[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 91 (Thursday, June 17, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4602-H4610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5297, SMALL BUSINESS JOBS 
                         AND CREDIT ACT OF 2010

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1448 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1448

       Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 5297) to create the Small Business Lending Fund Program 
     to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital 
     investments in eligible institutions in order to increase the 
     availability of credit for small businesses, and for other 
     purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 1436, it shall be in 
     order to consider the amendments printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution as though 
     they were the last two amendments printed in part C of House 
     Report 111-506.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The gentleman from Colorado is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1448.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1448 is a structured rule, providing 
for further consideration of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund 
Act. It provides for the consideration of two amendments which were 
initially cleared as PAYGO-compliant but which were subsequently deemed 
to violate PAYGO after the first rule was adopted. These amendments 
have been revised to comply with PAYGO rules, and this rule treats them 
as part of yesterday's rule.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2008, after years of lax regulation and Wall Street 
roulette, our Nation's economy fell off a cliff. Within a matter of 
months, many Wall Street giants fell, and they took the livelihoods of 
thousands of small businesses with them. Since that time, we have taken 
bold action to stabilize the economy, to invest in economic growth, and 
we are in the process of putting in place new rules to protect against 
the casino-like atmosphere that existed on Wall Street.
  Yet for small businesses, they are still feeling the pinch. Accessing 
capital to build, to grow, to diversify, and to hire new employees 
remains a pressing challenge. In September of 2008, there was an 
earthquake on Wall Street, and the aftershocks are still being felt on 
Main Street. The purpose of this bill is to help those small businesses 
deal with the aftershocks of that credit crunch from a year and a half 
ago.
  The underlying bill, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, establishes 
a process for community banks to lend responsibly to small businesses. 
Because of a mistake, two of my colleagues, Representative Schrader and

[[Page H4603]]

Representative Miller, were precluded from offering their amendments as 
reported in yesterday's rule. This rule merely allows for the 
consideration of their modified amendments so we can perfect this 
legislation and get our Nation's small businesses back to work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my 
colleague for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, just 2 days ago, I came before this body in opposition 
to a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5297, a bill 
affectionately known as ``TARP III.'' At that time, I expressed concern 
over the cost of this bill and over the ruling Democrats' lack of 
ability to run this House in an orderly fashion. My presence here today 
is testament to these concerns.
  If the process for considering this legislation and accompanying 
amendments had been more thoroughly vetted, we could have avoided 
meeting today altogether, but apparently, in their zeal to add to the 
budget-busting TARP III legislation, some flawed amendments were found 
to violate the Democrats' cherished PAYGO rules.
  Yesterday, it was discovered that two amendments--Miller No. 46 and 
Schrader No. 14--were not PAYGO-compliant. H.R. 5297 is being paid for 
with the savings in H.R. 5486, but due to the timetables used for those 
savings, the amendments failed to meet the first 5-year window of 
PAYGO. The rule did not contain any PAYGO waivers. Therefore, the 
amendments now need to either be redrafted or they need to have the 
PAYGO rules waived.
  Despite the pledge made in a document entitled, ``A New Direction for 
America,'' when then-Minority Leader Pelosi promised ``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,'' it's worth mentioning 
that there were 57 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for H.R. 
5297. Of those, 37 were Democrat; 17 were Republican, and three were 
bipartisan. Of those 57 submitted, there were 17 amendments made in 
order, only one of which was Republican.
  Therefore, I recommend voting against this rule, not only in 
opposition to the underlying legislation, but also in protest of the 
partisan process for which it is being considered.
  Mr. Speaker, while the ruling Democrats claim the underlying TARP III 
bill is about helping small businesses, it is really just another bank 
bailout. The bill is intended to give the appearance that they're doing 
something. It appears the ruling liberal Democrat regime has completely 
given up on even trying to pretend they are capable of budgeting or of 
even governing this country. Certainly, the ruling Democrats would be 
better served on focusing on passing a budget than on considering the 
bill before us today.
  So what is the next step for the Democrats?
  In an apparent effort to help shield their vulnerable Members from 
having to endure their unconscionable approach to budgeting during an 
election year, the ruling Democrats are now planning to forgo the 
annual congressional budget process altogether, this during a time when 
voters are looking for real solutions and accountability. How is that 
for leadership?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
Republican whip, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the YouCut program continues to pick up steam across the 
country as the American people reject the spend now-pay later 
philosophy that has long dominated Washington.
  This week's YouCut winner was developed by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz). It would amend Federal law to allow 
for the expedited sale of wasteful and unaffordable Federal properties, 
saving taxpayers up to $15 billion. President Obama, himself, in a 
directive released the day after Mr. Chaffetz's YouCut proposal was 
unveiled, indicated his support for selling unneeded properties.
  Today, my colleagues on our side of the aisle join together and call 
upon the House to support this easy, straightforward way to reduce 
spending.
  Let us remember then-Senator Obama's 2006 words of support for 
removing barriers to the disposal of excess Federal property. He said, 
Regardless of what side of the aisle we sit on, we all agree we are in 
dire financial straits, and we need to manage our assets in the most 
cost-effective way possible to close the gap.
  Mr. Speaker, America is at a crossroads. It is time for us all to act 
together in a bipartisan fashion to stop the runaway spending and to 
get our fiscal house in order. I urge the body to defeat the motion of 
the previous question so that we can actually begin to change the 
culture here in Washington against the runaway spending.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the whip, 
but I think what we've got to do is to just talk about reality here.
  The reality is, when George Bush left office in January of 2009, this 
country was losing 780,000 jobs per month. Last month, we gained 
400,000 jobs. That's a swing of over 1.1 million jobs per month. Yet, 
on top of that, not only did the Bush administration leave this country 
in a terrible lurch with jobs; it left this country with a terrible 
lurch and with a terrible deficit of $1.3 trillion.
  The Republicans would have America have mass amnesia, to forget where 
we were. In 2007, we spent $141 billion in Iraq. Today, they're telling 
us, Hey, let's sell off part of the country to pay our debts. We were 
spending $141 billion in Iraq and not paying for it. This year, we're 
going to draw that down to $65 billion. Republicans would have us 
forget.
  Let's talk real money. I agree: we should never be wasting money in 
this country. Every dollar should be worthwhile and real, but we're 
going to spend $77 billion less in Iraq than under George Bush and at 
the end of the Republican rule of Congress.
  So here we've improved employment by some 1.1 million jobs per month. 
We were left with a terrible deficit by President Bush of $1.3 
trillion. We are drawing down Iraq and are saving real money. Then they 
come up with an advertising program of YouCut to sell assets of this 
country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues from across the aisle 
always fail to mention that, in the last 2 years of the Bush 
administration, Democrats were in charge of Congress. The President 
can't spend any money. Only the Congress can spend money. So they 
conveniently leave out the fact that, when they took over Congress, our 
economy was doing great, absolutely great. From the moment they took 
over Congress in January of 2007, things started going downhill. The 
$1.3 trillion deficit came about as a result of the spending, spending, 
spending by our colleagues from across the aisle. They've lost touch 
with the real world.

                              {time}  1045

  The other thing my colleague points out is 400,000 jobs were created 
last month. He fails to mention that almost all of those jobs were 
created by the census hiring temporary people who will no longer be 
employed after the end of this year. So they're government jobs.
  The American people are seeing through these tales they're being told 
by our colleagues across the aisle of how wonderful they have made the 
economy. They know that we have a 9.7 percent unemployment rate. They 
know that the deficit for the Republican-led Congress from 1996 to 2007 
was only $1.2 trillion in 12 years. This Democrat Congress racked up in 
2 years a $3.2 trillion deficit. My goodness. The American people, 
again, can see through this, Mr. Speaker. They're not going to be 
fooled by this rhetoric.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. As Members of Congress, our constitutional mandate is 
to be responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollars and assets. With the 
debt at $13 trillion and counting, this House and government have 
failed miserably in the task. During times of fiscal uncertainty, savvy 
businesses identify excess and underperforming assets and eliminate 
them. Our government must do the same. The American people agree.

[[Page H4604]]

  This week's winning YouCut proposal would incentivize Federal 
agencies to identify and eliminate underutilized Federal buildings and 
structures. According to OMB Director Peter Orszag, the Federal 
Government has 69,000 buildings and structures that meet this criteria. 
The total value of this excess property is nearly $19 billion. The one-
time sale of these properties would generate substantial revenues to 
fill short-term budget gaps. The long-term savings would have a more 
substantial impact. A leaner real estate portfolio would allow the 
Federal bureaucracy to function effectively and efficiently, and most 
importantly, the taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for underused, 
sometimes vacant Federal properties.
  Current law prohibits the disposing of wasted property and cashing in 
on the savings. Most surplus property must be offered--often at no 
cost--to other government agencies, to State and local governments, to 
nonprofit organizations and others. Only at the end of this process is 
property offered at a competitive public sale. Federal taxpayers have 
missed opportunities to generate revenue and to reduce the deficit. For 
example, the Federal Government has conveyed, at no cost, a building in 
Los Angeles for a mob museum. A mob museum. Land in Massachusetts was 
conveyed for a public high school, where tuition is over $29,000 a 
year. And a building in Florida the Federal Government now leases back 
at a cost of over $100,000 a year.
  The proposal would direct OMB to sell these properties and transfer 
80 percent of the proceeds to reduce the Federal debt. This would 
result in approximately $15 billion in debt reduction. The remaining 20 
percent of the proceeds would act as an incentive to agencies to 
quickly dispose of the excess property.
  Even President Obama is starting to appreciate the need. On June 10, 
he issued a Presidential memorandum to department heads directing them 
to ``accelerate efforts to identify and eliminate excess properties.'' 
He went on to say, ``Both taxpayer dollars and energy resources are 
being wasted to maintain these excess assets.'' We seem to be in 
agreement with the President. We urge the Democrats to join us.
  Today, Congress can carry out the wishes of the American people, can 
support the President's effort to trim the Federal portfolio and take 
significant steps in getting our fiscal house back in order. I urge my 
colleagues to support this proposal. It's just common sense.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would remind the Speaker and others that we're here 
on the small business lending bill, not on Mr. Chaffetz's proposal or 
any proposal like that. It may have merit at another time when that 
bill, itself, is brought forward, but we're here to talk about the 
small business lending bill, which provides community banks, smaller 
banks with funds to make credit available to the small businesses on 
Main Street that were hurt by the crash on Wall Street. So I would just 
remind the Speaker as to what this bill, the underlying bill, is.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps my colleague across the aisle 
needs to be reminded we're actually here to debate because of two 
amendments that violate their vaunted PAYGO, which means we are talking 
about the deficit and we are talking about the sorry economy that the 
Democrats have brought to this country.
  Now I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding 
me this time.
  We have been told that this is the time the majority wanted us to 
discuss this proposal by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), and so 
that's why we're doing this at this time.
  And I want, first of all, to commend Mr. Chaffetz for his proposal, 
which would save taxpayer money and which would potentially help cut 
into the huge deficit, the huge debt that we have, in a very 
significant way. As he mentioned, we have a national debt of over $13 
trillion now. The Congress recently voted to raise the debt limit to 
$14.3 trillion. That's an incomprehensible figure. But what it means is 
that in a few short years we're not going to be able to pay all of our 
Social Security, veterans' pensions, and civil service pensions and all 
of the things we promised our own people with money that will buy 
anything. The Congress in those years will not politically be able to 
come in and cut the benefits, but they'll just print more money. And 
then people will find that their pensions that they were counting on 
will buy a third or a half of what they expect.
  This is an issue that I have been interested in for quite some time, 
when I found out as far back as 1999 that the Bureau of Land Management 
had identified 3 million acres that they did not want because it was 
difficult to manage, inaccessible, unnecessary, and expensive. And so I 
introduced legislation in both the 106th and 107th Congresses to 
dispose of some of this property to gain some money for the Federal 
Government.
  The Federal Government today owns approximately 30 percent of the 
land in this country. State and local governments and quasi-
governmental agencies own or control another 20 percent. So, in other 
words, you have half the land in some type of public ownership. Yet we 
keep taking more and more, a few million more acres each year off of 
the tax rolls. At the same time that the schools and the police and 
everybody come to us wanting more money, we keep decreasing the tax 
rolls.
  It sounds great for a politician to create a park, but we've created 
so many parks now at the Federal, State, and local levels that we can't 
even begin to get the use out of them to justify these parks unless our 
people somehow find a way to go on permanent vacations. And then, USA 
Today reported that there are 1,667 land trusts and there are 1,400 
nature conservancies, all taking over more and more land, so much that 
USA Today on its front page reported that they're taking over 
approximately 6.2 million acres a year, equivalent to half the size of 
the State of New Jersey each year, adding to--constantly adding to that 
hundreds of millions of acres that are already under some type of 
Federal, State, or local ownership, decreasing the tax rolls.
  I introduced a bill with my colleague from the other side, Dennis 
Moore, in the last Congress, called the Federal Real Property Disposal 
Enhancement Act. The Office of Management and Budget had found 21,000 
Federal properties that the Federal Government no longer wanted worth 
$18 billion, and $9 billion of those were real property assets that the 
Federal Government wanted to dispose of. But it's so complicated and so 
bureaucratic to dispose of it at this present time that it's cheaper 
for these agencies to keep this property that they're not even using.
  Jim Nussle, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget at 
that time, in the last Congress, recently sent me a letter and endorsed 
the bill that I had introduced in the Congress and that Senator Tom 
Carper, a Democrat from Delaware, and Senator Tom Coburn had introduced 
in the Senate. The goal of the OMB was to dispose of $9 billion in 
unneeded real property.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Director Nussle wrote at the time I introduced that bill 
with Congressman Moore, he said, ``To reach this objective, I believe 
we must improve and streamline the current process that Federal 
agencies face in disposing of real property assets. Therefore, I 
applaud your introduction of H.R. 3049, which would establish a 5-year 
pilot program for expediting the disposal of properties no longer 
needed by the Federal Government.''
  We've got to wake up, Mr. Speaker, and realize that private property 
is a foundation of our freedom and our prosperity. Yet we're slowing 
doing away with it in this country, and we need to reverse this trend. 
And this action by Mr. Chaffetz will help start that process and save 
taxpayer money.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would just quote from a letter we 
received from the Independent Community Bankers of America: On behalf 
of the 5,000 members of the Independent Community Bankers of America, 
we strongly support passage of the proposed Small Business Lending Fund 
Act of 2010.
  We're here on the rule to allow for that bill to go forward, and I 
would

[[Page H4605]]

like to remind the Speaker and others that that's the purpose of the 
hearing today.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding.
  I remember back in the movie, ``The American President,'' there's one 
scene where Michael Douglas' character is being criticized by one of 
his staff members, and he says, Is the view pretty good from the cheap 
seats?
  I have to sit here and say, my colleagues, the view is pretty good 
from the cheap seats. Because if you think back upon what we inherited, 
those of us who are now trying to pull that car out of the ditch, which 
is also the economy, and try to improve things for the American people, 
how deep in that ditch it was. And we're talking about 700,000 jobs 
lost per month. We're talking about an inherited projected deficit of 
$10 trillion. That's what the Obama administration and this Congress 
has been trying to repair.
  Now, what has been the response from our colleagues on the other 
side? It has been solely, Well, this isn't a good idea; this isn't a 
good idea; this isn't a good idea. We're spending too much money. Blah, 
blah, blah. Let's cut taxes. Well, we tried that. Been there, done 
that, and that's what brought us to the ditch.
  Now what have we done in this Congress? What have we done to take 
that car out of the ditch and get it back on the road? We have taken, 
by every measure possible. We passed the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act. We put $300 billion back in the hands of the American 
taxpayers. That's something that our colleagues on the other side 
neglect to mention, that that money--most of that money, or 40 percent 
of the so-called stimulus package, went back to the American taxpayers 
to spend.
  I have the privilege of cochairing the Congressional Task Force on 
American Competitiveness. Two days ago, we had a forum here. We have 
had people from companies as large as General Electric and Ford to very 
small startups. Without an exception, every one of those businesspeople 
said that we would be in such worse shape were it not for the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You can imagine all of the progress or 
much of the progress they had made in sustaining or growing their 
businesses was attributable to support given through the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act and that the government has to continue 
to play a role.
  One reason they said was very interesting. In the global economy, we 
are not necessarily competing in a free market atmosphere. We're 
competing with a lot of State-supported industry. So, for instance, 
when General Electric, which is bringing back 400 jobs from China to my 
district to build an energy-efficient hybrid water heater, they did it 
because support through the Recovery Act enabled them to make that 
difference that they were trying to balance--the economics--because of 
a State-supported system in China. The support they got through the 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act made up that difference and now they are 
bringing 400 jobs back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. YARMUTH. They are bringing back 400 jobs. They are planning to 
bring back more jobs, again, because of the government's help. Now, as 
I said at the outset, there are two ways to approach this decline. We 
can say the government has no role. We can say all the government 
should do is get out of the way and the private forces will recover the 
economy. As I said, been there, done that. It hasn't worked.
  The steps that we have taken, the steps that we propose to take in 
this Small Business Act, the subject of this rule, are steps that we 
believe are worth trying, that will be an affirmative effort to grow 
jobs in the small business segment of the economy to make capital 
available, to provide tax incentives--yes, to my friends on the other 
side, tax incentives--to motivate small business operators to grow 
their businesses, to start new businesses. These are the steps that 
this Congress and this administration are taking to grow the economy. 
It is better than sitting in the cheap seats and saying we want to go 
back to the agenda that put us in the ditch.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you know, the gentleman from Colorado reminds 
us to stay on the topic, but then he yields to someone who spends most 
of his time blaming a person who is not even any longer in office. That 
is the theme of our colleagues across the aisle. No sense of 
responsibility or accountability on their part.
  They passed the disastrous stimulus, which all it did was put us 
deeper into debt. It hasn't done anything to help the economy. They 
talk about more government control. Well, what about the MMS 
department? They were the ones who were supposed to be checking out 
whether what BP was doing was okay. They signed off on all the permits 
and let them drill. That's what growing the government does for us.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has lived beyond its means for too 
long, and it will take commonsense ideas to restore responsible 
spending in Washington. But we can start by identifying what we need to 
fulfill the duties of the Federal Government and eliminate everything 
else.
  The Federal Government is the largest property owner in the U.S. 
According to the OMB, we have $18 billion in assets that we do not 
need. Rather than selling unnecessary assets, like the American people 
do to live within their means, the Federal Government gives property 
free of charge to other government entities and nonprofits, including a 
building in Las Vegas to use as a mob museum.
  The American people have spoken. We cannot continue ignoring our 
debt. I urge my colleagues to stand with the folks at home to use 
common sense and vote to sell excess Federal property and take a 
necessary step toward a sustainable future.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I remind my friend from Kansas that when you cut 
taxes for the wealthiest people in America, you prosecute two wars 
without paying for them, and you fail to police Wall Street so that it 
becomes a big casino and results in a crash leaving this country in 
terrible debt, and you turn a budget upside down, those are the 
policies that bring a country and bring small businesses to their 
knees. The country, because of various steps taken, has come out of the 
terrible dip of the last months of the Bush administration to where 
we're adding jobs.
  We have a long way to go. We lost millions of jobs, and many small 
businesses were hurt in the process. The purpose of the bill that is to 
be voted on today is about providing funding to smaller banks so that 
small business will have credit, and people will get back to work. 
Providing a platform for small business to really get back on its feet 
and put the people back to work, so many of whom lost their jobs in 
this recession that was caused by the tax cuts, the two wars without 
payment, and failing to police Wall Street.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, every time my colleague wants to blame the 
economy on the former President, I'm going to remind him that the 
Democrats were in control of this Congress the last 2 years that 
President Bush was in office. You can talk all you want to about what 
the job numbers were in the last month of the Bush administration. The 
Democrats were in control of Congress, and they caused the problem.
  I now yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, my eloquent 
colleague, from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. When we talk about Wall Street, one of the things that 
really gets me is, if you look at the numbers and why there wasn't more 
reform of Wall Street, what we find out is that actually both to the 
Obama campaign running for President and to our friends across the 
aisle, the executives on Wall Street, despite what sometimes seems the 
conventional wisdom, the executives on Wall Street give to the 
Democrats and to the Obama campaign four to one over Republicans. It's 
an amazing thing to see. And if you look at that, then you begin to 
understand a little better why there may be games being played, but 
there was no real reform of Wall Street that was going on.

[[Page H4606]]

  And that also brings up the issue of British Petroleum. Some might 
wonder, why in the world would the President of the United States wait 
all these weeks--week after week after week after week--to even meet 
with British Petroleum, to even call them down. Well, they've gotten 
pretty rough on them here lately in talking. But actually, it turns out 
the more you dig--it's kind of like Wall Street--it turns out British 
Petroleum was this administration's greatest ally in fighting what was 
an invented problem: Global warming. It turns out the planet may have 
been cooling in the last few years. The snow down in South Africa 
recently points toward that as well.
  But British Petroleum was meeting with Senator Kerry, and they were 
pushing this global warming bill. They needed an oil company to help 
get this ridiculous bill that was being pushed, the so-called energy 
bill, they needed an oil company to give them credibility. So, of 
course, they didn't want to come down on them. Of course, they want to 
talk about Wall Street and getting tough on the fat cats, but as far as 
doing anything, it's just talk. That's why Goldman Sachs had their 
biggest profit in their whole company's history last year as the 
Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. And I'm 
trying to dig. We found some contracts, but I would like to know just 
how much of that was government money coming from this Congress and 
this administration into the coffers still of Goldman Sachs. It's still 
flowing there. And the contracts indicate that.
  As far as the oil spill, you've got companies and countries around 
the world willing to help. President Bush, for all the criticism, 
actually within 3 days of the Katrina hurricane, had suspended the 
Jones Act so foreign countries could send ships and send help and go 
ahead and give us all the assistance they could. This administration 
still has not suspended the Jones Act. We had the Netherlands within 
days--man, they know something about building barrier islands and dikes 
and things like that. This administration said, Oh, no. We don't want 
that, allowing millions and millions and millions of dollars to pile 
up. And then you look in a little deeper, and you find out, Oh, gee.
  After the President said that about the cozy relationship that 
existed between big oil and the regulators, it turns out the very 
person that we were told by the Inspector General who knew the most 
about that price adjustment language being pulled out of offshore 
leases in 1998-1999 left the Clinton administration when they went out; 
so they couldn't really talk to them to investigate what had happened. 
It turns out, she works now with the Department of the Interior, with 
the Minerals Management. Go figure.
  There is a mess going on. There are a lot of things we can do to quit 
killing jobs. Those 700,000 jobs were being lost when the Democrats had 
this majority, and compassion does not equal giving away money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 19 minutes. 
The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would ask my friend from North Carolina how many 
more speakers she may have.
  Ms. FOXX. We have at least two more speakers, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I just would say, again, reading from the letter from 
the Independent Community Bankers of America. The Act, which is the 
Small Business Lending Fund Act, the Act would offer capital to 
interested community banks to increase small business credit. We urge 
the House to pass this legislation. The Nation's 8,000-strong community 
banks are well positioned to leverage this fund and have established 
relationships with small businesses in their communities to get credit 
flowing. On down it says, Notably, leveraging the $30 billion funds 
with community banks would potentially support many times that amount 
in loan volume to small businesses, as much as $300 billion in 
additional lending.
  By reducing the dividend costs on the capital investment as lending 
increases, this program helps to ensure more community banks have both 
the incentive and greater capacity to increase total loans to small 
businesses. That's the purpose of this rule, to pass the underlying 
bill, which is to increase credit to small businesses and get them back 
on their feet and help continue to add jobs, as we have over the course 
of the last 14 or 15 months. When we were at the very depth of the 
recession, in January 2009, the last month of the Bush administration, 
losing 780,000 jobs; in April, where we gained 290,000 jobs; in May, 
400,000 jobs. That's what this is about, putting people back to work, 
getting this country back on a strong financial footing.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady from 
North Carolina yielding me the time.
  We are here today to talk about a rule that would qualify certain 
amendments to solve a procedural problem, a mistake that the majority 
party made here. But why not use this rule as an opportunity to 
something really more, to help solve and resolve ongoing problems. One 
could look at the far map that I have of the United States over there. 
Everything that is in red is land and property owned by the Federal 
Government. Ronald Reagan looked at that and said, You never see 
something like that this side of the old Soviet Union. Think about 
that. One out of every three acres of this country is owned and 
controlled by the Federal Government. And I hate to say this, but in 
2007, OMB did a study and said that, of that, $18 billion worth of that 
property is excess. It is useless. It is needless.
  This year, Peter Orszag updated that report and said there are 14,000 
buildings that the Federal Government owns that are excess, and 55,000 
buildings that are underutilized and not necessary. When I first came 
here, The Washington Post did an editorial that said, Until the 
District of Columbia can get hold of all the excess land and buildings 
owned by the Federal Government and put those to economic use, the 
economy of Washington, D.C., would never grow.
  Those of us in the West have been saying that for a long time. In 
fact, this year, I introduced two land transfer bills. In each bill, 
both the Forest Service and the BLM as well as the Army Corps of 
Engineers owned land that they did not use, they did not need, they 
didn't even know about it. One parcel of land was sold to the Federal 
Government in the 1940s for $1, and the Forest Service did not know 
they had that land.
  The local officials understood that this land is useless, and these 
buildings are useless, and thus, they are put to some kind of 
profitable need. The D.C. bureaucrats, though, said their policy is no 
net loss of land or real estate. In fact, the only way they will give 
up something is if they get more in return. That is pure insanity. Use 
this rule to go against the excesses of land and the excess buildings 
that we have so that we can send a true message to the business 
community and the money lenders who have money to invest in this 
economy that we really are serious about the debt by taking all of the 
excess and using it to pay down the debt, that we are serious about 
building a business climate here that will encourage people to invest 
in this company, and do that first by saying, We will retire our excess 
property and use it to build down and take down this debt.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I, again, remind everyone that the rule and the bill 
are about small business lending. Again, I would refer to the letter 
from the independent community bankers. ICBA believes the proposed 
Small Business Lending Fund Act supports their recommendations, and 
this fresh program approach will attract a broader spectrum of 
community banks to boost small business lending and job growth. We 
applaud the new program focused on getting funds to Main Street's small 
businesses using Main Street community banks.
  We're here to try to get money to small businesses throughout the 
country using the smaller community banks, regional banks. The purpose 
is to get them back on their feet, get them growing. We're not here to 
talk

[[Page H4607]]

about selling off assets of America. We're here to talk about getting 
small businesses back on their feet.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague from Georgia, Dr. Price.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding and for her leadership on issues of the utmost importance to 
the American people.
  My friend says we are not here to talk about the debt that has been 
created in this Nation; we are here to talk about money. We are here to 
talk about the taxpayers' money. And this bill, this underlying bill 
that is being discussed right now spends another $33 billion. That is 
right, Mr. Speaker, another $33 billion of hard-earned money from the 
American taxpayer. But it can't come from the American taxpayer, 
because we have so much deficit right now. So it needs to come from 
where, China or Japan.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of what is going 
on here in Washington. Just this week the American people said in a 
survey that the greatest threat to this Nation, which they believe had 
been terrorism, is now debt. Debt. What they are saying to us is stop 
the madness. So what the Republicans have done, in an attempt to be 
fiscally responsible and try to encourage our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to stop the madness, is to institute the YouCut 
program.
  It is at republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut, and this week's winner, 
these are the American people going to this Web site saying stop the 
madness, cut in this area, this week's winner will save $15 billion by 
selling excess Federal property, property that is not being used right 
now, sell it for $15 billion.
  Every single week we try to identify those programs, those areas of 
the Federal Government that are recklessly spending the hard-earned 
taxpayers' money. And this week, there are five more new nominees that 
will be announced.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to go to the Web site, 
republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut, and vote for whether or not they want 
to prohibit hiring of new IRS agents to enforce the new health care 
law, saving $10 billion, whether they want to terminate exchanges in 
the Whaling and Trading Partners program, another $90 million in 
savings.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Or you vote to terminate taxpayer-subsidized 
political party conventions. That is right, Mr. Speaker, we spend tens 
of millions of dollars paying for Democrat and Republican party 
conventions. That is crazy.
  Or you could vote to require collection of unpaid taxes from Federal 
employees, a billion dollars we could save there; or to terminate the 
funding for the NDIC, $440 million.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not just about whether or not we are 
acting responsibly here. It is what we are doing with the hard-earned 
taxpayer money. We are talking about money here, and this bill that you 
are talking about spends an extra $33 billion that we do not have. In 
fact, there is money appropriated already through the TARP program, 
over $500 billion of money available. You could use some of that if you 
wanted to be fiscally responsible. But, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that 
kind of leadership out of the majority party.
  Mr. Speaker, the YouCut program allows the American people to assist 
in those things that they believe are wasteful in our Federal 
Government. This bill is an opportunity through the PC to be able to 
cut the excess Federal property.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would remind my friend, at the height of the Iraq 
war we spend $141 billion, as we draw troops down to $65 billion, a 
savings of $76 billion a year. That is money. These things we can find 
other places to save where there is wasteful spending, $76 billion in 
Iraq. That is what this Congress is finding. That is what this 
President has found. Instead of going into war and not paying for it, 
$76 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  I know the American people who are watching this must have their 
heads spinning because all we have heard for a year and a half now from 
our colleagues on the other side was TARP was a disastrous program; 
TARP is a disastrous program. They are running ads against us in our 
districts about how horrible TARP was: so and so voted for TARP. And 
yet here we have someone who is advocating that we take money from TARP 
and give it to small businesses. I actually think that is a good idea. 
I am for that.
  But I want to clarify something because he is misstating the impact 
of the underlying bill. This bill does not add anything to the deficit. 
This bill is paid for, and the $30 billion in loan facilities that we 
are actually making available to small banks throughout the country 
actually generates a surplus for the Treasury. That is a profit maker 
for the Treasury. There is no cost unless the money is actually 
borrowed. And if it is borrowed and paid back with interest, then the 
taxpayers actually benefit.
  So it is one to thing to talk about deficits and argue about who is 
responsible and so forth, but to actually misstate the actual facts 
about the underlying bill here is a little bit disingenuous.
  I would like to make one more comment. My friend from North Carolina 
mentioned earlier, you keep blaming the former President. No, we 
actually keep blaming the former 12 years of Republican control of the 
Congress because that is the period of time in which the really 
disastrous policies for the economy were implemented and were approved: 
the two tax cuts that mostly went to wealthiest Americans; the $7 
trillion projected debt because of the unfunded prescription drug plan; 
and, of course, the war funding.
  I know that the President, President Bush, dealt for 2 years with a 
Democratic Congress. We did have control of the Congress, but we sure 
didn't have a veto-proof Congress. And every time we wanted to 
implement a policy or change the President's budget, he threatened a 
veto. So, yes, we did have control of the Congress, but we didn't have 
control of the Nation's economy. But for 12 years, the Republican 
Congress did. For 6 years of that, they had control of all three 
branches of government. That is when the true damage was done.
  We have an important piece of legislation that will help small 
businesses create jobs.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  You know, my colleagues across the aisle talk about trying to create 
jobs. I will point out to my colleague that trying isn't doing it. What 
happens is you pass the stimulus to create jobs, omnibus appropriations 
to create jobs, auto bailouts to create jobs, health care, cap-and-
trade, all of those things to create jobs. You are trying, but you are 
not doing. What you are doing is you are creating government jobs.
  This is the chart that the American people want to look at: how many 
government jobs you are creating. You have also created a deficit in 2 
years three times the size of the deficit that Republicans created in 
12 years. You are so selective in how you talk about history. Clinton 
was President for part of that time. You say he had a surplus at the 
end of his term; but you never give Republicans credit for that. But 
then you talk about our being in charge of the Congress. You know, you 
are very selective with your statistics. But you have tried and you've 
failed. You have not created jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I want to make sure that the record is clear that the 
amendments that are presented in today's rule are in full compliance 
with the PAYGO rule, and that is why we are proceeding with this second 
rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material be printed in the Record immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.

[[Page H4608]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that I can amend the rule to allow all Members of Congress 
the opportunity to vote to cut spending. Republican Whip Eric Cantor 
really launched the YouCut initiative which gives people an opportunity 
to vote for Federal spending they would like to see Congress cut. 
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have cast their votes, and this week 
they have directed their Representatives in Congress to consider H.R. 
5535.
  According to the Republican whip YouCut Web site: ``The Office of 
Management and Budget estimated in 2007 that the Federal Government is 
holding $18 billion in real property it does not need. Rather than 
selling this property, however, Federal law usually requires that it 
first be offered, often at no cost, to other government agencies, to 
State and local governments, to nonprofits, and others. The Federal 
Government has conveyed at no cost: a building in Las Vegas that is 
intended to house the mob museum; land in Massachusetts for a private 
high school where tuition is over $29,000 a year; and a building in 
Florida that the Federal Government now leases back at a cost of over 
$100,000 a year. This proposal would amend Federal law to require an 
expedited process for selling unneeded Federal property with 80 percent 
of the proceeds used to reduce the deficit.''
  In order to provide for consideration of this commonsense 
legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, small businesses cannot grow if credit is not available 
to them. Over the course of the last year and a half, credit has 
tightened substantially. This bill provides for a loan fund to small 
community banks and regional banks so that they can work with their 
small businesses throughout the country. This is not focused on Wall 
Street, but is focused on Main Street so we can get small businesses 
really back strong and prosperous and hiring people back so that this 
country is on a full and vibrant financial footing.
  I would just remind the Speaker, we have strong support from a whole 
variety of organizations with respect to the bill: the National Small 
Business Association, the Small Business Majority, the National 
Association of Realtors, the Independent Community Bankers of America, 
the American Bankers Association, and a number of other organizations.
  Our Nation's small businesses have waited long enough for much-needed 
capital, so we won't make them wait any longer. This credit crunch has 
taken its toll, but now it is time to focus on Main Street.
  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. 1448

                 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     house on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 5535) to establish a pilot program for the expedited 
     disposal of Federal real property. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(e) of 
     rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5535.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 1448, if 
ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules and adopt House Resolution 
1429.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 179, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 368]

                               YEAS--241

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher

[[Page H4609]]


     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     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)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     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
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     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)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     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
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barrett (SC)
     Brown (SC)
     Childers
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Inglis
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Meek (FL)
     Moore (WI)
     Taylor
     Wamp
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1202

  Messrs. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, FRANKS of Arizona, ROGERS of Alabama 
and Mrs. LUMMIS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CROWLEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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. Mr. 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 237, 
noes 179, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 369]

                               AYES--237

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     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
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     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
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     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)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis

[[Page H4610]]


     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Barrett (SC)
     Brown (SC)
     Capps
     Childers
     Hoekstra
     Inglis
     Johnson (GA)
     King (IA)
     Meek (FL)
     Moore (WI)
     Pomeroy
     Roe (TN)
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1209

  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:
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 369, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________