to help the authorities consolidate democratic 
gains and promote development.
  Since the recent devastating storms hit Haiti, I have called, first 
on the Bush administration and then on the Obama administration, to 
grant temporary protected status to Haitian nationals in the United 
States.
  I visited Haiti last month, and my visit reinforced my belief that 
TPS for Haiti is well overdue. Again, I call on the Obama 
administration to finally grant TPS for Haitians. The Obama 
administration needs to stop dragging its feet on this important issue.
  I wish to thank the Appropriations Committee for the $20 million in 
Economic Support Funds for pro-democracy activities in Cuba in this 
bill. Those funds will support efforts for a transition to democracy 
and freedom in the only totalitarian dictatorship in

[[Page H7857]]

the Western Hemisphere, through support for dissidents, human rights 
activists, independent librarians and others who risk their lives each 
day struggling for freedom in that enslaved island, the only country in 
the Western Hemisphere where free elections have been denied to its 
people for over 50 years.
  The legislation includes $1.4 billion for the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation, MCC. Assistance to foreign nations from the MCC is linked 
to greater responsibilities from those nations. The new 
responsibilities those developing nations accept in exchange for the 
funds ensure that the assistance we provide does not go to waste and 
has the greatest possible impact on those who need the help the most.
  I have been a longtime supporter of the MCC. But last year I learned 
that one recipient country may not be keeping up their end of the 
bargain. APR Energy, a Florida company, has an ongoing contract dispute 
with Tanzania, which I understand Tanzania has failed to resolve. I 
urge the Tanzanian government to comply with both the contract with APR 
Energy and their MCC compact and expeditiously resolve the dispute with 
APR Energy pursuant to the law and the utmost transparency.
  I have concerns with the increased funding levels in two areas of the 
bill, the United Nations Population Fund and international family 
planning. In the past, this United Nations fund has been found to 
support and participate in programs of coercive abortion or involuntary 
sterilization. While the international family planning money doesn't go 
directly to fund abortions, it will go to organizations that promote 
and provide advocacy for abortion.
  I do not think this is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Even 
though the majority on the Rules Committee last night rejected the 
Smith-Stupak amendment on this issue, I continue to hope that the issue 
will be addressed in conference.
  I commend the committee, the Appropriations Committee, for 
recognizing many other important foreign policy priorities in the bill, 
$21 million for the American Institute in Taiwan, for example, and over 
$740 million for broadcasting through such important media outlets as 
the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and for Radio and 
TV Marti. I also commend the committee for maintaining the Greek 
language broadcasts in the Voice of America and also for wisely 
providing assistance to promote as much as possible the reconciliation 
to end the violence in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Speaker, while I support the underlying legislation, I must 
oppose the rule by which the majority is bringing this bill to the 
floor. Last month, the majority set a dangerous precedent to limit 
debate on appropriations bills, debate that historically was almost 
always considered under open rules, open debate process. Today we are 
set to consider the sixth of 12 appropriations bills, and every bill 
considered so far has been considered under a structured rule that 
severely limits the ability of all Members of this House to introduce 
amendments and have them debated.
  During yesterday's Rules Committee hearing, Appropriations Ranking 
Member Lewis testified that there is still time to undo the majority's 
new precedent restricting the ability of Members to offer amendments on 
appropriations bills. He asked the majority to reconsider the use of 
structured rules on appropriations bills, to return to regular order, 
to historical order, to the tradition of an open debate process on 
appropriations bills. He even offered his services to persuade Members 
to not offer dilatory amendments which would hamper the ability of 
Congress to complete its appropriations work on time.
  Rules Ranking Member Dreier and I also offered to help Ranking Member 
Lewis rein in any errant Members, any Members who wished to prolong 
unnecessarily the appropriations process. I really hoped the majority 
on the Rules Committee would heed Mr. Lewis' thoughtful suggestion and 
accept his offer to help move the process along if an open debate 
process was returned to. However, the majority once again blocked 
Members from both sides of the aisle from offering amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority has simply not understood the damage, 
unnecessarily, that it is causing this House by closing debate on 
appropriations bills, by breaking two centuries of precedence. How 
myopic. How sad.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the chairwoman of the 
committee, Mrs. Lowey.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and in support of H.R. 3081. This is a very good bill. It was drafted 
in a bipartisan manner, and it should enjoy the support of Members of 
both sides of the aisle.
  I know that my colleagues on the other side would have preferred an 
open rule. However, there is much business that needs to be completed 
in the month of July, and I believe this rule will allow us to complete 
our work in an expeditious manner.
  The rule makes in order a number of amendments from the minority, 
including one from the ranking member of my subcommittee and one from 
the ranking member of the full committee. I hope that Members on both 
sides will recognize the importance of this bill in protecting our 
national security and advancing our foreign policy.
  There were necessary compromises on both sides that allowed this bill 
to come forward today, and I want to thank all the members of my 
subcommittee, Republicans and Democrats, for their contributions. Most 
especially, in closing, I want to thank my ranking member, Kay Granger. 
Unfortunately, she called me this morning, that because of health 
issues, she could not be with us. She was going to try to get here in 
time to cast the vote.
  I personally want to make it clear to all my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, because of the bipartisan approach, this is a good bill. 
It's a strong bill, and we are proud to present it to you.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I join 
him in opposition to this rule. I think all of these deadlines that 
suddenly we have realized are there are not reasons to go away from the 
traditions of the House.
  Like the gentleman, I applaud many of the efforts in the bill itself, 
certainly aid for our friend, Israel, the democracy, the pillar of 
democracy in the Middle East, and hopefully other countries in that 
area will rally around that example. Aid for Israel is important in 
this bill.
  On the other hand, an amendment that I had that had 74 cosponsors as 
a bill in the last Congress that would limit funds transferred to any 
entity of the Palestinian Authority until the President certifies to 
the appropriate committees that the ruling Fatah Party has taken the 
clauses out of their constitution that called for the destruction of 
Israel would have added to this bill and would have added to this 
debate. It should have been allowed. I am disappointed it wasn't.
  I am also concerned that we didn't allow the amendment that I offered 
on the Law of the Sea Treaty, that simply would have prevented funds in 
the bill from being used for a contribution to the Seabed Authority. 
That's an authority, a global entity, that would be responsible for 
collecting taxes on U.S. energy companies for deep seabed mining if the 
United States ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty. Those are only two 
examples of many of the amendments that were offered that were rejected 
and that we should have found time to debate those and add them to the 
bill.
  I oppose the rule.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in strong support of the rule for the Fiscal Year 2010 
State Department and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R. 3081. 
I sincerely want to thank the chairwoman, Nita Lowey, and her staff for 
their diligent work on this appropriations bill and for their efforts 
and their help in securing an additional $10 million for maternal 
health in the manager's amendment.
  I sincerely thank the gentlelady for her support and for her work and 
for addressing one of the most serious issues facing women on this 
planet. The need to act to address the global maternal mortality rate 
and to save

[[Page H7858]]

mothers' lives is very clear, and the time to act is now.
  The recent words of the First Lady of Sierra Leone are haunting, but 
all too true for too many women in the world and their families and 
their communities. She stated, ``We know too well that a pregnant woman 
in Kigali or Freetown has one foot in the grave,'' which is why many 
``say goodbye to our mothers and sisters as they go into labor.''

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, pregnancy is a time when we should be welcoming life 
into the world, not saying goodbye. For every woman's death we fail to 
prevent by boosting investments in critical maternal health programs, 
we fail newborns who now face an increased risk of dying themselves. We 
fail the family, including children pulled from schools to support 
their families and pick up the duties of the now deceased mother, and 
we fail those communities by undermining economic development and 
poverty reduction efforts in the wider community.
  This investment into maternal health will save lives. We can and must 
continue to do what we can to reduce the needless suffering of millions 
of women around the world from childbirth and pregnancy-related 
complications. Too much is at stake if we fail to deliver for these 
woman.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 4 minutes to my friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, last night, Mr. Stupak and I respectfully requested that 
an amendment reinstating the Mexico City Policy be made in order so 
that the full House would have the opportunity to vote up or down on 
this critically important issue.
  This year's Foreign Ops Appropriations bill increases population 
control funding by a whopping 40 percent over the 2008 levels to a 
record $648 million. Our amendment would simply ensure that this huge 
allocation of taxpayer grant money not be awarded to foreign 
nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions on demand or lobby 
for abortion on demand in developing countries.
  Today, most African and Latin countries protect the lives of their 
unborn children, and the real threat to those laws and policies are 
coming from the United States and European nongovernmental 
organizations and the money behind them.
  Indeed, prior to January, Mr. Speaker, the pro-life Mexico City 
Policy guaranteed that unborn children in Asia, Africa, Latin America, 
and elsewhere not be put at risk of death by the NGOs that we fund.
  Every human life is precious, Mr. Speaker, and sacred and worthy of 
respect. No one, no one is expendable. Thus, family planning funds and 
the NGOs that they empower cannot be allowed to be the Trojan Horse for 
a global abortion industry.
  On an encouraging note, Americans agree with our efforts to reinstate 
the Mexico City Policy. The Gallup Poll recently found by a margin of 
2-1, 65 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose President Obama's 
Executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy. They support his 
other Executive orders, but not that one.
  Another Gallup Poll found that, for the first time, 51 percent to 42 
percent, Americans are identifying as pro-life. Ultrasound technology--
the window to the womb--is finally shattering the myth that an unborn 
child is somehow not a person.
  Mr. Speaker, stripped of its many euphemisms, abortion is violence 
against children and often harms women emotionally and psychologically 
and physically. Abortion methods either dismember the fragile body of a 
baby to death or poisons the infant or chemically induces premature 
labor, leaving the immature child unable to cope with his or her new 
environment.
  You know, in Congress we often speak and enact laws and policies 
designed to reduce infant mortality, and that's a wonderful and 
necessary goal. Can we not see or appreciate or understand that 
abortion is infant mortality?
  An unborn child's immaturity and dependence should in no way 
mitigate, negate, or nullify an unborn child's inherent humanity. Human 
rights ought to be about inclusion, not exclusion, especially of the 
weakest and the most vulnerable.
  Finally, can we not see or appreciate or understand that birth is an 
event and not the beginning of a child's life? And the stunning 
breakthroughs over the last three decades in treating unborn children 
who are diagnosed with diseases or disabilities only brings into sharp 
focus that the child in the womb must be regarded as a patient in need 
of benign and compassionate interventions. Not poison shots or razor-
sharp curettes that kill, but medicines and procedures that cure.
  The Mexico City Policy holds children harmless in our family planning 
programs throughout the world. Tragically, the rule before us precludes 
so much as a vote on the Mexico City Policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the right to life is the most 
fundamental human right issue on Earth. Unfortunately, abortion and the 
promotion of abortion is the only violation of that basic human right 
that has the audacity to call itself a right.
  I therefore will be voting ``no'' on the rule as well as the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman is very sincere, and I appreciate his 
friendship and his words. I would just make one correction, and that is 
when he speaks of a 40 percent increase in this bill, what we are doing 
in this bill is increasing the transparency from a situation where all 
the dollars that we're spending here were in the past few years put 
into supplemental bills and pretended like they didn't really count. 
We're taking that supplemental spending and putting it in a transparent 
process that we can all appreciate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I'm sure it was unwitting, but my friend 
from the other side of the isle misspoke. Just to make very clear, the 
population account, the money that was allocated in FY 2008, was 
approximately $460 million. It is now at $648 million. That is 
approximately a 40 percent increase. And then other moneys potentially 
could be going to these foreign nongovernmental organizations that 
promote abortion as well, like Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes 
International, and others. So we have a very serious problem. They are 
American surrogates in foreign countries. They speak for us. They 
certainly don't speak and act for millions of pro-life Americans.
  Yes, do family planning. Our amendment would leave that in tact. It 
would not touch the amount of money for family planning. We ought argue 
that abortion is not family planning and has no legitimate place in any 
compassionate program of health care. It is the killing of an unborn 
child.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  You know, I think the American people would like to see us debate the 
issues that they're very concerned about on this floor, and there are 
many of these issues we're not going to be able to debate because of 
this closed rule.
  I'd just like to cite a couple of amendments that I introduced that I 
think the American people, many of them, would really like to hear 
debated.
  One of them was a sense of Congress bill or amendment that would 
expand the economic sanctions against Iran. Iran is a terrorist state 
developing nuclear weapons. A sense of Congress resolution saying we 
should put severe economic standards on them, sanctions on them, and 
get our allies to do it, is something that should have been debated and 
passed, because I think Americans are concerned about this terrorist 
state and they want us to stop their nuclear program and to put 
pressure on them.
  Another amendment would have prohibited funds from being used to 
establish diplomatic or commercial ties in or with Iran until these 
changes are

[[Page H7859]]

made, until they stop their nuclear development program, which 
threatens the Middle East oil supplies, our energy supplies, and the 
whole world.
  Finally, we had one that dealt with putting pressure on terrorist 
organizations until they recognize Israel's right to exist. I think all 
of us support Israel and we want to make sure Israel's right to exist 
is guaranteed. So why wouldn't we want to have an amendment on the 
floor which said that the organizations that are trying to destroy 
Israel should be put under extreme pressure to make sure that they 
recognize Israel's right to exist?
  Finally, one of the things that really concerns me is the United 
Nations is going to spend almost $900,000 in legal fees for Benon 
Sevan. He is the man who ran the Oil-for-Food program, and it was a 
corrupt program. He was working with Saddam Hussein.
  The man has fled the country. He has been charged with bribery and 
wire fraud, and the U.S. Federal and State prosecutors are looking for 
this guy, and they're using our taxpayer dollars to defend him, to help 
him with his legal fees.
  What I said in this amendment is we should withhold the amount of 
money that would go for his legal fees from our commitment to the 
United Nations, and I think the American people would agree with that.
  So I can't understand why the chairman and the members of the Rules 
Committee didn't make these in order. I hope in the future they will be 
a little more openminded about this, because the American people want 
these issues debated in the people's House.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Smith).
  (Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I want to just rise to thank Chairwoman Nita 
Lowey and Ranking Member Kay Granger for their great work on this bill 
and focus particularly on this bill's commitment to global development 
issues.
  I'm the chair of the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed 
Services and have been working very, very closely with our military as 
we attempt to combat terrorism and violent extremist groups throughout 
the globe. Certainly, there is a big military component to that.
  What we have increasingly learned in the military and elsewhere is 
that we will never win that battle and that fight if we are not equally 
committed to global development.
  We have seen a major commitment in this bill on the central focus in 
our efforts right now, which is in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I applaud 
that effort. But also understand that this bill recognizes that it is 
broader than just Pakistan and Afghanistan. Throughout the Middle East, 
throughout Africa, throughout Southeast Asia, failed and failing states 
are a major contributor to instability and the rise of violent 
extremist groups. Getting our global development policy right is 
critical to stopping that effort. This bill makes that commitment.
  I also want to say that this is not just a matter of more money. It 
is a matter of improving the quality of our global development, of 
coordinating it, of figuring out what works and making sure that our 
programs are more efficient and more effectively delivered.
  On that point, I also support the committee and support the Foreign 
Relations Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee as well for putting 
pressure on the administration to make fundamental changes in the way 
we do global development, to make sure that it is better coordinated, 
more effective, and works better.
  We have a lot of work to do on this front, but this appropriation 
bill reflects the priority of global development policy, funding it and 
supporting it, if we are ever to be triumphant in our efforts to stop 
violent extremist groups and reduce instability throughout the globe.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
  Mr. MACK. I would like to thank my colleague for yielding time.
  I rise today to speak against the rule for this bill, a rule that 
shuts out our ability to offer amendments on the floor is an 
unprecedented abuse of the rules and debate on appropriation bills.
  Why is the majority so afraid to hear what we have to say? Why is the 
majority so afraid of what we might have to offer? Isn't this the place 
to have debate, real debate, on the important issues that are facing 
the United States and the citizens of the United States? If you can't 
have the debate here on the floor of the House, where can you have it?
  This is where we should be debating the issues, and changing the 
rules and the process does the people of this country a disservice.
  If I were able to offer an amendment to the Foreign Ops bill, I would 
offer an amendment that would make sure that aid to Honduras is not cut 
off. Mr. Speaker, the administration has cut funding to the people of 
Honduras because some have claimed that a military coup has occurred in 
Honduras. Instead of being responsible on the matter, the 
administration has gotten itself involved with the likes of Chavez, 
Morales, Ortega, and too quickly reacted in a knee-jerk fashion.
  To cut the aid, be it humanitarian, military, or what have you, is 
the wrong thing to do, and if I were able to offer an amendment, I 
would have fought hard to make sure that aid to Honduras was not cut.
  This process makes a mockery of our democratic system, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to vote against this rule and support an open process, 
but also support the people of Honduras.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Perriello).
  Mr. PERRIELLO. I rise to express my support for the State and Foreign 
Operations Appropriations.
  For the first time in a long time, we have a President with a 
balanced foreign policy focused on smart power that balances might and 
right.
  Having worked in Afghanistan, I know firsthand the importance of 
diplomacy and the rule of law. Our success internationally depends on 
both the full funding and support of our military and of our diplomatic 
corps. Every crisis averted through good diplomacy, multinational 
cooperation and economic development reduces the burden on our military 
and our military families.
  This bill also includes support language for the City of Hope 
project. This project is managed by the nonprofit Teamwork Ministries 
International based in my district in Martinsville, Virginia. Their 
work to help educate, nourish and train future leaders of Africa is a 
worthy investment to bring hope to communities and to nations around 
the globe. This project is a great example of dedicated yet humble 
Americans putting their values into action, being the face of the 
greatest of all nations to those who are suffering the most. I thank 
the team at the City of Hope project, and I thank the chairman for this 
great step forward for our country's security and its greatest values.
  This project is making a difference in the lives of children who have 
been orphaned as a result of the HIV/AIDS crisis affecting Tanzania and 
other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Duke University, the University 
of Virginia, Campbell University, Howard University, St. Mary's 
University of Tanzania, and Teamwork Ministries International are 
working together to advance the City of Hope project.
  The HIV/AIDS epidemic has left millions of African children alone, 
homeless, and without hope. UNICEF estimates there are over 12 million 
orphaned children in sub-Saharan Africa, and over 1.5 million in 
Tanzania alone. In some communities, the majority of adults have either 
died or are infected with HIV/AIDS, and their children carry the burden 
of raising the family. These children are at a high risk of being 
misused and exploited at the work place as they try to earn a living to 
support their siblings. Many of these children wander into towns, live 
on the streets, and resort to stealing in order to survive. Others are 
kidnapped and sold as slaves.
  The City of Hope is a revolutionary concept, of building facilities 
and initiating assistance programs not only to provide living quarters, 
health care, clean drinking water, food and education for children, but 
also to help educate and train future leaders of Africa. It is an 
innovative way of bringing transformation to those in despair, and 
bringing hope to communities and to nations.
  Through construction of campuses for orphans in Tanzania providing 
clean drinking water, residential facilities, schools, and health care 
facilities, the City of Hope project will provide safe havens for 
children in the region. A

[[Page H7860]]

principal objective is to provide training in leadership skills and in 
microenterprise, especially agribusiness and sustainable farming, and 
environmentally beneficial land-use practices. This approach is 
intended to provide economic opportunities for future leaders in an 
area in which 80 percent of the economy is agricultural.
  Teamwork Ministries is benefiting from the commitment of skilled 
professionals in such areas as medicine, nursing, nutrition and health, 
sustainable agricultural practices, and design of ``green buildings'' 
to conserve energy. The government of Tanzania is assigning doctors and 
medical staff to the City of Hope project, and Duke University School 
of Nursing, the University of Virginia, Campbell University, Howard 
University, and St. Mary's University of Tanzania are all offering 
their expertise.
  In 2009, the first City of Hope campus in the northern Tanzanian 
community of Ntagatcha will be home to 300 orphaned children and will 
provide employment and health care to benefit adults in the local 
community. Teamwork Ministries' objective is to replicate the City of 
Hope model elsewhere, to serve communities in which the need is 
greatest. With adequate funding and support in the years ahead, 
Teamwork Ministries' goal is to establish up to 100 Cities of Hope 
throughout Tanzania and other sub-Saharan African countries.
  I want to thank the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations 
Subcommittee Chair, Congresswoman Lowey, and my colleague Congressman 
David Price, a member of the Appropriations Committee, for their 
support of the City of Hope project. I believe this project, which has 
strong support in my Congressional District, will be a worthwhile 
expenditure of USAID funding.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank my friend from Florida. I rise in opposition to 
the rule. I think at a time when so many controversial decisions are 
being made in foreign policy, we should have free and open debate. I 
continue my concerns about the lack of free and open debate.
  At the same time, I am going to support the underlying bill, but not 
without deep concerns. I have concerns about the spending in the bill. 
I have concerns about the administration's policy in about every 
country except Canada, and I have some reservations even in their 
policy with Canada. But at the end of the day, and as the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) said, for those of us who spent our entire 
lives working on the pro-life movement, to be forced into choices with 
this Mexico City policy combined with family planning is terrible.
  But at the end of the day, I stand with Israel and the funding for 
Israel. We will have votes on other issues, but this is really our only 
vote of importance to supporting our friends in Israel.
  Without this military funding to help provide superiority and 
technology in developing their military capability to keep their 
military superiority over neighbors who would wipe them from the face 
of the Earth the second they don't have that superiority, they very 
possibly might not survive. I have concerns about this administration's 
policy on Israel. It seems to me we are doing a lot of bullying of a 
government elected there. They elect different parties, they have 
different positions, and ultimately they have to make their decisions 
on what is best for them to survive. They are the best example of 
democracy in the region. They elect governments that make the different 
decisions, and we stand with them because we believe it is in our best 
interest and our obligation to stand with Israel, even if we may 
disagree with certain policies.
  So I even have concerns about the administration's policies regarding 
Israel; but at the same time, fundamentally, this is our Israel vote. 
Because I recognize the fundamental reason for the creation of Israel, 
because I understand their forced diaspora and their persecution around 
the world, and I understand why Israel was recreated and reestablished 
in 1948. And I understand the anti-Semitism and rising anti-Semitism 
around the world, and I understand the anger and commitment to the 
destruction of their very nation. I think it is important with all of 
the other difficult issues that we show bipartisan support in this way 
to our friends in Israel who are in tough straits right now.
  So it is reluctantly that I will vote for the bill, but I will vote 
for the bill and oppose the rule.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my thanks to my 
colleagues, Chairwoman Nita Lowey and Congressman Earl Blumenauer, for 
their tireless work over the years to make safe drinking water and 
basic sanitation more accessible to the world's poor.
  In recent years, we have strengthened the United States commitment to 
this cause not only by increasing the amount of moneys for safe water 
and drinking water and sanitation, but also making sure that these 
moneys are appropriately spent in the proper countries, in line with 
the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005.
  The continual increase in funding has allowed USAID to hire new 
technical staff with drinking water and sanitation expertise, to 
leverage host government involvement, to increase matching funds 
available to NGOs, and to conduct a range of tested and pilot 
approaches to increase water and sanitation coverage in individual host 
countries. It is essential that we continue on this upward trajectory, 
and I applaud Congresswoman Lowey for making an additional $25 million 
available for this effort.
  Water and sanitation have increasingly played a major role in how 
individuals interact with one another and how governments govern. 
Today, approximately 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking 
water, and an estimated 2.6 billion people live in environments where 
they do not have access to proper toilet facilities and human waste 
cannot be properly disposed of.
  Chronic water scarcity has fueled instability and hinders economic 
and social development. In such places as Zimbabwe, Mexico and Gaza, 
the lack of access to safe drinking water has had detrimental 
ramifications for the people who live there. For example, over 1.6 
million people die every year from easily preventable diseases, and 90 
percent of the children are under 5.
  I certainly commend Congresswoman Lowey, and I would like to say that 
is why Congressman Blumenauer and I introduced the Paul Simon bill, and 
I urge its support.
  The lack of access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation 
affects everything from how food is grown and prepared to the ability 
of girls and young women to attend school. Water and sanitation is an 
obvious issue of health but also one of dignity, physical safety and 
development.
  In 2002, the world's leaders gathered together and pledged to halve 
the proportion, by 2015, of people who lack access to clean water and 
basic sanitation. The U.S. Congress took this pledge and passed the 
Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. We made the pledge 
to bring safe and affordable drinking water to the world's poor. Since 
its enactment in 2005, the U.S. has been able to bring inexpensive 
potable water to millions of people. While some parts of the world are 
on track to halve the percent of people who lack access to safe 
drinking water and basic sanitation, some regions like Africa are 
behind schedule. That is why Congressman Earl Blumenauer and I 
introduced the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009. This 
bill is calling for the U.S. Government to elevate the pledge we made 
in 2002 to a diplomatic and policy priority. It would create offices 
within the Department of State and USAID and would increase the level 
of U.S. Government cooperation with local and NGO partners. Most 
importantly, it would bring first-time access to safe drinking water to 
an additional 100 million people.
  As we, in Congress, debate the State and Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Act which will rebuild our diplomatic and development 
activities, strengthen national security and combat terrorism and 
address global HIV/AIDS, let us not forget that safe drinking water and 
sanitation are key to the achievement of these other goals. I thank 
Chairwoman Lowey for recognizing this crucial fact and increasing our 
commitment an additional $25 million to $335 million.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Cardoza for 
the time.
  I want to begin my comments by congratulating Chairwoman Nita Lowey

[[Page H7861]]

for drafting the bill before us today. I also want to thank Ranking 
Member Granger for working with the majority, and I also want to 
recognize both the majority and minority subcommittee staff for their 
professionalism and tireless work in producing this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support of H.R. 3081, 
the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations bill. 
There are few things that we do on an annual basis that are more 
important and crucial to the success of U.S. foreign policy than 
passing this bill.
  U.S. foreign policy can only be successful if we make crucial 
investments in the three D's: defense, diplomacy, and development. 
Ideally, all three, defense, diplomacy and development, should be 
considered equal legs of the same stool. However, this is currently not 
the case. This year we are going to spend somewhere north of $500 
billion for defense. This bill, diplomacy and development, only totals 
$48 billion.
  Despite the fact that the allocation for this bill is $3.2 billion 
below the President's request, and $1.2 billion below the comparable 
fiscal year 2009 level, this is a well-written and measured bill, 
taking into account the concerns of both the majority and the minority. 
However, I am worried about some of the amendments that have been made 
in order by the rule that would eviscerate some of the vital programs 
in this bill in the name of fiscal discipline.
  I am worried, Mr. Speaker, because yesterday in the developing world 
nearly 15,000 to 20,000 people died of extreme poverty. Today in the 
developing world, 15,000 to 20,000 people will die of extreme poverty. 
Tomorrow in the developing world, 15,000 to 20,000 people will die of 
extreme poverty.
  Extreme poverty, like malnutrition and disease, are claiming tens of 
thousands of lives every day, despite the fact that we know how to save 
many of these lives. The bill before us has the real potential to 
reverse these facts. Look at what has been done to date with our 
foreign aid: smallpox eradication began in the 1960s; control of river 
blindness in the 1970s; increased child immunizations in the 1980s; 
initiatives to fight Guinea worm, trachoma and leprosy in the 1990s; 
and the effort to end polio in this decade. Measurable results produced 
with the dollars in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, let me point out some of the highlights of this measure. 
This bill improves our diplomatic capabilities by funding 1,000 new 
foreign service professionals and improves our development capabilities 
by funding 300 new USAID personnel.
  This bill provides funds for both our multilateral and bilateral 
peacekeeping operations. The bill provides increases for global health 
programs that fight the scourge of HIV, TB and malaria. The bill 
provides increases for development assistance programs. Some of these 
funds are educating children and providing clean drinking water and 
sanitation around the world.
  The bill provides $224 million for Liberia, a shining example of a 
post-conflict country that is now on the road to recovery instead of 
becoming a potential failed state and a potential haven for terrorists.
  Now, I understand that some of the Members plan to offer amendments 
to cut key increases in programs in this bill; but this is penny wise 
and pound foolish. Again, for our foreign policy to be successful, we 
can't just use sticks; we also have to use carrots. We need to invest 
in diplomacy and development the same way we do defense.
  I am sure some will defend their amendments by saying in tough 
economic times we don't need to spend one dime overseas. These 
arguments also are shortsighted. The money we spend on development and 
humanitarian programs overseas is an investment in more stability, more 
security, and more sustainability. It is an investment in our long-term 
national security interests. It is an investment in a safer, freer, and 
more democratic world.
  Not only is there a strong rational reason to support this bill and 
oppose all of the amendments to cut these vital programs; there is a 
moral one as well. When we were debating the fiscal year 2008 Foreign 
Operations bill, Chairman Frank Wolf, former ranking member, said it 
best when he said, ``I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot 
of good, and I want to say that this bill will help save a lot of lives 
not only here but around the world. This is the work of the Lord,'' 
Frank Wolf said. ``This bill,'' he said, ``is really to feed the poor, 
the hungry, the naked, the sick. Almost a better title of this bill,'' 
Frank Wolf said, ``would be the Matthew 25 bill.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, and to look 
closely at some of these amendments because some of these amendments 
would cut the Lord's work by 5 percent across the board. Others would 
cut the Lord's work by $1.2 billion. And other amendments, Mr. Speaker, 
eviscerate programs that are designed to help the poorest amongst the 
poor. Support this bill; support this rule; and support this measure.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
reiterate again my gratitude both to Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking 
Member Granger of this appropriations subcommittee, and all of the 
members of the subcommittee. They have done great work.
  When Chairwoman Lowey appeared yesterday in the Rules Committee, it 
was really remarkable how on a bipartisan basis she received the 
commendation and admiration of all of us, and, quite frankly, I think 
in representation of the entire House. So I thank her.
  And she has a wonderful ranking member, Kay Granger, who also works 
extremely diligently in a way that has made the House also admire her 
deeply.
  I think we have had a good debate on the underlying legislation. I 
think it is most unfortunate that the tradition of two centuries of 
open debate on appropriations bills has been broken by the majority. 
And so, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question on this rule so that we can amend the rule and allow an open 
rule.
  The rule that the majority has brought forth today will only cement 
the dangerous and unnecessary precedent that it has already set. So 
let's have an open rule. Let's revert to tradition. Let's return to an 
open process.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to 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 urge all of my colleagues, and 
I am sure many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree 
with us, that this unnecessary lessening of the House, this diminishing 
of each of the Members' rights is most unfortunate. And so we should 
return, as Ranking Member Lewis said before the Rules Committee last 
evening, let's return. There is still time, let's return to the 
tradition of two centuries and have an open rule.

                              {time}  1345

  And we pledge, as Ranking Member Lewis did last night before the 
Rules Committee, full cooperation, consistent with that tradition, 
after debate has begun on these appropriations bills that still remain 
to be considered, to work out unanimous consent agreements to limit 
time and allow the process to be finished in a timely way. So let's 
return to that tradition of two centuries and preserve the rights of 
each of the Members of this House.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question in order to return to 
those two centuries of tradition, to return to open rules on 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Florida for his words.
  I concede that it is quite unfortunate that we stand here today, 
where we stand today, with regard to what has transpired over the past 
few weeks. It is not the way we want things to operate in the people's 
house, it's not the way my friends on the other side want to operate 
either.
  A trust and agreement have been breached. Republicans have chosen not 
to be able to come to an agreement from our very first appropriation 
bill. There was a marker laid down with dilatory tactics which could 
have prevented us from tending to the people's business. While 
Democrats have continued choosing to try and legislate

[[Page H7862]]

and move forward and do what the voters and those who elected us to do, 
we have seen that there has been continuing obstructionist tactics.
  The State-Foreign Ops appropriations bill gets to the heart of our 
national security interests, and it is one of the most important 
appropriations bills we consider each year. This bill has no place for 
obstructionism and partisan politics. That has to stop at the water's 
edge. We simply cannot risk the people's business coming to a 
screeching halt on such a critical national security measure.
  Mr. Speaker, for the good of this institution, we must put aside our 
political differences and find the common ground. But until that time, 
we must also do what's necessary to continue doing the people's 
business and ensure that nothing stands in the way of providing for the 
safety and security of this great Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, the State-Foreign Ops Appropriations bill 
funds the United States' diplomatic and development priorities. It is a 
cornerstone of our national security. It is critical that we send a 
strong, united message to the world about the United States' foreign 
policy commitments, about our priorities, about supporting this bill 
with overwhelming bipartisan support today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 617 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert 
     the following:
       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker shall, 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. 3081) making appropriations for the Department 
     of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill hack to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall he 
     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 information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution--The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. 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 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________