[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18846-18853]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3288, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND 
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 669 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 669

       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. 3288) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2010, 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 chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as 
     read through page 160, line 6. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 
     except as provided in section 2, no amendment shall be in 
     order except: (1) the amendments printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution; (2) not to exceed seven of the amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules if offered 
     by Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee; and (3) 
     not to exceed two of the amendments printed in part C of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative 
     Hensarling of Texas or his designee. 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 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The proponent 
     of any such amendment may modify its amendatory instructions 
     before the question is put thereon. 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. In the case of sundry amendments 
     reported from the Committee, the question of their adoption 
     shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the 
     question. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After disposition of the amendments specified in 
     the first section of this resolution, the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
     designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill 
     for the purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the 
     proponent.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 3288, the Chair may 
     reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
     under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order because the 
resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The 
resolution contains a waiver against all points of order in the 
Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of rule 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974. The gentleman has met the threshold burden under 
the rule. The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
  After that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Again, I rise today not because this bill may or may not 
violate the Unfunded Mandates Act--it may or it may not. The question 
here is why, again, and we're near the end of the appropriations cycle 
and we've been living under what is the equivalent of legislative 
martial law, where the majority has stated that they cannot allow 
appropriation bills to come to the floor because we have to get through 
this process. We have to move through it. The Appropriations Committee 
chairman said, There is a limited numbers of hours between now and the 
time we recess. If we want to get our work done, we have to limit the 
debate time that we spend on these bills.
  Now, appropriating is one of the most--if not the most important--
thing that Congress does. We maintain the power of the purse under 
article 1. This is our responsibility. And to say that we've got to 
move through it quickly and so we have to deny the minority party the 
ability to offer the amendments it wants to offer simply because we 
have to make the trains run on time here.
  When the Republicans were in the majority, one Member said the other 
day that he was in the chair for over 3 days on the interior bill 
simply because Members on the majority side and the minority side had a 
lot of amendments they wanted to offer--3 days on the interior bill. 
Here we're allowing just an afternoon on the THUD bill. We're allowing 
just less than a day on the defense bill next week that contains more 
than a thousand earmarks that haven't been vetted by the Appropriations 
Committee, 540 of which are no-bid contracts to private companies. And 
we aren't allowing probably but a few, if history holds, amendments to 
that bill. And they will likely be amendments that the majority 
chooses.
  Last week, on a previous appropriation bill, I asked for unanimous 
consent 16 times on 16 amendments that I had to allow us to substitute 
an amendment that one of my colleagues had offered that was not 
allowed.
  So making the point that this isn't an issue of time; the time 
constraints were already set. We simply wanted to substitute amendments 
that we thought were maybe more important, that Members were denied the 
ability to offer, and we were rejected. Objection was raised 16 times 
to unanimous consent requests simply to substitute amendments. So we 
know what this is about. It's not about an issue of time, although that 
is a sorry excuse, frankly. When appropriating dollars is the most 
important thing we do here, we shouldn't limit ourselves to just a few 
days to get the appropriations process done on the floor.
  But even if you accept that, the minority party simply wanted to 
offer the amendments it wanted to offer, not the ones that the majority 
party had chosen for the minority party to offer and were denied 16 
times. And here again today we're going to be discussing a bill. More 
than 70 amendments were offered to the Rules Committee. Only, I 
believe, 24 were ruled in order. We just had four or five Members offer 
privileged resolutions to make the point that their amendments, which 
were germane, which should have been allowed, were not allowed by the 
minority party.
  Madam Speaker, this isn't the way this House ought to be run. We're 
breaking from tradition here with the appropriations process, and at a 
time when we need more than ever to scrub these appropriations bills 
and make sure we're not spending money that we shouldn't be spending. 
We have a deficit that will near $2 trillion this year. When I came to 
Congress just 8 years ago, that was almost the entire Federal budget. 
Now our budget deficit will equal that amount, and yet we're throwing 
appropriation bills at the floor and saying got to get them done in 1 
day and not allow the minority party to offer the amendments that it 
would like to offer.

[[Page 18847]]

  I would submit that while the majority party may think that they can 
get away with it because process arguments don't mean much outside the 
Beltway, I can see that. But a bad process begets bad policy, and 
sooner or later, it will come back to bite. And it just doesn't come 
back to bite the majority party; it comes back to haunt this 
institution. And institutionally, we ought to be better. We ought to 
have more regard for this institution than to simply break with 
precedent like this and deny the minority party the ability to offer 
the amendments I would like to offer.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this point of order is not about anything other than 
delaying the passage of this very important bill. And I would say to my 
friend from Arizona, that he, himself, has probably received more 
amendments from the Rules Committee than the rest of Congress put 
together. So he certainly has had an opportunity to offer many 
amendments with respect to different earmarks that he feels should be 
removed from the bill.
  So I would submit that this point of order is really about delaying 
the passage of what is a critically important bill, and that is the 
transportation appropriation bill, a bill that talks about things like 
funding roads so that we have safe highways for our families to travel 
on, things like high-speed rail so we can bring people and goods from 
point A to point B as quickly as possible. That's what we're here to 
discuss today. That's why the passage, the consideration of this rule 
and the passage of this rule, is so important, so we may consider this 
critically important bill.

                              {time}  1100

  I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this 
legislation on its merits and not stop it by virtue of a procedural 
motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against the final passage. 
We must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield myself the balance of my time to answer the 
gentleman.
  I want to make the point that I'm not trying to delay the process. I 
could call a vote and waste 30 minutes. I'm not going to. I know the 
outcome here. That's not the point. The gentleman mentioned that I've 
been given a lot of amendments. I have, but it is only because the 
majority knows that they can beat them. And when I've offered to 
substitute some of my colleagues' amendments that were germane that 
simply weren't ruled in order, objection was raised 16 times to do 
that. So this isn't about time. This is about the majority wanting only 
the amendments that it wants to see on the floor.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield back the balance of my time, and urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, for purposes 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 the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today as a member of the Rules Committee and also as a member 
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in strong support of 
H.R. 3288, the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation HUD Appropriations Act. 
H. Res. 669 provides for consideration of H.R. 3288 under a structured 
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule makes in order a total of 23 amendments, each of which is 
debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, housing and transportation are two areas that must be 
priorities for Congress, especially when the economy slows, because we 
get a double return on our investment. As we have seen with the 
recovery bill, investment in infrastructure not only generates economic 
recovery by putting people back to work, but those construction jobs 
strengthen our transportation system and improve our housing stock. We 
not only put people to work, but we also get something in the long run. 
We get better roads. We get safer transportation. We get better 
housing. That is critically important.
  Some of the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee would have liked to have seen a greater percentage of the 
funding in the Recovery Act go towards infrastructure spending and, 
indeed, we have seen that of all the funding included in that bill the 
transportation funding has resulted in saving and creating jobs faster 
than even we expected.
  The Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill continues this investment 
and our commitment to utilize all of the tools available to continue 
this economic recovery that has already begun to take hold. Included in 
H.R. 3288 is $41.1 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging 
highway infrastructure. The bill includes more than $10 billion for 
Federal Transit Administration, which will help transit agencies meet 
increased public demand for mass transit. This not only provides more 
transportation options to Americans during tough economic times, it 
also decreases traffic congestion, reduces our dependence on foreign 
oil, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
  This bill adds another $4 billion to develop and construct a national 
system of high-speed rail, building on the commitment we began with the 
recovery bill. This is the first major investment in transportation 
since the 1960s. High-speed rail moves more people at a lower cost, at 
a faster speed and with less impact on the environment than does road 
transportation. We have developed the most advanced highway and 
aviation systems in the world over the last 60 years, but in comparison 
to the train system in other nations such as Germany, France and even 
China, they have clearly exceeded what we have done here in America.
  Speaking from the experience of my own delegation, the Members that 
represent upstate New York, we are committed to work in a bipartisan 
effort to make high-speed rail a reality across upstate New York. We 
have done so because we realize the numerous benefits that this 
improvement in our transportation system will have as a result of high-
speed rail, not only for upstate New York, but for the Nation as a 
whole.
  Just as we saw over a century ago with the construction of the Erie 
Canal, streamlining the movement of people and goods along the corridor 
between the eastern seaboard and Chicago, the freight gateway to the 
west coast, will benefit the cities at both ends and also the cities 
across the country through which the line will run.
  Madam Speaker, this is just a sampling of the important programs and 
initiatives that the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act will fund in 
fiscal year 2010. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last month, in the 
middle of the night, the majority called an

[[Page 18848]]

emergency meeting of the Rules Committee in order to withdraw a 
modified open rule which had previously been passed by the committee 
regarding the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill and to 
replace it with a draconian rule that severely limited the ability of 
Members from both sides of the aisle to bring amendments to the floor 
for debate and a vote.
  That unnecessary and unfortunate procedure began the process of 
overturning over two centuries of precedent of open debate on 
appropriations bills in this House. Historically, appropriations bills, 
such as the one being brought to the floor today, have come to the 
floor under an open rule, a rule that allows any Member, from either 
side of the aisle, to offer amendments if the amendments are germane. 
Now the majority has unwisely ended that hallowed tradition and is 
using the Rules Committee to repress the ability of Members to offer 
amendments.
  Each and every appropriations bill considered since that late night, 
or should I say early morning, meeting has restricted the prerogative 
of Members to offer amendments. Instead, the Speaker and the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, through the majority on the Rules 
Committee, decide who will offer amendments, and they decide exactly 
who shapes the way Congress spends the taxpayers' dollars. As of the 
last count, that doctrine, the Pelosi-Obey doctrine, has blocked over 
600 amendments. Six hundred times already Members on both sides of the 
aisle in this House have been denied the ability to represent their 
constituents on appropriations bills.
  The new doctrine and process not only breaks two centuries of 
tradition and precedent in the House; it also runs contrary to one of 
the central tenets of the Democrats' election campaign. During the 2006 
campaign, they claimed that they would run Congress in a more open and 
bipartisan manner. On December 6 of that year, Speaker 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.'' But here we are today, with Congress for the first time in 
history completely shutting down the previously open appropriations 
process.
  When the process was first closed down last month, I explained to the 
majority that they should be cognizant of the repercussions of 
overturning two centuries of precedent. They did not listen. They have 
continued to bring to this floor restrictive rule after restrictive 
rule, 10 so far. Although I feel that the majority has caused lasting 
damage to the traditions of the House, there's still a chance for the 
majority to return to the long-held tradition of fairness and openness 
of debate on appropriations bills. So I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this rule so that we can return to regular order, to restore the long-
held tradition of the House of openness on appropriations bills.
  I once again remind my colleagues that majorities are never eternal. 
The precedent being set now may be used by majorities in the future. 
And this is not the appropriate way to run the House. It is 
unnecessary. It is inappropriate. It is unfair. I think it's time, 
Madam Speaker, that we overturn that doctrine, the Pelosi-Obey 
doctrine, and restore the tradition of openness in the appropriations 
process.
  And I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado, one of the new distinguished members of the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank my colleague, Mr. Arcuri, for the time, and I rise 
today, Madam Speaker, in strong support of this rule and the underlying 
bill. Madam Speaker, right now, our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure continues to fight a losing battle with our growing 
needs, shrinking revenues and a dwindling highway trust fund.
  Meanwhile, our public housing assistance and community support 
programs feel the strain of additional demand, more and more families 
and individuals across our country who face layoffs, foreclosures and 
the economic waves that have rippled through nearly every sector of our 
economy in every State in our Nation.
  Madam Speaker, this bill will help to address the challenges of those 
who are particularly hard hit in a responsible and thorough manner, and 
I thank Subcommittee Chair Olver and Chairman Obey and their staffs for 
a job well done. This bill provides vitally needed funding for transit 
through investment in the Federal Transit Administration, including 
commuter rail systems and a focus on multi-modal transportation 
planning.
  This bill also reflects our growing understanding of where our 
transportation system needs to go in the future and how to get there. 
We understand that the sooner we address things like vehicle miles 
traveled, congestion, smart growth and complete streets, the sooner we 
will see the environmental, health and economic benefits that the 
status quo is currently lacking.
  Easing congestion is crucial for my district in Colorado. Even the 
smallest amount of congestion means major economic impacts as travelers 
and companies moving goods and people on Highway 70 and Highway 36 sit 
idle. These highways are two of the main arteries in my district that 
connect nearly every community and where investment in infrastructure 
has not kept pace with growth.
  Highway 70 is the lifeblood of our mountain communities in Colorado. 
This bill will help ease congestion in places like Eagle, a growing 
community in the mountains where, until a few years ago, rush hour was 
like a long lift line in Vail or too many rafts on the Colorado River. 
But now, this is a community that comes to a halt with rush-hour 
traffic that combines with regional airport traffic to yield real 
implications.
  We all know that our Nation's housing market has been at the center 
of our economic troubles and that our economic troubles have only fed a 
cycle of more layoffs and foreclosures. These programs in this bill 
administered by HUD allow nonprofit organizations such as Thistle 
Community Housing in my district to make housing affordable for all 
families. Through community development grants, Thistle leverages 
Federal dollars with private philanthropy and local funds to not only 
provide affordable rental housing, but also to make the dream of 
homeownership possible for my constituents even of modest needs.
  Make no mistake, however, this is not merely a housing subsidy 
program. It also promotes personal responsibility by requiring 
enrollment in financial literacy and job training programs. In our 
economic climate, these kinds of training programs are critical. To 
help our recovery, this bill extends the loan limits enacted in the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act through 2010 and provides for 
continuation of the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is critical for our country because it is 
important for our economy, our environment, and it builds and repairs 
the physical infrastructure of our Nation. I urge swift passage of the 
rule and the bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure 
to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for the 
time.
  I rise in opposition to this rule because I do not want to lend my 
support to a politically cooked process that freezes the American 
people out of having their say through a constructive amendment 
process. I know the large number of the majority Members do not want 
this process either for the same reasons that I don't. The majority may 
think that they are freezing out the minority in these rules, and they 
are; but more importantly, they are freezing out their own constituents 
and all of our constituents.

                              {time}  1115

  The truth of the matter is that these closed and structured rules are 
designed to avoid the tough votes, and those familiar with the 
situation know that. On the surface, the rules may be promoted as a 
means of moving the process along in a timely fashion, and

[[Page 18849]]

there may be some tone of truth to that; however, the real issue is the 
difficult votes, and that's sad, because that's what we get paid to do 
here. We don't get paid to duck tough votes around here.
  I have to wonder sometimes if our predecessors from both parties are 
not looking down from the big chamber in the sky and wondering what in 
God's name are we doing to the process that they left us. One thing we 
know we're doing is cheating the American people.
  The administration says that this bill is about making long-term 
infrastructure investments. If that is true, then our investors, or our 
constituents, should have a say-so in how those investments are made. 
Right now they have no such say, and that's a shame.
  As an example, I had an amendment to move $3 billion in ``parked'' 
money in a high-speed rail appropriation to be put--to use in the 
Highway Trust Fund where we desperately need those funds. The 
administration wants us to bail out the Highway Trust Fund, for those 
of you who don't know that. And I want to note, too, that in the 
stimulus package there is $8 billion sitting there for high-speed rail, 
none of which will be spent this year.
  Also, there was an agreement between the administration and Congress 
saying that with that $8 billion we would appropriate $1 billion a year 
for the next 5 years. My amendment would have honored the 
administration's request in that agreement, leaving $1 billion in the 
high-speed rail account. My amendment was not made in order. That $3 
billion could have been used as an investment in my State and all of 
your States in a much-needed investment in the highway infrastructure 
that would actually create jobs now.
  For some, however, that would have been a tough vote, because even 
though that money won't be spent on high-speed rail for a couple of 
years, at least, a vote to transfer to the trust fund, where it's 
needed today, would be a vote to remove it from the rapid rail category 
now, a vote that would not have been politically fashionable for some 
in this Chamber, and that's the reason it's not in order.
  The net result is that an important investment amendment will now not 
be put to the investors, the taxpayers. Instead, we will 
institutionally duck the vote and, thereby, rob the investors of their 
say-so in this worthwhile investment.
  I want to say, Madam Speaker, that this bill could have been a 
bipartisan bill. Chairman Olver and I worked together all through this 
process. We had hearings. We worked in a constructive way.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an 
additional minute.
  Mr. LATHAM. And I think it is an outrage and an insult to Chairman 
Olver for the Rules Committee to say that you're questioning his 
competence and his ability to handle issues involved in this bill.
  This could have been a bipartisan process. This could have been 
something that everyone in this House could support if, in fact, we had 
a process that respected the chairman, his abilities, his competence, 
and respected the interests of all of our constituents.
  To close out people, our constituents, the people who own these 
investments, is simply wrong, and I ask everyone to please vote against 
this outrageous rule and respect the chairman, respect what the rights 
should be in this House of Representatives and have been since the 
beginning. And I would encourage everyone to vote against this 
outrageous rule.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, before I recognize my colleague from New 
York, I would just like to make a point, and that is, throughout 
history, we have seen vision on the part of people, and it's that 
vision that brought Columbus to the New World. It's that vision that 
built the Panama Canal. It's the vision that built the Erie Canal. It's 
the vision in the Eisenhower Highway System. It's the vision that 
brings us and moves us forward.
  This bill contains that vision. It has money in it for high-speed 
rail. That, I would submit, is our vision for the future. That's the 
kind of vision that people sent us here to Congress to continue, and 
it's that kind of vision that this bill contains.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to one of the 
leaders in transportation in this country, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER of New York. I rise in support of the rule for the 
Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act, and I think that the 
transportation appropriation in this bill is excellent, but I'm going 
to focus on a different aspect of it.
  I want to, in particular, thank Chairman Olver for securing more than 
$18 billion for tenant-based rental assistance and $8.7 billion for 
project-based rental assistance. This represents about $3.7 billion 
more than last year. This should be enough to fully fund the renewal of 
section 8 tenant-based and project-based rental assistance and provide 
$75 million for about 10,000 new incremental tenant-based vouchers for 
homeless veterans.
  The bill also has $350 million for the Housing for People with AIDS 
program, also known as HOPWA, $50 million more than was appropriated 
last year. This is a great victory for these programs, and I applaud 
the chairman and the committee for their efforts to secure these badly 
needed resources.
  I also want to thank all of my colleagues who signed on to my letter 
to the committee in support of increases for section 8 housing and for 
the HOPWA program earlier this year.
  For many years, our letters were ignored and we were forced to come 
to the floor and offer an amendment to increase funding for section 8 
housing and HOPWA, where more than not we were successful at passing 
amendments to increase funding for these programs. I am pleased that 
this year, because of the efforts of the chairman, that was not 
necessary for us to come to the floor with an amendment.
  But I do want to recognize that the need for affordable housing will 
still greatly outpace the supply. During this time of economic 
recession, much more needs to be done. I understand the Financial 
Services Committee is working on legislation to reform the section 8 
program and authorize 150,000 additional new vouchers, and I look 
forward to working with them to pass that legislation so we can more 
properly address the severe housing crisis by substantially increasing 
funding for vouchers.
  Similarly, while we requested $360 million this year for the HOPWA 
program and $350 million is appropriated in this bill, the National 
AIDS Housing Coalition estimates that over $3.2 billion is required to 
truly meet the housing needs for all those living with HIV/AIDS.
  While we could always do more when it comes to funding for section 8 
and HOPWA, I recognize it is no small feat to increase funding for a 
program by $3.7 billion in a single year for section 8 and $350 million 
for HOPWA.
  I commend the chairman for his leadership, and I want to thank him 
for his continued support for these important housing initiatives. And 
I also want to thank the chairman and the committee for their 
initiatives in the transportation field and for the funds they have 
brought to this.
  And I want to express, while I have the opportunity, my agreement 
with Chairman Oberstar that it is essential that we pass, this year, a 
reauthorization of the transportation bill and not put it off for 18 
months into the next Presidential election year cycle if we're going to 
start catching up to the necessity to keep our infrastructure from 
falling apart, and also if we're going to get some more stimulus for 
this economy that we so desperately need during this recession.
  So I support the rule. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman 
from New York, one of the freshmen here, Mr. Massa.
  Mr. MASSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today not only in support of the 
rule,

[[Page 18850]]

in support of the underlying bill, but in opposition to one of the 
unprecedentedly large numbers of amendments which, in fact, is being 
allowed to be offered to this bill. And I have sat here this morning 
listening to a long conversation about the lack of allocation of 
amendments, and yet I have yet to hear the reality that in this House 
and in this rule and in this Congress, the majority has offered an 
unprecedented number of amendments to all forms of legislation 
heretofore not seen in the 111th or forbearing Congresses.
  The amendment today that I would like to discuss is one that reaches 
far down into this bill to strip out a very small amount of money for a 
town where I come from. Now, I know that many people don't know where 
Hornell, New York, is. It's a small town. It's not on the big maps of 
the geopolitical world, but it's where I'm from. And in fact, in that 
town, once a center of a bustling train industry, is a small YMCA.
  And that YMCA, like many around rural America, is a community center 
that offers not only its basic functions but, in this case, is actually 
a functioning gym for a small St. Ann's Catholic school. It's also a 
cardiovascular rehabilitation center for a local St. James private 
hospital.
  With unprecedented transparency and, frankly, a small amount of 
pride, I have fought to place not billions, not hundreds of millions, 
not even tens of millions, but a very small amount of money to service 
and return a fair value of taxation back to the community.
  What I proposed to do and what I am fighting against by stopping an 
amendment that would strip that out, with an open heart and an open 
conversation with those on the other side of the aisle that would deny 
the citizens of this small town a return for their tax investment, is 
to help that small community in whatever way possible.
  I rise in support of this bill and this rule in support of the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule in the 
legislation H.R. 3288, the Transportation Appropriating bill. In 
particular, I want to express my support for the passenger rail funding 
within the bill that amounts to $4 billion.
  President Obama, Chairman Olver, and my colleagues on the 
appropriations committee have demonstrated their commitment to 
passenger and high-speed rail by providing funding in this bill that 
would enable the urban, suburban, and rural communities in America to 
be connected by a system that will deliver both safe, swift, efficient, 
and economical travel across our Nation.
  Texas, in particular, and the congressional delegation, needs 
passenger and high-speed rail, and we know that throughout the country 
it's needed. Funding for high- and higher-speed rail will reduce 
congestion and pollution, create jobs, and connect communities.
  The deployment of rail throughout the designated corridors in my 
State and throughout the country and my district is something that's 
drastically needed and will help enhance business alike. The San 
Antonio/Austin corridor area is booming and the highway is congested. 
Developing passenger rail is crucial to the economic development.
  It is vital that we preserve the recommended levels of passenger 
funding in this bill. Our passenger rail system is terribly 
underdeveloped and underfunded when compared to other nations such as 
France, Italy, China, and Japan, so we need to make that investment as 
quickly as possible. And the high-speed rail is needed.
  In Texas, we have intellectual capacity and technology to be able to 
make this happen and make this happen as quickly as possible. My 
colleagues in south Texas have joined me in support of this effort, and 
we will hopefully get this bill passed.
  As a member of the committee, I want to encourage everyone to support 
this piece of legislation that allows an opportunity for us to begin to 
look with that vision to the future. We need to get on board and 
support the $4 billion funding contained in H.R. 3288 that deals with 
rail.
  I encourage both House and Texas colleagues to support the piece of 
legislation that we have before us and support the bill.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask my 
friend if he has any additional speakers.
  Mr. ARCURI. We have no additional speakers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend. This has been 
an interesting debate. Apparently, there are some discussions, Madam 
Speaker, going on with our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  What I will do at this point is reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would simply 
inquire of my friend if it is the intention of the majority to try to 
amend the rule.
  Mr. ARCURI. We are at the present time reviewing that option, and we 
are looking at it, but I would like, if I may, in the meantime, to make 
one more point about this bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. On your time.
  If I may, Madam Speaker, I thank my friend. Obviously, I have great 
respect for him, and I know that he will continue to speak on the 
merits of the legislation being brought to the floor today.
  As confirmed by my friend, it seems that the majority is considering 
amending the rule, I am told, to eliminate the provision which allows 
Members to modify the amendatory instructions in their amendments to 
account for changes in the bill that occurred during the printing 
process.
  It is my understanding that the majority fears that the minority will 
exploit that provision to change our amendments even though that has 
not happened thus far.
  If this were to take place, I think it would be another example of 
how the majority is rushing legislation to the floor without giving 
this system the necessary time to work. If we had an extra day, we 
wouldn't need this provision at all because the bill would be printed, 
and the Members could read the bill; but because the Rules Committee 
and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee are determined to push 
legislation through without sufficient time for the House to review the 
legislation, we need this provision in the rule to account for clerical 
problems. Rather than actually giving Members time to read the bill, 
they want to run the risk that Members' amendments might not be in 
order.
  So, in short, Madam Speaker, if this amendment to the rule were to 
take place, I think it would be another example of how the Speaker and 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee value their schedules over 
the rights of Members to be heard on the floor.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend for his comments.
  Madam Speaker, this is somewhat of a technical change that we are 
contemplating, but I would say this: I think what one side or what one 
person views as rushing a piece of legislation the other side can very 
well argue is necessary and that we need to do it.
  One of the things that I hear from constituents at home is, you know, 
Congress needs to put aside the partisan bickering and move forward 
with the people's business. I would submit that that is exactly what we 
are trying to do. There is nothing more important, obviously, for 
Congress to do than to ensure that the funding to run the government is 
available. Now, obviously, both sides of the aisle have dramatic 
differences on how that funding should occur.
  I would submit to my friend from Florida--and I mean that, my good 
friend and colleague from the Rules Committee--that we have a distinct

[[Page 18851]]

difference in terms of what a ``timetable'' is. We believe that we are 
here to ensure that we do the people's business and that it is done and 
that we do the funding in appropriations bills in a timely fashion. So 
we are working on that, and we are considering the amendment, and we 
will have an answer on that very shortly.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCURI. I will gladly yield to my friend from Texas.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In listening to some of the discussions earlier of the 
amendments that had been brought before and of their concerns that they 
were not going to be listed, I know that the Rules Committee did the 
right thing in not considering them since a lot of the amendments that 
were talked about earlier, Madam Speaker, were amendments that should 
be dealt more appropriately with the authorizing committees. This is an 
appropriating bill, and they should not be handled in legislation of 
this matter. In appropriating bills, we don't have those amendments. 
They should go with that committee, and we need to respect the 
committees on the authorizing side to make sure that they do the right 
thing and that they do the authorizing and not through an appropriating 
bill.
  I know this is a technical matter that will hopefully get dealt with, 
but in response to the discussions that you had had regarding the 
previous so-called lack of an opportunity to prepare those amendments, 
those amendments belong in an authorizing bill and not in an 
appropriating bill.
  Let me just say that this is a major piece of legislation. It's a 
bill that needs to be passed. Throughout this country, there is a 
tremendous need for our infrastructure. This is a bill that will allow 
for an opportunity to create jobs, additional jobs, and that will make 
things happen, especially for the fast rail system, where it makes an 
investment and begins to look at resources in that area. That's one of 
the areas in this country where we're lacking and where we have to have 
additional resources.
  So I just wanted to take an opportunity to share the importance of 
making sure that we pass this piece of legislation.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, we are ready to 
close, but my understanding is that the majority hasn't finalized its 
amendment to further restrict this process.
  For example, with regard to this Transportation-HUD appropriations 
bill, the original schedule that was put out by the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, before the decision was made to end two 
centuries of precedent and not permit open rules on appropriations 
bills, called for 2 days of debate, but the rule they're bringing to 
the floor limits it, obviously, to 1 day of debate. Now they have an 
amendment to the rule that, apparently, they want to bring forth to 
further limit debate. So I am waiting until our colleagues have 
finalized their amendment to further restrict this process before, 
obviously, I close.
  Having said that, I would ask my friend and colleague if he is ready 
with his further restrictive amendment. I will yield for the answer.
  Mr. ARCURI. With respect to the question, I do take exception to your 
characterization of it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. The question is: With regard to 
the amendment to the rule, are you ready with your amendment to the 
rule?
  Mr. ARCURI. We are not ready.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Then I will reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, first off, may I inquire as to the amount 
of time left on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 12 minutes remaining for the 
gentleman from New York, and there are 15\1/2\ minutes remaining for 
the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. ARCURI. Thank you.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to speak just for a couple of more 
minutes again about the underlying importance of passing this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  I think there is nothing more important than transportation and 
infrastructure for government to ensure exists. When you look back at 
the history of this great institution, the first standing committee 
was, in fact, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, although 
then not called by that very name, but it was critically important. The 
framers saw the importance of having an infrastructure, of having the 
ability to render our ports navigable and of having functional roads. 
At that time, of course, rail and airlines were not even imagined, but 
as we transformed our Nation, it became a critical part of our 
infrastructure. So it is my belief that this rule and the underlying 
bill are critically important.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to lay out on the record 
the amendment that we may be offering.
  The amendment to the rule is, actually, rather minor. The amendment 
will strike from the rule a provision that is no longer necessary. 
There was some concern that the final version of the GPO print might 
not have the same page and line numbers as the ordered reported 
version. That did not occur, so the language in the rule to preserve 
the Members' rights to fix their amendments is no longer needed.
  As I indicated earlier, it is clear that this proposed amendment--
again, we have not offered it yet--is really of a technical nature to 
allow for a correction in the rule that was passed yesterday out of the 
Rules Committee.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, if the amendment 
is so simple, as my friend has pointed out, where is it?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. May I reclaim my time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank my friend for his 
cooperation in this.
  As I indicated earlier, we are considering offering this amendment. 
With that, I would again just like to talk a little bit more about the 
underlying bill.
  The bill that we are considering today, the THUD bill, is, again, 
important at this time. With our economy in the state that it is in, 
clearly, many people believe that the best thing that we can do for the 
economy is to spend on and to develop our infrastructure. It is that 
which we are supposed to do and that which we are asked to do.
  One of the things in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
on which we debate on a very regular basis is the surface 
transportation reauthorization bill, which will come up this year. We 
clearly believe that it is critically important, that it is important 
not only for our infrastructure but as a way of creating jobs. It is 
what we were sent to Congress to do, which is to ensure that our roads 
are safe, to ensure that our airports run and function the way they are 
supposed to and to ensure that our rail transportation infrastructure 
is what it should be.
  Madam Speaker, I would say, at this time, we have decided that we 
will not be offering the amendment. Therefore, I would reserve the 
balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend. He had 
described the amendment, and I had argued against it. Now the decision 
has come not to make it, not to propose the amendment further limiting 
this process. So I thank my friend for having obtained a decision from 
his side of the aisle.

                              {time}  1145

  At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
my good friend the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I as always thank my friend from Miami for 
yielding me this time.
  I have to say I was sitting downstairs watching the proceedings here 
on the floor, and I have to admit, I have been

[[Page 18852]]

privileged to serve for nearly 2 decades on the House Rules Committee, 
and for 8 of those years, I was privileged to serve as chairman of the 
House Rules Committee. I think we've moved into uncharted waters. I 
know that there have been difficulties and the challenge of trying to 
amend rules before in the past, and it has often been done by unanimous 
consent where we've had a bipartisan consensus that some minor 
technical change needed to be made. Well, that doesn't appear to be the 
case right now, Madam Speaker.
  As I've listened to the exchanges take place between my friend from 
Utica and my friend from Miami, I have to admit to being just a little 
bit confused. And I suspect that a number of our colleagues that don't 
have the opportunity to serve on the Rules Committee may be equally 
confused.
  I think that the bottom line here is very clear. I heard a new Member 
from New York take the floor earlier and decry the number of amendments 
that have been filed by Members of the minority, indicating that this 
was somehow unprecedented. Well, the only thing that is unprecedented 
here, Madam Speaker, is the fact--and I'm sure that Mr. Diaz-Balart has 
pointed this out throughout the debate--is the fact that we have never 
before in the history of our Republic gotten to what now I guess is 
appropriations bill number 10--number 9--anyway, and we've nearly 
completed the appropriations process. I know that after this bill we 
will have the Defense appropriations bill, and everyone's holding up 
numbers for me, Madam Speaker. I have to say that I appreciate it. I 
guess we've got two left after this. You all on both sides of the aisle 
are helping me make my point.
  Never before in the history of the Republic have we seen the 
appropriations process closed down from the very beginning. We began 
the process, what was described in old Congress as a modified open rule 
which required preprinting, which did restrict the rights of Members. 
Then we got to the point where within after 20 minutes of debate under 
that modified open rule, we shut down the process and required the 
filing of amendments.
  And now, here we are with two appropriations bills left, and the 
Rules Committee members during debate are seeing some sort of conflict 
taking place I believe between the Appropriations Committee and the 
Rules Committee, and one of the things that we pointed to throughout 
the debate on these last eight or nine appropriations bills has been 
the fact that the Rules Committee has really been controlled by the 
Appropriations Committee. I mean, the entire body has been controlled 
by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, because the Rules 
Committee has simply marched in lockstep to the requests that the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has made.
  Again, it's unprecedented, and the exchange that I've just seen 
taking place here on the House floor is unprecedented, and I hope that 
we can learn from this, Madam Speaker, we can learn that there is 
something called regular order. And all that means is the Democrats and 
Republicans, the representatives of the American people, the 
representatives of Democrats, Republicans, Independents and people who 
aren't even registered to vote across the country, can have their voice 
heard in the appropriations process, as has been the case for 220 
years, if we could have what is known as an open amendment process.
  Again, this is not about Republicans. It's not about Democrats. It's 
about the American people and their voice, their voice in the people's 
House, which is what this place is known as.
  And so, Madam Speaker, it saddens me that we've come to this point, 
and I hope that my friend from Utica and my friend from Miami will 
somehow be able in the next few minutes to be able to bring about a 
reconciliation on this challenge that we've been following.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I ask my friend, he has no 
additional speakers?
  Mr. ARCURI. I have no additional speakers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I thank him for obtaining 
a decision from his leadership and in effect not moving forward with an 
amendment to further limit, further restrict a restrictive rule.
  I'm going to be asking for a ``no'' on the previous question, Madam 
Speaker, so that we can amend this rule so we can go back to regular 
order, so that we can allow for an open process of debate. There is no 
question that this rule that the majority has brought forth will help 
or contribute to cementing a dangerous precedent that the majority 
continued to set last month. It will further damage bipartisanship and 
comity in this body.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that 
we can uphold the tradition of this House, return to the tradition of 
this House, of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills. I 
think, if we do not do so, the majority will come to regret their 
decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on 
appropriations bills.
  I think it's more unfortunate what the majority has done, and they 
realize overturning two centuries of precedent is a significant action, 
and it will inure to the detriment of each and every Member and the 
constituents of each and every Member of this House forever.
  As I said before, majorities are never permanent. My distinguished 
colleague on the Rules Committee who's serving his first term, member 
of the majority party said, I've never seen an open rule on an 
appropriations process--I'm paraphrasing him--but I don't expect to be 
in the majority forever, and so one day I expect to see an open rule on 
an appropriations bill.
  Well, that was an illustrative statement in many ways, one that he 
recognizes that the trend that has been set by the majority of 
restricting the debate process on appropriations bills has now been set 
in a fairly definitive form, but he expects that in the future 
majorities will act differently. And that may not be the case, because 
once precedents are broken, new precedent exists for future majorities, 
and that would be most unfortunate if forever the Members of this House 
are denied the ability to introduce amendments in an open process on 
appropriations bills.
  So, Madam Speaker, I thank you for your courtesy, and 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 yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend from 
Miami for his cooperation in management of this rule and for his 
courtesy in that regard. I appreciate it very much.
  Madam Speaker, the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act funds some 
of the most important initiatives that pay for everything from roads, 
bridges and railroads to housing for veterans and low-income families. 
In my opening remarks, I discussed the critical investments that this 
bill would make in our transportation system. This bill also invests in 
housing programs for vulnerable populations, including retirees, people 
with disabilities, veterans, and even children. The funding is even 
more essential during these tough economic times.
  This bill includes funding to address the problem of homelessness 
among our veterans. All too often the men and women who sacrifice the 
most for our freedom are hit the hardest during times of economic 
crisis. We owe our veterans the utmost respect and gratitude for their 
service, and we must honor the commitment made to them. They should not 
have to return home to be confronted by the possibility of poverty or 
homelessness. To address this, H.R. 3288 includes $75 million for 
veterans affairs housing vouchers to provide 10,000 of these vouchers 
for our homeless veterans.
  It provides $8.7 billion to provide affordable housing to 1.3 million 
low-income families and individuals, two-

[[Page 18853]]

thirds of whom are elderly or disabled. It includes another $1 billion 
to rehabilitate and build new housing for low-income seniors. Currently 
there are 10 eligible seniors on the waiting list for each unit of 
available housing. In America, it is unacceptable that our Greatest 
Generation is faced with this shortage.
  H.R. 3288 also contains important investments to revitalize our local 
communities, including $4.6 billion for community development block 
grants, $25 million for brownfields redevelopment, and $250 million to 
fund the Hope VI competitive grants program to transform neighborhoods 
of extreme poverty into sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods through 
the demolition of severely distressed public housing.
  Madam Speaker, housing and transportation are two areas that must be 
priorities, especially when the economy slows. The funding that H.R. 
3288 provides for these programs will ensure that jobs continue to be 
created and that our Nation's economy continues to recover. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart of Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 669 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert 
     the following:
       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2010, 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 Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, 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.
                                  ____

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

  Mr. ARCURI. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________