[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.

                          ____________________