[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 125 (Thursday, September 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6766-H6775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4785, RURAL ENERGY SAVINGS PROGRAM
ACT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1620 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1620
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
[[Page H6767]]
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4785) to amend the miscellaneous rural
development provisions of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 to authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture to make loans to certain entities that will use
the funds to make loans to consumers to implement energy
efficiency measures involving structural improvements and
investments in cost-effective, commercial off-the-shelf
technologies to reduce home energy use. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and amendments specified in this
resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided
among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Agriculture and the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Agriculture now printed in the bill, it shall be
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under
clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule
XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question. All
points of order against such amendments are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on Agriculture or his designee. The Chair may not entertain a
motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill (as
described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr.
Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate
only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 1620.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. Langevin). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1620 provides for consideration of H.R. 4785,
the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. The rule provides 1 hour of
general debate controlled by the Committee on Agriculture and Energy
and Commerce. The rule makes in order as original text an amendment in
the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Rules Committee
report, and the rule also makes in order four amendments printed in
part B of the Rules report and provides one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that too many American families are
unemployed. Too many American families are having trouble paying their
energy bills. Too many of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas to
China and to other countries.
Now, the Democratic Congress has brought bill after bill after bill
after bill to the floor to help American families weather these tough
economic times and make long-term investments in a clean economy so
that the United States maintains its status in the world as a leader in
innovation.
And every time, and every time we bring a bill to the floor, my
friends on the other side of the aisle have overwhelmingly voted
``no.'' They have become the party of no, no to everything.
Unfortunately, based on some of the statements by some of my Rules
Committee colleagues last night in the Rules Committee, I think that
that will be their strategy today on this Rural Star bill.
This is a good, cost-effective bill. Rural Star will create high-
skilled, high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs while delivering
energy savings to millions of Americans by providing access to capital
and energy-efficient technologies.
In fact, the National Association of Home Builders endorsed this
bill, saying that H.R. 4785 will ``save energy for American families,
create jobs, and reap environmental rewards.''
Let's not forget that this bill will put people to work, keep good-
paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and lower the
utility bills of families and farms across the country. The truth is
more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured
here in America.
Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The truth is that more than 92
percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured right here in
the United States of America.
We are talking about insulation, windows, doors and water heaters.
That's why this is so important. A family or a business will not only
hire someone to install these energy efficiency products, but these
products will be made in our backyard right here in our own country.
Make it in America. That's what Democrats want. That's what we stand
for.
There shouldn't be one Member of this body who opposes putting
Americans to work in this fashion. And not only will H.R. 4785 result
in more Americans jobs; it will lower families' and farms' utility
bills. This is particularly important in rural areas where customers
are facing increasing costs for electric power. Rural electric co-ops
are facing a growing demand for electric power at a time when they are
constrained from building new generation capacity.
The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, supports this bill
because of the positive impacts on rural electric co-ops, and he said
so during testimony last night in the Rules Committee. I want to thank
Mr. Inglis for his support and for putting American jobs over
partisanship today.
{time} 1030
To my colleagues who argue that this bill will cost too much, I want
to remind them that the programs in this bill involve loans, not
grants. These loans must be repaid. CBO has analyzed the legislation
and concluded that it does not score. The legislation is fully
compliant with statutory PAYGO and House PAYGO rules.
Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone will take a close look at the important
provisions in the Rural Star bill that will put Americans to work and
help transition us to a stable clean energy economy of tomorrow.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put
partisanship aside and support this rule and the underlying bill.
National Association of
Home Builders,
Washington, DC, September 13, 2010.
Hon. Louise Slaughter,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Louise: On behalf of the 175,000
members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB),
I am writing to express our support for H.R. 4785--the Rural
Energy Savings Program Act of 2010. We applaud your efforts
to create jobs and deliver meaningful energy savings for
consumers in rural communities by providing access to capital
and efficiency technologies.
Without meaningful incentives to improve the energy
efficiency of the 130 million existing homes and dwelling
units that comprise our nation's housing stock, true energy
savings will never materialize from the building sector. NAHB
believes that H.R. 4785 helps address this problem in rural
America by providing low interest loans to consumers to
install energy efficient technologies that will save energy
for American families, create jobs, and reap environmental
rewards.
NAHB further supports the provisions in the legislation
that will establish demonstration programs that help
implement measurement and verification approaches to energy
audits and investments in energy performance improvements
with measurable results. NAHB believes that tracking energy
savings improvements in older, less-efficient homes is
important to demonstrate the voluntary efforts already
underway to reduce GHG emissions from the overall building
sector.
[[Page H6768]]
In addition to NAHB's consistent support for other energy
efficiency incentives in both new and existing homes, NAHB
supports H.R. 4785 as a way to further improve the nation's
housing stock and provide avenues for consumers in rural
communities to invest in efficiency. NAHB appreciates your
thoughtful legislation.
Sincerely,
Joe Stanton,
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding
time. But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to rise today in
opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.
Even though we have all had the opportunity to meet with our
constituents in our districts over the past 6 weeks, it's clear that
the ruling Democratic elite still do not seem to get it. My
constituents in North Carolina want the Federal Government to stop
spending, but this bill authorizes an additional $5 billion for two new
government-funded energy efficiency loan programs.
Mr. Speaker, the so-called stimulus in 2009 included over 8 billion
in taxpayer dollars that were supposedly meant for energy efficiency in
homes. At the time, the ruling Democrats boasted that it authorized
$4.7 billion for the Department of Energy to issue grants for a home
weatherization program. However, though it was touted as another
shovel-ready program, the Department of Energy has used less than 10
percent of those funds in the program's first year; just over 30,000
homes were weatherized instead of the hundreds of thousands promised.
If the Department of Energy can't implement the $4.7 billion program
in the stimulus, why should we authorize another $5 billion loan
program? We have not seen any evidence of these programs working or
being implemented correctly.
Mr. Speaker, apparently the $8 billion in stimulus spending was not
enough. The Democrats are now asking that we borrow another $5 billion
from foreign countries and our grandchildren. The fact is we cannot
afford, nor do we need, these new government programs, especially at a
time when we have an unprecedented deficit and return on this spending
is questionable at best.
Furthermore, this bill was not vetted by both the committees to which
it was referred. And it's remarkable that our colleagues continue to
bring ideas that have been rejected back to the floor. The Rules
Committee Democrats have issued the self-executing rule to arbitrarily
force inclusion of the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan program into
the bill even though 346 Members, including 178 Democrats, already
voted against it this past May. They are using blunt force to push
their agenda through, ignoring the will of the American people by
increasing the program's authorization level from its original $324
million to a whopping $42.5 billion.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that after having 6 weeks at
home to listen to their constituents--not just Democrat constituents,
not just Republican constituents, not just Independent or unaffiliated,
but folks from all areas of political persuasion. Their constituents
don't want them to spend more of their hard-earned money on frivolous
government programs. Instead, they want us to cut spending, lower their
taxes, and enable businesses to prosper so they can get back to work.
The goals of these two government programs, new programs, could be
achieved by existing programs such as the Rural Economic Development
Loan and Grant program, which controlled approximately $33.77 million
for loans in fiscal 2010. Why two new programs are being created to do
something an existing program can already achieve is beyond me.
Finally, I object to this rule because it is, once again, a
structured rule. The ruling Democrat elites have chosen to block at
least nine amendments from being offered on the floor today and instead
have arbitrarily chosen to allow only four, which are the only
amendments they will permit us to debate.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, after promising the most open and honest
Congress in history, Speaker Pelosi has gone back on her word and
against the will of the American people. When will our colleagues
across the aisle learn that this House belongs to the people, not to
them?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentlewoman from North Carolina has
a problem with American jobs, but 92 percent of the products that have
been used in this weatherization process were made here in the United
States of America. We are helping keep jobs and we are helping to
create jobs. I'm sorry that the Party of No has a problem with that.
But the Democratic Party believes that we need to make it in America
and that we need to invest in American jobs, and not only keep American
jobs, but add American jobs.
The gentlelady says that somehow the weatherization program in the
Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't work. Well, I disagree with her
very strongly. In some States like North Carolina, weatherization got
off to a slow start, but in other States like Massachusetts we were
able to start quickly. This was a function of the State having
weatherization programs ready to handle these new funds right away or
if they had to be ramped up.
Today, over 30,000 homes each month are being weatherized across the
country thanks to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In 2009, 1,100
more houses were weatherized in Massachusetts than in North Carolina.
But in April, May, and June of this year, 1,000 more houses were
weatherized in North Carolina than in Massachusetts. Today, nearly the
same number of houses have been weatherized both in North Carolina and
in Massachusetts. So to say that this program isn't working and that
it's a failure is clearly and utterly a mischaracterization.
I hope that my colleagues will look at the facts and not demagogue
this issue simply for political gain. Those projects on weatherization,
I will say to my colleague from North Carolina, in her State are
helping to keep people in their jobs and helping to create more jobs.
Why is that such a big problem to my friends on the Republican side of
the aisle? Why do they have a problem with making things here in the
United States of America and protecting American jobs? That is one of
the best reasons to support this bill. In addition to saving utility
costs for families and small businesses, it is about creating jobs in
the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from
Massachusetts permitting me to speak on this important bill.
I could not agree with him more. I did spend a month working in
Oregon to deal with people who are concerned about the economy. I had a
meeting just last Friday with over 200 people, including executives,
presidents of two of our local electric utilities. I have met with
electrical contractors. I have met with utility contractors and with
unemployed union workers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you not only is the initiative under
the Recovery Act putting people to work in North Carolina and in
Massachusetts; it's putting people to work in Oregon. But what is
important here is building on that model to be able to extend it to
more home builders, more contractors and other utilities. There is a
potential here to employ 168,000 people over the course of the next 2
years.
Now, I come from a region that has invested heavily in energy
efficiency. We have been able to save hundreds of millions of dollars
of investment because we are getting more out of the energy we have
now. The good news is the products that are energy efficient are
largely made in America. And they are very labor intensive. These are
installing new windows, installing weatherization, installing more
efficient appliances, heating and cooling. This is saving money for
years to come for families while it's putting families to work now.
An important part of this legislation is that it will empower
electric cooperatives which provide energy to many in my State and
across the country to help customers reduce energy use and cost.
[[Page H6769]]
{time} 1040
This bill was amended to include the Home Star Energy Efficiency
program, so it helps people in the 88 percent of the country that are
not served by electrical co-ops. All Americans should have access to
these low-cost home improvement loans to save energy and save money.
And it has a terrific mechanism of working with the utilities, public
and private utilities, and allowing people to pay it back on a monthly
basis through their energy bills, which are going to be reduced. For
many people, it is not going to actually cost them anything over the
course of the next 5 years and it will save them money for years and
years to come, every month with that utility bill, while it puts people
to work here in America now.
It is why homebuilders, contractors, and energy companies all
combined to support this legislation. I am baffled that my friends on
the other side of the aisle didn't hear from people at home like I
heard from who want this opportunity to work in America, to save
energy, and to put people back to work.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: Fool me once, shame on
you; fool me twice, shame on me.
What this bill does once again is bring up what is sort of a mini-
stimulus bill. We were told when the stimulus bill was passed,
unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent. It would create jobs. It
would be the great boon for the country. We now have 9.6 percent
unemployment. I am a member of an electric co-op. I know very well how
electric co-ops work. If the electric co-ops wanted to do this, if it
was such a great deal, they would do it. We don't need the Federal
Government doing this because everything that our friends have promised
has failed, failed, failed. They want to continue their failed
programs.
I don't have a problem with American jobs, but what this creates is
not American jobs. They want to create more government jobs, which they
have done, and we will talk about that in a little bit.
Now I would like to recognize my colleague from Florida, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), who is going to talk about this
immensely successful project that Republicans have started here called
YouCut.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).
Mr. ROONEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years, this Congress has spent the
American people's taxpayer dollars at a record pace. My friends on the
other side of the aisle have dug our country into a $13 trillion hole.
As the old saying goes, when you're in a hole, stop digging. It is time
to cut out-of-control spending and get our fiscal house in order, even
if that means saying ``no'' time and time again. This is going to
require real leadership, and we are going to have to make some tough
decisions.
All of these decisions won't be tough, though, and today we face a
no-brainer. Should we require the IRS to collect unpaid taxes from
Federal employees? Absolutely. Should they lose their jobs if they
don't? Of course.
This cut will reduce the deficit by $1 billion. And while all
Americans should of course pay their taxes, Federal employees who
receive their paychecks directly from the American people have a
special obligation to pay what they owe. It is time to listen to the
American people. Through the YouCut program, our constituents have cast
1.7 million votes urging us to cut wasteful spending. Republicans have
brought forward proposals to cut more than $120 billion in waste from
the budget. Unfortunately, the majority party has blocked all, all, of
these efforts. I hope that changes today.
Mr. McGOVERN. For the record, I want to point out to my colleagues
that the manager's amendment addresses the issue of Federal employees
who are delinquent on their taxes, and I quote from the manager's
amendment that a loan shall not be provided to a Federal employee under
this act if any of the following apply to the employee: One, that the
employee has a seriously delinquent tax debt.
So, yes, everybody should pay their taxes. We all should be concerned
about the debt and the deficit, but I find it a little bit astonishing
that the party that took a surplus that Bill Clinton gave them and
turned it into a record deficit is talking about the importance of
reducing our deficit. Dick Cheney, I remember the Vice President of the
United States, made the statement that deficits don't matter. I
strongly disagree with him, but that was said as the Bush-Cheney
administration was racking up historic debt. He said it doesn't make
any difference. He was wrong. They drove this country into a ditch, and
now they are complaining about the size of the tow truck to get us back
on the road.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are not going to be
fooled. I also find it a little bit astonishing that again, while my
friends are talking about the importance of focusing on the deficit,
that they have embraced a tax plan that will double the projected
deficit by adding $4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.
What they are trying to do is make sure that millionaires and above get
at least $100,000 in tax breaks. That is where their priorities are.
The purpose of this bill is to not only help families lower their
utility costs. The purpose of this bill is to create American jobs. And
it is to buy products that are made in the United States of America.
Not buy them from China, not buy them from India, not buy them from
some other country, but made here in the United States.
I'm sorry that my colleague from North Carolina doesn't believe that
the jobs that were created in her district as a result of the
weatherization investments in the Reinvestment and Recovery Act somehow
don't matter. They do. People are working and they are supporting their
families. And we need to do more of that. We need to invest in the
American people and the American economy.
I should also point out so there is no mistake: This is not
additional spending. What this is is a loan program. This is not adding
one cent to our deficit. This is a loan program where people will pay
the loans back. CBO says it doesn't score. It is totally compliant with
PAYGO. So this notion that somehow we are adding more spending to the
deficit is just plain wrong.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. My colleagues across the
aisle always want to talk about this wonderful surplus that President
Clinton had. They always neglect to mention that Congress holds the
purse strings and it was Republicans who were in charge of the Congress
the last 6 years of Mr. Clinton's administration. They were in terrible
shape the first 2 years. Republicans took over and we, Republicans,
brought the economy to a surplus.
They also like to point out how bad it was when President Bush left
office. They always neglect to say you were in charge, Mr. Speaker, and
your party, when Mr. Bush left office. You drove the American economy
into the ditch, not the Republicans.
Every bill that comes up here is to create jobs, but the American
people understand, again, everything you've done has failed, from the
stimulus, February a year ago, to now. You want to continue to spend
money to create jobs. But government only creates government jobs, not
jobs in the private sector. So I can't let my colleague get by with
that.
I would like to point out that the item that our colleague from
Massachusetts pointed out is such a narrow piece. We want to really do
something about Federal employees paying their taxes, not just those
who might apply for a loan under this program.
I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
We have so many good Federal workers who wake up every morning and do
good jobs. They go to work. They are working hard to make this country
great, and we applaud them for that effort. Unfortunately, there is a
small percentage of people who are not doing what they are supposed to
be doing. It happens to be that nearly 100,000 Federal workers are not
paying about a billion dollars a year in taxes.
The proposal that we will be able to vote on today will allow us to
mandate and make sure that Federal workers who fall into this category
of serious delinquent tax debt are fired if they don't pay their taxes.
[[Page H6770]]
{time} 1050
The principle is simple: If you're on the Federal payroll, you should
be paying your Federal taxes. Now, there is a provision in there that
says if you're on a pathway to actually making whole and you're having
your wages garnished and you're trying to get whole, then fine. We're
obviously not going to fire you. Yet, according to the data from the
IRS, the numbers are quite staggering--100,000 people. If you're taking
those taxpayer dollars, you should be paying your taxes.
Interestingly enough, on January 20 of this year, President Obama
gave a speech. He was talking about Federal contractors. I want you to
listen to the words of the President, who I happen to agree with in
this case; but I also want you to think, when they say ``Federal
contractor,'' they should also say ``Federal worker.''
In quoting President Obama: ``It is simply wrong for companies to
take taxpayer dollars and not be taxpayers themselves. We need to
insist on the same sense of responsibility in Washington that so many
of you strive to uphold in your own lives, in your own families, and in
your own businesses.''
He went on to say: ``All across the country, there are people who
meet their obligations each and every day. You do your jobs. You
support your families. You pay the taxes you owe because it's a
fundamental responsibility of citizenship; and yet, somehow, it has
become standard practice in Washington to give contracts to companies
that don't pay their taxes.''
The President is right. Everywhere that it says ``Federal
contractors,'' it should also say ``Federal employees.'' This is
simple. This should be bipartisan. Everybody should unite behind this
because, unfortunately, there are too many people who are on the
payrolls who are taking taxpayer dollars but who are not paying their
fair share. They have good-quality, high-paying jobs. Please support
this measure as it comes up today, and let's do the right thing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just a couple of things. I will remind the gentlewoman from North
Carolina that what dug us into this ditch were tax cuts for the rich
that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for and a Medicare
prescription drug bill that was like five times the cost we were told
it was, and it wasn't paid for. So let's get the record straight on
that.
I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party
just takes my breath away when they get up here and talk about the
responsibility that individuals have to pay their taxes. Where were
they when we tried to crack down on companies that have opened up P.O.
boxes in Bermuda or in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes,
and yet they operate here in the United States and get U.S. Government
money? Where were they? You know, the Republicans voted 170-1 to
protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and
95 percent of those Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these
tax rates. That's where they are. They want to protect these big
corporations that escape paying U.S. taxes, but they want to go after
somebody who is working in NIH as a researcher, who is trying to find a
cure for cancer. Let's focus on those people. That's what they say.
Look, the point of this legislation here is jobs. It's about saving
families and farms and small businesses their utility costs, and it's
about creating American jobs. It's about buying things here in the
United States of America.
Why is that so objectionable to the Republicans? Why are they
fighting this bill that will invest in our economy, that will invest in
American jobs, that will help protect American jobs, and that will be
great for American jobs? Why is this so controversial? You know, why do
they insist that we need to have an economy in which we buy everything
from China?
What Democrats are trying to do is to steer this economy toward
making it here in America, toward making these products in America and
investing in American jobs. That's what this is all about.
So rather than protecting tax breaks for corporations that escape
paying U.S. taxes and that get incentives to move jobs overseas, how
about standing up for the American worker? How about standing up for
this concept of making it in America and for creating and expanding
jobs here in the United States?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things to my
colleague from Massachusetts.
What is sending jobs overseas are things like the government takeover
of health care in this country, which is creating such uncertainty and
which is driving up the cost of health care for everyone, as well as
the rules and regulations established by the EPA and the programs that
many of our colleagues across the aisle love so much. They constantly
talk about tax cuts for the rich. Well, every American got a tax cut
when the tax cuts went into effect. The tax rate for the lowest-income
Americans went down from 15 percent to 10 percent. Now they are
proposing to allow that to go back up on January 1 and to create the
largest tax increase in the history of this country.
It sounds to me like my colleague across the aisle is defending
Federal employees from not paying their taxes. I find that really
difficult to understand.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, rhetorically it was asked, Where was I?
Where was I?
Look, I'm just a freshman here. I didn't create this mess, but I am
here to help clean it up. I actually stand with some Democrats and the
President in supporting the idea and the notion that, if you're a
Federal contractor and if you don't pay your taxes, you should be
dismissed as a contractor. In fact, you shouldn't get a contract. Let's
have the guts to have that same standard for Federal employees. That's
where the hypocrisy comes in. The President was very clear. I read his
comments about taking care of Federal contractors. The same standard
should apply to the Federal employees. To suggest that, well, we'll go
ahead and grant them some special exemption, absolutely not. I think we
need to hold them to a higher standard, do the same for contractors and
do the same for the Federal employees. That's the right thing to do.
Like I said, I didn't create this mess, but we are here to help clean
it up.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentleman and to my friends on the other side of
the aisle that they've all been long enough here to add to the mess,
and cleaning up the mess means supporting bills like this that will
create American jobs, that will protect American jobs. This is an
important bill.
Again, for the life of me, I don't understand why there is
controversy over a bill to invest in America, to invest in our workers,
to help lower utility costs for small businesses, for individuals, for
family farms. This is not adding to our deficit one penny. This is a
loan program to help people weatherize, you know, their homes, and
that's whether it's a mobile home, a farm or a small business. You
know, over 90 percent of what is needed to do that is made in America.
Why is that a problem? Why do you have a problem with investing in
programs that create American jobs? I mean, that's what this is about.
You know, again, the Republicans voted 170-1 to protect tax breaks
for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and 95 percent of House
Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. Enough of
that. It is time to invest in American workers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the reason Republicans vote against these
programs is because we pay attention to what happens. Government
programs don't work. It's real simple. Our colleagues across the aisle
simply haven't learned that.
Again, we go back to the stimulus. We were promised unemployment
would not go up past 8 percent. It is almost 10 percent. Our economy is
in the ditch. We are in terrible, terrible shape in this country, all
because of the spending by our colleagues across the aisle and because
of the belief that the government is our savior. It is not our savior.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
[[Page H6771]]
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the motion on
ordering the previous question.
I do so because, this summer, while Members were back home in their
districts, they heard the growing frustration of the American people
firsthand. Hardworking Americans can see that our Nation is at a
crossroads. We have a $13 trillion national debt. That works out to be
$42,000 for every man, woman and child in America.
Yet what is the Democratic majority doing today? They are bringing a
bill to the floor to spend another $5 billion that we don't have to
continue their failed stimulus policies. All the while, the American
people are saying that the rampant Federal spending in Washington has
to stop. The people are speaking out through the YouCut program with
over 1.7 million votes. The YouCut movement continues to encourage
people of all stripes to go online and to take an active role in
determining how their government spends taxpayer dollars.
{time} 1100
YouCut voters have helped Republicans bring to the floor more than
$120 billion in spending cuts, only to be blocked every time by the
Speaker and the Democratic majority. This week's winning proposal under
the YouCut program is an idea put forward by the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Chaffetz) to require the collection of unpaid taxes from Federal
employees. While all Americans have an obligation to pay the taxes they
owe, Federal employees can be seen as especially obliged to pay their
share of the taxes because they draw their compensation from American
taxpayers.
Addressing our staggering national debt is not a partisan calling,
Mr. Speaker; it is a national imperative. And I urge all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to bring this week's
YouCut proposal to the House floor.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that what we are debating
here is a bill that costs nothing, that adds nothing to our deficit,
that will invest in American jobs, that will invest in American
products, versus the Republican plan to add $4 trillion to our deficit.
That's what this is about here.
I hear frustration from people back home all the time. What they want
is they want a manufacturing strategy. They want a strategy to help
expand and create more American jobs, and they want us to close tax
loopholes that encourage outsourcing U.S. jobs overseas. They want us
to provide hometown tax credits to help small businesses hire new
employees and sell their products and innovation overseas.
They want to boost incentives to create American clean energy jobs
like making state-of-the-art wind turbines and solar panels, paid for
by ending corporate welfare to Big Oil. They want to strengthen rules
that the U.S. and its contractors buy products made here in America,
especially to build transportation and energy and communication
infrastructure. They are tired of us shipping those jobs overseas and
importing everything. They want to make it here in America.
They want us to force China and other countries to honor fair trade
principles or lose American business. There ought to be a consequence
if a country like China abrogates its obligations to a treaty or to a
trade bill.
We need to give incentives to hire and retain America's returning
veterans for new clean energy jobs, and we need to strengthen
partnerships with businesses to retain America's workers for jobs in
the future. That's what the American people want. The frustration is:
Why are we importing everything from overseas? Why are you giving tax
breaks to corporations that move their operations overseas or hire
overseas when we have an unemployment problem here in the United
States? What the American people are frustrated about is that we are
losing American jobs that really, quite frankly, should be made here in
America.
So I hear the frustration, but I would say the answer is not adding
$4 trillion to our deficit like they want to do. The answer is in
supporting programs like this that don't add a cent to our deficit but
will create American jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Worcester
talk about the unemployment rate, talk about the economic challenges
that we're facing, and I can tell you we all are well aware of it. Part
of the area I represent in southern California has a 14 percent
unemployment rate. Statewide in California, we have nearly a 12.5
percent unemployment rate. People are hurting.
Let's remember, we were promised, when the proposals came forward
from this administration, that we would have an unemployment rate that
would not exceed 8 percent, and now, as my friend from Grandfather
Community said, we have an unemployment rate that is between 9.5 and 10
percent--very, very painful for people all across this country. And
what it is that we've learned is that a $1 trillion stimulus bill that
had $4.7 billion in it for weatherization, when only 10 percent of
those funds have been expended, is obviously not the answer to the
challenge of weatherization. And so we now have another bill that is a
loan program, but it's $4.25 billion and is designed, Mr. Speaker, to
deal with a problem that, frankly, is not the top priority that we have
out there.
My friend is absolutely right. We want to create jobs. But I think we
have learned from the stimulus bill, Mr. Speaker, that the notion of
spending billions and trillions of dollars is not what needs to be done
to create jobs. We need to create good, private sector jobs.
And so what is it they've come forward with? They've come forward
with another bill to deal with weatherization that they say will be a
job creator. Well, the policies that we've seen over the past 20 months
have killed jobs. The report that is coming out this morning is that
the increase in the poverty rate has been nearly unprecedented. We have
lots of very, very unfortunate economic indicators out there.
I am an optimist. I believe that our economy is going to recover. It
is going to recover in spite of, not because of, the policies that we
have put into place here in Washington, D.C., over the past few years.
We will because we are Americans, because we are the United States of
America. We will, as a Nation, recover, but, Mr. Speaker, what we
should be doing is we should be breaking down barriers. We should be
reducing the tax and regulatory burden on working Americans and job
creators to ensure that we can, as early as possible, have that kind of
success.
Now, this rule that we are considering right now is a further
indication of the arrogance of the majority leadership. There was one
Republican amendment that was germane that was submitted, and, Mr.
Speaker, it was submitted by our Texas colleague, Mr. Barton, who is
the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was denied.
Five amendments were made in order, all amendments offered by the
majority.
Unfortunately, what we've seen is, time and time again, this
institution, under the Democratic leadership that we have, is simply
coming forward with proposals offered by Democrats, completely shutting
out Republicans. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying that in a partisan
way. I'm saying it because the Republicans represent nearly half the
American people, and the American people are the ones who are being
shut out and, unfortunately, many Democratic Members are being shut out
as well.
This has tragically been the single-most closed Congress in the
history of our Republic. The 221-year history of our Republic has never
seen a Congress as closed as this. Mr. Speaker, I know this comes as a
surprise to many, but with the exception of the appropriations process
in the first 2 years of Speaker Pelosi's leadership, we have seen a
grand total of one bill considered under an open amendment process in
the entire 3 years. In fact, we are poised right now to, for the first
time in the history of our Republic, see an entire Congress without a
single open rule. Why? Because we saw the appropriations process close
down in this 111th Congress as well.
[[Page H6772]]
The American people want us to focus on job creation and economic
growth, and they also want greater transparency, disclosure, and
accountability, and, Mr. Speaker, they are not getting that from this
Congress. They deserve better. And if we can deliver it, I am convinced
we will be able to get our economy back on track.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because we can do
better. First vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we will be
able to say to those Federal employees who are not paying their taxes
that they shouldn't be there. We are focusing specifically on ways to
cut spending. We've got an opportunity to do that. Let's vote ``no'' on
the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker used the word ``arrogance,'' and I
would just say that I think it is awfully arrogant for Members of this
Congress, Members of this body to stand up and vote against bills that
help small businesses, that help create American jobs, that provide
loans and lending abilities to small businesses. I mean, small business
is the engine of our economy, and the bill that we are talking about
here today will help a lot of small businesses.
We had a small business bill on the floor that we passed--
unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle voted against
it, and I'm told that the Senate is going to be taking it up shortly--
that will provide additional credit to small businesses, which is
desperately needed.
{time} 1110
I think many of my colleagues went home over the break and talked to
a number of small businesses, and access to credit is a big issue. I
think we're going to probably get it. It took a long time and a lot of
fighting to get it, but my Republican friends, the Party of No on the
other side of the aisle, voted against it. So if you want to talk about
arrogance, I think that's arrogance.
This bill before us will not add a penny to our deficit, will provide
loans that will help create energy-efficient products made here in the
United States of America and will also help fund the installation of
these products by American workers. This is about creating American
jobs. We're going to make it in America, and we're going to create
American jobs. That my friends on the other side of the aisle find that
controversial or unacceptable is just astounding to me.
And when I hear that the money in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act didn't create any jobs when it comes to the issue of
weatherization and energy efficiency, again, I read the statistics. The
statistics don't lie. I mean, jobs were created. And many houses have
been made more energy efficient, which means individuals and businesses
don't have to pay as much in utility bills. And that's an important
thing for a small business or a struggling family.
So this is about American jobs. It's about investing in the American
people. And I would just say to my friends on the other side of the
aisle, rather than voting overwhelmingly, 170-1, to protect tax breaks
for companies shipping American jobs overseas, you ought to focus on
ways to help keep American jobs here in the United States of America.
That's what we're trying to do with this bill.
I urge all my colleagues, don't put politics above people. Don't put
politics above people. Do what's right, and let's help create more jobs
here in the United States of America.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With all due respect to my colleague across the aisle, we do not put
politics above people. My colleagues and I were out in our districts
all during the August recess, and we listened to our constituents. We
know what our constituents want. They want a different direction for
this country than our friends across the aisle have been taking us,
along with this administration.
It wasn't the Republicans that drove this country into the ditch. It
was the Democrats through their spend, spend, spend program, debt,
debt, debt program. The American people have awakened. They know what's
going on, and they don't like it. We're going to do everything we can
to stop this irresponsible behavior on the part of our colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over again expecting different results. Our colleagues have talked
about every bill they've brought up here in the last 18 months as being
a jobs bill. But what they've done is spend, spend, spend and claiming
they're creating jobs, but they have failed time after time. The
results are clear.
The Democrat elites have run out of ideas about how to get the
economy moving in the right direction. The American people can't afford
more of the ruling Democrats' failed policies. They want new ideas for
getting our economy back on track--not the same warmed-over stimulus
and bailout policies that have failed to do anything but create new
taxes, record deficits, and high unemployment.
Month after month Americans have been asking, ``Where are the jobs?''
The Democrats have been in total control of this country for almost 2
years, and what has President Obama offered? Nothing new but promising
between now and November he will, quote, remind the American people
that policies he has put in place have, quote, moved us in the right
direction.
Well, good luck, Mr. President, on selling the American people that
you've taken us from 5 percent unemployment to 10 percent unemployment
and you want to keep going in the same direction. Those who are
unemployed aren't going to agree, and those who worry about being
unemployed aren't going to agree with the President. The American
people do not need more empty rhetoric and politically driven spin from
the White House. They need real solutions.
The only jobs this administration has created have been Federal
Government jobs, adding to the overwhelming layers of bureaucracy that
already exist at the Federal level. From February of 2009 to June 2010,
405,000 Federal Government jobs have been created. Since the so-called
``stimulus,'' American taxpayers have spent $44.9 billion on these new
government worker salaries--and yet we continue to see record high
unemployment in the private sector. All this administration and the
liberal elite ruling Democrats want to do is grow government and grow
bureaucracy, and this is evidenced by their backward policies.
As they try to sell their ``Recovery Summer,'' we know that more
Americans are concerned about the state of the economic health. An
August 24, 2010, Reuters' IPSO poll showed that the economy is a core
concern for Americans, with almost three-quarters--72 percent--of
Americans very concerned about jobs. It showed 62 percent of Americans
now think the country is on the wrong track.
It is clear that though President Obama believes he's sailing the
ship in the right direction, the American people overwhelmingly
disagree. Even though the results are in and it's clear the American
people don't want these policies, our friends across the aisle keep
trying to shove expensive, wasteful pieces of legislation down the
taxpayers' throat. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than
this.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
amendment to which our colleagues spoke earlier and extraneous material
be placed in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am going to urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to
allow all Members of Congress the opportunity to vote on a cost-saving
measure.
Recently, Republican Whip Eric Cantor launched YouCut, which gives
people an opportunity to vote for Federal
[[Page H6773]]
spending they'd like to see Congress cut. Americans have cast their
votes, and this week the American people want Congress to save nearly
$1 billion by requiring collection of unpaid taxes from Federal
employees.
In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service reported that over 90,000
Federal employees were delinquent on their Federal income taxes, owing
a total of $1 billion in unpaid taxes. This includes 1,151 employees
who owe $7 million at the Department of Treasury which oversees the
IRS.
H.R. 4735, of which I am a cosponsor, would prevent persons who have
seriously delinquent tax debts from being eligible for Federal
employment. By requiring at a minimum that the IRS work with Federal
agencies to withhold a portion of each employee's paycheck who is
determined to have a ``seriously delinquent tax debt,'' we can ensure
that Federal employees are paying their fair share of taxes. Failure to
pay required taxes should result in disciplinary actions designed to
ensure that the taxpayers are made whole. In addition to collecting
back taxes already due, this reform will ensure future unpaid taxes are
also collected.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question
and ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 8\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my colleagues not to put
politics over people. These are serious, difficult economic times. We
need to make policy here that invests in our people, that invests in
American jobs, that helps create a climate where more American jobs can
be created.
My colleague from North Carolina talks about how the Republicans
somehow are not responsible for this massive, colossal deficit that we
have, but I just want to remind people about the facts. The facts are
that when Bill Clinton provided George Bush with this record-breaking
surplus, it was a Republican Congress and a Republican President that
instituted tax cuts--mostly for the wealthy--that weren't paid for; tax
cuts that benefited the wealthiest of the wealthy that were not paid
for.
{time} 1120
It was a prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for and was much
more expensive than they advertised. It was two wars that they decided
not to pay for. American soldiers and their families sacrificed, but
the rest of us are asked to not do anything to help sacrifice or pay
for the war.
That all happened when you had a Republican Congress--they were in
control of everything--and a Republican President. I mean those are the
facts. I am sorry that it bothers my friends, but it's the truth.
And now they are coming up with a proposal that will add $4 trillion
to our deficit. It doesn't seem to bother any of them. Well, it bothers
me and it bothers the people that I represent. I think it bothers most
people in this country. One of the things that I think is clear is that
the American people don't want to go back to the same old policies that
created this mess.
Mr. Speaker, President Bush holds the worst jobs record of any
administration in 75 years, including 4.6 million American
manufacturing jobs lost. House Republican leaders have said, and I
quote, ``We need to go back to the exact same agenda.'' That's what
they want to do. They want to go back to the same policies that created
this mess.
I am going to repeat what I said before about the fact that
Republicans voted 170 to 1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping
American jobs overseas. One hundred seventy to one to protect tax
breaks that are shipping our jobs overseas. Ninety-five percent of
House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. I
mean what are they thinking? One hundred percent of House Republicans
voted against creating and saving 3.6 million American jobs, including
advanced vehicle and clean energy manufacturing jobs. We cannot go
back. We cannot go back.
You know, when we make it in America more middle class families will
make it too. It's that simple. And what the underlying bill does is
provide loans. It doesn't add a single cent to our deficit. It provides
loans to families and to businesses and to farms to be able to do
weatherization and energy efficiency. And over 90 percent of the
products that are needed to do energy efficiency improvements are made
in America. Not made in China; made in America. This is a good thing.
The more people take loans and the more people want to weatherize
their homes and their businesses, they will save money on utility
costs, and more and more American workers will get a job. Why is that
so hard for my friends on the other side of the aisle to get? I mean
they fight tooth and nail to protect tax breaks for millionaires and
billionaires. That is their big issue. I assume that helps them
politically in terms of the money given to the Republican National
Committee. But it doesn't do a damn thing for American workers.
We need to start insisting that American workers come first. And that
is what this bill is about. It is investing in our workforce. It is
about making it here in the United States, creating jobs in the United
States.
So Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote to support this
bill. I would 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. 1620 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 4. 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. 4735) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide
that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be
ineligible for Federal employment. 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(c) of
rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 4735.
____
(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
[[Page H6774]]
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 1620, if
ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on the Senate amendments
to H.R. 3562.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 186, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 526]
YEAS--226
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
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
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
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)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
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
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--186
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
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
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
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)
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)
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--20
Ackerman
Blunt
Bonner
Braley (IA)
Davis (AL)
Ellsworth
Eshoo
Fallin
Gordon (TN)
Hodes
Inglis
Marchant
Meek (FL)
Mollohan
Putnam
Rush
Schwartz
Shea-Porter
Tierney
Young (FL)
{time} 1152
Messrs. CASSIDY and BACHUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 526 on
H. Res. 1620, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I should
have voted ``nay.''
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 will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 188, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 527]
AYES--225
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
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
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
[[Page H6775]]
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
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)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
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)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--188
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
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
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--19
Ackerman
Blunt
Braley (IA)
Davis (AL)
Ellsworth
Eshoo
Fallin
Hodes
Marchant
Meek (FL)
Mollohan
Putnam
Rush
Schwartz
Shea-Porter
Sutton
Tierney
Visclosky
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining on this vote.
{time} 1201
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.
____________________