[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 191 (Wednesday, December 16, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H14994-H15006]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3326, 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010; FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 64, FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL 
    YEAR 2010; FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4314, PERMITTING CONTINUED 
    FINANCING OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE 
         AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2847, JOBS FOR MAIN STREET ACT, 2010

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 976 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 976

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     3326) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 
     in the House, without intervention of any point of order 
     except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion 
     offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or 
     his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment 
     with the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate 
     amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without 
     intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 64) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2010, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House tie bill (H.R. 4314) to permit 
     continued financing of Government operations. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2847) 
     making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
     Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with 
     the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order except those 
     arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the 
     chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that 
     the House concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. 
     The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 
     read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its 
     adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 5. In the engrossment of the House amendment to the 
     Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the Clerk shall--
       (a) add the text of H.R. 2920, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of the text proposed to be inserted by 
     the House amendment;
       (b) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment of the text proposed to be inserted by the 
     House; and
       (c) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment of the text proposed to be inserted by the House.
       Sec. 6. It shall be in order at any time during the 
     remainder of the first session of the

[[Page H14995]]

     One Hundred Eleventh Congress for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 
     designee on the selection of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.
       Sec. 7. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     for the remainder of the first session of the One Hundred 
     Eleventh Congress.
       Sec. 8. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may 
     insert in the Congressional Record at any time during the 
     remainder of the first session of the One Hundred 
     Eleventh Congress such material as he may deem explanatory 
     of the Senate amendments and the motions specified in the 
     first and fourth sections of this resolution.
       Sec. 9. On any legislative day of the second session of the 
     One Hundred Eleventh Congress before January 12, 2010, the 
     Speaker at any time may dispense with organizational or 
     legislative business.
       Sec. 10. On any legislative day of the second session of 
     the One Hundred Eleventh Congress before January 12, 2010, 
     the Chair at any time may declare the House adjourned or 
     declare the House adjourned pursuant to an applicable 
     concurrent resolution of adjournment.
       Sec. 11. (a) On any legislative day of the first session of 
     the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, the Speaker may at any 
     time declare the House adjourned.
       (b) When the House adjourns on a motion pursuant to this 
     subsection or a declaration pursuant to subsection (a) on the 
     legislative day of:
       (1) Wednesday, December 16, 2009, it shall stand adjourned 
     until 6 p.m. on Saturday, December 19, 2009.
       (2) Saturday, December 19, 2009, it shall stand adjourned 
     until noon on Wednesday, December 23, 2009.
       (3) Wednesday, December 23, 2009, it shall stand adjourned 
     until 10 a.m. on Saturday, December 26, 2009.
       (4) Saturday, December 26, 2009, it shall stand adjourned 
     until noon on Wednesday, December 30, 2009.
       (5) Wednesday, December 30, 2009, it shall stand adjourned 
     until 10 a.m. on Saturday, January 2, 2010.
       (c) If, during any adjournment addressed by subsection (b), 
     the House has received: (1) confirmation that the President 
     has approved H.R. 3326; (2) a message from the Senate 
     transmitting its passage without amendment of H.R. 4314; and 
     (3) a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in 
     an applicable concurrent resolution of adjournment, the House 
     shall stand adjourned pursuant to such concurrent resolution 
     of adjournment.
       (d) The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties 
     of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by this 
     section as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.

                              {time}  1115


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 
976 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 legislation, which includes a waiver of 
section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation 
of section 426(1).
  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 under the rule, and 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.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, approximately 68 years ago, in January of 
1941, Sam Rayburn was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
Just prior to his swearing in, he rose on the House floor and said the 
following:
  ``You have elevated me to a position, I must confess, that has been 
one of the ambitions of my lifetime. The House of Representatives has 
been my life and my love for this more than a quarter of a century. I 
love its traditions; I love its precedents; I love its dignity; I glory 
in the power of the House of Representatives. It is my highest hope and 
my unswerving aim to preserve, protect, and defend the rights, 
prerogatives, and the power of the House of Representatives.''
  What a beautiful statement. You can't help but hear and feel the 
words of love that Speaker Rayburn felt for this House. As Speaker, he 
considered himself a custodian of its traditions, its precedents and, 
as he put it, its dignity.
  You might ask why I tell this story, why I raise this point. It is 
because we are about to consider a bill that endorses and condones a 
practice that has placed a dark and ominous cloud over this 
institution. This practice, for lack of a better term, can be called 
circular fund-raising. It involves the awarding of earmarks, which are 
essentially no-bid contracts, in close proximity to the receipt of 
campaign contributions from the earmark recipients.
  This legislation contains more than 500 earmarks where a private, 
for-profit company is the intended recipient. Let me repeat that. This 
legislation we are about to consider contains more than 500 earmarks, 
or no-bid contracts, directed to private companies. In many cases, the 
Members of the Congress securing these no-bid contracts have either 
received, or will soon receive after this legislation is enacted into 
law, large campaign contributions from the executives of these 
companies and/or the lobbyists that represent them.
  By now my colleagues are well aware of the PMA scandal which was 
largely centered on the practice of circular fund-raising. Since news 
broke in February 2008 of the FBI's raid of the PMA offices, press 
reports and editorials from coast to coast have raised questions about 
the action of that firm and the integrity of this body, sowing public 
distrust and tarnishing the dignity of the House. Just listen to what 
is being said off the Hill and beyond the beltway.
  ABC's news site, The Blotter, noted that PMA's ``operations--millions 
out to lawmakers, hundreds of millions back in earmarks for clients--
have made it, for many observers, the poster child for tacit `pay-to-
play' politics in Washington.''
  An editorial in The New York Times entitled, ``Political Animal 101'' 
referred to ``the relationship between campaign donors and the 
customized appropriations they are fed by grateful lawmakers'' as ``the 
ultimate in symbiotic survival'' and ``cynical influence trading.''
  An article in The Kansas City Star noted that ``the earmark game gets 
a bit less baffling'' when taxpayers consider ``the campaign donors 
that grease political palms.''
  The Columbus Dispatch summed it up when they noted, ``Congress has an 
abysmal public approval rating of 26 percent as of early November, and 
the smell of quid pro quo certainly doesn't help.''
  The embarrassing coverage isn't just limited to domestic press. The 
Irish Times noted that ``U.S. Congressmen tread a fine line between 
legitimate political fund-raising and influence-peddling, between 
friendship with lobbyists and outright corruption.'' They go on, ``Now 
a leaked confidential report, prepared by the committee (on Ethics) in 
July and detailed in yesterday's Washington Post, has provided a rare 
glimpse into the cesspool of Capitol Hill politics.''
  Madam Speaker, I have here that article referred to from The 
Washington Post dated October 30 of this year. It notes that seven 
Members who sit on the Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on 
Defense, are ``under scrutiny by ethics investigators.'' The article 
notes that ``Together, the seven legislators have personally steered 
more than $200 million in earmarks to clients of the PMA Group in the 
past 2 years, and received more than $6.2 million in campaign 
contributions from PMA and its clients in the past decade.''
  According to The Wall Street Journal, Members who sit on the Defense 
Subcommittee have this year alone ``received a total of $141,000 in 
campaign contributions from companies that received earmarks from the 
lawmakers.''
  So here we are today, Madam Speaker, with a backdrop of 
investigations into the practice of circular fund-raising by the 
Justice Department and our own Ethics Committee, yet we are poised to 
pass a Defense appropriations bill that contains more than 500 no-bid 
contracts for private companies.
  In mid-January of 2010, we will see a quarterly report from the 
Office of Congressional Ethics that will shed light into their 
investigations. Thereafter, it is likely that our own Ethics Committee 
will have to provide additional notice of their actions related to the 
PMA scandal.
  If the future is anything like the past, additional scandals will 
spring from the earmarks that we approve

[[Page H14996]]

today. We are surely, as the poet said, ``traipsing down a flower-
strewn path unpricked by thorns of reason.''
  I should note that circular fund-raising is not a partisan issue; 
both parties engage in it. The cloud that hangs over this body rains on 
Republicans and Democrats alike. But it is fair to ask, what about the 
dignity of this body? Are we appropriately concerned that the words 
``pay-to-play,'' ``quid pro quo,'' ``swamp'' and ``cesspool'' are 
increasingly routine in articles describing the appropriations process? 
Should we have no standard higher than whether the abuse of the process 
rises to the level of an indictable offense?
  One thing is clear: The practice of circular fund-raising will 
someday end. The question is, who will end it? Will it take us, in our 
own initiative, to clean our own House, or will we wait for the Justice 
Department to launch more investigations and take further action?
  My own hope is that those who find themselves in leadership positions 
today will summon the dormant custodial spirit of those who have 
protected and defended this wonderful institution long before we 
arrived in this Chamber. We owe it to them to correct the process that 
led to this flawed piece of legislation before us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, we have been here before. This 
is the same point of order that has been raised against almost every 
appropriations measure during this Congress, and each time it is used 
to discuss something other than its intended purpose.
  I would want to respond to my good colleague from Arizona that I, 
too, share concerns about the earmarking process, and I encourage him 
to become a cosponsor on the fair elections bill. As we have in Maine, 
public financing takes away much of the scrutiny around the link 
between campaign contributions and earmarks.
  But once again, this particular debate is about delaying 
consideration of this bill and ultimately stopping it altogether. I 
hope my colleagues will again vote ``yes'' so we can consider this 
important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural 
motion.
  This rule provides for enactment of legislation to fund our Nation's 
defense. The brave men and women who serve in the military, 
particularly those who are currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
deserve a swift enactment of this legislation.
  This legislation that we will take up later today will also divert 
TARP money to programs that create and save jobs across the country. We 
do this by investing $75 billion of TARP money into highways, transit, 
school renovation, hiring teachers, police, firefighters, supporting 
our small businesses, funding job training, and affordable housing. And 
for those hardest hit by the recession, this bill also provides 
emergency relief by extending programs like unemployment benefits, 
COBRA, FMAP, our health care funding for the State, and the child care 
tax credit.
  Those who oppose this measure can vote against it on final passage. 
We must consider this rule, and we must pass this critical legislation 
today.
  I have the right to close, but in the end I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' and consider the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona controls 3 
remaining minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I am accused of using a procedural measure to bring up 
earmarks again. Let me tell you why I'm doing that. I'm doing that 
because this year, for the first time in the history of this 
institution, every appropriations bill that came to the floor--
including this one, including the Defense appropriations bill--came 
under a structured or closed rule with only certain amendments being 
offered. That's the first time in the history of this institution where 
every appropriations bill has come to the floor in that manner.
  And so individuals like myself and others were only allowed to offer 
the amendments that the other side wanted us to offer, the ones that 
they said we could offer rather than the ones that we ourselves would 
choose. I was fortunate in that I got 10 of the 550-some amendments I 
offered on this bill. I offered that many because that's how many no-
bid contracts for private companies are contained in the bill, and I 
thought that they deserved some scrutiny.
  I wish that the Appropriations Committee was vetting these earmarks; 
given this, it's clear that they're not. This is one of hundreds of 
articles out there. There is a cloud hanging over this institution 
because of prior Defense bills, and this is going to end up the same 
way. We are guaranteeing that there will be scandal that springs from 
earmarks approved in this bill because they haven't been appropriately 
vetted, and they haven't been because we weren't allowed an open rule 
for people to bring to the floor amendments that they wanted to offer.
  I mentioned that I was fortunate in that I got 10 of them. Some of my 
colleagues offered multiple amendments on multiple appropriations bills 
throughout the year and weren't given the opportunity to offer any of 
them, not one. Here are Members across the country wanting to represent 
their constituents, and through the entire appropriations process, 12 
bills this year, weren't given the opportunity to offer one amendment 
because we have the equivalent of martial law on appropriations bills.
  And why? Because we were told we had to get it done so we wouldn't do 
any omnibus bills at the end of the year. Well, here we are, we just 
approved a massive omnibus bill last week, and we're here today because 
the Defense bill was held just so that we could tag on additional items 
that people who wouldn't want to vote for them anyway would have to 
because it's a Defense bill. That's just no way to conduct business. 
This institution deserves better than this. It deserves better than to 
have a bill that has more than 500 no-bid contracts for private 
companies of which articles have been written and will be written, 
making a cloud hang over this body.
  As I mentioned, this isn't a partisan issue. This isn't where one 
party is in the right and one party is in the wrong. We are both doing 
this, and we shouldn't. And it will come back to haunt us as surely as 
other practices have in the past.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, again I want to urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can 
debate and pass this and the other important items covered by this 
rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Shall the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 976.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 976 provides for the consideration of 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 3326, House Joint Resolution 64, H.R. 
4314, and the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.
  For the Senate amendment to H.R. 3326, the rule makes in order a 
motion to concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment, 
provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on 
Appropriations, and waives

[[Page H14997]]

all points of order against consideration of the motion except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XI.

                              {time}  1130

  The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 64 under a closed 
rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on 
Appropriations. It provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. It waives all points of order against consideration of 
the joint resolution except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
XXI, and it waives all points of order against provisions in the joint 
resolution.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4314 under a closed rule. 
It provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways 
and Means. It provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. It waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and it 
waives all points of order against provisions in the bill.
  For the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the rule makes in order a 
motion to concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment. It 
provides 1 hour of debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on 
Appropriations, and it waives all points of order against consideration 
of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
  The rule provides that in the engrossment of the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 
2920 as passed by the House.
  The rule also provides that measures may be considered under 
suspension of the rules at any time during the remainder of the first 
session of the 111th Congress.
  The rule waives the requirement of a two-thirds vote to consider a 
rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee for the 
remainder of the first session of the 111th Congress.
  The rule provides that the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations 
may insert in the Congressional Record explanatory materials on the 
Senate amendments and the motions regarding H.R. 3326 and H.R. 2847.
  The rule provides that, on any legislative day before January 12, 
2010, the Speaker may dispense with organizational or legislative 
business.
  The rule provides that, before January 12, 2010, the Chair may 
declare the House adjourned.
  The rule provides for pro forma sessions until the House adjourns 
sine die.
  And finally, the rule provides that, on any legislative day of the 
first session of the 111th Congress, the Speaker may declare the House 
adjourned.
  Madam Speaker, the rule before us today allows the House to consider 
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, 
which is the last appropriations bill for this fiscal year.
  The conference agreement on H.R. 3326 provides over $363 billion 
towards protecting our troops abroad and taking better care of their 
families at home. To help protect our troops, this bill provides 
increased funding for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund 
and for the procurement of new Humvees and of new heavy and medium 
tactical vehicles. This is particularly important given the casualty 
rate and the difficulties our soldiers are experiencing in Afghanistan.
  H.R. 3326 increases pay for all servicemembers by 3.4 percent, and it 
fully funds the requested end strength levels for active reserve and 
selected reserve personnel. The bill provides over $29 billion for top-
of-the-line medical care, including $120 million for traumatic brain 
injury and psychological health, and it increases funding for the 
wounded, the ill and injured warrior programs.
  The conference agreement also includes over $472 million for family 
advocacy programs, and it fully funds the family support and yellow 
ribbon programs. The bill also includes $20 million for the Army 
National Guard family assistance centers and reintegration programs; 
but this bill cannot provide for the common defense without a common 
effort.
  In my home State of Maine, there are men and women who work every day 
to help in this effort. The funding in this bill would have been wasted 
if it weren't for the efforts of the welders, designers, and metal 
workers of the Bath Ironworks; of the skilled factory workers and 
assembly men at Vintech in Biddeford, Maine; of the world-class 
machinists and engineers at Pratt and Whitney in North Berwick; or of 
the dedicated laborers and nuclear engineers at the Portsmouth Naval 
Shipyard.
  This is a clear example of why the bills before us today are so 
interconnected. Our economic security and our national security are 
inextricably linked, and our economic security is still in dire 
straits.
  Madam Speaker, if you were sitting at a boardroom table on Wall 
Street today, you might hear the employees with Goldman Sachs 
discussing their $1 billion in profits or bonuses or you might hear 
employees of Citibank discussing raises for their top executives. You 
might also hear that the stock market has gone up 60 percent since the 
spring. You might even hear terms like ``economic recovery'' or 
``rebound.'' So, if you are sitting at that boardroom table on Wall 
Street, you might think that the economy has fully bounced back and 
that we are out of the woods. You may start to believe that there is 
nothing but smooth sailing ahead.
  Yet, if you were at a kitchen table on Main Street in my home State 
of Maine, you would hear a very different story. Rather than talk of 
large profits, you would hear families discussing a savings account 
that has all but disappeared. Instead of listening to talk of raises or 
bonuses, you would hear families debating cutbacks on food or cutbacks 
on health care. Instead of hearing phrases like ``economic recovery'' 
or ``rebound,'' you would hear terms like ``high unemployment'' and 
``mounting debt.''
  For the big banks on Wall Street, the economic recovery may be at 
hand, but for the millions of unemployed workers and for the thousands 
of small businesses that are struggling to get by, the economic 
recovery is still a long way off. In my State and all across the 
country, there are millions of Americans who want to get back to work, 
but they need us to lend the same helping hand that we gave to Wall 
Street in its time of need.
  Madam Speaker, the rule before us today allows for the consideration 
of the Jobs for Main Street Act, which will move us down that road. 
This legislation invests in our Nation's infrastructure, and it puts 
more Americans back to work by providing $48 billion to rebuild and 
repair our national transportation system. This investment provides a 
measurable return, not only by creating and preserving jobs but by 
literally building the foundation for a long-term economic recovery. 
This bill will also preserve the jobs of teachers, of police officers, 
and of firefighters. For those who have already lost their jobs, the 
Jobs Act extends unemployment benefits for 2 months, and it maintains 
the current COBRA subsidy.
  These programs--these investments, the economic lifelines--have a 
real impact. Just this week, I heard from a constituent of mine who 
said these words: Something needs to be done. There are less than 4 
weeks left for my husband's unemployment. After that, we won't be able 
to pay the rent, and we will be out on the streets with a child under 2 
years old. Every day, I wonder what is going to happen next, and I even 
have nightmares. You bail out these large banks which then only raise 
our interest rates and lower our credit lines--and for what? That 
doesn't help the little guy like us. Do something to help us.

  Madam Speaker, we have the opportunity and we have the obligation to 
take the bailout money that was used as a lifeline to Wall Street and 
to give that money back to the American people and to those who have 
been hit the hardest by these tough economic times. The COBRA subsidy 
we passed this spring began expiring a few weeks ago. If we don't act 
now, it will completely disappear by January 1. In my State, full 
payment for COBRA uses up nearly 90 percent of the average unemployment 
benefits. That means out-of-work Mainers end up with only about $150 a 
month left after paying the full cost of their health insurance.
  We need to act now, and we need to act fast to ensure that Main 
Street recovers. If we do not act, we will have only assured that Wall 
Street keeps

[[Page H14998]]

their bonuses while American families lose their benefits. We will have 
only watched Wall Street get rid of their debt while watching small 
businesses take on more.
  Madam Speaker, we have already put more than enough into shoring up 
Wall Street. Now we need to focus on creating jobs for the average 
American that will rebuild our economy from the bottom up.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague from Maine for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2010 is intended to provide equipment and technology for 
our troops. Our country's greatest treasure lies in the bravery, in the 
dedication, and in the ability of or servicemen and -women. These 
courageous individuals protect our freedoms every day.
  We thank them, and we thank their families for their support, 
dedication, and sacrifice.
  This bill provides top-of-the-line medical care for our troops, 
including funding for traumatic brain injury and psychological health. 
This bill provides funding for wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers 
as well as for cancer research. This bill provides our military with a 
pay increase, and it continues efforts to end the practice of stop 
loss--compensating troops for every month their terms of service will 
be involuntarily extended in 2010. This bill includes funding to 
provide support for our country's military families who sacrifice every 
day on behalf of our Nation and to whom we owe a great debt. This bill 
provides our troops with first-class military equipment and readiness 
training, ensuring they are fully prepared to successfully perform 
their missions.
  However, while this bill contains funding for several important and 
necessary initiatives, I would be remiss if I did not mention my 
disappointment in the overall funding levels when compared to the 
increases we have seen throughout the appropriations season this year. 
While the bill does receive, roughly, a 4.5 percent increase over last 
year, this increase is not comparable to nondefense appropriations 
bills we have voted on this year, which average a 12 percent increase 
in funding levels. As we have noted before, the Federal Government is 
the only unit of government to provide for our national security.
  These represent the wrong priorities of the Democrats, who are in 
charge of the Congress, and of the Obama administration. Increasing 
spending for domestic priorities by double digits while, in comparison, 
shortchanging national defense represents a dangerous, wrongheaded 
policy that does not rightly prioritize the security of our Nation.
  Thus, while I am pleased that several items in this bill are being 
funded in order to provide our troops with the tools, training, and 
medical services they need and deserve, I am disappointed that, after 
increasing the funding levels for domestic appropriations bills by an 
average of 12 percent, the Democrats in control decided only to 
increase our defense spending by 4.5 percent--less than half--for the 
coming year.
  This is the last appropriations bill, and that is because it has been 
held in order for the majority to put into it things that are not 
related, which I will be discussing a bit more, but the substance of 
the DOD appropriations bill is not the source of my concern.
  The extent of the closed rule before us today allows for the 
consideration of a variety of additional legislation that has been 
cobbled together without committee consideration. As my colleagues have 
said before, our colleagues across the aisle have gone to great lengths 
to shut down debate. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the rule so the bill can be returned to the committee and can be 
brought back under regular order.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of 
the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and specifically, I 
rise in support of the Jobs for Main Street Act, which we made in order 
under this rule. This important bill will provide the following:
  $48 billion for highways, transit, and other infrastructure projects; 
$27 billion to hire teachers, police, firefighters, and for other job 
training programs. That's $75 billion for job-creating programs that 
are proven successes and that will help put Americans back to work. On 
top of that, the Jobs for Main Street Act provides $79 billion in 
emergency relief funding that will go to critical safety net programs 
like unemployment benefits, health insurance for unemployed workers, 
Federal matching funds for Medicaid, and funding for the child tax 
credit.
  All told, Madam Speaker, the Jobs for Main Street Act is a good bill, 
one that will build on the success of the Recovery Act, which was 
signed into law earlier this year and which is one that will put people 
back to work. We know that these are difficult economic times, and we 
recognize that the American public is hurting. With the Jobs for Main 
Street Act, we will continue to stimulate the economy, to shrink the 
unemployment rate, and, more importantly, to create new jobs.
  Ten months after President Obama signed the Recovery Act into law, we 
are seeing real results across the country. According to the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, real jobs are being 
created by the Recovery Act, and we are seeing the impact of these jobs 
in the unemployment figures. Look at the results:
  Because of the Recovery Act, we have seen the creation of almost 
630,000 direct and indirect jobs in the transportation industry alone. 
That's 210,000 direct hires alone. The result of these direct hires is 
a $1.1 billion payroll. It is $179 million in unemployment compensation 
not spent. It is people's insurance restored, health insurance 
restored, and it is $230 million in paid Federal taxes. Additional jobs 
have been created because of the clean water and high-speed rail 
projects.
  All told, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee estimates 
that the Recovery Act has created or has sustained approximately 
857,000 jobs. All of this underscores the importance of public 
infrastructure programs. These aren't projects just for the safety and 
well-being of our friends and neighbors; they are also projects that 
put these friends and neighbors back to work.
  Madam Speaker, this Congress is acting. This House will pass the Jobs 
for Main Street Act and even more jobs will be created.

                              {time}  1145

  Earlier this year, my Republican friends chose politics over the 
needs of the American people, and every single one of them opposed the 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  They liked the same old, same old. Well, that was their way of 
thinking. That's the old way of thinking. That way of thinking took 
Bill Clinton's accomplishments in creating a record number of jobs and 
eliminating our deficits and paying down the debt and turned it into 
George Bush's recession, a recession that cost millions of Americans 
jobs, a recession that added billions and billions to our debt and 
added that debt on the backs of our children and our grandchildren.
  Madam Speaker, people in this country want us to act. People want us 
to create jobs, and that's what we are going to do.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my 
very distinguished colleague from Texas, one of only five CPAs in the 
House, Mr. Conaway.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  I want to talk to two aspects of this rule, one that sets up the vote 
on a trick that allows us to vote on the ``son of stimulus'' bill that 
will becoming before us later on this afternoon, and that is voting, 
having stripped out the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847 and put in place 
this other legislation.
  This trick silences the minority one more time. It would not allow 
for a motion to recommit and/or a substitute on that bill.
  This legislation of some $150 billion was apparently thrown together 
in the dark last night, posted on the Internet

[[Page H14999]]

about 11:10, so we are now 12 hours and 25 minutes into being able to 
study this bill, again thrown together. It will increase the deficit in 
spite of the rhetoric that says we are going to use TARP money to do 
that.
  The intent of TARP all along was once it was paid back was to be back 
into the Treasury to reduce the amount of money we have to borrow and/
or reduce the deficit. There are two provisions in this slush fund and 
this bill that you need to be aware of. One is that it creates 
additional billion-dollar spending in the Barney Frank trust fund, the 
housing slush fund, and makes ACORN available to get back into the 
game, much to the chagrin of this body, as we voted on.
  It also replaces $2 billion in the Cash for Clunkers money that came 
out of the stimulus bill last summer. We were on the bill when the 
proponents of the Cash for Clunkers said this will not increase the 
deficit because we will take it out of the stimulus money. Immediately 
the Speaker came to the floor, along with the others, and said, au 
contraire, we will find a replacement for that $2 billion, and it's in 
this bill.
  Now the stimulus bill, the first stimulus, is up to 787 billion, 
because, as you all know we all enjoyed the Cash for Clunkers work, but 
this money is back in the bill with respect to the new stimulus.
  The other bill I would like to talk about is the Defense Department 
appropriations bill. This rule waives the demand, waives the 
requirement that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee post on 
the Internet the earmarks and/or plus-ups, depending on how you want to 
call those, in this bill, some 1,700 of them, we were told. Some are 
good, some are bad, but we ought to know what's in there.
  They were shortly posted on the Internet last night for a brief 
period of time and then taken down. Madam Speaker, I would like to know 
what's in this bill that embarrasses the majority that they will not 
allow this transparency to come before us to allow us to look at it. 
Like I said, I am not against or for any of those necessarily, but we 
don't know what they are.
  By not posting them until after this bill is voted on sometime 
between now and the end of the year, we are going to be voting blind 
one more time at the specific request of the majority. It is your 
responsibility, Madam Speaker, through the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, to have posted these earmarks on the Internet 
so that those of us could look at them and see them.
  We are not going to see those. What has been stuck in here in the 
dark of night between last summer when we passed the bill and when we 
are going to vote on this afternoon? Why are there things in there 
that's going to embarrass the majority before we take this vote?
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and 
against the underlying bill on the ``son of stimulus'' bill.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. 
Arcuri.
  Mr. ARCURI. I would like to thank my colleague from Maine for 
yielding.
  I rise today in support of consideration of H.R. 3326, the Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act and the underlying rule, not for the 
reasons just stated by my friend from Texas, but because the bill 
ensures that our brave men and women who are in the military are paid 
what they deserve to be paid for defending us, that they have the tools 
to fight the war on terror and that they are able to do the things that 
we ask them to do, and that is to fight terror, to keep us safe. That 
is why I support this bill and the underlying rule.
  I would like to thank and commend the members of the Appropriations 
Committee in the House and Senate, their counterparts for bringing 
before us this bipartisan approach that puts the preparedness and 
safety of our troops first, and also continues President Obama's pledge 
to put the cost of the war on the books.
  The bill does not include funding for an escalation of troops in 
Afghanistan, and I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle criticize that we may have to consider a supplemental 
measure to provide funds for that purpose. I want to make it very 
clear. There is a difference between requesting supplemental funding to 
address changes on the ground and simply using the supplemental 
appropriation acts to fund the majority of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan as we have done under the prior administration.
  The House passed our version of the Defense Appropriations Act on 
July 30 of this year. At that time we determined the amount of spending 
necessary for the ongoing operation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since that 
time, our generals have stated that they believe conditions in 
Afghanistan warrant additional troops. President Obama is listening to 
those generals in the field and may require additional funds. However, 
that is what supplemental appropriations acts are intended for, 
responding to changes in circumstances throughout the year, not for 
funding ongoing operations.
  In addition to ensuring that our troops have first-class weapons and 
equipment, the bill also includes other important aspects that improve 
transparency and accountability of the Defense Department procurement 
process.
  For instance, congressional earmarks account for only 1 percent of 
the total funding of this bill. In addition, for the first time, this 
House-Senate agreement retains the requirement that has been included 
in every House-passed appropriations bill this year that requires any 
earmark for a private company to be competed.
  I applaud the leadership of our side of the Capitol to institute this 
important new measure of accountability in the earmark process, and I 
hope that it will become a part of all final spending bills as we go 
forward.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 3 minutes to 
another distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, apparently the House is due to adjourn for the year 
today. Before it does, the House will apparently present the American 
people with a number of Christmas gifts wrapped up in one nice neat 
little package represented by this rule.
  The first Christmas gift that the majority is giving the American 
people is the fifth, fifth increase in the debt ceiling since they took 
control of Congress, raising the debt ceiling an additional $290 
billion, more debt to be placed upon the backs of our children and 
grandchildren.
  The second gift for the American people at Christmas time is, guess 
what, yet another stimulus bill, this one weighing in at $150 billion. 
I lose track, Madam Speaker. I don't know if this is stimulus 4, 
stimulus 5. It's a little bit like those old ``Friday the 13th'' 
movies: it just doesn't go away.
  The next gift, Madam Speaker, is kind of a recycled gift, one that 
they have given the American people all year and that is unemployment, 
double-digit unemployment under the economic policies of this 
administration, under this Democratic controlled Congress. They 
continue to give the American people double-digit unemployment.
  The rule that is before us, Madam Speaker, allows for more of the 
same. I would hope, I would hope that one day, for the sake of the 
country, that my friends on the other side of the aisle will realize 
that you cannot spend your way into more jobs, you cannot borrow your 
way into more jobs, you cannot bail out your way into more jobs. That 
is not the recipe.
  We suffer from double-digit unemployment, not through a lack of 
bailouts in spending and debt, which is the hallmark of this Congress. 
If we truly want to create jobs, Madam Speaker, the first thing we have 
to do is show the American people that we are serious about this sea of 
red ink. Nobody wants to launch a new business enterprise in an economy 
that is going to be socked with debt and taxes, impossible double-digit 
inflation as the debt has to be monetized.
  The uncertainty and cost of a nationalized health care system, which 
is going to cost the American people their freedom, their 
opportunities--not to mention a trillion dollars. There is a $600 
billion energy tax passed by the majority. Last week we just passed the 
Perpetual Wall Street Bailout and Credit Contraction Act of 2009.

[[Page H15000]]

  Madam Speaker, where does it all end? If we want jobs, we have to 
reject the failed policies. This rule brings more of the same. Let's 
vote against the spending, against the debt, against the bailouts.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, before I yield to one of my 
colleagues, I do want to mention one point of concern I have in the 
bill.
  The conference agreement on H.R. 3326 is the first step towards 
cutting wasteful defense spending, but it is by no means perfect. It is 
no means the last step that we must take. The conference agreement 
provides $465 million for the development of an alternative engine for 
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This provision represents businesses as 
usual in Washington for providing funds for an engine that's already 
being built and already being built well.
  There is no need to devote our precious Federal dollars to a wasteful 
alternative engine program at this time when Americans are struggling 
to find jobs to pay their medical bills and to put food on the table. 
Every defense bill that we spend wisely contributes to our national 
security, and every defense dollar that we waste hampers our economic 
security.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
underlying bill, the Jobs for Main Street Act.
  First I would like to thank all the members of the Democratic 
leadership for their hard work in putting together a jobs bill, the 
Jobs for Main Street Act. It is an important step forward.
  As we all know, since December of 2007, our Nation has faced the 
greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. As a result, 15 
million, or 10 percent, of our Americans are out of work. The Jobs for 
Main Street Act is an important first step in reemploying America and 
making our families more secure.
  Specifically, I want to call attention to several principles that I 
have championed that have been included in this bill, such as extending 
the COBRA subsidy. This is a critical safety net for the millions of 
unemployed across this country, protecting and expanding our Nation's 
critical workforce with teachers, police and firefighters; putting 
people to work to improve and rehabilitate our Federal, State and local 
public lands.
  I would also like to commend Chairman Oberstar for his leadership on 
the transportation and infrastructure portion of this bill. There is no 
better way to invest in our economy and create jobs than by investing 
in infrastructure.
  For example, only 4 percent of the Recovery Act went to programs 
under the jurisdiction of Chairman Oberstar. However, that 4 percent 
for infrastructure has created 25 percent of the jobs under the 
Recovery Act. This is a testament to the effectiveness of investing in 
infrastructure. Over half of this bill is dedicated to investing in our 
roads, bridges, trails, transit systems, airports, and waterways.
  Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with leadership to ensure 
that this Congress passes this bill and takes further action in the 
next session to put Americans back to work.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield to a third 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson), who has come to speak against 
this rule, one of the most fiscally conservative Members of the House, 
such time as he may consume.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, I want us to slow down for just a 
minute and think about what is happening here today. The House is 
scheduled to vote today on a package of four massive bills, spending 
over $1.1 trillion hard-earned tax dollars that will be paid for by 
additional debt that our children must repay.

                              {time}  1200

  Worst of all, these bills were only posted on the Internet last night 
for the American people to see at about 11 o'clock, so literally 13 
hours for the public, for the taxpayers, for the Members of Congress to 
read these bills spending over $1.1 trillion. And I've scouted around, 
Madam Speaker, and the only copy of the bill before us, the Defense 
bill, that anybody can find is the one up there on the Clerk's desk.
  These bills were put up on the Internet 13 hours ago. They're not 
even outside in the House lobby. And it's always tradition that at an 
absolute minimum that Members of Congress would be able to physically 
read the bill outside in the lobby. But this is all I found: this empty 
box outside in the lobby is all we have before us today. And $1.1 
trillion spent in a little over 12 hours. Why the rush? Why are we 
rushing to do this? So Speaker Pelosi can catch a plane to Copenhagen.
  We're spending $1.1 trillion on top of the $6.7 trillion that this 
liberal majority has already spent this year. That means in the course 
of 12 months, this liberal majority in Congress has already spent in 
this House nearly $8 trillion in 12 months. It's unprecedented. It is 
unsupportable. It will bankrupt this Nation and crush our children 
under a burden of debt that they cannot possibly repay without crushing 
tax burdens and massive sacrifices. We may be the first generation in 
American history that leaves our children worse off than the world we 
inherited from our parents. It's just unacceptable and outrageous.
  My colleague Representative Brian Baird and I, Madam Speaker, 
introduced legislation earlier this year to require the House to lay 
these bills out, every bill, for at least 72 hours before they can be 
voted on on the floor.
  And I just would ask the Speaker a simple question: what's more 
important, giving the American people time to read these bills, to give 
the Members of Congress time to read these bills, or to catch an 
airplane to a global warming conference? That's really what's going on 
here today.
  I would ask Speaker Pelosi in all sincerity, Madam Speaker, please 
cancel your flight. Give the American people time to read these 
spending bills.
  It's time to stop forcing Congress to vote blind.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. DICKS. I wanted to discuss a change that was made this year in 
the appropriations process, and I just want to read it into the Record 
to correct something that was said previously.
  ``Each congressionally directed spending item specified in this 
Act''--this is the defense bill--``or the explanatory statement 
regarding this Act that is also identified in Senate report 111-74 and 
intended for award to a for-profit entity shall be subject to 
acquisition regulations for full and open competition on the same basis 
as each spending item intended for a for-profit entity that is 
contained in the budget request of the President.
  ``Exceptions: Subsection (a) shall not apply to any contract awarded, 
(1), by a means that is required by Federal statute, including for a 
purchase made under a mandated preferential program; (2), pursuant to 
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.); or (3), in an amount 
less than the simplified acquisition threshold described in section 
302A(a) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
(41 U.S.C. 252a(a)).
  ``Any congressionally directed spending item specified in this Act or 
the explanatory statement regarding this Act that is intended for award 
to a for-profit entity and is not covered by the competition 
requirement specified in subsection (a), shall be awarded under full 
and open competition, except that any contract previously awarded under 
full and open competition that remains in effect during fiscal year 
2010 shall be considered to have satisfied the conditions of full and 
open competition.
  ``In this section, the term `congressionally directed spending item' 
means the following:
  ``A congressionally directed spending item, as defined in rule XLIV 
of the Standing Rules of the Senate; a congressional earmark for 
purposes of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DICKS. I think this clarifies the statement that was made 
previously by the gentleman from Arizona.

[[Page H15001]]

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the West continues to be well-represented 
here. I now yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I had hoped that the gentleman would rise and explain what he just 
explained.
  Now, I will gladly yield to him to explain why this would only apply 
to earmarks by House Members alone and why the competition requirements 
don't apply to earmarks that are jointly requested by a House and 
Senate Member. If we're hanging our hat on language that requires that 
these earmarks be subject to competition, then surely we would extend 
it to anything that had our name on it, but we're not.
  My understanding is that the language only applies to those earmarks 
that are requested solely by a House Member, and that if you have a 
Senate Member on your earmark request, then it is not subject to 
competition. The language just explained does not apply to it. So you 
can't have it both ways.
  Now, I will argue that it doesn't matter anyway, because right now if 
you talk to the Department of Defense, and I have, we've held meetings 
in my office with the procurement officials, and we've asked them, How 
does this work when these earmarks come over? Are they subject to 
competition? They said, Yes, we follow the rules. Yet when you ask them 
to do a cursory examination or a full-fledged examination of those 
earmarks that were requested in prior years, you will find an uncanny 
alignment, as you might expect, between the intended recipient and 
those who actually got the earmarks in the end.
  So you can say until you're blue in the face we're going to subject 
these to full and open competition. The Department of Defense already 
says that. And these articles that I already talked about, these 
scandals that are currently underway are under a policy where the 
Department of Defense already says we subject these to full and open 
competition. But let me tell you, if an earmark comes over from a 
Member of Congress, particularly from those on the Appropriations 
Committee--and I should explain that the majority of these earmarks, a 
disproportionate number, are from the powerful Members on the 
Appropriations Committee--believe me, those procurement officials at 
the Department of Defense take that into account. They know who butters 
their bread, and they know that they'd better award this contract to 
the intended recipient or they might not get funded the next year. If 
that's not the case, why have we seen so much an uncanny alignment 
between the intended recipient and those who actually got the earmark 
in the first place?
  So, first, again let me say if we're hanging our hat on the language 
that says these are subject to competition, then why wouldn't we apply 
it to every earmark that is contained in this bill? It doesn't apply to 
Senate earmarks, nor does it apply to earmarks requested by both Senate 
and House Members. So are we saying, well, we're going to subject some 
to competition and that means something, but these others, yes, it's 
okay if there are no-bid contracts? That simply doesn't work.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Again I want to just say this is an initiative that Mr. 
Obey put into place this year. This is the first year we've had this 
initiative. And what it says is that if an earmark is directed to a 
for-profit company, there must be full and open competition. This was 
extended to the United States Senate as well.
  So, again, the gentleman from Arizona misleads the House of 
Representatives on a very important and a very sensitive matter.
  There ought to be competition on these things, and I thought the 
gentleman would recognize how important it was and compliment Mr. Obey 
for his initiative, but I don't hear that.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, having a charge of misspeaking is very 
serious. I would like, therefore, to yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) to speak again on the rule.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence here.
  This is important, and I would ask the gentleman and would yield to 
him to respond, is it your understanding, then, that this language, 
this new competition language, applies to Senate earmarks as well as 
earmarks requested by both House and Senate Members?
  Mr. DICKS. It is my understanding that the language that came out of 
conference applies both to the House and Senate earmarks for for-profit 
companies requiring competition. There are some little variations 
because of Section 8(a) and other restrictions that the Senate still 
claims that should be followed, but this is a major step forward, and I 
think Mr. Obey deserves great credit for this. So I just want to clear 
this up, that on district directed for-profit companies there is full 
and open competition.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. Let me simply say if that is the 
case, that is in conflict with the agreement that we understand to be 
in effect.
  The agreement we understand to be in effect and what I was told is 
that only those earmarks that are requested solely by a House Member 
has the language that applies to competition. If it is an earmark 
requested by both a House and a Senate Member, then it does not apply 
this year, and supposedly it will next year, although obviously there 
are no guarantees. We can't bind a future session. And that if it is a 
Senate earmark, they didn't agree to this at all. That's what we 
understand. If there is some difference there, then please let's have 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee explain it.
  But, again, the question here is if that language is so important, 
then why wouldn't we apply it across the board?
  And doesn't it strike everybody a little bit funny that you have an 
earmark that, when a Member requests it from the Appropriations 
Committee, they say this earmark of this amount, $500,000, $2 million, 
$2.5 million, whatever, is to go to this company at this address? It's 
that specific. It goes to that company at that address.
  Now, the Appropriations Committee will say we're just providing a 
look-see, and so the Department of Defense can say, well, we didn't 
know that that company existed but now we do, and we're doing nothing 
more than simply giving them a look-see and giving them a chance to see 
which companies those are. I think that doesn't quite pass the laugh 
test.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I will.
  Mr. DICKS. I think the gentleman is trying to confuse himself.
  Clearly what we're talking about here is that there has been a 
decision to have full and open competitions. The gentleman has been an 
advocate for that. It doesn't matter how it's written in. The law says 
``full and open competition.'' So please don't try to confuse yourself 
and the House and the American people. This is a reform that you've 
been advocating for. You ought to be saying thank you for doing it, and 
it's the right thing to do. But you'd rather have the issue than to 
resolve something.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for explaining my motives.
  But in truth what I would like to see is no more earmarks in the 
defense bill because when you have an earmark, you don't have full and 
open competition. What I'm talking about is I would not like to see no-
bid contracts for private companies in the defense bill. When you have 
that, I don't know how in the world you can say we have full and open 
competition.
  Like I say, I don't believe that that language means much at all, but 
to the extent that you believe it does mean something, then at least 
you should apply it across the board, not just to earmarks sought by 
Members of the House solely but those earmarks that are requested by 
Senate Members as well. How can we say with a straight face that, hey, 
we're doing things right because we're applying that competition 
language to us, but all you have to do is to get a Senate Member to 
request it along with you and then you don't have to subject it to full 
and open competition. It simply doesn't make sense, Madam Speaker.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence and I appreciate this 
discussion.

[[Page H15002]]

                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to direct their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentlelady 
from Maine.
  Madam Speaker, I wish to start by wishing America a very Merry 
Christmas, and to many other Americans, a happy holiday. And I'd like 
to give my thanks to the Rules Committee and the staff of the Rules 
Committee for doing an enormous job. Our chairwoman, Louise Slaughter, 
has been at the forefront of the major successes we have had on behalf 
of the American people. I offer my appreciation as well for Chairman 
John Murtha, who, in his astuteness and commitment to the men and women 
of the United States military, finds many of us today supporting the 
Defense appropriations bill, even as we begin to consider the next 
steps in Afghanistan.
  But why am I standing here today to be able to speak to my colleagues 
and the American people? One, because history gets distorted. We are in 
this predicament because the last administration of Republican 
leadership took away our surplus that had been created in the 1990s. 
They dashed and dashed and destroyed and devastated. Isn't it 
interesting that you'd come now to complain about a leadership, 
President and Democratic leadership in Congress, that have had to make 
the political sacrifice to ensure that Americans can work?
  And so let me just set the record straight. The American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act--that secured no Republican votes--created 3.5 million 
jobs and gave 95 percent of American workers a tax cut. And today, as 
we speak, we are cutting the job loss every single month. Why I'm 
standing here today is because I'm enthusiastically supporting this 
rule, because we will then pass a jobs bill, and I will be able to go 
home to those in the 18th Congressional District who told me over the 
Thanksgiving holiday as I was participating in feeding those on 
Thanksgiving Day, I lost my job from a major corporation. Well, I'm 
going to tell them that because of infrastructure funding, $48 billion, 
in fact, that we will be able to invest in highways and mass transit. 
One billion dollars in Federal investments to highways creates 27,800 
jobs. Is there something wrong with that? The wrongness of it is that 
the other side is not thinking about the American people, and has not 
had a good thought about how to invest in America.
  This jobs bill is going to keep States from cutting teachers and 
police and firefighters, and it's going to provide job training. I am 
proud that they have taken my ideas and many of our ideas, but work 
that I have done on summer youth jobs. They're going to put 150,000 
people in job training positions. One of the ideas that can be 
incorporated that I have put forward in a bill is to make sure that 
people can keep their unemployment while they are in a job training and 
receive a stipend. Dignity, jobs, is what we're talking about.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentlewoman 15 additional seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. And then, my small business friends, once 
and for all we'll answer your question about getting loans. But the big 
thing is, Riverside General Hospital, because of the astuteness of 
those who worked on the Defense bill, will get $1 million for the first 
time, an African American hospital, to help our soldiers with post-
traumatic stress disorder. I have worked on this for 4 years. It's a 
celebration. Merry Christmas to America.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say thank you to our colleague 
from Arizona for his very valuable input on the issue of earmarks, and 
say that I join him in opposing all earmarks in any of our bills until 
we fix this broken system. And I think what we need is a study of how 
these specific earmarks then get awarded, since there seems to be open 
competition. And I would welcome the majority to institute such a study 
and just see how open the competition is.
  I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, before I take up the subject that I 
came here to talk about, I can't help but remark that the gentlelady 
from Texas said that the people on our side had not had a good thought 
about how to invest in America. Not a good thought. I would submit that 
the good thoughts are right there on the immigration naturalization 
flash cards. What is the economic system of America? Flip the card 
over, and if you want to be naturalized as a citizen, you need to 
answer the question this way. Free enterprise capitalism.
  Free enterprise capitalism has been the enemy of this administration. 
Tim Geithner said that free enterprise capitalism is what brought us to 
the brink of ruin. Can you imagine tearing asunder the very foundation, 
one of the principal pillars of American exceptionalism, and arguing 
that those that have stood up and defended it and refurbished it 
somehow hadn't had a good thought about America.
  I would ask again, why do we need African American hospitals? Why 
can't we have hospitals that take care of God's children? Why can't we 
all be members of the human race? Why is there any legislation that's 
brought into this Congress that sets aside special privileges for 
people based upon their skin color rather than the content of their 
character? I think that this is the wrong path. We've got to embrace 
each other as individuals. This wallowing in self-guilt has gone on and 
on, Madam Speaker.
  We had a President--Clinton--that went and apologized to entire 
continents. Now we have a President Obama that has apologized to entire 
continents as well for Americanism. In this bill, on page 109 of the 
bill, we have another apology, an apology from Congress. First, it's 
got some good things in there. It talks about Native Americans. It 
recognizes the special legal and political relationship that Indian 
tribes have in the United States. That's good. It commends the Native 
Peoples for the thousands of years they have stewarded and protected 
this land. Part of that's real good. Part of that record's not real 
good. This doesn't say so. In fact, the third piece says it recognizes 
that there have been years of official depredations, ill-conceived 
policies, and the breaking of covenants by the Federal Government 
regarding Indian tribes. That's true. There's also another side to that 
thing that isn't negative.
  And now it says, on page 109 of the bill, we, as Congress, ask the 
President--the United States, acting through Congress, actually--to 
apologize on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native 
Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect 
inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States; as if 
there were no guilt on the other side.
  Madam Speaker, I would direct the attention of this body to the 
Declaration of Independence. And there, on paragraph 29 of 32, as I 
count them, it says, and I'm going to stop short of violating the 
political correctness, but I am going to read directly from the 
Declaration of Independence.
  He has excited domestic insurrections among us--speaking of King 
George--and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our 
frontiers, and there I stop and commend the text of the Declaration of 
Independence which apparently violates this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I urge the rejection of this rule for this and many 
other reasons.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and 
the underlying bill, H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act.
  As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and 
chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, 
I've seen hundreds of thousands of jobs created through infrastructure 
funding. I've seen improvements created by that funding slow the 
recession and help begin our recovery. However, that recovery is simply 
not complete. We still have far too many Americans without jobs.

[[Page H15003]]

  The COBRA, unemployment and food stamp extensions in this bill are 
crucial to help those who are in need or who have lost a job through no 
fault of their own. These small lifelines can be immense to those who 
are suffering. For some Americans who still face foreclosure, this 
funding can help keep them in their homes so that the loss of their job 
does not result in the further devastation of an entire family.
  Finally, the jobs we create through our work today must be open to 
all Americans, including the minority communities who are being 
particularly decimated by unemployment, foreclosure and a crisis of 
credit.
  Before we passed the Recovery Act, I requested bonding assistance, 
allowing small and disadvantaged businesses to obtain the insurance 
they needed to win contracts to become prime contractors and to hire 
workers. The bonding assistance program created in that act led to 
much-needed jobs in minority communities, and so I requested further 
such assistance in this act. The $20 million included in this bill 
today will ensure that jobs created will be available to every American 
and every business in every community so they can compete on an even 
playing field.
  I support fair competition for government projects and the jobs that 
they will create. I encourage all my colleagues to support the 
underlying bill and the rule that will bring this matter to the floor.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, you know, I'm sitting here listening to the 
crocodile tears, particularly of my colleague from Maine who spoke 
earlier about the many people in her district who want to have jobs. 
And it is the very policies that she and her party have passed in this 
session of Congress that have caused those people to lose their jobs. 
What we need to do is let the American people keep their money. Their 
money. It is not the government's money. It is the hard-earned money of 
those who work in this country.
  And let me point out, even President Obama has said, and I'm going to 
quote, November 18, 2009: It is important, though, to recognize if we 
keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at 
some point people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way 
that can actually lead to a double dip recession.
  But what are we doing today? Adding to the debt, with the support of 
the President. Do they think the American people are not paying 
attention? To the contrary, more than ever, the American people are 
paying attention to what's going on in this Congress, and they have 
spoken in many, many ways. They have spoken through the polls, they 
have spoken through election polls in terms of where they're voting, 
and they're telling us every day this is not what they want this 
Congress to be doing.
  They also are aware of the fact that this Congress is breaking every 
promise that it made before the majority was elected. And I want to 
say, with apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning and her sonnet No. 
43, how many ways can we count the promises that have been broken? 
Many, many ways. Too many ways to talk about today.
  But let me give some examples--one from Majority Leader Hoyer:
  ``I think that is a very important pursuit. Our committees and 
Members are served on both sides of the aisle by pursuing regular 
order. Regular order gives to everybody the opportunity to participate 
in the process in a fashion which will effect, in my opinion, the most 
consensus and best product.''
  Again, a letter to Majority Leader Hoyer from members of the Democrat 
Blue Dog and New Democratic Caucuses which said:
  ``Committees must function thoroughly and inclusively, and 
cooperation must ensue between the parties and the Houses to ensure 
that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress. In 
general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to 
cease and collaboration to succeed. We look forward to working with you 
to restore this institution.''
  And what are we getting? Just the opposite. Even Speaker Pelosi 
endorsed the idea of regular order with her spokesperson stating at the 
time:
  ``The Speaker prefers to consider legislation in regular order and 
the committees of jurisdiction held hearings and markups on the current 
economic recovery bill. In a few cases, because of urgent financial 
crises, the leadership agreed to use expedited procedures.''
  Lest we forget, promises Democrats made in their 2006 document 
entitled A New Direction for America, which promised that:
  ``Bills should be developed following full hearings and open 
subcommittee and committee markups with appropriate referrals to other 
committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill 
prior to consideration at the subcommittee level.''
  And we've pointed out it's barely been 12 hours since this bill, the 
bill underlying this rule, was presented.
  ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that 
allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment 
process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, 
including a substitute.''
  As Mr. Dreier pointed out earlier, this is the first Congress in the 
history of this country that has not allowed that.

                              {time}  1230

  ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and 
conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing 
for debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered 
the following day.''
  We can go on and on and on about promises broken. The President said 
bills would be available for 72 hours. The President promised he would 
post bills 5 days before signing them. He said he would read every bill 
line for line, and he said there would be no earmarks. He would veto 
bills with earmarks.
  This is a bill with 1,700 earmarks. Is he going to veto the bill? I 
doubt it.
  So here we have one promise after another that's broken. How can the 
American people believe anything that is said by the other side after 
this?
  Again, they're paying attention. I know they're paying attention, and 
I believe that there will be consequences to the fact that these 
promises have been broken.
  Madam Speaker, I will enter into the Record a letter written by 
Republicans, 173 of us, to Speaker Pelosi on December 11, 2009, asking 
that we not continue this practice.

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                December 11, 2009.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, The Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: We write today to express our strong 
     opposition to reports that the Democrat Majority is 
     considering attaching unrelated and extremely controversial 
     proposals, such as an increase in the public debt limit, to 
     the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill. We object 
     to maneuvers to use our troops as leverage to enact proposals 
     that the Majority either cannot pass on their own or for 
     which they wish to avoid directly voting on and we will 
     oppose a Defense Appropriations package that includes such 
     provisions.
       Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern developing this 
     year of using legislation that supports our men and women in 
     uniform to pass other contentious proposals that are 
     extraneous to our troops. We should supply those who risk 
     their lives for our country with the resources they need 
     without conditions and without using them to accomplish other 
     legislative goals. House Republicans stand ready to help the 
     Majority enact a defense bill that meets the needs of our 
     troops, but we will not assist your effort to use the troops 
     to enact an increase in our national debt limit so as to 
     finance the irresponsible spending policies of your party.

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss at least one 
thing my colleague and friend from North Carolina mentioned. I'm a 
Northerner, so I can't claim to be an expert on crocodiles, but I 
assume that when you're talking about crocodile tears, you're talking 
about being insincere, and I want to say I receive letters from my 
constituents every day about the urgency of what we are doing today. 
And I have to say that like it or not, I cannot get through the pile of 
letters without crying tears for real. It's very, very difficult to 
think about the small businesses, laid-off individuals, individuals 
worrying about their jobs, what they're going through in my district 
and the urgency with which they view the actions that we are about to 
take today and the importance of moving on from this rule and getting 
to the actual debate.
  I want to read one of them that is in front of me here before I yield 
a little time to my colleague from California.

[[Page H15004]]

  This one says: ``My housemate and I were both laid off, me in 
September 08 and she in February 09. We have applied diligently for 
work in and around Portland with no luck. We had to cash in our meager 
401(k)'s, and have been very thankful for the COBRA subsidy so that we 
could afford insurance during this most harsh of times. But our money 
is running out fast.
  ``As you know, the subsidy is about to expire, and we cannot afford 
the huge jump in premium. We cannot afford both the mortgage and the 
insurance. We cannot afford our prescriptions, and our health care will 
be at stake, as if things weren't bad enough. We will lose our home.
  ``PLEASE help push through the COBRA extension and continuation of 
the ARRA COBRA subsidy. It is an immediate fix for so many families who 
will surely gain employment over the next 6 months now that the economy 
has finally taken an upswing.''
  Madam Speaker, those are the things that make us all cry real tears 
and make us want to pass this rule and go on to passing this 
legislation today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I just heard a fine exposition on 
promises. There is one promise that overrides all of the others, and 
that's the promise that I think each one of us made to our constituents 
to do everything that we possibly could to see that they were well 
cared for and that this government was acting on their behalf. If we 
are simply looking at a rule and whether it's going to be applied and 
that becomes the most important promise of all, then we are forgetting 
about the well-being of Americans, of whom there are 35 million 
unemployed, of whom there are, in my district, tens of thousands, more 
than one out of eight either unemployed or underemployed. My promise to 
those people is that I will do everything I possibly can to see that 
they have a job.
  This rule allows us to get to that. It allows us to get to the point 
of providing a jobs program that's going to provide at least $35 
billion for highways and transit, that's going to provide some 500,000 
young men and women the opportunity to have summer jobs, to expand 
AmeriCorps so that people can provide services and employment.
  It's also going to take care of those who are unemployed, who, for no 
reason of their own, have found themselves out of a job. It's time for 
us to stand for them, and it's, frankly, time for us to move away from 
the notion of just providing those unemployment benefits to providing a 
job.
  Far better that there be taxpayers than tax receivers. That's what 
this is about. It gives us an opportunity to do that, and we will do 
everything we possibly can on our side of the aisle to make the 
fundamental promise of making sure that the Federal Government is doing 
everything it possibly can to provide jobs and opportunities for 
businesses, for employment, and for taxpayers to actually have a job so 
they can pay taxes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out it's not the 
role of Federal Government to provide jobs. It's not our job to take 
money from some and give to others, to try to make them dependent on 
the government.
  I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to defeat the previous question 
so an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule 
will provide for separate consideration of House Resolution 554, a 
resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be posted 
on the Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House, and 
does not affect the bill made in order by the rule.
  I will insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question, and I ask my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, the legislation we are 
considering today is about investing in jobs. It is about investing in 
infrastructure, and it is about rebalancing our economy. So it's not 
just the big banks and Wall Street firms that benefit from an economic 
recovery. This bill is about helping the American family.
  This week, a New York Times/CBS News poll surveyed unemployed 
Americans. Not surprisingly, they found that being unemployed takes a 
toll far beyond what can be measured in dollars and cents. Half of the 
people surveyed said they had begun to suffer from depression and 
anxiety, half said the recession has caused them to make major life 
changes, and nearly half said they have seen changes in their 
children's behavior that they know is a result of their difficult 
financial situation.
  We are not just helping men and women who've lost their job, who have 
suffered from uncertainty, emotional pain, and indignation, but we are 
helping their families. We are helping their children. It is time for 
us to invest in the jobs and policies that will get the American Dream 
back on track and restore the promise of opportunity and prosperity for 
everyone.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 976

                          Offered by Ms. Foxx

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 32. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (II. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

[[Page H15005]]

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

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield back the balance of my time and 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.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 976, if ordered, and 
suspension of the rules with regard to H. Res. 905.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 193, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 982]

                               YEAS--235

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

                               NAYS--193

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cardoza
     Larson (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Radanovich
     Speier
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1303

  Mr. JONES changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 982, I was 
unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 201, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 983]

                               AYES--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)

[[Page H15006]]


     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--201

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cardoza
     Larson (CT)
     Radanovich
     Speier
     Sullivan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1311

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 983, I was 
unavoidably detained and unfortunately missed the vote. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________