[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 41 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1911-H1920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1076, PROHIBITING FEDERAL FUNDING
OF NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 174 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 174
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1076) to prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio
and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 174 provides for a closed rule for
consideration of H.R. 1076. The rule provides for ample debate on this
bill and gives Members of both the minority and the majority an
opportunity to participate in the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill. H.R. 1076 prohibits direct funding to NPR--National Public Radio.
In fiscal year 2010, NPR received over $5 million in direct Federal
funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of
Education, the Department of Commerce, and the National Endowment for
the Arts. Moreover, hundreds of public radio stations received direct
radio grants in the amount of $67 million. Radio stations can use these
grants for whatever they want. It's unrestricted. Often, stations use
these funds to pay dues to NPR and pay fees for NPR programing.
According to NPR's Web site, they are ``an independent, self-supporting
media organization.'' However, they also admit their revenue ``comes
primarily from fees paid by their member stations.'' In fact,
membership dues and station programing fees account for 36 percent of
NPR funding.
[[Page H1912]]
In H.R. 1, we started the process of letting NPR operate on its own,
without taxpayer involvement, by defunding it for the remainder of
fiscal year 2011. However, H.R. 1 only addressed appropriated funds for
the rest of the current fiscal year. The bill we have before us today
addresses the authorized use of funds not just for the rest of fiscal
year 2011, but going forward.
Under this bill, NPR will continue to provide its programming. They
just can't use taxpayer dollars to subsidize it. Moreover, our goal on
H.R. 1076 is that there won't be a need for this funding going forward.
This is something the Appropriations Committee can factor into their
funding decisions for fiscal year 2012 and the future. Let me stress
again, this bill does not fully defund NPR.
{time} 0920
What this bill does do is start weaning NPR off of Federal dollars.
Local radio stations are still allowed to pay membership dues, and they
can still buy NPR programs. They just can't use your and my hard-earned
tax dollars to pay for them.
Instead, the grants that these local stations get will be used for
local needs. They can create more original programming about issues
happening in their areas that are important to their communities. They
can pay for their staffs and even hire more local producers and hosts
for their new programs.
The Federal Government's addiction to spending has driven us to our
current $14 trillion debt. We need to refocus on what our core mission
is. We should not be using tax dollars that American citizens worked
hard to earn for something that could be paid for privately.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the
customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill yesterday was brought to the Rules Committee
as an emergency meeting. Now, what would be an emergency in the United
States? The cost of the war? The damage of the war? Unemployment
figures? The deficit? Home foreclosure? The tragedy in Japan? A no-fly
zone over Libya?
No. The emergency is that they want to destroy National Public Radio.
This is the latest in a long string of misplaced priorities by the
Republican Party. It does nothing to fix the long-term fiscal
condition. It doesn't create a single job. In fact, it will lose some.
The Congressional Budget Office has determined that the legislation
does absolutely zero to reduce the deficit.
When so many Americans want our representatives to create jobs to
responsibly reduce the deficit and to bring our sons and daughters home
from the battlefields overseas, why are we wasting valuable floor time
on an ideological battle that does nothing to achieve any of those
goals?
Because the bill is a political stunt, it is being rushed through
Congress under draconian rules. Violating their own promises of
transparency, the Republican majority held no hearings, no committee
action of any kind, listened to no expert testimony, and provided no
chance for the American people to weigh in. Just by saying it is an
emergency, apparently, in many minds, it does become one. By not
providing a true 72 hours and because the bill, itself, omitted the
fact that the bill would lay over to allow all Members to review the
legislation, they violated the spirit of the transparency they promised
the American people just 5 months ago.
My colleagues on the other side know that they must pass this
legislation quickly before the American people, at the rate of 69
percent, are allowed to speak and tell their representatives something
they don't want to hear, for the American people, unlike the far right-
wing, know that NPR is not an ideological news outlet and that NPR
radio bases its reporting on fact, which is really an anomaly today in
the United States.
NPR doesn't try to blur the line between opinion, fact, and political
agenda. Instead, it takes the time and spends the money to do in-depth
reporting across the country and around the globe and to go where no
other news organization will go. Unlike commercial news outlets that
are driven by the need to garner ratings and sell commercial
advertising, National Public Radio concerns itself, first and foremost,
with informing the Nation on the complex issues that face our country.
In stark contrast to the bare bones and often sensationalist
reporting found elsewhere, National Public Radio operates 17 foreign
bureaus. In fact, it is one of the few news outlets to maintain a full-
time bureau in Afghanistan, reporting from the front lines of a largely
forgotten war. It is also in the process of opening a bureau in Turkey
in order to report firsthand on the democratic uprisings throughout the
Middle East.
In the United States, it has correspondents spread out from Texas to
Oregon, telling the stories not covered by the cable news pundits that
we see on TV every day. In rural America in particular, NPR can often
be the only, best source of news. Defunding NPR will cut off this
valuable source of news from the southern tier of western New York to
the plains of the upper Midwest, and will put rural communities at a
major disadvantage in the information age.
It is because of their valuable and unique reporting that Americans
are increasingly turning to NPR in order to learn about our ever-
changing world. In fact, despite the challenges facing the news media,
a new report by the Pew Foundation has shown that NPR is strong and is
growing more popular every day. According to the report, NPR's audience
has grown to 27.2 million weekly listeners. This is a 58 percent
increase since the year 2000. In addition, the Web site is a premier
online news destination, garnering 15.7 million visitors a month, which
is an increase of more than 5 million people over the course of a
single year--and are those people really going to be angry.
I've been a proud supporter of NPR my whole life in public service.
While serving in the New York State Legislature, I fought for the
launch of news programming on my local public radio station, WXXI. From
that humble beginning over 30 years ago, I find myself standing on the
floor of the House of Representatives, fighting for NPR again today.
I stand here because, quite simply, facts matter. This Nation wasn't
built because we huffed and puffed and wished it were so. We didn't
become a global leader by bloviating on 24-hour cable news, and we
aren't solving the fundamental issues that face our Nation by passing
this politically driven legislation to appease the far right.
Our Nation was built and will be rebuilt by the quiet efforts of
millions of Americans across the country who will never make it on
cable news and who will never appear on national television. It is
these very Americans whom NPR dedicates its resources to finding, to
covering, and to sharing the world with. Their stories aren't simple,
and their efforts don't sell advertising space, but their stories
matter. NPR's work to find the stories that matter is the in-depth
intelligent reporting that I fight for today.
No matter what I say, some will still believe that NPR isn't worth
funding because they want it to be true. Some will find it in their
interests to scare Americans into believing in an NPR straw man, while
others will take comfort in watching the straw man fall.
Yet, deep in our hearts, all of us know that governing through fear
and divisive legislation is not a responsible way to move this country
forward. It is certainly no replacement for creating jobs. With
millions of Americans who are unemployed and struggling to live, we
can't waste another minute on the House floor without debating a bill
that will put some Americans back to work. We should not waste another
minute ignoring the needs of millions of Americans while playing cheap
political games.
Yesterday, I asked, Why only National Public Radio? Why not
television? I think I know the answer to that.
A few years ago, that was tried. The House of Representatives
actually tried to kill Big Bird, to destroy Elmo, and to get rid of
Bert and Ernie, but it didn't work. I think they didn't want to try
that one yet again.
[[Page H1913]]
The backers of this bill said to me yesterday that taxpayers
shouldn't have to fund with their hard-earned money what they don't
believe in. Well, that's an interesting theory, but democracies don't
operate that way. If they could, my husband and I and two-thirds of the
people in America would gladly be excused from paying the $8 billion a
month that we pay for a war which we profoundly do not believe in. We
simply must stop this nonsense. It makes us look ridiculous in the eyes
of the world.
National Public Radio is something that you could turn off if you
don't want to hear it, but for the millions of Americans who depend on
it, this just cannot be done. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0930
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this rule. I think the American people deserve
an opportunity to have their Representatives vote on the funding of
NPR.
Now, let's also make sure we keep this in context because really what
this is ultimately going to do is talk about the funding of less than 5
percent of NPR. It's not as if this is going to go off the radio right
away. I'm not here to debate the content or make some editorial comment
about their editorial comment, but we have to deal with the fiscal
reality of this country.
Every time we turn around, nobody wants to cut anything. We're going
to have to figure out in this country how to do more with less. The
reality is we're $14 trillion in debt. We pay more than $600 million a
day on interest on that debt. We can't be all things to all people. We
have to understand the proper role of government.
Every time we make a decision about spending, what we're talking
about is, should we go into somebody's pocket, pull money out, and give
it to somebody else? And in the case of our Federal Government now,
we're also doing that, but we're also borrowing the money. We're
borrowing the money.
And so in the case of NPR, which has been wildly successful, as the
gentlewoman properly accounted for, Mr. Speaker--their listenership is
rising--which gives a lot of us the belief that, really, they should be
moving towards a model where they can sustain themselves through their
donations and other funding mechanisms rather than relying upon the
taxpayers to fund them, because we don't have any money. We're broke.
And so I'm proud of the fact that early in this Republican control of
the House of Representatives that we're going to bring this up for a
vote, let the will of this body take its course, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule so we can have that opportunity
to vote.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for the
time, and I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, the process in this House is awful. On this bill, H.R.
1076, there were no hearings at all; and to top it off, we had an
emergency Rules Committee called last night for consideration, an
emergency. Do you think it was about jobs? Do you think it was about
health care? No, it was about de-funding NPR. That's what this new
majority thinks is an emergency, not jobs, not the economy, but de-
funding the National Public Radio.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1076 is a horrible idea, and I hope everybody in
this Chamber realizes that this bill doesn't cut $1, not one dime, not
one penny from the Federal deficit.
We all know what's going on here. The reason this bill is before us
is that a discredited, right-wing activist recently made a selectively
edited, misleading, 11-minute video of a 2-hour conversation. The
target of his little sting was a fund-raising executive at NPR who no
longer works there.
Mrs. Blackburn from the Energy and Commerce Committee made it clear
in the Rules Committee last night that their justification for this
bill is that the American people should not be forced to subsidize
content with which they might not agree. Well, that's a lousy way to
make decisions, in my view; but if my Republican friends insist on
going down this road, Mr. Speaker, then we should be fair and balanced
in the way we do it.
Over the past several years, it has become clear that the Fox News
channel is widely biased. They continue to employ a talk show host who
called President Obama a racist. They continue to employ several
prospective Republican Presidential candidates as ``analysts,'' giving
them hours and hours of free air time, and their parent company has
donated millions and millions of dollars to GOP-linked groups.
Yesterday, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to prohibit
Federal funds, taxpayer dollars from being used for advertising on the
partisan political platform of Fox News. If my friends on the other
aisle want to strip funding from NPR because they believe wrongly, in
my view, that NPR is biased, then we should be given the same
opportunity. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated on a party-line
vote. Again, this is a closed rule. So much for the open process that
we were promised.
I also offered an amendment to determine how and where hundreds of
millions of dollars are spent on television advertising, not
particularly controversial. According to a Rand study, the Department
of Defense alone spent over $600 million in taxpayer money advertising
in 2007, and I believe we should figure out whether that spending is a
good use of taxpayer dollars. That amendment was also blocked on a
party-line vote. Again, this is a big fat closed rule that we're
dealing with here.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was rushed to the House floor again without a
single hearing, without a single markup. So much for regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, my office has been
flooded with calls from constituents urging me to reject this bill and
to continue to support programming on National Public Radio.
My friends talk about the will of the American people. The will of
the American people want us to reject what you are doing here today,
and that's exactly what I will do today. I urge my colleagues to reject
this closed rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Thank you very much.
I was actually not going to speak on this rule until I heard the
ranking member of the Rules Committee speak, and she made our point so
eloquently I wanted to underscore it. I couldn't believe that she
suggested that there was somehow a parity between national defense and
NPR. She said, if we're going to come here and talk about de-funding
NPR, then why shouldn't she get a shot at denying the Defense
Department $8 billion or whatever it is.
That's the point we're trying to make. We have a huge deficit, $228
billion in 1 month. In fact, it was the shortest month of the year,
which just happened to be the total deficit for, I think, the entire
year of 2007. You know, I don't know, I heard people on the other side
of the aisle criticizing President Bush for deficits. He's a piker
compared to what we're seeing right now in the White House.
But the point is, how do we do anything here on the floor with
respect to trying to bring spending under control if, as the gentlelady
from New York suggests, we should treat equally the question of
national defense and NPR? That's what the American people are
rejecting. They're saying to you, why don't you establish priorities
the way we establish priorities. And to come to the floor and suggest
that somehow NPR is contained in the Constitution, as is the subject of
national defense, I think is, frankly, ludicrous.
So I hope the American people are listening. This is a debate on the
rule to allow the bill to be brought to the floor. The gentlelady from
New York has done a very good job of crystallizing the issue. If you
don't believe we
[[Page H1914]]
ought to set priorities, if you believe NPR is as important to this
Nation as national defense, then reject the rule and reject the bill
because the gentlelady is correct. If they're of equal weight, this is
unfair because we are talking about NPR. We're not talking about
somehow gutting national defense.
But if you believe that somehow national defense has a slightly
higher priority in the Constitution and in our constitutional
governmental structure than does NPR, then you would reject the
gentlelady's suggestion and say we came here to try and change things.
We came here to try and somehow balance our books at some point in time
in the future, but the way to do that is to establish priorities.
If we, in fact, believe that saving NPR or giving NPR Federal funding
is the same as funding our troops, then all is lost, all is lost; but I
frankly was surprised to hear the comparison of us debating on money to
keep our troops in the war zone versus NPR. That is the best example I
have seen on the floor, perhaps the most honest example I've seen on
floor, of the difference of the two parties and the difference in, I
think, what the American people want us to do and what some in the
leadership on the Democratic side want us to do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I am, as many are, going home hopefully this afternoon and will have
town halls when I'm home, and maybe I will ask the question at my town
halls: Do you believe that funding NPR is of the same importance or
moment as funding our troops in the war zone? I believe that I will
have an overwhelming response by the people of my district who suggest
what we are doing with this rule is to allow us to deal with those
kinds of issues, setting priorities that they sent us to Washington to
do.
{time} 0940
So I again thank the gentleman for his time. I thank the gentlelady
for explicating the difference between the two parties' approaches on
this and understanding the sense of priorities that either exist or
don't exist on this floor.
For me, I will easily say that even though it may be a tough
decision, I would vote to take Federal funding away from NPR in order
to try to balance our books in the future and do what is necessary to
defend this country and those other things that are contained in the
Constitution.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am going to yield myself 30 seconds to tell my
colleague from California to calm himself. He doesn't have to worry. We
are not equating war and NPR. What I had said was that the basis of
this bill today was that people should not have to pay for what they
don't believe in. If that's going to be the way the majority is going
to run this House, then 66 percent of Americans would like to not pay
for the war.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, for at least 15 million Americans, this is another day
without a job, and tomorrow will be another Friday without a paycheck.
What are we doing?
After 11 consecutive weeks of this majority producing not a word, not
a bill, not one idea about how to create jobs, what we're doing this
morning is debating whether or not to defund and get rid of National
Public Radio. Now, the excuse that we've heard is that, well, this will
save money. A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office
says this will save zero. So what we are doing is spending the time of
the country on whether to defund National Public Radio.
Here is what we should do instead: With gasoline prices approaching
$4 a gallon at the pump, why don't we cancel out $40 billion in
giveaways to the oil industry. Why don't we take most of that money and
use it to reduce the deficit, and why don't we take some of that money
and use it to put Americans back to work, building clean water systems,
schools, roads, research facilities, and other things that we need? Why
aren't we debating that bill? Now, Members of Congress can say they
disagree with that bill. They could amend it. They could vote for it or
against it. Why don't we debate that bill instead of whether or not to
pull the plug on National Public Radio?
Eleven weeks, not one idea on jobs, not one word of debate on jobs,
and abandonment of the issue Americans care most about. I am hopeful
that the leader on our side of the Rules Committee will give us a
chance to vote on a real bill to create jobs for the American people.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady.
There are really two questions that this bill raises. The first: Is
this a way to deal with the serious problem we have in this country,
which is the deficit? And the answer is: It isn't.
I salute the Republicans in this Congress for focusing attention on
the need to restore fiscal balance. You are right. But the plan you are
pursuing to receive it is dead wrong. You cannot, by cutting 12 percent
of the budget, the non-defense discretionary budget, achieve the fiscal
balance that we need. And why you have a plan where you attack Vermont
Public Radio, where you attack Planned Parenthood, where you attack
home heating assistance, but you leave exempt tax expenditures for oil
companies, a swollen Pentagon budget, that means that this is not going
to succeed. Even if we wiped out the entire non-defense discretionary
budget, we would still have a deficit of $1 trillion. So, serious
budget cutters have a serious plan that puts everything on the table.
Secondly, why have a proposal that destroys institutions? Vermont
Public Radio is the link between 251 towns, cities, and villages in the
State of Vermont. Farmers listen to it in their barns. Parents listen
to it on their way to bringing their kids to school. People at work
listen to it for the weather reports, and it welds together the
political discussion in the State of Vermont which is vibrant, which is
varied, which has people with different points of view having a common
reference point. Public radio is an institution that allows democracy
to thrive.
And why do we have to have a budget plan that, A, by it's design,
will fail; and, B, by its application and implementation, will destroy
institutions that democracy depends on? Vermont Public Radio is an
essential institution to all of the people in the State of Vermont:
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We need to preserve it.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my
good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by extending congratulations to
my very good friend, the gentleman from Spring Hill, a former sheriff,
Mr. Nugent, for his maiden voyage in managing this rule. He has done a
superb job in taking on this issue.
Let me say at the outset, having listened to the debate from my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, every single thing that we
have been doing on the floor of the House of Representatives is focused
on job creation and economic growth. Virtually everything that we have
done is focused on job creation and economic growth.
Now, some say, Why is it you are talking about National Public Radio
now? What does that have to do with creating jobs? Well, the fact of
the matter is, if we don't take on the $14 trillion national debt that
we have in this country and the $1.6 trillion annual deficits that we
have as far as the eye can see, we are not going to be implementing
pro-growth economic policies.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle might argue that
bringing about some kind of reduction in funding for National Public
Radio will cost jobs. The disparity is that my friends on the other
side of the aisle tend to focus on government-created jobs, and we want
to focus on what it is the American people desperately want and
[[Page H1915]]
need, which is long-term, good private sector jobs. And so everything
that we do to try to reduce the size and scope and reach of government
is focused on getting, as my friend from Vermont has just said, getting
our fiscal house in order so that we can create jobs.
Yesterday up in the Rules Committee, my California colleague Ms.
Eshoo referred to National Public Radio as a ``national treasure.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a fan of National Public Radio. I
think that the term ``national treasure'' may just be a little bit of a
stretch. I have been proud to support three local stations, two in Los
Angeles, KPCC and KCRW; here in Washington, D.C., WAMU. I have been
proud to participate in pledge drives for all these stations. I have
done it for public television. I believe in voluntary contributions.
Now, yesterday Ms. Eshoo said that every American pays 77 cents for
the benefit of National Public Radio. And while I am a proud listener
of National Public Radio, I will say that I reckon that there are
probably half the American people--that's just a wild guess on my
part--maybe half the American people who have never even heard of, much
less even listened to, National Public Radio. And the notion of taking
77 cents from them for National Public Radio is, to me, anathema to the
whole concept of what it is that we are trying to do as a Nation.
Now, my friend from Rochester, the distinguished ranking member of
the committee, the former chairman of the Rules Committee, referred to
National Public Radio as--and this is not the exact word that was
used--but sort of a paragon of virtue. Rather than bloviating on cable
television, we have this great, great model of National Public Radio up
there, something to which we can all bow and listen to as the one truth
before us.
{time} 0950
Well, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that I've
heard some inaccurate things on National Public Radio before, not just
things with which I disagree, but there have been inaccuracies. And so,
with all of the choices out there, I believe that National Public Radio
should be one of them; but they are only one of the choices that people
have.
And since National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting came into existence, we all know that we've experienced
this explosion of information from all kinds of sources.
So that's why, Mr. Speaker, while this measure doesn't obliterate
funding for National Public Radio, what it does is it puts us, as my
friend from Spring Hill has said so well, on a glide path towards
recognizing that since National Public Radio receives a very small
amount of its funding that they utilize totally from the Federal
Government, this puts them on a glide path towards something that I
believe will dramatically enhance the quality of coverage and the
credibility of National Public Radio, and that is to have voluntary
support.
And I will say right here that when we are successful, when we are
successful at weaning National Public Radio and the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting away from compulsory taxpayer dollars used to fund
them, I personally will increase my level of contributions, my level of
contributions to those local stations and to other aspects.
We need to look at ways in which this shortfall that will exist is
addressed, and I believe that we can do that.
And I have to say that, procedurally, it's very interesting to listen
to people talk about the characterization of this rule that has come
down before us. It's simply because less than 48 hours was provided for
the announcement of simply the Rules Committee meeting, not the fact
that we're here on the floor. And my distinguished friend from
Rochester had, on nearly 70 occasions, when she was chairman of the
Rules Committee, including the several scenic river studies that were
put into place, and other legislation like that called emergency
meetings of the House Rules Committee. And so I think that to
characterize this procedure as it's been is not quite as appropriate as
it should be.
And the fact is, Mr. Speaker, I wish this could have been handled a
little differently. We all know that we passed H.R. 1 as it is, that,
in fact, does defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But this
measure, in and of itself, focuses on a problem that is out there. It
needs to be addressed. And I urge my colleagues to support this rule
and to support the underlying legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is our office is
being flooded by calls from people who are saying, I thought you all
were working on creating jobs for the American people, on making sure
that working class families can support their families. And, instead,
we're de-funding Federal funding of National Public Radio. And that
seems like just a terrible distraction to the calls that we're getting.
For many people in the San Diego region, we have KPBS radio, it's an
NPR station; and it's a way to connect people to local community issues
and world events. Where else can you find that kind of in-depth
reporting? I don't think we can point to other stations that do that.
So I'm not up here just to defend NPR, but my colleague said it's not
a treasure. Well, to a lot of people that participate, yes, they will
continue to fund it with their own dollars. But there is a consistency,
there is a continuity, there is an expectation that this is something
that is important to our communities. And it would endanger over 9,000
jobs at local radio stations if this funding goes away.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding, and
I'm pleased to serve beside him on the Rules Committee.
And I went to work on the Rules Committee because of my enthusiasm
about openness in this process. One of the very first things we learned
during freshman orientation was that we have a leadership team that is
committed to openness the likes of which this Congress hasn't seen in
decades, decades.
I didn't plan to come down and speak this morning, but I'm sitting
back in my office, and I'm listening to the characterization of what's
happening down here today, and it caused me to think about my 65 days
here in Congress so far.
You know, the process was more open and involved more debate on the
repeal of health care than it did the implementation of health care. I
happen to have brought down the NPR bill today.
Now, I'm here in strong support of the rule that's bringing this bill
to the floor, and I hope folks will vote their conscience on the
underlying bill. That's what we all came here to do, and I hope that
happens.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven--seven pages here today that
we've asked Members to read and digest in 3 days. Seven pages. Now, I
wasn't here in the last Congress when thousand-page bills rolled
through this body under the same closed process and the same closed
length of time.
But I can tell you this: my constituents sent me to read seven pages,
and I've read them; and I'll be voting my conscience on the underlying
bill. But, folks, we are involved in a process here that we need to be
applauding, not condemning. We're involved in a process here that we
need to be nurturing, not undercutting.
Have you seen the debate on the floor of the House over the last 2
months? Have you experienced the back-and-forth on the floor of the
House in the last 2 months, and do you feel the difference? Because I
do. I absolutely do. I don't just feel it; I hear it when I go back
home.
We are in the people's House. The chain across the front steps--must
be a photo op going on out there this morning. The chain was down. It
just felt different walking in this morning because you could just walk
up the steps free.
Folks, the chains have come down in this House. The chains have come
down in the House, and we're free to engage in this debate, and that's
what we're doing. Right here today we're engaged in this debate.
Should we have extensive committee hearings on absolutely everything
that comes to the floor? I believe we should. Should we have an open
process for absolutely everything that comes to the floor? I think
that's a laudable goal.
[[Page H1916]]
Do we have constraints that require the rules of the House, because
there are 435 of us. It's not like that well-ordered body across the
Hall where they only have 100 Members and they get along so well
together. We've got 435 folks with lots of passion and lots of opinion,
and we need some structure to make that happen.
But this leadership team, with this Congress, both on the left and on
the right, has created the most open process with the most extensive
amendment process, with the most full debate process that this body has
seen in years. And I thank the leadership team for doing that. And I
rise in strong support of the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. We need to go back to basic principles here. In 1934,
when the Federal Communications Act was passed, people were given
broadcast licenses to serve in the public interest, convenience, and
necessity. The public owns the airwaves.
In a country that wasn't run by corporations, we wouldn't be having
this debate because the public has the inherent right to ownership of
the airwaves. Theoretically, it should all be public radio, but it's
not. There's just a small segment now of the airwaves we're talking
about here. And this bill would stop that from being funded.
It is absolutely unimaginable that Members of Congress are not aware
of the history of how broadcast radio and TV came into being. This
isn't about private ownership of the airwaves. This is about a basic
public right; and if you take that right away, what you've done is
totally capitulate to corporations in America.
Protect NPR.
{time} 1000
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support this rule, H. Res. 174, and the
underlying bill, my legislation, H.R. 1076, to prohibit Federal funding
of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio
content. It is time for American citizens to stop funding an
organization that can stand on its own feet.
Long before any of the recent news stories on videos or the Juan
Williams fiasco, I sponsored legislation in Congress to pull the plug
on taxpayer funding for NPR. I enjoy some programs on NPR, but I have
long believed that it can stand on its own.
The point at issue is not the quality or content of programming on
NPR. The point is not the degree to which Americans support the arts,
radio, news, and educational programs. The point today is whether
government programs and services that can be funded privately or that
are otherwise available in the private sector should receive taxpayer
funding.
Apart from constitutional concerns, as a country we no longer have
this luxury anymore. With the national debt over $13 trillion, the
government simply can't continue to fund nonessential services.
Let me add that no one can really argue that these programs will
disappear if Americans are no longer forced to subsidize them with
Federal tax dollars. NPR can survive on its own.
This bill will accomplish three things:
One, it will prohibit direct funding of NPR. It now receives money
from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of
Education and Commerce, and the NEA, among others.
Two, it prohibits the use of Federal funds provided to the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting for the payment of dues by local
radio stations to NPR.
And, three, it prohibits the use of Federal funds provided through
Corporation for Public Broadcasting for acquiring or producing
programming.
Now, local stations could use Federal funds from the corporation for
their operating expenses, but they would have to produce their content
or acquire it with non-Federal funds.
Unemployment is now about 9 percent. When we get Federal spending
under control, the economy will be stronger and there will be more
jobs. That is why we are doing this.
NPR reports that only 2 percent of its funding comes from the Federal
Government; however, that is only half the story. NPR local radio
stations directly received congressionally appropriated funds that
reached $64 million in 2010 alone. Plus, local stations directly
receive grants from other Federal sources such as the National
Endowment for the Arts. NPR stations then use these taxpayer dollars on
licensing fees for NPR programming which goes back to the headquarters
in Washington. Taking this indirect funding into account, Federal funds
now make up, I would say, closer to 20 percent of their annual budget.
But let me be clear. This measure will not prohibit local stations
from receiving any funding. It will just not allow them to use taxpayer
dollars to pay NPR programming and pay NPR dues. They can do it without
Federal dollars by embracing the private sector. I want NPR to grow on
its own. I want to see it thrive. Just remove the taxpayer from the
equation.
I thank the Rules Committee for this resolution. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' on the rule and to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her
advocacy here.
I just finished listening to my friend from Colorado, and he gets it
half right. First of all, it is ironic that the new Republican
majority, having been touted on the floor for its openness, did, in
fact, rush this to the floor without the 72-hour notice, not any
substantive committee work. If it had been subjected to careful
committee analysis, the flaws in the argument would have been revealed.
It is not going to save a single penny of taxpayer dollars, not one,
even in the unlikely event that this legislation passed through
Congress, which it won't. It won't defund NPR. NPR will exist. And
those of us who are in Cleveland or New York or Los Angeles or
Washington, D.C., will be able to enjoy it, although it will be
diminished a little bit. But what it do is hammer small rural American
stations, small town and rural America, where it is more expensive to
broadcast and where they rely on this funding to be able to purchase
the programs.
It would not just hammer NPR, but it would deny them the ability to
use the funds for that subversive show ``Prairie Home Companion,'' for
``This American Life,'' for the car guys. It would prohibit them from
purchasing locally produced content from other public broadcasting
stations.
This is lunacy. It unravels a carefully crafted partnership that has
delivered year after year. It is why the American public strongly
supports this investment, less than one-half cent per day per American.
In fact, 78 percent of the American public want it maintained or
increased. And, most interestingly, that same bipartisan poll showed
that two-thirds of American Republicans support keeping the funding or
increasing it.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. This bill would wipe ``Car Talk'' off the road. It would
wipe ``Lake Woebegone'' right off the map. It would close down
``Marketplace,'' and tell ``Wait Wait . . . Don't Tell Me!'' to take a
hike.
GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party.'' Now it stands for ``Gut
Our Programs.''
This bill prohibits public radio stations from using Federal funds to
buy these programs and others produced by National Public Radio or its
competitors. As a result, this bill would silence public radio stations
across the country, depriving listeners of the news and information
they depend on.
Public radio stations can just raise the money from private donors,
some say. Not likely. Local public radio stations need signature NPR
programs like ``Morning Edition'' and ``All Things Considered'' to
attract audiences. By drawing listeners to local stations, these
programs and others generate strong financial support from the local
listening area. Without these
[[Page H1917]]
prominent NPR programs, local stations won't be able to attract the
audience and sufficient fundraising base to keep running.
Every month, more than 170 million Americans turn to their local
public broadcasting stations for free high-quality programs that focus
on the issues most important to them. This bill would pull the plug. It
would snuff out stations from coast to coast, many in rural areas where
the public radio station is the primary source of news and information.
This makes no sense. Public radio is widely supported by large
majorities of Americans regardless of party affiliation. It is
increasingly relied upon while fewer Americans watch broadcast TV and
read newspapers.
This bill was rushed to the floor without a single hearing,
completely bypassing the committee process. It is unwise, ill-
conceived.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to this bill.
Today, Republicans are trying to modify the funding structure of
National Public Radio, one of the most widely used, universally
supported, and efficient journalistic institutions in the country. The
problem, Mr. Speaker, is that no one can figure out what my Republican
colleagues are trying to accomplish and what they are trying to do with
this trivial and misguided legislation. Why are we wasting our time on
this? Instead of creating jobs, instead of cutting spending, here we
are changing the funding structure for something that fundamentally
works.
Mr. Speaker, America is $14.2 trillion in debt. Yet instead of
working with Democrats to come to an agreement on reducing our
expenditures and getting the economy going, Republicans have decided to
use their taxpayer-funded time on symbolic legislation that doesn't
address America's fiscal situation, doesn't save money, and, most
importantly, won't create a single job.
Mr. Speaker, this is very transparent what is happening here. This
bill is a response to a far right agenda based on a manipulative ``got
you'' video propagated by conservative activists.
{time} 1010
Don't the American people know where this Republican policy agenda
comes from? I believe they do.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a distraction, not a serious piece of
legislation. The Republican Caucus can't get themselves to agree on
anything substantial, so instead they're bringing this frivolous
measure that doesn't save any money or create jobs before us.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Happy St. Patrick's Day.
Mr. Speaker, today we debate the rule on whether or not to fund
National Public Radio. This is an ideologically driven attempt at
defunding a revered American institution, and the reason is because you
don't like its content. You can't stand balanced, objective news. So
let's defund it.
Regardless of whether one supports NPR or not--and I do--we can all
be clear this bill does not do one thing: It does not create jobs. We
have been here for 11 weeks, Mr. Speaker, and the Republican majority
has yet to bring a single jobs bill to the floor of the House. That's
why I introduced the Build America Bonds Now to Create Jobs Act,
legislation to extend the successful Build America Bonds program--a
jobs bill. Creating jobs grows the economy, encourages American
innovation and positions us to remain the global economic leader.
During the last 2 years, $4.4 billion from the Recovery Act leveraged
$181 billion to construct and repair schools, bridges and roads in more
than 2,270 projects in every State in the Union.
According to Moody's Analytics chief economist and Senator McCain's
2008 Presidential adviser, infrastructure investments in the Recovery
Act resulted in 8 million additional or preserved jobs between 2009 and
2010. By extending the Build America Bonds program, we can do even
more.
I ask my colleagues, turn away from this ideologically driven debate
on National Public Radio and let's get down to basics. Let's pass a
jobs bill. Let's defeat this rule and give ourselves an opportunity to
address the underlying issue of the American economy.
I thank my colleague from New York for yielding.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Good morning to the ``fend for yourself''
bill. That's the message of my friends on the other side of the aisle--
with short-term CRs, $61 billion in reckless and ludicrous cuts that
don't make sense on 20 percent of the budget which is discretionary
funding.
But NPR. This morning, I listened to NPR, as I usually do, and
someone who designates themselves as a Republican called in and said,
``I'm through. I'm a registered Republican, but I'm leaning Democrat.
I've been listening to NPR for most of my life.''
Biased? No. Unbiased. NPR is a voice of reason. Federal funding
frivolous? No. Federal funding allows the objectivity. And no one can
account for the fact that we believe in the First Amendment, but yet we
want to defund NPR.
NPR, National Public Radio, speaks the truth on all of our cases. It
provides the American people far and wide an opportunity to hear a fair
and balanced presentation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield the gentlelady an additional
30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much.
The resolution speaks nothing of fact why do you desire to cut NPR.
Why do you want to put the burden of a budget or a CR on the NPR? The
real issue is that no matter how much they keep doing, no one on the
other side wants to address the cause of the issue of the deficit or
the debt, that we have to balance, we have to bring in a number of
issues that we have to address.
We can't scapegoat. I refuse to scapegoat the National Public Radio,
a reasoned and responsible voice for the people, no matter who you are.
It is a ridiculous legislation. In my District, KPFT and KTSU are great
public communicators for many of the poor in my district--don't shut
them down! I ask my colleagues to vote against it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 7 minutes.
Mr. NUGENT. My inquiry is to the gentlewoman from New York, do you
have any more speakers?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I do not. May I inquire if you have more?
Mr. NUGENT. I do not.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am prepared to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We have had a vigorous debate here this morning, just as we had in
the Rules Committee. A lot was said, I guess, because it needed to be
said. A lot was said, I think, that we could argue with.
One is that we are doing this because it puts us on the road to
deficit reduction. It is clear to everybody who reads, or maybe who
listens to good programming, that this bill has no effect whatsoever on
the deficit and saves no money. Not a dime. This is purely an
ideological bill so that our Members can go home and brag about what
they have done to public radio.
I want to talk a moment about what's in a New York Times editorial
this morning. This bill is, says the Times, ``The latest example of
House Republicans pursuing a longstanding ideological goal in the false
name of fiscal prudence.''
The Times says, ``This is not a serious bill. It will never survive
the Senate or a Presidential veto.''
And further, ``Cutting off that flow would have no effect on the
deficit, but it would allow certain House Members to pretend for the
folks back home that they struck a blow for liberty.''
I really don't understand this. I know that the present chair of the
Rules Committee this morning said that all the legislation that we have
done this
[[Page H1918]]
term has been on job creation. I don't believe there's enough evidence
to convict on that, Mr. Speaker.
This, again, will cause jobs to be lost and does nothing for the
deficit. I don't care what you want to say about it and how you want to
dress it up, those are the absolute facts.
In a few moments, I will be calling for a vote on the previous
question. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat that previous question, I want to
do a real jobs bill here. I am going to offer an amendment to the rule
to provide that immediately after the House adopts the rule, it will
bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds To Create Jobs Now Act.
This bill will spur job creation here at home by extending through
2012 the successful Build America Bonds program to help State and local
governments finance the rebuilding of American schools, hospitals,
water systems and transit projects at significantly lower costs. It has
been calculated that every $1 billion in Federal funds will create
34,800 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. I ask you, Mr.
Speaker, weigh that against taking the little bit of money away from
National Public Radio.
Build America Bonds are broadly supported by American business, the
construction industry, and State and local governments. At a time of
fiscal restraint, they are a good deal for the American taxpayer,
wisely using small public investments to leverage significant private
funds to rebuild America and create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question so that we can debate and pass jobs legislation
today, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to your attention that the public
watching this today on C-SPAN does not receive a single Federal dollar
in regards to the operation of C-SPAN.
We're not closing down local radio stations. We're actually giving
them the ability to liberate themselves from Federal dollars.
My good friends on the other side of the aisle continue to refuse to
prioritize about what's important for America. They continue on a path
of just spend, because all programs are inherently good.
While you've heard a lot of us like NPR in regard to certain
programming, there's others that we do not. Mr. Speaker, I was reminded
the other day of a quote by Thomas Jefferson:
``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the
propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and
tyrannical.''
With that in mind, I can't in good conscience support continuing to
fund NPR with tax dollars.
{time} 1020
A large number of Americans fundamentally disagree with the content
and mission of NPR. Moreover, this is a program that can be privately
funded. NPR's own officials said they don't need Federal dollars to
continue.
We are not trying to harm NPR. We are actually trying to liberate
them from Federal tax dollars. We need to get back to the core mission
of the Federal Government. As much as any of us here, including myself,
may enjoy programs like ``Car Talk'' and ``Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me,''
you can't tell me that that is a core mission of the Federal
Government. Our good friends in the same sentence talked about war,
national defense, and NPR. They don't equate. The Constitution is clear
about our requirement to protect the American people.
H.R. 1076 is a return to the normal procedure of the House.
Authorizing committees provide us with bills that set out the
priorities for the House and the Appropriations Committee funds based
on authorizations.
With H.R. 1076, we let the Appropriations Committee know that
National Public Radio doesn't need Federal tax dollars anymore. Local
stations can create their own programs. They can reorganize their
financing so that grant money they might use for membership and
programming fees can go elsewhere, and they can do private fund-raising
they need for the dues and programming from NPR.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 174 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to cause 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.
11) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the
Build America Bonds program. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or
their respective designees. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five- minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. 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.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
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 Republican 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 Republican
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 Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In 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
[[Page H1919]]
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 Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. NUGENT. 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. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 179, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 189]
YEAS--233
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--179
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Carney
Carter
Clarke (NY)
Cohen
Culberson
Engel
Garamendi
Giffords
Hinojosa
Jordan
Labrador
Maloney
Nadler
Payne
Rooney
Stark
Wasserman Schultz
Young (AK)
{time} 1046
Ms. ESHOO and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. AKIN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 189, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Point of Order
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the consideration of this bill
because it violates rule XXI, clause 11, which requires a 72-hour
layover of the bill and for it to be electronically noticed in order
for it to be considered by this House. This bill did not lay over for
72 hours. It was noticed at 1:42 p.m. on Tuesday; therefore, it has to
wait until 1:42 on Friday to be in compliance with the rules of the
House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order against consideration of
H.R. 1076 is not timely until such time as the bill is called up.
Parliamentary Inquires
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are about to consider the
rule. Members, if they are to vote on and understand it, need to know
that they are waiving the rule. This is the statement of the Speaker of
the House:
``I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online
for at least 72 hours.''
Would the Speaker please clarify for the body that the 72-hour rule
is either being waived or does not exist.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The period of time on which the rule is
predicated is not a number of hours but, rather, a number of days,
specifically calendar days other than weekends or holidays when the
House is not in session. For the sake of brevity, the Chair will call
these ``working days.''
Under clause 11 of rule XXI, an unreported measure may not be
considered until the third working day on which it has been available
to Members.
For example, a measure that was publicly available in electronic form
in consonance with clause 3 of rule XXIX as of Tuesday, March 15, 2011,
would qualify on or after Thursday, March 17, 2011.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. WEINER. For the clarity of the House, did this bill age for 72
hours, ``yes'' or ``no''?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not enter findings on
questions not actually presented..
[[Page H1920]]
Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
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. SLAUGHTER. 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 236,
noes 181, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 190]
AYES--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--181
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Clarke (NY)
Cohen
Engel
Garamendi
Giffords
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Jordan
Labrador
Maloney
Nadler
Rooney
Schock
Wasserman Schultz
Young (AK)
{time} 1057
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.
____________________