[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.''
____________________