[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 107 (Thursday, July 16, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8191-H8199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3170, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND 
              GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 644 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 644

       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. 3170) making appropriations for financial 
     services and general government 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. The bill shall be considered as 
     read through page 145, line 11. 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 the amendments 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 
     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. 
     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 disposition of the amendments specified in 
     the first section of this resolution, 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. 3170, 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 (Ms. Edwards of Maryland). The gentleman from 
Colorado is recognized for 1 hour.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against 
consideration of the rule because the resolution violates section 
426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of 
the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 
426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific 
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated. 
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of 
consideration.
  The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
  After that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: ``Will the House now consider the resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I rise today once again to plead with the majority party 
to lift the legislative version of martial law that's been imposed on 
appropriation bills this year.
  We're more than halfway through the season and so far we've had, for 
appropriation bills, more than 700 amendments have been filed with the 
Rules Committee. Only 119, or less than 20 percent, have been made in 
order. Roughly a quarter of them that have been made in order have been 
my earmark amendments, which I'm pleased for. Don't get me wrong. I'm 
grateful they're made in order.
  But these earmarks, this is about the only vetting, as shallow is it 
may be, on the floor of the House that these earmarks get, because 
they're certainly not getting the vetting they deserve in the 
Appropriations Committee. But this is insufficient.
  It's not right to have a legislative version of martial law on 
appropriation bills and to bring up the issue of timing, to say, We 
don't have time to deal with all the amendments that have been offered, 
as was demonstrated yesterday when I asked unanimous consent five 
times--five times--to simply swap out an amendment that was not ruled 
in order by the Rules Committee--that was germane, just not ruled in 
order--for one of mine that would have been given.
  It wouldn't have taken any extra time. We would have been under the 
same time constraints of the bill. So we would be living within the 
time constraints that the majority party has laid down.

[[Page H8192]]

  But the majority party simply wouldn't allow it, because this isn't 
about time. We adjourned or we were finished with legislative business 
by around four o'clock yesterday. We were finished with amendments by 
five o'clock. Members were free to go after the last amendment votes 
around four o'clock.
  This isn't an issue of time. But say that it was. If it was an issue 
of time, then allowing amendments to be swapped and substituted or 
amendments to be modified within the time limit should be allowed.
  But instead, the majority party simply doesn't want to deal with 
certain amendments. They don't want their members to vote on certain 
amendments. That's what is at issue here.
  As a result, the votes on amendments on these appropriation bills 
have all the excitement and anticipation of a Cuban election. You know 
the result. It's going to be lopsided or it's agreed to in advance.
  That may be efficient. The trains may run on time. But it isn't the 
legislative process that we're used to here. Traditionally, 
appropriation bills have been brought to the floor under an open rule. 
That's always been important.
  It's become even more important over the last several years when we 
placed in those bills literally thousands and thousands and thousands 
of appropriation requests by individual Members, many of them no-bid 
contracts--Members awarding no-bid contracts to private companies and, 
in many cases, their campaign contributors, with virtually no vetting 
in the Appropriations Committee.
  So the only opportunity we have to vet those is here on the House 
floor, and then Members are denied the opportunity in many cases to 
bring those amendments to the floor. That simply is not right.
  Let me take the bill that we will be dealing with today and give a 
few examples. In the Rules Committee under this rule that we're dealing 
with now, many amendments were offered, as I mentioned, and they were 
submitted as requested by the Rules Committee, pre-submitted, which we 
didn't even used to have to do with appropriation bills, but we can 
accept that. These were submitted--and many of these were turned down.
  For example, one was to make in order to provide the appropriate 
waivers for amendment 87 offered by Representative Boehner, the 
minority leader, which would ensure that low-income D.C. students are 
able to receive a scholarship through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program by removing the requirement that students must be OSP 
recipients during the 2009-2010 school year.
  This would simply allow the D.C. voucher program--the highly popular 
D.C. voucher program--to continue. This is not something that is not 
germane. It is germane. This is the bill that deals with D.C. 
appropriations. But the majority party simply didn't want to vote on 
that. And so they rejected it, and it's out.
  Later today, I will be asking for unanimous consent to substitute 
this amendment for one of mine that I have been fortunate enough to 
have made in order. It won't take any additional time.
  So time is not an issue. It's simply saying that we should be able to 
vote on amendments that Members want to vote on, not just those 
amendments that the majority leadership wants us to vote on; to lift 
martial law on appropriation bills, if only for a brief window, for the 
appropriation bills that we have still to consider.
  Another amendment--I see Mr. Walden here--that he has offered. The 
Walden-Pence amendment would prohibit funds from being available in the 
act from being used to implement the fairness doctrine and certain 
broadcast localism regulations.
  I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Oregon to speak on that.
  Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate the gentleman raising this point of order 
and yielding. How ironic; the amendment we offered in good faith, after 
consideration with the parliamentarians, is fully in order under our 
House rules normally, except for the gag order that's been placed on us 
by the Rules Committee.
  How ironic; we're trying to stand up and protect First Amendment free 
speech rights for American citizens and broadcasters to be able to 
discuss political issues and religious issues on America's airwaves, 
protect that right as the House did in 2007 with a 309-115 bipartisan 
vote.
  We're talking about free expression, First Amendment rights, 
privileges that American citizens have enshrined, and the Democrat 
leadership of this Congress has conspired to prevent us from even 
allowing that amendment to be debated on this House floor and voted on. 
And yet, when it was brought before this House in 2007, 309 Members 
voted ``yes.'' It was a 3-1 margin that stood up for free speech and to 
protect free speech on America's airwaves, to protect the rights of 
religious broadcasters to engage in their discussions on America's 
airwaves.
  Members of both parties supported this. And yet today, sometimes I 
feel like we're more an Iranian-style democracy, where all these rules 
that have been in place for many, many years in this House, 
historically back to its inception, that allow for open and vigorous 
debate on our House floor, have been now twisted and turned and crammed 
down to the fact that you're gagged. I'm gagged, the people we 
represent are gagged. It is simply outrageous that this is occurring.

                              {time}  1045

  We should be able to offer these amendments, as we have historically, 
in Republican and Democrat Congresses in the past. This is nearly 
unprecedented in the scope of clamping down on our ability to represent 
our constituents and in our ability to raise these issues on the floor 
of this great institution, of this democratic institution, where free 
speech and the opportunity to debate public policy issues are 
enshrined.
  What has this House come to?
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I oppose the gentleman's point of order. I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, once again, this point of order is not about unfunded 
mandates. It's about TV broadcasting and about a whole variety of other 
things, but it's about delaying the bill that is under consideration 
and about, ultimately, stopping it. I hope my colleagues see through 
this attempt and will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this legislation 
on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose 
the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this 
rule today, and we must pass this legislation.
  I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, yes, this isn't about unfunded mandates. 
Unfortunately, it's about the only opportunity we have to stand up, and 
we'll stand up later when the rule is discussed, but I'm here because 
the Rules Committee would not make in order the amendments that Members 
wanted to offer on an appropriations bill.
  These are bills that are brought to the floor under open rules, 
traditionally, to allow Members the opportunity to represent their 
constituencies; but here we're being gagged and told we can't do that 
because we're only going to allow the amendments that we want to hear, 
the ones that are noncontroversial, the ones that we have debated 
before and that we know won't impact negatively on us. That's not any 
way to run this body.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN. If you want to talk about how this body is being run, in 
the Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday, the best we could get on 
the Democrats' health plan was a closed-door briefing from the 
Congressional Budget Office that was only open to members of our staff 
and to no other staff and to no other citizens, and it was shut down to 
the press. Now, I find that outrageous.
  So not only is this occurring on the amendments we hope to bring that 
are fully within the scope of the rules of this House and that have 
been well vetted--and you can smile. I get it. You

[[Page H8193]]

guys are in control. You're going to win. You've got the votes. You can 
shut us down. Yet, at the end of the day, the American people get it, 
and they get that bills are being rammed through here without due 
consideration and process and that Members on both sides of the aisle 
are having their amendments shut down, and they're not even being 
allowed to be considered.
  I've been here for 10 years now. I remember, during appropriations 
season, we worked hard. We worked day and night, sometimes a lot longer 
than I'd wished we'd worked, but Members had the right under our rules 
to bring amendments forward that were within the constraints of the 
rules of this House and within the historic principles of this House. 
We had vigorous debates and we took tough votes. Then we went back and 
we defended those votes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, 
but they did not speak to the point of order at all. So, Madam Speaker, 
again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to 
consider so we can debate and pass this important legislation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 644.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 644 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 2010. This is the first Financial Services 
Appropriations bill under a President who believes Wall Street actually 
needs someone to watch it. This bill provides the much needed resources 
for the Federal Government to improve our oversight of Wall Street 
while investing in small businesses on Main Street.
  As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, we have worked 
with Chairman Frank to examine the causes of our recent economic 
downturn. There were many causes of it, but our findings conclude that 
a large factor of this downturn was misguided deregulation promoted in 
the financial markets.
  Under the Bush administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission 
was underfunded. The SEC promoted a ``good old boy'' atmosphere that 
disregarded investor and taxpayer interests in favor of Wall Street 
wealth. Under the Bush administration, the SEC repeatedly turned a 
blind eye regarding fraud as they did with the warnings about Bernie 
Madoff. Also, the SEC knowingly helped build the house of cards that 
was the basis for this subprime mortgage bubble.
  Under the Bush administration, big business just became too big to 
fail, and the whole house of cards came tumbling down. AIG, Bernie 
Madoff, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, WaMu, Wachovia, and other 
financial disasters could have been avoided if our Federal agencies had 
been given the resources to connect the dots, to look at the books and 
to take preventative measures.
  This legislation increases funding for the SEC by 8 percent over last 
year. It provides funds for the SEC to hire 140 additional analysts to 
protect investors and taxpayers from nefarious corporate interests and 
schemes. Those 140 new analysts can monitor publicly traded companies 
and can restore trust for investors and taxpayers. This provision sends 
a clear message to Wall Street that your days of wine and roses are 
over. The bill also increases funding for the FTC to help consumers and 
to go after illegal credit card practices.
  For my constituents back in Colorado, this bill provides a 38 percent 
increase in funding for the Small Business Administration. During an 
economic downturn, many individuals who have been laid off open small 
businesses where they can pursue their entrepreneurial dreams and can 
be their own bosses. This boost in funding will reinvigorate 
communities across the Nation at the precise time that we need it.
  For the judicial branch, this bill provides the Federal judiciary the 
funds it needs to hire additional staff and judges. In particular, the 
past year has seen a 28 percent increase in the number of bankruptcies. 
This bill will provide for 142 more staff for Federal bankruptcy courts 
to put these businesses and individuals back on the road to recovery.
  Finally, if there is one issue people in our districts will support 
in this bill, it is the reinstatement of auto dealer franchise 
agreements which were severed with little notice earlier this year. In 
my own district, hundreds of workers were put in jeopardy when GM and 
Chrysler terminated their dealerships--even long-time profitable 
franchises. At a time when too many Americans are unemployed, adding 
more workers to the unemployment rolls is the last thing our economy 
needs.
  This bill is another step toward economic recovery, and I urge its 
adoption.
  I now reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for yielding 
the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the structured rule, and I 
also rise in opposition to how my Democrat colleagues continue to shut 
out Republican voices on the floor of the House of Representatives in 
virtually every committee here in the House.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have set an historic 
precedent by shutting down the amendment process once again today in 
order to accomplish legislative business during the appropriations 
process, and Republicans disagree with this. Madam Speaker, you will 
continue to hear of our opposition, and the American people will hear 
the same.
  Chairman Obey has set an arbitrary time line to finish the financial 
year 2010 spending bills, which has forced the Democrat-run Rules 
Committee to limit every single Republican and Democrat chance to offer 
amendments on the House floor. Hundreds of amendments have been offered 
by my colleagues, and they have been rejected in an unprecedented 
fashion.
  What is this majority afraid of? Why won't they allow for an open and 
honest debate that has happened for hundreds of years in this body? Why 
won't we have open rules on appropriations bills?
  Because of this historical new restrictive process, as part of my 
committee assignments, I had to go to the Rules Committee on Wednesday 
night just to offer three commonsense amendments. Not one was made in 
order for the debate today. Two dealt with allowing the same 
restrictions and opportunities for Federal Government employees and for 
private contractors.
  In a time of record deficits by this Democrat Congress, Congress 
should find a better way to deal with the American taxpayer for the 
success of this country and for jobs. Instead, they chose to ignore 
these amendments and ideas.
  My last amendment would have required this Obama administration to 
post any interaction or communication with General Motors as a public 
record. Since the American public was not consulted before the takeover 
of GM, they should at least be able to monitor now how their tax 
dollars are being spent.
  Madam Speaker, today, we are discussing the Financial Services 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. It is my intent to focus on 
the huge increase in spending--no surprise--over last year's level and 
to discuss the majority party's destructive initiatives that have 
intruded into the private sector. It is my idea to talk about how

[[Page H8194]]

they will continue killing jobs and how we will continue having 
historic record deficits and to discuss the new Democrat priority of 
using TARP dividends for more housing handouts instead of using that 
money to be repaid to the taxpayer.
  This underlying legislation is a 7 percent, or $1.6 billion, increase 
above the current year's spending levels, and that is excluding the 
massive stimulus funding. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke 
recently stated, Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal 
stability, in the long term, we will have neither financial stability 
nor healthy economic growth.
  The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the budget is on an 
unsustainable path. This bill does not represent a commitment to fiscal 
sustainability. With this legislation, Congress only further slows down 
and impedes our economic recovery, and it increases the financial 
burden placed on our children, grandchildren and on our future.
  With the facade of fiscal sustainability, the Obama administration is 
posing sweeping financial reforms that will further stretch rather than 
help the banking industry. The Obama regulatory plan calls for large, 
interconnected companies to pay a heavy price by limiting companies 
from mixing banking and commerce. This potentially forces companies 
like General Electric to spin off its largely lending subsidiary, GE 
Capital, and turn it into a bank holding company with more regulations, 
less revenue and less loan capacity.
  Once again, this is the Democratic plan to kill private sector jobs 
and to further encumber and harm economic recovery.

                              {time}  1100

  Madam Speaker, what kind of precedent is this administration and 
Congress setting by forcing regulation on successful businesses while 
completely avoiding responsibility and transparency in their own 
spending habits? The American people know that you shouldn't spend what 
you don't have, and that's exactly what this Democrat majority is 
doing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama 
administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in 5 years. 
Just last week the Congressional Budget Office released a monthly 
budget review which states that the Federal budget deficit reached $1.1 
trillion, and this was reached during the month of June. According to 
the CBO, that is $800 billion more than the deficit record through June 
2008. The bottom line is that the United States is looking at a 
possible $2 trillion record deficit for this year alone, a long stretch 
from the group of people who talked about fiscal insanity just before 
the election. I think we know what the truth is. The Democratic Party 
is tax and spend. Especially at a time of deep economic recession, this 
Congress should be promoting pro-growth policies that reduce spending 
and increase jobs. Unemployment continues to rise while our friends on 
the other side of the aisle consciously continue to tax, borrow and 
spend their way into record deficits. The CBO estimates that 
unemployment benefit spending is more than two-and-a-half times what it 
was at this point last year. The current unemployment rate is now over 
9.5 percent, which is the highest level in 26 years, and their own 
budget estimates say it's going to rise.
  Madam Speaker, with record deficits and growing job loss, you would 
think that this majority would want to bring the national debt down and 
try to curb spending. But nope, not going to happen. Not with what's on 
the floor again today. Last month Financial Services Chairman Barney 
Frank dropped a bill and held a hearing that would redesignate 
dividends from TARP funds to two housing slush funds. This would take 
the $6.2 billion in dividends paid back to the American people and 
would create a brand new spending program. It is unconscionable that 
any dividend received would be redistributed in new spending projects 
rather than returning it to the taxpayer. Again, my friends on the 
other side of the aisle continue to tax, borrow and spend money that 
not only they do not have, but the American public knows that it comes 
out of jobs and economic recovery for this country.
  Madam Speaker, how is this economy supposed to bounce back with this 
Democrat Congress forcing Americans to pay for a failed trillion-dollar 
stimulus package, a bailout for those who defaulted on their own 
mortgages, a bailout for those who abused their credit cards, a bailout 
for corporate America's bad decision making, a new national energy tax, 
and a possible $1.5 trillion health care package that will force 120 
million Americans out of their current health care coverage? When does 
this malaise stop? Where are the jobs? Why are we spending more and 
more money simply to get more unemployment? Madam Speaker, it should be 
asked on the floor of this House, where are the jobs? Where are the 
jobs that were promised by Speaker Pelosi? They evaporate again today.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I will continue to point out to our 
friends on the other side of the aisle that we simply cannot tax, we 
cannot simply spend and borrow our way out of the country's economic 
recession that comes from the Democrats running the House, the Senate 
and the presidency. Madam Speaker, the misery index of this country 
continues to rise under the leadership of the Democratic Party, and 
rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive 
increases in spending. Americans back home are tightening their belts, 
and the U.S. Congress should be doing the same. I encourage a ``no'' 
vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the previous question to amend 
the rule to allow for an open rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I have to say that my friend from Texas and I couldn't disagree more 
about the causes of the troubles that exist today in our economy. The 
Republican administration under George Bush, prosecuting two wars, 
cutting taxes for the wealthiest among us, helped drive this country 
into the ditch. That, coupled with a penchant, a desire, a real effort 
to deregulate, unregulate and privatize led to failures all throughout 
Wall Street and the banking system, starting first with a $60 million 
Ponzi scheme conducted by Bernie Madoff, followed in part and at the 
same time by a $700 billion failure of Wall Street and financial 
institutions that had to be filled. President Obama inherited a $1.3 
trillion deficit as a result of the misguided policies of the 
Republican Party and the Bush administration.
  With that, I will yield 3 minutes to my friend from Michigan, Mr. 
Bart Stupak.
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman and the coach for yielding me time.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. Madam 
Speaker, those of us who respect the right of life for the unborn know 
that when taxpayers fund abortion, more lives are lost to the tragedy 
of abortion. Out of our conviction for the unborn, 180 Members sent a 
letter to the Speaker, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee and the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, requesting that existing pro-
life riders be included in any legislation reported out of the 
Appropriations Committee. These provisions include long-standing 
restrictions, some of which have been there for more than 30 years, on 
funding for abortion, on the conscience clause and policies respecting 
human life. These restrictions are important. They are a crucial part 
of Federal law. But they must be reapproved every year, as they have 
been by both Democratic and Republican leadership. We asked that those 
policies remain in legislation out of respect for all Americans who 
identify themselves as pro-life and out of respect for pro-life Members 
on both sides of the aisle. But anticipating the possibility that a 
pro-life appropriations policy will be deleted, a bipartisan group of 
Members asked for a reasonable accommodation by the Rules Committee. We 
asked that, at a minimum, the full House be given a reasonable 
opportunity to debate whether we should use taxpayers money to fund 
abortions. We asked to just allow us an up-and-down vote on this 
critical issue. When we saw that the ban on government-funded abortion 
in the District of Columbia was rendered meaningless, 5 Democrats, 5 
Republicans, 10 Members, a bipartisan group, went to the Rules 
Committee and asked for a simple change, an amendment to strike one 
word on page 143, line 8, the word Federal. Unfortunately our amendment

[[Page H8195]]

was flatly denied. We are not even given a chance to debate whether we 
should use taxpayer money to fund abortion, a very basic issue and 
question facing this country.
  So, unfortunately, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the rule and also to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill in its current 
form and in opposition to the rule, which muzzles the voices of pro-
life Members.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming down 
to talk about the muzzle that's been placed upon Members of this body 
by Speaker Pelosi. This muzzle affects not just Republicans but 
Democrats and millions of people's voices that might be heard on the 
floor of this House.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Concord Township, Ohio, (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this is a bad rule. It's a bad rule because it 
continues to muzzle the voices of representatives in this House that 
represent millions of people. As our friend from Michigan just 
indicated, we should have a debate on these issues. At the end of the 
debate, we have a vote. Somebody wins, somebody loses.
  I can remember, Madam Speaker, in happier times--and I define happier 
times as being when we were in the majority, sadly--that I had the 
honor to be where the Speaker pro tempore is. I sat for 3 days once 
doing the Interior appropriations bill while Member, after Member, 
after Member came and spoke and said what was on their minds on the 
issues of the day; and then we voted. Our Democratic friends knew we 
then had more votes than they did. They were going to lose most. They 
might win some. But we at least got to talk about it. This is 
unconscionable.
  I rise to thank a couple of people because even on this horrible 
rule, there is some daylight. I want to thank the Rules Committee for 
protecting from a potential point of order an amendment that I inserted 
into the Financial Services appropriations bill during the course of 
the markup; and I want to thank Chairman Serrano and Chairman Obey for 
going before the Rules Committee and protecting it as well.
  The amendment simply says that we will not, as taxpayers in this 
country, give billions of dollars to General Motors and Chrysler until 
they come to terms with the hundreds of thousands of people they have 
put out of work. We know that their actions have thrown 40,000 auto 
workers out of work. We know that 50,000 people who worked for Delphi 
have lost their health coverage. This week we had the auto dealers in 
town, and the actions of the President's auto task force is going to 
cause the closure of 789 Chrysler dealerships across this country, 
2,600 General Motors dealerships. About 60 people work at each 
dealership. Over 200,000 people thrown out of work because of the goofy 
actions of an unelected task force, and now the car company is taking 
advantage. Why do we know it's the goofy action of the task force? We 
know it because both car companies filed to plan for reorganization on 
February 17. That plan was rejected. We know from Mr. Bloom, who is the 
new head of the task force, why that plan was rejected. In testimony 
before the Senate, he indicated, ``We rejected that plan because they 
didn't get rid of enough people, they didn't close enough auto plants, 
and they didn't close enough auto dealerships across the country.'' 
Well, in response to that, the car companies, if they wanted the 
billions, they came back and presented a plan that will now cause 
300,000 people, 300,000 families to be without jobs in this country.
  I would say to my friend from Texas, you would think, Well, maybe 
this auto task force knows more about manufacturing cars and selling 
cars than the rest of us. But perhaps the gentleman knows, out of all 
of the members of the President's task force, do you think anyone has 
any experience in making a car, selling a car, making a car part? No. 
No, they don't have any experience.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. The Wall Street Journal did a survey that indicated 
that most of the members of the President's auto task force don't even 
own a car; and those that do own cars, own a foreign car. We have got 
to stop this madness; and if we don't stop the madness, the only 
stimulation of the economy, as we continue to throw people out of work, 
is going to be those clerks at the unemployment offices across America.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for the 
time. I thank both the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Financial Services for what I think has been a holistic approach to 
the needs that we are having to address and what has been called an 
economic collapse. As it has been based on the practices of our past 
administration, we're simply trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together 
again. I would hope as we make progress on this bill, that as we fund 
the Small Business Administration, that we will be reminded of the 
importance of language to advocate for small businesses. It is very 
disconcerting to find out how difficult it is for small businesses to 
actually do business with the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1115

  Veterans' businesses, minority-owned businesses, in essence, they 
don't have an advocate, and our agencies are using ``good old boy'' 
systems to give business not to our small businesses, but to others.
  We need that kind of advocacy in the Small Business Administration, 
taxpayer advocacy. Americans pay their taxes, and there are people who 
work and pay taxes and want to do the right thing. The taxpayer 
advocacy system needs to get teeth because it is dysfunctional. The IRS 
does what it wants to do and treats taxpayers poorly. And the taxpayer 
advocacy needs to strengthen its ability to serve. I like the language 
in the TARP oversight. It is important to ensure that the TARP 
oversight also includes the ability to make banks lend.
  But, lastly, let me say how grateful I am for this language dealing 
with automobile dealers to restore their civil rights and keep them in 
this place. Bob Knapp of Knapp Chevrolet in Texas has said, We will 
lose 10,000 jobs. He is a central city car dealership of some 60 years 
old. The atrocity of GM to close this longstanding, profit-making, 
employee-providing institution is a shame. Let us get Chrysler and GM 
at the table to restore the ownership of these dealerships to their 
owners and let them sell cars the American way.
  The language in this bill is the right language. I thank those who 
have helped to offer this language, but now we have to implement the 
language. Get these car dealers back doing their jobs. And to GM and 
Chrysler, accept these appeals, recognizing the large number of jobs 
that will be lost. Create a job or save a job, there are jobs here. We 
can save a job.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado Springs, Mr. Lamborn.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the provision in this Financial 
Services bill that allows taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of 
Columbia. We cannot seriously talk about wanting to reduce the number 
of abortions in this country and then turn around and pay for them with 
taxpayer money. Planned Parenthood's own researchers report that 
without public funding, 30 percent fewer women have abortions.
  We have seen many polls showing that the American people oppose using 
their tax dollars for abortions. A poll done this year found that 69 
percent of respondents said they are against repealing the Hyde 
amendment if its repeal would result in taxpayer funding of abortion as 
a method of birth control. Life begins at conception, and I cannot, in 
good conscience, support a bill that squanders taxpayer money for the 
first time in decades to destroy life in the womb.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. I urge President Obama to 
reject this bill and to oppose taxpayer-funded abortions in the 
District of Columbia.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, before I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia,

[[Page H8196]]

I need to respond to my friend from Colorado, as well as the gentleman 
from Michigan who spoke earlier, and I'm looking at page 143, lines 8 
through 12, section 812, which says: ``None of the Federal funds 
appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except 
where the life of the mother would be endangered or where the pregnancy 
is the result of an act of rape or incest.''
  Mr. LAMBORN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes, for 15 seconds.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for that brief response on my part. Those 
funds are fungible, and that is not a true prohibition. It will be used 
for taxpayer-funded abortions.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank my friend. I think the language is about as 
clear as it could be when it says ``none of the Federal funds 
appropriated.''
  I will now yield 4 minutes to my friend from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
making a clarification before I could.
  Let me tell you something about fungible funds. You go home and tell 
the folks in your county or in your city that the funds that come from 
the Federal Government are fungible with their local funds, and 
therefore Congress should have jurisdiction over what they do in your 
local jurisdiction, and they may put you out of the House.
  The fact is that the committee was at pains to respect the difference 
between local and Federal issues, and I very much appreciate that they 
did. I'm surprised that Mr. Stupak would come to the floor with 
misinformation without looking at the bill to work up people on a 
controversial issue. The District asks, only be left abortion in our 
control insomuch as it is left in the control of other Americans. And 
throughout the United States, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in 
Roe v. Wade, local jurisdictions may use local funds for abortions for 
poor women.
  We are American citizens, and we demand to be treated as American 
citizens. We are older American citizens than some of you because we 
were created as a city with the Nation itself more than 200 years ago. 
I appreciate that our Rules Committee appreciated our citizenship and 
responded to and respected it.
  Now for those who are new, they might say, well, why is the D.C. 
appropriations in the Financial Services bill? The proper question is, 
why is Congress having anything to do with the D.C. budget, a local 
budget? It is none of your affair. And it is an anomaly that we are 
going to cure soon. But the fact is that it is here under the Home Rule 
Act, which made the District of Columbia a self-governing jurisdiction. 
It is in the Financial Services bill because there is no place to put 
it. There is no place to put it because it doesn't belong in a Federal 
budget because it is not the money of the people of the United States. 
These are the funds of the people who live in the District of Columbia.
  Some Members may mistakenly, others deliberately, come to the floor 
to try to impose their will or their choices or the choices of their 
citizens on the citizens of another jurisdiction. They wouldn't stand 
for that for one second in their own jurisdictions, whether on abortion 
or on any other issue. We saw the deadly effects that can occur, and I 
appreciate that Mr. Serrano removed from the D.C. appropriations an 
attachment that was responsible for the death and for the terrible 
health of thousands of D.C. residents when we were barred from using a 
needle exchange program that thousands of jurisdictions are able to do. 
We are not going to stand for it. It is not your business to deal with 
the health of my citizens or to keep us from doing what is required and 
legal to keep them healthy.
  Local control is older than the Nation itself. The war slogan ``no 
taxation without representation'' meant today, as it means in the 
District when you see it on the license plates, ``Take your hands off 
of the local jurisdiction that is not your own.'' This is the D.C. 
budget before you. It contains funds raised here and nowhere else.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the 
amount of time on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Texas has 14\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for his generosity.
  This is a local budget. Make no mistake about it: no amendment is in 
order on anybody's local budget. The time for lip service for local 
control has run out. We have profound disagreements on some issues from 
abortion to vouchers. Go home and deal with them there. Allow us to 
deal with these issues in our own way as a local jurisdiction.
  I appreciate that the Rules Committee has indeed respected our 
citizenship. And I demand that other Members of Congress do so, as 
well.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia that the Democratic Party owns the majority in 
this House. It has 60 Senators in the Senate, it has the President of 
the United States, and that is how they can get their own things done.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. It is kind of ironic for someone who is so passionate 
about achieving voting rights in this city that we would be denied 
voting rights on this floor on amendments that we sought to be 
considered.
  And that is really the issue I want to speak about at this time, and 
that is that we brought an amendment fully vetted within our rules to 
be allowable, had the Democrat majority allowed it to be considered, to 
protect freedom-of-speech rights for broadcasters and American citizens 
when it comes to debating political issues and religious issues on the 
Nation's airwaves.
  The great irony here is in this city we cannot, and in this Chamber 
cannot, get a vote or even a debate on that amendment under the new 
regime in charge here in the House.
  Now in 2007 when democracy was flourishing a little bit more in this 
body, and Members of Congress, elected by however many thousands of 
votes and representing more than half a million people, 650,000 or 
660,000 people, could bring issues to this floor during this one time 
and have them debated and considered. When Mr. Pence and I brought the 
Broadcaster Freedom amendment to this floor, and it was allowed to be 
considered, 309 Members of this body voted in favor of it. When we 
sought to renew the prohibition on the Federal Government from putting 
Federal censors over the airwaves, we were denied the opportunity even 
to have that debate. You see, the one we got passed in 2007 expired 1 
year later because it only went for as long as the appropriations bill.
  We have a bill, a bipartisan bill, in committee to make this 
permanent. But once again, the Democratic leadership refuses to engage 
in democracy and allows us even to have a hearing on that legislation. 
Now, the irony is that both Republicans and Democrats in times gone by 
have abused the Fairness Doctrine. Bill Ruder who was assistant 
Secretary of Commerce under John Kennedy admitted to CBS news producer, 
Fred Friendly, ``Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine 
to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hoped the 
challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and 
decide it was too expensive to continue.'' George Will reported in a 
column December 7, 2008, that Richard Nixon emulated that process.
  What we are trying to do is prevent any party, any politician in 
Washington from using a flawed process to silence and gag political 
speech on the airwaves. We all ought to be for that. Now the Fairness 
Doctrine is gone right now. But there are many, including leaders on 
the other side of the aisle, who have called for its return. Leader 
after leader, when asked by the press, called for its return. Some will 
say, well, no, that is not going to happen. Well, they have come around 
with a Trojan horse in the back door and say, we are going to do it a 
different way. We are going to call it ``localism.'' We are going to 
set up these

[[Page H8197]]

boards and commissions. We will have all this involvement. And if a 
broadcaster doesn't live up to what they are told to do, then their 
license will be pulled, or whatever.
  We are just trying to say, no, Government, we don't need your 
censorship. Stay out of the process and allow us a vote. Don't just gag 
and spend here.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. If I could, I would ask my friend from Texas how many 
more speakers he has. We don't have any others. And I will close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman asking. Due to the limited 
time that I was allowed by the Rules Committee, I know that we have a 
lot of people, but we have at least three additional speakers.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Then I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, just for the record, I think we are on 
even time about now that is left. Is that an indication, if I can 
engage with the gentleman, that he is through with his speakers?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes. I don't have any other speakers. Somebody may 
come wandering in, and I may ask for your indulgence. But at this 
point, we don't have any speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the engagement of the gentleman. We will 
go ahead and proceed and run through our speakers with an indication 
that he believes he is through at this time.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Clarence, New York (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. LEE of New York. I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
  I rise to strongly oppose the rule. I had offered an amendment to 
this measure that deals with one of the less-discussed aspects of the 
restructuring of the auto industry and, that is, the treatment of 
retirees. By now we all have heard the stories of workers who have 
given much of their lives to these companies, only to see their 
retirement benefits slashed or completely lost. But with Delphi 
Corporation, which is GM's largest parts supplier, we have an 
incredibly egregious case of inequity.
  As part of the restructuring agreement, GM agreed to assume the 
pension benefits of Delphi's hourly workers, 100 percent guaranteed, 
while the salaried workers' pension liabilities will be turned over to 
the federally chartered Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. When 
these pensions are turned over to the PBGC, salaried retirees stand to 
lose up to as much as 70 percent of their pension payments.

                              {time}  1130

  So basically, we have two groups of employees who've worked side by 
side for the same company for decades, and being treated so differently 
by the government.
  My view, and that of a number of Members on both sides of the aisle, 
is that it is fundamentally unfair, and it will be incredibly damaging 
to these families, especially when, going back to the beginning of the 
year, these same retirees lost not only their health benefits but also 
their life insurance.
  In the weeks since the decision has been announced, I have pursued 
all possible avenues to acquire information regarding how this 
inequitable decision was arrived at. And last week, I, along with 43 
Democrats and Republicans representing 13 different States, requested 
that congressional hearings on this issue be held in both the House and 
in the Senate.
  Now, the amendment I offered simply prevents funds from being 
allocated to the auto task force until all relevant data and documents 
pertaining to this matter are turned over. This is certainly an 
extraordinary step, but you and I, and all Americans, are now 60 
percent owners of General Motors, and we have every right to use all 
tools at our disposal to get to the bottom of this travesty.
  My amendment was not made in order, which is unfortunate. I have 
spoken with a number of these salaried retirees, and they recognize the 
need to make sacrifices in order to ensure a better economy over this 
long-term period that we're struggling through. They did not, however, 
sign up for having their benefits that they have earned, the benefits 
they counted on, being taken from them, and certainly not without a 
substantive explanation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule and give the House an 
opportunity to stand up for hardworking Americans.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I have 3 minutes. I'd like to, if I can, on my time, 
engage the gentleman in a colloquy about the rule. I was told earlier 
that I was discussing an amendment, I'm sorry, a point of order on 
unfunded mandates so we couldn't really talk about the rule. But now we 
are talking about the rule, so I'd like to have some kind of window 
into the mind of the Rules Committee as to why certain amendments were 
allowed on an appropriation bill and certain amendments weren't. If I 
could engage the Member in a colloquy, I'd enjoy that.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I will let the gentleman do a 
soliloquy. I am not going to enter into a colloquy.
  Mr. FLAKE. I don't blame the Member for not wanting to talk about 
this. And I really feel for members of the Rules Committee that are 
forced to carry out the bidding of the leadership, because this 
clearly, this clearly is a decision from the top, this year, to declare 
martial law on appropriation bills and not allow Members of Congress to 
bring amendments to the floor under an open rule that we have 
traditionally, and this has been the hallmark of this institution--
openness.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) mentioned that he'd been in 
the Chair in previous years where, for 3 days we debated amendments to 
the Interior bill. Many of those amendments were amendments that I 
offered, some of which were uncomfortable to people on that side and on 
this side, earmark amendments or others. Yet, we did it for 3 days.
  This party has said, the majority party now has said we can't take 3 
days on that bill. Okay, then let's limit the time. So we agreed here; 
we have time limits already set for the Financial Services bill. I have 
11 amendments that were made in order. I'll be asking unanimous consent 
later, when I offer my amendments, to swap a few of those amendments 
out to modify them to reflect the amendments that were offered by 
Members and were not allowed by the Rules Committee.
  So it's not going to be an issue of time. We've settled the issue of 
time. It will tell us whether or not the majority party simply wants to 
muscle, not just this side of the aisle, but certain of their Members 
as well.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) stood up to oppose the rule 
because the amendment with regard to Federal funding for abortion was 
not allowed. That is one amendment that I will try to modify instead of 
one of mine, or have mine modified to reflect that amendment.
  Again, it won't be an issue of time. The question will be, can or 
will--they can--will the majority allow that modification and allow 
that amendment to be offered. Under rules of unanimous consent, or 
under the rules of this body, under unanimous consent the majority 
party can agree to modify any amendment that is offered by a Member. 
And so it's not a question if they can. The question is if they will.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Hamilton, New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, Ms. Norton earlier suggested 
that prohibiting funding for abortion, over which we have 
constitutional jurisdiction, is none of our affair. I would 
respectfully submit, Madam Speaker, defending innocent and inconvenient 
children, protecting them from violence, is always our affair.
  Human rights, and the defense of human rights, protecting the weak 
and the most vulnerable, is always our affair. So I would respectfully 
ask Members to reject this rule.
  Last week, President Obama told, of all people, the Pope, that he 
wanted to reduce abortion. Oh, really? This week, pursuant to Mr. 
Obama's 2010 budget policy request, the House is getting ready to 
reverse a longstanding pro-life policy that prohibits taxpayer funding 
for abortions except in the rare cases of rape, incest or to save the 
life of the mother.
  Today's vote isn't just about whether pro-life Americans will be 
forced to subsidize dismembering unborn children to death, or paying to 
poison unborn children to death, or delivering

[[Page H8198]]

premature children to effectuate their destruction, children who are 
too immature to withstand life outside of the womb. Our vote today is 
also about government policies that are hurting women, abandoning women 
to the abortionists. We know that abortion hurts women. The evidence 
grows every day.
  Retaining current law, and that's what the Lincoln Davis, Todd Tiahrt 
amendment would have done and should do if this rule goes down, 
actually reduces abortion. Some of my colleagues have already pointed 
this out. It couldn't be more clear. The evidence is in. When you deny 
funding for abortion, the numbers go down. So when President Obama says 
he wants to reduce abortions, the answer is to take away the public 
subsidy.
  My friend on the other side said the bill restricts no Federal funds. 
We have jurisdiction over all the funds with regard to this issue. If 
we want to save a life, please don't use that kind of very thin and, I 
think, very shallow argument. Saving a life in the District of Columbia 
is no different than saving a life anywhere in the United States of 
America. These are our children. We need to protect and safeguard those 
children from the violence of abortion.
  If you want to reduce abortion, Madam Speaker, and colleagues, don't 
subsidize it. The Gutmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research 
arm, has said that between 20 and 35 percent do not get abortions under 
the Medicaid program because of the Hyde amendment.
  There are millions of children walking in America. There are 
thousands of children in the District of Columbia who today are 
enjoying their summer vacation, playing ball, having fun, getting ready 
to go back to school in late August and early September, because the 
subsidy was not there to effectuate their very painful demise through 
abortion.
  Abortion is child abuse. It is violence against children. Vote ``no'' 
on this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, this debate today, once again focuses on 
jobs, more spending by this Democrat majority, higher unemployment, 
more taxation, further government intrusion into the financial sector 
of this country. And we've heard about even some issues dealing with 
abortion that the gentleman, Mr. Stupak, brought to this floor, that 
the gentleman, Mr. Smith brought to this floor. So I'll be asking for a 
``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to 
do it right, to go back to what essentially has been 200 years worth of 
open rules on appropriations.
  There's no question that this rule the majority brings forth today 
will only cement the dangerous precedent that the majority is setting 
every single day.
  Madam Speaker, it's so sad because no new Member of this body in the 
last session or this session has ever seen an open rule. They're 
damaging bipartisanship in this body. It's sad.
  I'll urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
that we can allow a free and open debate on appropriations bills and 
uphold the right of millions of Americans who've been gagged, not only 
by Speaker Pelosi, but the Rules Committee.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' 
vote on the rule, and once again, a demand from the Republican Party 
where we want to know where are the jobs that were promised, Madam 
Speaker.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume to close.
  First, to my friend from Oregon and his concern about the fairness 
doctrine, there is nothing in the bill that allows for the fairness 
doctrine. He was concerned about a smile that I had on my face because 
I remember when the gentleman brought the amendment last year and I 
supported his amendment. But there is nothing in the bill that provides 
for the fairness doctrine. And in effect, what he's trying to do is 
restrain something that doesn't exist. So that's point number one.
  Point number two: to my friend from New Jersey, I respect his passion 
about abortion and his feelings about abortion. It is a very emotional 
and difficult discussion. But section 812 of the bill, at page 143, 
couldn't be more clear: None of the Federal funds appropriated under 
this Act shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of 
the mother would be endangered, or where the pregnancy is the result of 
an act of rape or incest.
  So to those two specific points, I wanted to make my comments.
  As to my friend from Texas and his closing argument, it simply 
doesn't hold water. The administration that preceded the Obama 
administration, the administration of George Bush, drove this country 
into a fiscal ditch. And it's going to take everything that we have to 
get out of that ditch. The banking system almost collapsed. Jobs were 
lost. Plants were closed. Businesses were shuttered. Homes were 
foreclosed. And it is with great effort, great energy that we are 
trying to reverse what occurred because of the reckless actions of that 
administration.
  Under this bill, there is more money invested in the Small Business 
Administration to encourage and build and strengthen our small 
businesses which have been hurt by this recession. But that is the 
engine that will ultimately drive this economy. We need to get small 
businesses back on their feet. That happens, in part, through this 
bill.
  Secondly, we restore reasonable regulation to the marketplace, 
regulation that was denied and excluded under the prior administration. 
The Securities and Exchange Commission was, in effect, rendered neutral 
and neutered under the prior administration, exposing the country to 
gigantic Ponzi schemes like that conducted by Bernard Madoff.
  We need to make sure that our Federal Trade Commission is fully 
funded so that it can protect consumers and businesses alike against 
unfair and deceptive trade practices. The Judiciary has to be staffed 
to handle all the bankruptcies that have occurred. The bill that is 
pending that we propose will assist the Federal Government in managing 
these affairs.
  Finally, Mr. LaTourette's amendment concerning the auto dealers is an 
important portion of this bill, to give those who had franchises and 
were terminated improperly the right to get their franchise back and 
their dealerships open and going again, thereby saving jobs.

                              {time}  1145

  This is an important piece of legislation. This bill helps keep the 
government running, so providing the funds that exist in the bill is 
something that we must move forward on.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 644 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       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. 3170) making appropriations for financial 
     services and general government 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 back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion

[[Page H8199]]

     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 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.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam 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.

                          ____________________