[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11248-11257]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3021, 21ST CENTURY GREEN HIGH-
                PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1234 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1234

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3021) to direct the Secretary of Education to 
     make grants and low-interest loans to local educational 
     agencies for the construction, modernization, or repair of 
     public kindergarten, elementary, and secondary educational 
     facilities, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. 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.

[[Page 11249]]

       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 3021 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. SUTTON. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on H. Res. 1234.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1234 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Facilities 
Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule 
makes in order eight amendments which are printed in the Rules 
Committee report. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in strong support of H.R. 3021, 
the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facilities Act. 
This legislation is important and groundbreaking because it 
simultaneously addresses important issues confronting our Nation in the 
21st century, improving our education system, modernizing our buildings 
and infrastructures to be environmentally sustainable, and creating 
jobs to grow our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's school districts are struggling to make 
essential improvements during these lean economic times. According to 
recent estimates, America's schools are hundreds of billions of dollars 
short of the funding needed to ensure that every student attends a high 
quality facility. Too many parents across this country are forced to 
drop off their children at schools that are falling apart, schools with 
leaking roofs and faulty electrical systems, schools with outdated 
technology which compromises their ability to achieve and succeed.
  Our bill provides $33.2 billion over 5 years for schools across the 
country for projects to modernize, renovate, and repair their 
facilities. This funding is crucial to improve our schools so that the 
students have a healthy and safe environment in which to learn and 
develop the knowledge and the skills necessary to compete in today's 
workforce.
  H.R. 3021 also addresses disparities in school facilities funding. It 
directs the Secretary of Education to distribute funds to school 
districts according to the same need-based formula used under title I 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which provides funding 
for low income school districts. Funding provided in this bill can be 
used for energy efficiency and technology improvements, asbestos 
removal and lead abatement, and for ensuring that schools are prepared 
for emergencies. The funding is provided with few restrictions, which 
will allow individual schools to satisfy their individual needs.
  Renovating schools so that they are environmentally sustainable will 
provide numerous health and educational benefits for students. 
Increasing air quality and lighting will enhance our students' ability 
to focus and learn, while reducing student sick days and improving the 
health of students with asthma and other respiratory problems.

                              {time}  1500

  Green schools also cost about 2 percent less than conventional 
schools, while providing financial benefits that are 20 times as large, 
utilizing 33 percent less energy and 32 percent less water than 
traditional schools.
  Enabling students to attend environmentally sustainable schools not 
only insures a healthy learning environment. It will also naturally 
facilitate environmental literacy in our youth. This will help our 
children grow into stewards of our environment and natural resources 
that we must treasure and preserve for future generations.
  Unfortunately, many schools in my district and across the Nation are 
also forced to address difficult security challenges. For example, 
Brunswick High School in my district is the largest single-level high 
school building in Ohio, stretching a quarter of a mile from end to end 
with 60 entrances. As you can imagine, this presents a formidable 
security challenge for teachers and administrators.
  For these reasons, Congresswoman McCarthy and I have worked to 
include a provision in the manager's amendment for this legislation 
that will allow schools to improve building infrastructure to 
accommodate security measures and security doors.
  This bill authorizes $100 million a year through 2013 specifically 
for public schools in the gulf coast that are still working to rebuild 
from the devastation that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wrought three 
years ago.
  Families in the gulf coast are still fighting to recover and to put 
their lives back together. Mr. Speaker, we must continue to devote 
extra resources so that those schools and those communities can 
rebuild.
  School modernization is the central purpose of 3021. Equally 
important and necessary is the essential economic stimulus that this 
bill will provide by creating more than 100,000 new jobs for American 
workers who design and build schools, from roofing contractors, 
construction workers and electricians, to architects and engineers. 
It's estimated that this bill will result in the creation of nearly 
4,000 jobs in my home State of Ohio in 2009 alone.
  Mr. Speaker, in these challenging economic times, important and 
innovative legislation such as this bill will go a long way to creating 
new opportunities for America's workforce. Passing this bill will 
enable school districts to upgrade their facilities and lead our 
Nation's students towards a brighter and healthier future while 
addressing the job crisis we face today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, the House is set to consider H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green 
High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill will direct the 
Secretary of Education to make grants and loans to local educational 
agencies for the construction, modernization or repair of public 
educational facilities. It also would require the funds to be used only 
for projects that meet certain green standards such as Leadership in 
Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star, or an equivalent State or 
local standard.
  Tomorrow, we are scheduled to consider H.R. 5540, to reauthorize the 
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network.
  I spent last week, Mr. Speaker, meeting and speaking with 
constituents in my district about the issues that matter to them, and 
no one mentioned anything closely related to these two bills. Both of 
these bills may be important in their own right, but I believe there 
are other issues that are much more pressing, issues we should be 
debating.
  When Americans are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, we should be 
working on legislation to lower the cost of gasoline, increasing 
domestic energy exploration, reducing our reliance on unstable foreign 
energy.
  France produces over 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear 
power, and there's a strong environmental movement in France. And yet 
the United States hasn't built a nuclear power plant in 30 years.
  When our military forces are running out of personnel, operation and 
maintenance funds, we should be working to bring bipartisan legislation 
to the President's desk that he can quickly sign and fund the troops.
  When the intelligence community is stripped of one of their key tools 
in the fight against international terrorism because the majority let 
the Protect America Act expire, we should be

[[Page 11250]]

working to give our intelligence officials the tools they need to stop 
terrorist attacks.
  Instead, the majority has decided to work on a green schools bill and 
a water trails network reauthorization. These are not exactly the 
pressing issues facing Americans every day. These are not the issues 
our constituents want us working on today.
  One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006, Mr. 
Speaker, was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan 
manner. On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, 
reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``we promised the American 
people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we 
will.''
  However, that promise has yet to come to fruition as the majority has 
consistently blocked an open process through the Rules Committee. A 
prime example of how they've consistently stymied openness and 
bipartisanship is by the number of open rules that they've allowed in 
the 110th Congress. We're three-quarters of the way through the 110th 
Congress, and so far the majority has allowed only one open rule. One 
open rule, Mr. Speaker, in 18 months.
  They had a chance to double to two the open rules last night, but by 
a party line vote they decided that they would once again use a 
restrictive rule process in making only four Republican amendments in 
order. They struck down 15 Republican amendments that had been 
introduced, including one from the ranking member of the Education and 
Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon. So much for the open process they 
promised.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this point I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee 
on Education and Labor, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my 
colleague from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for agreeing to handle this rule on 
this piece of legislation, and for her strong support of this 
legislation to provide for green high-performing public schools and the 
facilities in which our children learn.
  This legislation comes along at a time when the record is very clear 
that in far too many instances our Nation's school buildings are 
literally crumbling around the students that we send to them every day. 
They're in desperate need of renovation; they're in desperate need of 
remodeling; they're in desperate need of modernization, so that our 
students who attend those schools every day can have a safe learning 
environment.
  Not only will this bill help improve student achievement by providing 
students and teachers with modern, clean, safe and healthy learning 
environment, but it will also give a boost to our economy and help make 
schools a part of the solution to the global warming crisis.
  It is this kind of forward thinking and innovative policy that is 
needed to strengthen our Nation and help build a brighter future. By 
addressing a number of key challenges at once, this bill is a clear win 
for our children, for the workers and for our planet.
  I would like to thank my colleagues who were instrumental in drafting 
this legislation and working on it many years. I want to thank 
Congressman Ben Chandler, the author of this bill, for the hard work 
and dedication of moving this legislation through the House.
  I would also like to thank Congressman Dale Kildee, the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education for 
his work on this bill. Mr. Kildee has been a longtime champion of 
efforts to improve the physical conditions of our Nation's schools, and 
he deserves great credit for his leadership in this area.
  I also want to thank Congressman Dave Loebsack, who joined the fight 
the moment he stepped foot into the Congress. Like Mr. Kildee, Mr. 
Loebsack is a former teacher, and he understands firsthand the 
difference that a top-notch facility, that a modern facility, that a 
safe facility, that a clean facility can mean to a child's education. 
That's the promise of this legislation.
  And I would like to recognize the efforts of Congressmen Rush Holt, 
Charlie Rangel, Bob Etheridge and Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, who is 
the head of the Green Schools Caucus.
  As study after study has told us, we don't have a choice when it 
comes to rebuilding our schools. We simply won't be able to provide 
every child with the world-class education they need and deserve unless 
we're willing to help the States and school districts improve the 
conditions of these buildings and facilities. It's not a question of if 
we should modernize and repair our Nation's schools; it's a matter of 
when. It's simply a decision that we have to make and we can make it 
today.
  Today we have that opportunity to begin this investment, an 
investment that will yield great results for our children, our economy 
and our future.
  Finally, I want to thank all of the members of the Rules Committee 
for the consideration of this rule, for the reporting of this rule, and 
to Chairwoman Slaughter for her diligence in making sure that this rule 
came to the floor.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from 
Florida for yielding me the time.
  I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee voted along party lines 
to not allow the U.S. House of Representatives, this body, to even 
consider two amendments that I offered that would have helped school 
districts whose tax bases are significantly reduced by the presence of 
tax-exempt Federal lands.
  This bill would drastically expand the Federal Government's role in 
school construction and maintenance, activities historically funded at 
the State and local level before. But they're doing this before the 
Federal Government meets its existing responsibilities to schools that 
are impacted by Federal land ownership.
  Mr. Speaker, over 33 percent of my district in Central Washington is 
owned by the Federal Government; making 11 school districts eligible 
for Impact Aid programs. I know all too well the consequences of 
Federal land ownership and the impact it has on the ability of schools 
to make needed improvements.
  In the Grand Coulee Dam area in my district, students attend classes 
in buildings that are more than half a century old and that are 
literally falling apart. While the local residents in those districts 
have agreed to pay one of the highest school levies to maintain current 
levels in the State of Washington, the school district remains unable 
to secure a bond to make improvements on physical facilities because 
the community is surrounded by Federal lands and, therefore, has a 
limited tax base.
  The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that no child's 
education is shortchanged because of Federal land ownership. And, in my 
view, it's only fair that the Federal Government take care of federally 
impacted schools before launching a brand new spending program costing 
billions of dollars that's aimed at schools that aren't federally 
impacted.
  I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee. The first would have 
required that our commitment to federally impacted schools be met 
through full funding in the Impact Aid program before funding is spent 
on new Federal spending in this bill.
  My second amendment, which I offered along with my colleague, Robin 
Hayes of North Carolina, would have simply given preference, 
preference, to federally impacted schools as the new construction and 
maintenance funds were distributed.
  Unfortunately, Democrat leadership blocked both of my amendments from 
being debated or voted on today on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Federal Government cannot meet its current 
responsibilities to federally impacted schools,

[[Page 11251]]

then it certainly has no business creating a brand new $20 billion 
spending program for other schools. Rather than passing this massive 
expansion of the Federal Government's role in school construction, we 
should refocus our efforts on fulfilling existing obligations to 
schools and children impacted by Federal actions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and against the underlying bill.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on the bill, the work that is done by the Rules Committee 
in bringing this legislation before us. I am enthusiastically 
supportive of the rule and the underlying bill.
  An opportunity to integrate sustainability into the neighborhood 
school, the building block of communities, is a double win. In the long 
run, this is going to save significant amounts of money at a time of 
skyrocketing energy prices. And the evidence is that at the green 
schools I've seen in my community, there's actually better performance. 
There's better performance on the part of the students, higher job 
satisfaction with the staff, and as I have seen in communities around 
the country where these principles are integrated into the school 
construction, it is a valuable learning experience for the children 
themselves.
  I am particularly pleased in elements dealing with the 
transportation, allowing some of the facilities work to be done to help 
our children get to school safely on foot or cycling.

                              {time}  1515

  In 1969, so long ago that I was still in school, over half of 
America's children were able to get to school on their own walking or 
biking. By 2001, that percentage had fallen to 15 percent, and I 
routinely do work in other parts of the country where that percentage 
is under 10 percent where children can safely get to school on their 
own.
  This poses an inordinate problem in terms of the costs for 
transportation for school districts. We're all familiar in our own 
communities with schools that have a rush hour around the start of 
school, and then there's the rush hour to commuting. It complicates 
lives for families, it's a problem of congestion and pollution, and 
with energy prices projected to continue to remain high, it costs 
money.
  But with the provisions of this legislation, we're going to have 
resources available that compliment our Safe Routes to School 
legislation in the last transportation reauthorization to be able to 
help, once again, children to be able to walk and bike safely to 
school.
  At a time when we are looking at 10 million young people of school 
age who are overweight, and when the projection is that by 2010, 20 
percent of the school-age population will be obese, this is an 
opportunity to help children, particularly when one of the failures of 
No Child Left Behind is that there isn't a provision for physical 
education in our schools.
  This is a triple win. I strongly urge support.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding, and I do rise in opposition to the rule and the bill. I don't 
think in my entire time in Congress I have ever opposed anything that 
provides additional funding for education, but I think this bill has 
many underlying elements we have to pay some attention to.
  I don't disagree with virtually anything I've heard from the other 
side of the aisle in terms of what this might do. There is, as Mr. 
Miller indicated, a desperate need for rebonding and renovation. We do 
need good schools. I think it would help our children. I'm in full 
agreement with all of that.
  I'm also in full agreement with the gentlewoman from Ohio who said 
there's hundreds of billions of dollars of these kinds of renovations 
which are needed out there in the referenda for many of those things 
which are going on.
  The issue is what else is needed to be done in education and what can 
we afford to do at the public government level.
  If you look carefully at this bill and analyze the bottom-line 
expenditures, it's $6.4 billion for the first year of fiscal year 2009. 
It sets some thereafter for the basic renovations. There's $100 million 
for each of 5 years for emergency help in those States which were so 
devastated by storms which perhaps could be done separately, and I 
would have no problems with them, Louisiana, Mississippi, et cetera.
  The title III provision is the green provision which calls for a 
percentage of this money to be spent for green aspects of our schools, 
as we should be doing. This is something the Federal Government has not 
done heretofore. We have had certain responsibilities either assigned 
to us or done by statute in some way or another, and one of those is an 
amendment which I introduced saying that before we do this, we should 
fully fund the authorization of title I. It is very arguable that if we 
have good schools, our students will do better. I think it's even more 
arguable that if we have the necessary teachers and other personnel to 
make absolutely sure the kids are going to be well-educated, they will 
do even better than that.
  In title I last year, we appropriated $13.9 billion, but we have 
authorized $25 billion for title I. IDEA is not a part of this bill in 
particular, but again, we're not up to the statutory mandate of that 
which is up to 40 percent of contribution by the Federal Government; 
and if we were to add the $6.4 billion to that, we would get very close 
to that number which would be $17.3 billion.
  This is money that we should be spending, and we can't afford to for 
one reason or another. I've heard the old saw about spending on the 
war, or whatever it may be. But the bottom line is there's going to be 
so much spending on education and other resources this year, and my 
judgment is that we are really opening the door here. If we open this 
door at $6.4 billion without hundreds of billions of dollars that are 
needed, we're going to find that that's going to double almost 
overnight when they find out there is a Federal resource for it.
  The pressure in this place to take that up to $10 billion, $15, $20 
billion a year is going to be overwhelming, and all of a sudden, the 
education programs which we have a responsibility to be funding, which 
was so important to the basic instruction of kids, will fall by the 
wayside.
  I would urge all of the Members oppose this rule.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to both this restrictive rule and the 
underlying bill brought forward today by the Democratic majority.
  As a former chairman of the Marietta City School Board in my 
district, I strongly believe that there needs to be more of an emphasis 
on public school construction but at the State and local level. 
However, H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public 
School Facilities Act, sends the wrong message of how the Federal 
Government should be involved in local education decisions.
  With limited exception in the 1930s and 1940s, the Federal Government 
has rightly left the responsibility of public school construction up to 
the State and local governments. State and local governments know the 
construction needs in schools much better than bureaucrats in 
Washington. And the Federal Government has promoted the autonomy and 
flexibility of local control over education in this matter. However, 
this bill would negate much of this work and would only expand the size 
and scope of the Federal Government, as my good friend from Delaware, 
Mr. Castle, just pointed out.

[[Page 11252]]

  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3021 would cost $20 billion over 5 
years for a brand new Federal program to compete for the already 
precious Federal assistance dollars for education. Currently these 
funds are focused on the curriculum needs of States through our title I 
grants to provide assistance to low-income and disadvantaged students, 
as well as funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 
IDEA, for special education.
  Mr. Speaker, I can remember when I was on the Education and Workforce 
Committee in the 108th Congress when we were in the majority. There was 
this outcry constantly from the Democrats about not funding fully to 
the 40 percent level of IDEA, and of course the trajectory of spending 
in the Bush administration under Republican majority was a geometric 
progression. We spent much more money than the Democrats have spent in 
the previous 10 or 12 years when they were in control.
  But now we're going to take this money that should be spent on these 
programs like title I and IDEA and create a whole new program. It makes 
no sense. If enacted, it will create abundant squeeze, make it less 
likely the Federal Government will be able to fulfill financial 
commitments that have already been made for student achievement.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to continue promoting local control over 
education decisions while providing Federal assistance for student 
achievements. The best and most immediate way that we can do that is by 
defeating the previous question and the rule for H.R. 3021. For these 
reasons, I ask that all of my colleagues oppose the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve my time until the 
gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished lady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, as the author of an amendment that was 
not made in order under this rule, I rise in opposition to this rule. 
My amendment would have prohibited taxpayer funds authorized by this 
bill from being used to purchase mercury-laden compact fluorescent 
light bulbs, also known as the CFL.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take the choice away from 
public schools as to how to meet their lighting needs. In fact, I 
believe that Congress already makes, too often, decisions for our 
citizens. But it is Congress' single-minded dangerous pursuit of this 
environmental fad that has gotten us all to this point of silliness 
today.
  Congress must ensure that mercury-laden light bulbs are safe before 
we encourage their use in our child's classrooms. There are very 
serious health concerns about these light bulbs that are filled with 
mercury. They pose problems to humans precisely because of their high 
mercury content, and we must be sure of their safety before we force 
them on our public school children through this ill-conceived law.
  When mercury light bulbs break, let's remember, extensive cleanup is 
needed. That's what these regulations show us. This is very highly 
selective and very detailed clean-up regulations.
  What does this mean for school children that could be exposed to 
light bulbs of the broken mercury latent light bulbs? On the EPA's own 
Web site are these eight pages of instructions about how to deal with a 
mercury spill, specifically including spills due to broken mercury 
light bulbs.
  Let me run you through just some of the steps for cleaning up just 
one broken mercury light bulb.
  Before the clean-up ever begins, people must leave the room for 15 
minutes as the room airs out putting a halt to the learning that's 
taking place in the classroom. The school then is told to shut off 
their central air-conditioning system, or, in Minnesota's case, central 
heating system, and then they're told not to use a broom to sweep up 
the broken light bulb as they could come in contact with mercury at a 
later time.
  This should give Congress pause to think about this next rule that 
says if clothing comes in contact with a broken light bulb and the 
mercury, it must be disposed of immediately. Imagine that. Children or 
teachers or the janitorial staff would have to remove their clothing 
immediately, and we're told that you are not allowed to wash your 
clothes. That's what the EPA rules say. You're not allowed to wash your 
clothes. That won't do the trick because mercury fragments in the 
clothing might contaminate the washing machine and also pollute sewage.
  Let's get this straight. Congress is worried about harming sewage and 
yet we're rushing to place these mercury light bulbs in our classrooms 
next to our children. That step alone should be a warning to the 
dangers of mercury-laden light bulbs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman 1 
additional minute.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. But the kicker of them all is the disposal process. 
Immediately a person must place all of the clean-up materials in an 
outdoor trash can or protected area for normal trash pickup. But make 
sure that you check with your local government.
  In Minnesota, my home State, it does not allow for normal trash 
disposal for mercury. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken 
mercury bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.
  There are so many rules that are contained on the EPA Web site that I 
don't have time to address them all, but while these clean-up 
guidelines are important and should be followed, the harm that just one 
broken light bulb can have on a child, senior citizen, or an animal is 
very real, which is why Congress should not embark on these fads.
  I hope none of us will have to respond to the news story of a girl or 
a boy or a senior citizen or an animal who is poisoned by a broken 
mercury-ladened light bulb. That would be horrible.
  I speak today to alert this body and the American people of this yet 
considerable loss of liberty.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member from California 
(Mr. McKeon).

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I rise in 
opposition to this rule.
  Schools around the Nation are facing an immediate funding shortfall, 
but it's not a lack of funds for green facilities maintenance. Mr. 
Speaker, like the rest of us, they're struggling with gasoline prices.
  For local school systems, energy represents a significant share of 
their budget. They pay for the fuel to operate the buses that drive 
children to and from school. They pay to heat their schools in the 
winter and cool them in the summer. They pay for electricity to light 
their classrooms and power their computers. And with the national 
average for a gallon of regular gasoline reaching $3.98 today--now, 
that might have been at the start of debate. It could be $3.99 or $4 
now the way it's going up. In California, it's much higher than this 
already--these energy costs are consuming an increasing share of 
overall school budgets.
  For schools, rising energy costs don't stop with school buses and 
utilities. The cost of fuel makes almost everything more expensive, 
from books and supplies to the food that goes into school lunches. So, 
yes, our schools do have an immediate need, and we ought to be on the 
floor addressing that need today. We should be taking action on 
comprehensive energy legislation that will increase production, drive 
innovation, and promote conservation. Unfortunately, that's not what 
we're going to do today.
  Instead, the House will consider a bill that fundamentally changes 
the Federal role in education. I'm talking about legislation that 
begins the process of Federalizing the building and maintenance of 
individual schools in communities across this Nation. Agree or disagree 
with what this bill is trying

[[Page 11253]]

to accomplish, no one can deny that what's being proposed is a 
significant, perhaps even monumental, shift in education policy.
  In keeping with the pattern established by the majority, it is no 
surprise then that this bill is being brought up with limited 
opportunity for debate and amendment, after being rushed through an 
abbreviated committee process.
  Of the 20 amendments submitted by Republicans, just four were made in 
order. That's one in five.
  Not surprisingly, members of the majority party fared a little 
better. Of the eight amendments they offered and did not withdraw, 
fully half of them were made in order. Several others were combined 
with amendments that were accepted or added to the manager's amendment, 
making sure that in the end virtually all of their concerns are going 
to be addressed.
  We can do better than this. We should do better than this, but after 
a year-and-a-half under this iron-fisted majority, I know better than 
to expect better.
  So much for the most open Congress in history. I urge a ``no'' vote 
on the rule.
  Ms. SUTTON. I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend from Florida for his 
leadership on this issue and so many others.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor today. I wanted to talk about the 
amendments that I had offered to this bill that would have provided 
some accountability to the spending that's incorporated in this bill, 
but as we have heard, those amendments weren't made in order.
  So, in addition to the majority not wanting to have accountability 
for the bill that we're talking about on school construction, the first 
time Federal moneys have been used for school construction, no 
accountability, what I thought I would do then is address the issue 
that we ought to be talking about today. That's the issue that we all 
heard about last week when we went home.
  When I went home, what did I hear from my constituents? I didn't hear 
about school construction. I heard about gas prices. And I heard that 
people are tired, sick and tired, and fed up with inaction in 
Washington. They want solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, there are three ways to address this issue. One is 
conservation, and we all can do more.
  The second is to make certain that we put appropriate incentives in 
place for alternative fuels so that we can bridge to the next 
generation and American genius can be unleashed. This majority isn't 
doing anything about that.
  But the way that we bridge to the next generation is to increase 
supply, and so I asked some folks on our side of the aisle to get the 
information that said what has the majority party, what have the 
Democrats, done in order to increase supply of American energy.
  It won't surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to know that 91 percent of the 
folks on our side of the aisle, 91 percent, supported exploration in 
Alaska over the last 15 years; 86 percent on the other side opposed it 
to increase supply.
  Coal-to-liquid technology, 97 percent on our side of the aisle 
supported increasing supply in coal-to-liquid technology; 78 percent on 
the other side opposed it.
  How about oil shale exploration? Ninety percent on our side of the 
aisle support oil shale exploration increasing supply; 86 oppose it on 
the other side.
  Deep sea exploration, Mr. Speaker, 81 percent on our side support it; 
83 percent on the other side oppose it.
  How about increasing refining capacity? There hasn't been a new 
refinery built in this Nation in over 30 years. Ninety-seven percent on 
this side of the aisle support it; 96 percent on the majority side 
oppose increasing refining capacity in vote after vote after vote.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I know Americans across this Nation 
are sick and tired, sick and tired of a majority that's keeping us 
dependent on Middle Eastern oil. So I call on this majority and I call 
on the Speaker to bring forward a positive bill that will increase 
conservation, increase incentives for alternative fuel, and make 
certain that we can use American resources, American energy for 
Americans.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues who may be 
listening to this debate that this rule and this bill are about 
repairing and improving our Nation's schools.
  I also want to remind the people at home that, of course, those who 
are railing now about the effects of energy policy over the past 6 or 
so or 8 or 10 years were in charge, most of that time with a Republican 
President, and this is what we get.
  So this Congress, of course, is a new majority, and we have taken 
bold steps to put incentives in place that will lead to historic change 
and will turn the corner to renewable sources of energy in this country 
being developed.
  We have 30 million acres on which oil drilling can take place right 
now, and those are just sitting idle. Those on the other side of the 
aisle don't tell us the whole story when they're talking about these 
issues.
  But I just want to repeat, I want to remind my colleagues who may be 
listening to this debate, that this rule and this bill is about the 
very important business of repairing and improving our Nation's 
schools.
  With that, I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first it's important 
to set the record straight. Ten years ago, this Congress passed 
drilling in the ANWR, and it faced a Presidential veto by then-
President Clinton, and imagine if it hadn't faced a veto how much of a 
difference we would have been able to make.
  Now we're seeing the consequences of that, as Mr. Price of Georgia 
pointed out. Effort after effort that we've engaged in to try to 
increase the production of energy, the supply of energy has been 
opposed by the other side of the aisle and I think nowhere more 
dramatically than when we were able to pass legislation to have 
production in Alaska, and it was vetoed by the last President, a 
Democratic President.
  So these things have to be put on the record, Mr. Speaker, because 
now with $4 gas the record counts, and the record is of interest to all 
Americans, and it will be more and more of interest every day.
  Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, just over 2 years ago, now-
Speaker Pelosi issued the following statement:
  ``With skyrocketing gas prices it is clear that the American people 
can no longer afford the Republican rubber stamp Congress and its 
failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. 
Americans are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 
cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President 
Bush first came into office.''
  Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 
a gallon today. Yet here we are this week debating bills on green 
schools and watertrails network instead of working on legislation to 
reduce the price of gasoline and increase supply. Now, the price of 
gasoline is at $4 gallon now.
  Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront that 
issue, just over a month ago the newspaper Investors Business Daily in 
an editorial said that this Congress ``is possibly the most 
irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes 
to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

            [From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]

                            Congress Vs. You

       We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress 
     is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is 
     especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional 
     energy policy.
       The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its 
     failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an 
     ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from 
     understanding how free markets and supply and demand really 
     work. Sad, but true.
       So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling 
     out Congress for its inaction

[[Page 11254]]

     and ignorance in his wide-ranging press conference Tuesday.
       ``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues 
     affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to 
     mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to 
     their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately, 
     on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''
       Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just 
     generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of 
     congressional energy inaction, including:
       Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted, 
     estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from 
     this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and 
     diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of 
     the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so 
     your representative can raise campaign cash.
       Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one 
     since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique'' 
     fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem 
     at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price 
     spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.
       Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with 
     advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems 
     have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--
     the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total 
     energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their 
     power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are 
     expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at 
     $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural 
     gas.
       Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic 
     understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and 
     needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. 
     So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy 
     companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy 
     situation worse.
       These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all 
     while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add 
     more than a million barrels of new demand each and every 
     year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand 
     growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.
       Americans who are worried about the direction of their 
     country, including runaway energy and food prices, should 
     keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing 
     a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.
       The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker 
     who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two 
     years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and 
     irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

  Today, I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I 
will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any 
amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for 
consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, which would give commuters 
a tax break on their commuting expenses and require the Speaker of the 
House to submit a plan to lower gas prices.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I am so pleased that our 
colleague Dr. Price pointed out on issue after issue, whether it's ANWR 
exploration or coal-to-liquid or oil shale exploration or refinery 
increased capacity or on the issue of nuclear power. There is a strong 
environmental movement in France, but over 80 percent of their 
electricity is generated from nuclear power. Yet we haven't built a 
nuclear power plant in this country in over 30 years.
  It's time to face the issue of energy independence in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, 
it's interesting that my colleagues on the other side railed against 
this legislation in the name of energy.
  It doesn't do a lot of good to pump more energy into these schools, 
more air conditioning into these schools, more heat into these schools 
when the schools are such inefficient users of energy. It makes no 
sense to pump more and more electricity into the schools, to use 
lighting that's outdated, outmoded, harmful to the learning of these 
children.
  The purpose of this legislation is to take a major institution in our 
country, our elementary secondary education system, and have the 
Federal Government lend some support to local efforts that are 
struggling now, trying to accelerate their programs to cut their energy 
costs in the running of their schools.
  That's what this bill allows us to do. It allows us to put in place 
as they renovate, as they repair, as they remodel these schools, trying 
to recover, as all businesses are all across the country, as homeowners 
are all across the country, to reduce their energy costs. It allows us 
to partner up with them and to provide some assistance in doing that.
  It's rather interesting that all they can talk about on the other 
side is somehow that they didn't get to go to Alaska. If they'd gone to 
Alaska, it probably would have made a penny or 2 cents or 3 cents a 
difference in a gallon of gasoline today.
  But the fact of the matter is why would you go to Alaska and put it 
into cars that are getting 12 and 13 miles a gallon? But you never went 
to the question of efficiencies. You never went to the question of 
better automobiles.
  We did. The first time in 30 years, this Congress improved the 
mileage standard for automobiles. Just think if we had done it when 
George Bush said he wanted it done. Today, it would have been an entire 
different industry.
  But no, you listened to the oil industry and you listened to the 
automobile industry. Well, listen to them today as the chairman of 
General Motors has to admit that they didn't see it coming, they didn't 
see it was going to happen. They laid off 20,000 workers. They shut 
down four plants making SUVs and trucks. Why are we listening to those 
people?
  If we continue to listen to them, we'll be the only people in the 
world that are listening to them. They've made one bad business 
decision, one bad energy decision after another for the last two 
decades, and it cost them almost 450,000 jobs to the workers. It cost 
them market share, it cost them productivity, it cost them profit. Now 
what are they doing? They're trying to play catch-up.
  Well, we don't think the school districts in this country should play 
catch-up like General Motors. We think the school districts in this 
country ought to have an opportunity to make these facilities more 
efficient in the use of the energy, more efficient in the conservation 
of energy so that they can come into the modern age and they can make 
the changes that all of the studies indicate to us not only will save 
them energy, not only will make the facilities safer, cleaner and 
better for the learning environment that these children need, it will 
also dramatically change the cost of running these school districts.
  It's happening, but too many school districts in too many areas don't 
have sufficient funds. We think the Federal Government ought to put its 
shoulder to the wheel and help these school districts conserve their 
energy.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to speak against this rule and 
against this bill in itself.
  First off, this is not a Federal responsibility, this is a State and 
local responsibility. And to the extent that we spend Federal taxpayer 
dollars, this isn't the Federal Government doing this, there is no such 
thing as the Federal Government doing this; this is the Federal 
taxpayer doing this. So you've got taxpayers on one hand funding their 
local schools; you've got Federal taxpayers funding those same local 
schools. This is a wreck of bureaucratic nightmare. This should not 
happen.
  We're not fully funding IDEA, we're not fully funding title I; this 
is just something new. So it's because it's new that we can get away 
with acting like this is something that's good, and it's

[[Page 11255]]

not because we're not fully funding what we should be.
  Electrical costs in our schools are very high, no doubt about it. And 
the truth of the matter is we can't conserve our way into lowering 
those electricity costs because electricity cost generation is going to 
continue to go up. And as this majority continues to restrict the 
growth in clean coal burning technology, as they continue to restrict 
the growth in nuclear power plants, they're going to continue to drive 
electricity costs higher and higher.
  Now we all like wind, we all like solar, but the truth of the matter 
is growth in those alternatives cannot even keep up with the growth in 
the demand for electricity. As schools begin to quit going to field 
trips, as they begin to quit going to football games and quit going to 
things they're already telling us they're going to do because of 
gasoline costs and diesel costs being higher because of lack of supply, 
it's our responsibility to address the broader issue of energy and not 
school buildings, which is a local and State issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak against this rule and against this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONAWAY. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. What would you prefer that they do, 
have the schools do nothing when they know that they have a waiver? 
Every business in America is investing in energy conservation.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Reclaiming my time, what I would have them do is take 
the local responsibility of making these decisions on their own.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This doesn't take anything away from 
local responsibility.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Reclaiming my time, what I would have them do is take 
the responsibility themselves to make these very good decisions to 
create energy-efficient facilities. But it's their job, not the Federal 
taxpayer's job.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, Mr. Speaker, we're asking 
for a ``no'' vote on the previous question to be able to address the 
energy issue. If we're ever going to address it, it's time to start 
doing so with $4 a gallon gasoline.
  Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and insist that the 
energy issue be addressed seriously by voting ``no'' on the previous 
question. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, as we lead this country in the 21st century, 
we must work creatively to form policies that address the intertwining 
nature of the challenges we face.
  I've heard that this isn't important legislation from the other side 
of the aisle, and that is concerning to me because safe and healthy 
schools are important. Environmentally sustainable schools are 
important. Creating 100,000 jobs in this country is important. Acting 
to instill environmental stewardship in students and our youth is 
important.
  One out of five Americans attends school each day. A 2006 report 
concluded that, despite significant State and local expenditures on 
school construction and renovation from 1996 to 2004, there continues 
to be millions of students in substandard and overcrowded school 
conditions. This bill will set our 60 million school children on a path 
to a better education and a healthier future by providing a Federal 
investment to help renovate, prepare, and modernize thousands of public 
schools.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we are tasked with finding solutions that 
are innovative and multifaceted, to secure a better future for America.
  Part of that responsibility is ensuring that young Americans have 
access to safe, constructive environments to learn in.
  H.R. 3021 will help give our children and grandchildren the sound, 
healthy classrooms they need and deserve. It is clear that our schools 
are aging and in need of repairs . . . repairs that must be made to 
allow students to focus on learning and reaching their full potential.
  Not only will we be investing in future generations of Americans, we 
will provide thousands of much-needed, high-quality jobs.
  With the bill before us today, we are taking steps that will help 
address so many of the challenges we face.
  The improvements made to schools will encourage green building 
techniques and help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. These 
standards will save school districts money on utilities for years to 
come.
  In my district, the Natomas Unified School District, the state's only 
``Climate Action Leader,'' recently received the Clean Air ``Government 
Award'' for its dedication to air quality and energy-saving techniques. 
It is innovative approaches like this that H.R. 3021 will encourage 
across the country.
  I cannot help but think of my grandchildren, Anna and Robby; they are 
approaching school age, and I want them to be in a healthy environment 
that will enable them to reach their full potential.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Rule and final passage of H.R. 
3021.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1234 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the operation of the previous question, it 
     shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which 
     the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of 
     lowering the national average price per gallon of regular 
     unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For 
     purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a 
     statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 
     by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration 
     shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

[[Page 11256]]

     [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens 
     the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 
     21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of 
     the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SUTTON. 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.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 1343 and H.R. 5669.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 196, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 370]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Andrews
     Baca
     Cardoza
     Chabot
     Filner
     Gallegly
     Gillibrand
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lewis (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rush
     Saxton
     Shuler
     Udall (NM)
     Wilson (NM)

                              {time}  1614

  Mrs. SCHMIDT and Mr. PEARCE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 370, I was unable to vote 
because of pressing business with my constituents in my home district. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 193, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 371]

                               YEAS--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey

[[Page 11257]]


     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--193

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Andrews
     Baca
     Cardoza
     Chabot
     Filner
     Gallegly
     Gillibrand
     Gordon
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lewis (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rush
     Saxton
     Shuler
     Udall (NM)
     Wilson (NM)

                              {time}  1622

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 371, I was unable to vote 
because of pressing business with my constituents in my home district. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________