[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19145-19156]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3293, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2010

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution H. Res. 673 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 673

       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. 3293) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, 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 134, line 12. 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 the amendments 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, 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. 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

[[Page 19146]]

     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. 3293, 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. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against 
consideration of the rule because the resolution violates section 
426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The resolution carries a waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of 
the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 
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 and 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. Mr. Speaker, I come here today completely baffled at this 
point. We've had in this appropriations season what can best be 
described as martial law, in legislative terms, where we've had 
appropriation bill after appropriation bill come to the floor under a 
closed rule or a modified structured rule, where the majority party 
decides which amendments the minority party can offer.
  I suppose they thought it was amusing at first. They claim it was an 
issue of time. And so some of us on this side that had amendments that 
were ruled in order asked unanimous consent to be able to substitute 
other Members' amendments that had not been ruled in order--amendments 
that were germane--that the majority party simply saw unfit for this 
party to vote on and debate.
  And 16 times that I have asked for unanimous consent, that unanimous 
consent has been denied. So it's not an issue of time at all. It's not 
an issue of time.
  As much as the majority party wants to stand up and say, We've got to 
get these finished because we have a time limit--for one, it's a pretty 
sorry excuse. We do appropriations. That's what the Congress does. And 
to say we've got to get these done in 1 day for the Defense bill next 
week, one day for Labor-HHS today, but then we find out that that's a 
ruse in itself, because if we agree to stay within the time 
constraints, then they still won't allow us to substitute the 
amendments that we would like to offer.
  On this bill, because the majority party had seen fit to give me 
several amendments on bills to cut earmarks that they knew would likely 
not pass because of the logrolling that takes effect here, I decided on 
this bill, although there were plenty of targets, I believe there were 
over a thousand earmarks in the bill, I decided not to offer one 
earmark amendment. So surely, surely the majority party would see fit 
to allow a few of my colleagues' amendments in order so they couldn't 
say, Oh, we gave you 10 amendments. Of course, 8 of those were Flake 
earmark amendments. But we gave you 10.
  So I didn't submit any. Not one. Our party submitted 12 amendments--
12 amendments--and we were given 4. Just four amendments. One was given 
to I think the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and several, my 
understanding, were rolled into the manager's amendment.
  I would love to hear--and I will retain my time--but hear what the 
Rules Committee is thinking here, or why they see fit to deny the 
majority party the ability to offer amendments.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my good friend for whom I have 
great affection began his remarks by saying he's baffled. Well, I'm 
baffled and befuddled by the many actions that my good friend from 
Arizona persists in bringing to the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Start with the fact--and the distinguished chair of the 
Appropriations Committee will outline the particulars of the bill--but 
start with the fact that there are no unfunded mandates in this 
particular provision.
  So, once again, this point of order is not about unfunded mandates. 
It's about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate 
and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation 
itself.
  I think that's wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so 
we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop 
it, as my friend would try to do, on a procedural motion.
  Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We 
must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today.
  Now I have the right to close, but in the end I'm going to urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule, and take one final 
moment to ask my friend to consider what he does when he persists, as 
is his right as a Member of this body, in coming here repeatedly after 
every measure that he wishes to put forward.
  What does he think he is doing to the legislative council of this 
office? There are 441 Members that ought to be able to access that 
body, and many of us find our legislation at the back of the track for 
the reason that we are coming here with what amounts to nothing but 
process motions that everybody has heard.
  We have an expression here--and children use it frequently--``I got 
the memo.'' Or, ``I got it.'' We hear him on this particular subject. 
He can vote on it at any such time, but it is the Rules Committee that 
makes the determination as to what rules are going to be on the floor 
of the House of Representatives.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. FLAKE. I think the gentleman doth protest a little too much. We 
are here on the unfunded mandate thing because it's the only 
opportunity we've got. We've been shut out of just about everything 
else. We offered 12 amendments to a bill that typically has dozens and 
dozens and dozens and which typically we spend a couple of days on. 
We're told, ``We've got to get it done today, and we're only going to 
allow four amendments from the other side, and they are the four that 
we pick.'' I mean, what has this legislative body come to? I suppose 
the gentleman was referring to the 540 amendments that I have offered 
for the Defense bill. I have offered 540 because that represents the 
number of no-bid contracts that this body is authorizing for private 
companies in the Defense bill. That's why there are investigations 
swirling around this body. Yet we come to the floor and authorize 540--
not authorize--we appropriate money for 540 no-bid contracts. So I make 
no apology at all for offering 540 amendments. But I knew that I didn't 
want to tie the hands and tie up Legislative Counsel. That's something 
that I worry about. So we went to them and said, ``How can we do this 
without causing you trouble?'' They gave us a template, and we've done 
it all in our office. My staff and other staffs were up nearly all 
night last night, making 30 copies of 540 amendments on our own--not 
taking any of Legislative Counsel's time--just so we could do this body 
and this institution the favor of trying to actually vet some of the 
earmarks, no-bid contracts for private companies, that come through 
this body. And then we

[[Page 19147]]

get scolded for that; and to say, ``You're taking up too much time. 
We've given you four amendments on this bill and you should be happy 
with it''? These crumbs that fall from the table, the Appropriations 
Committee and the Rules Committee, just be happy with it. Go on your 
merry way. It just is baffling. I don't know what else to say. I don't 
know what else we can do on this side. But bad process always begets 
bad policy, and it will come back to bite at some point. I just wish 
the majority party would realize that this martial law on 
appropriations bills is not justified. You shouldn't do it just because 
you can.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand duly chastised by my 
friend from Arizona. I am delighted that he took up his office's time 
and not the Office of Legislative Counsel's time in order to provide 
the amendments that I still consider to be spurious. Perhaps it is that 
he would urge not wasting his staff's time then. But there have been 
other times, by virtue of the repetition, that Legislative Counsel has 
been burdened, template or not. There are other Members in this body 
that exercise that abuse process, including another one that I am 
watching, and that is the use of privileged motions for purposes of 
legislating. Assume that every Member in this body wanted to use that 
prerogative, then we would never be able to get our work done. Yes, it 
is the responsibility of the majority to see to it that the business of 
the people of this country moves along.
  I, again, want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion 
to consider so we can debate and pass this important piece of 
legislation today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 4\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. If I was looking to waste time and 
to delay, I would call a vote on this. That would take this body an 
extra half-hour or so. I am not going to do so. I know I'm going to 
lose this. But somebody at some point has to stand up and say, We're 
not potted plants over here. We're in the minority, yes. But we do have 
some rights, we think. The gentleman said that these amendments that 
I'll be offering to the Defense bill today are spurious. Last year I 
would have loved to have been able to offer some of these amendments, 
but I didn't have any ability at all. Not one amendment was offered to 
earmarks in the Defense bill. Why? Because it was a closed rule 
completely. It came in in mini-bus form, and no amendments at all were 
offered. That's happened, to some extent, over a couple of years. And 
what has happened during that time? Earmarks have been awarded, no-bid 
contracts to private companies, that are now being investigated because 
money went out; and individuals have already pled guilty to taking that 
earmarked money and spreading it around to some companies that did no 
work, none. They've already pled guilty for it. Again, we're bringing 
to the floor next week a Defense bill as if nothing's wrong, nothing's 
happening, no investigations are occurring. We're still going to award 
no-bid contracts to private companies. And yeah, we might hide some 
language or put some language in the bill that says, Well, these things 
are really going to be bid out. But the Defense Department, if you ask 
them today, Do you bid these things out? They say, Yes, we're required 
to. Except when we don't, when we issue what's called a J&A, and we 
decide, Well, we're really not going to bid that one out because it was 
asked for by Congress.
  That is just unbelievable to me that we are accused of being spurious 
when we attempt to bring earmark amendments to the floor to vet in some 
way, shallow though it may be on the floor of the House, it's all we've 
got because we only got a list of these earmarks this week, we're 
scolded and told that we're spurious for asking for just a smidgeon of 
accountability here for the sponsor of the earmark to stand up and 
justify why he thinks or she thinks that she has the ability to award a 
no-bid contract to a private company whose executives may turn around 
and give big amounts of money to that Member. That's being investigated 
in some cases by the Department of Justice.
  And we say, We should be able to do it, and no Member should be able 
to question it, that we shouldn't be able to raise it on the floor of 
the House. I just don't get it. Every time I think I have seen it all, 
I haven't. And today to be scolded for bringing amendments to the 
floor, and then to have the majority party bring 12 and to be told that 
we should be happy because they have seen fit to choose four of those 
amendments, allow us to offer them, and we should be somehow grateful 
and should embrace this rule just blows me away.
  I don't know what to say, Mr. Speaker. But I would urge this Congress 
not to move ahead with this bill in this fashion. There is no 
requirement that we have to do this today any more than you have to do 
health care this week or next week. We're a deliberative body, I hope; 
and we should deliberate just a little bit more.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  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 Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is 
for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as 
I may consume.
  The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3293, the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 under a structured rule. 
The Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill provides $160.7 billion for 
fiscal year 2010 and continues this Congress' commitment to fiscal 
responsibility by coming in $52 million below the President's request, 
and cutting 46 individual programs to ensure that taxpayer funds are 
used in the most effective way. This bill also includes $1.1 billion 
for activities to reduce improper payments, abuse and fraud in the 
Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services and in the Social 
Security Administration, which could result in over $48 billion in 
taxpayer savings over the next 10 years. During these difficult 
economic times, it is more important than ever that we not only spend 
taxpayer funds prudently but that we make the necessary investments to 
move our economy forward.
  This bill provides $64.7 billion for the Department of Education to 
prepare America's youth for an increasingly competitive global economy 
and to ensure that all Americans have access to the education needed to 
succeed. Funds in this bill, combined with the funds in the Recovery 
Act, will provide States with $4 billion in grants under the School 
Improvement Fund which will target assistance to approximately 13,000 
low-performing schools. This bill also boosts Pell Grants which help 
approximately 7.6 million low- and middle-income students pay for 
college each year. Further, it provides $653 million to Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions and 
other developing institutions and nearly triples new loan guarantees 
for HBCUs.
  As we prepare our youth for the jobs of tomorrow, we must also 
protect and develop our current workforce. This bill restores the 
Department of Labor's capacity to enforce laws that protect the wages, 
safety and benefits of workers. It also helps those who lost their

[[Page 19148]]

jobs during the course of this recession by providing $1.4 billion for 
training and supportive services. Of these funds, $50 million will be 
used to prepare workers in green industries, not only helping to 
provide Americans with decent, good-paying jobs but also helping the 
American economy be more competitive.
  This bill, recognizing the incredible burden that this economic 
crisis has placed on countless Americans, also provides much-needed 
assistance to our vulnerable populations. It will help families stay 
warm through the winter by providing $5.1 billion for the low-income 
energy assistance program. It will boost nutrition, transportation and 
other supportive services for seniors by providing $1.5 billion for 
senior nutrition and other services; and it will relieve some of the 
pressure placed on the Social Security Administration by providing 
$11.4 billion to help the agency process the rising number of claims 
and reduce its current backlog.
  Finally, as we in Congress work to pass health care reform in the 
coming weeks, this bill will help build the capacity of our health care 
system and provide funding for job training in the health care sector, 
one of the strongest and fastest-growing sectors in our economy. My 
colleagues are well aware that a whole lot of people, well over 47 
million people in our Nation, are uninsured. In the district that I am 
privileged to serve, 25 percent of my constituents lack health care 
coverage. This bill provides $2.2 billion for Community Health Centers, 
which provide primary care to 17 million patients, 40 percent of which 
are uninsured. While such centers provide a vital service, there are 
still far too many individuals that go without any primary care at all, 
endangering their health and increasing the burden on taxpayers by 
getting treatment when their illnesses have become serious and their 
care several times more costly. In my home State of Florida, over 
971,000 women are in need of publicly supported family planning 
services; yet only 35 percent of them are currently being met through 
public funding providers.
  While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will throw--and 
have thrown--insulting accusations and deceitful claims, what we should 
be talking about today is how to further support the essential 
community providers, such as Planned Parenthood, during a provider 
shortage in this country rather than making it harder for women and 
families to access vital health care.

                              {time}  0945

  For 8 years, the Republican administration placed the needs of the 
wealthy and the privileged before those of the middle class and the 
poor, and now we are paying the price. I have listened to my Republican 
colleagues for the past week beat the drum of fiscal responsibility. 
Quite frankly, this is laughable at best.
  These are the same people who claim to be deficit hawks, but quite 
frankly, the real truth is that Republicans instituted tax cuts for 
extremely wealthy people in this country and new spending programs that 
took our Nation from surplus to debt. And my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle participated in decreasing taxes for wealthy people 
at a time when we were at war. It was the only time in the history of 
this country when we were at war that we decreased taxes. And then when 
we did it, we did it for the best of us in our society, as far as 
wealth is concerned. The Republicans lecturing us on fiscal 
responsibility is like Al Capone lecturing about crime on the street. 
It doesn't pass the laugh test.
  With our economy in turmoil, Democrats are picking up the pieces of 
the Bush administration and restoring this Congress' responsibilities 
to protect our Nation's health and social safety nets to ensure equal 
access to a quality education and to develop a globally competitive 
workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the gentleman from 
Florida yielding me such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let's just go to the words that people have. Republicans 
cut taxes and employed people, 5.3 million new jobs. The Democrats put 
their spending plan on the floor and said we would have jobs and more 
jobs, and we don't. So regardless of what the gentleman talks about 
with all these big tax breaks, they worked. They employed people. 
People had jobs. And in the scheme of things, Mr. Speaker, that's good 
for all of us. So I will stand behind those tax cuts that employed this 
country, as opposed to unemployment, the highest unemployment in 26 
years, by our friends, the Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, today I stand about this structured rule, and I stand in 
opposition. My friends on the other side of the aisle, for the first 
time in the history of the Republic, have shut down the appropriations 
process by placing an extremely restrictive rule on every single 
appropriations bill that has come to the floor this year.
  Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin has set an arbitrary timeline to 
finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills which has forced this 
Congress and the Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every 
Republican's and Democrat's chance to offer an amendment on the floor. 
Hundreds of amendments have been offered by all of my colleagues, and 
they have been rejected in an unprecedented fashion. I ask, once again, 
Mr. Speaker, what is the majority afraid of? Why are we doing this for 
the first time in the history of this Republic? Why won't they allow 
for the open and honest debate that they called for just a few years 
ago?
  In order to operate under the needlessly short debate that my friends 
on the other side of the aisle have forced Republicans to pursue, my 
colleagues and I offered 12 amendments to ensure that a thoughtful and 
constructive debate could take place. We helped manage ourselves before 
we came to the Rules Committee. Yet what happened? Only four were made 
in order, while the Democrats had seven of their offered amendments 
rolled right into the manager's amendment.
  This Democrat Congress, in unprecedented fashion, continues to reject 
and silence the American public and to muzzle Members on the floor of 
the House of Representatives, not allowing their voices to be heard on 
the people's floor.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. It is 
my intent to focus on this huge increase in spending over last year's 
level and to discuss the majority party's destructive initiatives that 
continue to kill jobs and lead to record deficits; that is, kill jobs 
and record deficits under control of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the 
Democrat-held Senate, and President Barack Obama. This is their policy 
that we are debating on the floor today.
  This underlying legislation is a 7 percent, or $10.6 billion, 
increase above the current year's spending levels, and that's excluding 
the $126 billion in stimulus funding that these programs have already 
received. Since 2007, funding for programs under Labor, Health and 
Human Services and Education have increased a whopping 93 percent. This 
bill does not represent a commitment, or any commitment, to fiscal 
sustainability. We simply cannot keep doing this. But, here we are 
again today. It will cost us jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, we will continue to ask, where are the jobs? With this 
legislation, Congress only further slows down economic recovery and 
increases the financial burden being placed on our children and 
grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?
  The Obama administration promised Americans that unemployment would 
not go beyond 8 percent, that they would create and save millions of 
jobs if Congress simply passed the stimulus. Here we are, months later, 
with a record 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years, 
and 2 million Americans have lost their job since the passage of this 
massive $1.2 trillion stimulus plan. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?
  Earlier this month, when discussing the stimulus, Vice President 
Biden said the Obama administration misread how bad the economy was. 
The Obama administration got it wrong when it

[[Page 19149]]

came to $1.2 trillion of taxpayer spending by this Democrat Congress. 
The American people can no longer afford for this Democrat-controlled 
House, Senate, and White House to get it wrong. Where are the jobs?
  Last month, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap-
and-trade bill that top White House economic advisers had suggested 
could actually cost up to $1.9 billion, raising prices on energy, goods 
and services for every American, an increase for every American back 
home, between $1,200 and $1,600 a year. Additionally, this legislation 
would kill up to 2 million manufacturing jobs. Mr. Speaker, we have to 
ask again, where are the jobs? Oh, we are beginning to find out that 
they are in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, next week, this Democrat-controlled Congress wants to 
pass sweeping health care reform that effectively will kill employer-
based insurance marketplaces and force 114 million Americans into a 
government-run program, a program where government bureaucrats will be 
choosing what doctor-and-patient relationships will be and what 
procedures will be covered by that doctor.
  This $1.2 trillion package raises taxes on individuals and small 
businesses that do not participate in the government plan, and up to 
$818 billion will be the cost, which, according to a model developed by 
the President's own economic adviser team, will result in 4.7 million 
employees losing their job. Mr. Speaker, we ask, once again, where are 
the jobs?
  This is economic insanity. The American people know that you 
shouldn't spend what you don't have. But that is exactly what Ms. 
Pelosi and this Democrat majority is doing. Mr. Speaker, we ask, once 
again, where are the jobs?
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama 
administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in 5 years. 
Mr. Speaker, we would ask, where are the jobs?
  Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office released a 
Monthly Budget Review that states that the Federal budget deficit 
reached $1.1 trillion during the month of June. As of June 30, the 
national debt stood at $11.5 trillion. Mr. Speaker, we will ask again, 
where are the jobs?
  Especially at a time of deep economic recession, Congress should be 
promoting progrowth policies that reduce spending, increase job growth, 
and give Americans confidence. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?
  The deficit has increased $1.7 trillion, or 1,000 percent, since the 
Democrats took control of this House of Representatives 3 years ago. 
Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?
  It has gone from a $162 billion fiscal deficit to a projected $2 
trillion this year. Mr. Speaker, we ask, where are the jobs?
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to point out to our 
friends on the other side of the aisle that we cannot tax, spend, and 
borrow our way out of this country's economic recession. Our Democrat 
colleagues need to get a handle on this out-of-control spending that, 
once again, they are bringing to the floor of the House of 
Representatives today to pursue an ever-growing American government 
size. Rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with 
massive increases in government spending. Mr. Speaker, where are the 
jobs?
  Huge energy and health care bills will raise taxes and kill jobs. Mr. 
Speaker, the American public understands this. They know that the 
Republican Party has better ideas, and that's why we're on the floor of 
the House of Representatives today. I encourage a ``no'' vote but will, 
once again, ask the question, where are the jobs?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am challenged to answer my 
good friend from Texas before I yield to the distinguished chairperson 
of the Appropriations Committee.
  The mantra that I just heard from my colleague asks a legitimate 
question, where are the jobs? I can't attest to everyplace in the 
United States of America, but I do know this about the area that I'm 
privileged to serve.
  Four months ago, 400 school teachers received slips indicating that 
their jobs were going to be lost. Since that time, money provided from 
the stimulus package has come into the system. When I was home this 
past weekend, I was very pleased to read that 124 of those school 
teachers have been called back to work and that it is expected that the 
next tranche will allow for all of them to be called back to work. It's 
a special concern to me, because one of those persons was a young lady 
that worked with me when she was in high school.
  So, some things are turning. Some jobs are being created. But I would 
not have the American public believe that the recession began when 
Barack Obama became President. The recession began in December, and the 
job attrition was taking place then. We are in a transformational 
posture in this country of ours, and we are going to see the kind of 
uptick in jobs at the time that the stimulus takes full impact.

                              {time}  1000

  I would like, at this time, to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has worked actively to try to 
get us in a position where we can answer that ``where are the jobs.'' 
And my question is, Why did they lose so many before they started 
asking the question, Where are the jobs?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I don't particularly care to get into a 
partisan diatribe this morning. I recognize that the gentleman from 
Texas is the chairman of the Republican House Congressional Campaign 
Committee, and I can understand, in his position, why he would be 
willing to look anywhere he can to try to find the slightest issue 
which he thinks can restore his party to the majority status in this 
House.
  And I sympathize with them because I suspect that he's going to have 
to strain at gnats often in order to accomplish that. And one such 
example is the objection that they're raising to the rule this morning 
with respect to amendments.
  I want to walk you through, Mr. Speaker, what the facts are on the 
amendments that were offered to this bill. There were 35 amendments 
that were initially filed for the bill. On the Democratic side there 
were 21. Seven of those amendments were not in order because they 
violated the rules of the House, so they were set aside.
  That left 14 left. Of the 14 that were left, nine of them are now 
going to be wholly or partially incorporated into the manager's 
amendment with the agreement of the sponsors. That leaves five left. 
Two of those amendments, in the judgment of the Rules Committee, were 
related to arguments that better belonged in the authorizing 
committees.
  Another was, and I'm sure the gentleman from Arizona will be shocked 
by this, another would have added an earmark which would not have been 
eligible for funding under the program to which the earmark wanted to 
be attached, so the Rules Committee turned that down. And then two of 
those amendments, the remaining two, were dropped with the 
understanding that we would try to strengthen funding for the programs 
involved when we move to conference. So we've dealt with all of the 
amendments on the Democratic side.
  On the Republican side there were 14 amendments that were offered. 
Initially, nine of them were out of order. They were worked with, and 
that reduced the number to four amendments that were out of order under 
House rules and subject to point of order. That left 10 Republican 
amendments.
  Three of those issues, again, in the judgment of the Rules Committee, 
were determined to be issues that more appropriately should be dealt 
with in the health care reform bill. Example: one sought to prevent us 
from creating a public plan in the health insurance bill. I did not 
know that the Appropriations Committee was so talented that, in 
addition to handling the budget matters, it's also supposed to 
interfere in judgments about health care reform. Evidently, some people 
think they should. I think the Rules Committee was right.
  Another amendment dealt with an issue that had been disposed of in 
the

[[Page 19150]]

authorizing committee, the Education and Labor Committee, in the same 
week. And then there was one other amendment that simply rehashed an 
old campaign argument, a matter which relates to elections and more 
properly belongs in either the Judiciary Committee or the House 
Administration Committee, which oversees elections.
  That leaves five remaining Republican amendments. Four of them were 
made in order. Four of them were made in order, four out of the five 
remaining amendments. And there was only one that was not made in 
order, and that one was an amendment that simply sought to stuff an 
additional $1 billion into a program that had already been increased by 
$12 billion.
  So if someone wants to make a Federal case out of the fact that one 
amendment was denied, be my guest. I've seen worse offenses around 
here.
  With respect to the budget, I'm not going to get into a partisan 
debate. All I want to say is this: both Presidents, Bush and President 
Obama, were faced with terrible problems when the economy collapsed 
late last year. We were losing 700,000 full-time jobs at a time when 
Mr. Obama was still waiting to take the oath to be sworn in, and so he 
inherited a terrible problem. Both President Bush and President Obama 
wound up having to push a lot of money into the financial sector of the 
economy to solve our economic problems. This bill takes care of the 
rest of the economy, and I hope we get to it and support it when it 
comes before the House.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm saddened that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin believes that if I bring up a question about jobs, that 
that's political. It shouldn't be. It's not on our side. It's just a 
fact of the matter. We don't know where the jobs are. We were promised 
these jobs.
  Secondly, it's good for me to learn that now I know who runs the 
Rules Committee, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, because 
I thought that the chairman of the Rules Committee did, but I found out 
now it's run by the Appropriations chair. At least I know that answer 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indianapolis, Indiana, Mr. Burton.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, in 1965, this Congress passed the 
Federal Family Education Loan Program Act, and it was designed to 
provide private funds for college students' loans. And since 1965, this 
program has provided over 194 million loans to college students, with 
private funds, and they've delivered about $695 billion in loans.
  The problem that we have is unemployment right now. It's 9.5 percent 
nationwide. And in Indiana, my State, it's 10.7 percent. And we have 
35,000 jobs nationwide that work for this education program funded by 
private funds, and 2,400 people in Indiana. Now, Mr. Carter and I, 
Congressman Carter and I had an amendment that would guarantee the 
survivability of this program because it has helped so many college 
students get loans.
  And what the Democrats are trying to do is they're trying to have a 
direct loan program take the place of the privately funded program that 
we now have, and that the government and the taxpayers will be paying 
for that loan. It's one more attempt for them to put everything that we 
do, day and night, under the control of the Federal Government.
  Now, why in the world, when we have a program that's providing 
millions of loans to college students, without taxpayer dollars funding 
it, why would we want to change to a direct loan program and have the 
taxpayers underwrite it, especially at a time when the economy is going 
down the tubes and we're spending trillions of dollars on many programs 
we don't even need; the automobile industry, the banking financial 
industry, the health care industry, energy, all of those things?
  And now they're going after education by trying to come up with a 
direct loan program that the taxpayers will have to pay for, and the 
private funding that's now being used will not be utilized. It will 
cost somewhere between 30,000 and 35,000 jobs across the country. Now, 
they want us to have more jobs. Here's a chance to preserve 30,000 to 
35,000 jobs by not having the government step in and take over the 
financing of college loans for students.
  And yet you want to have the government take over, the Department of 
Education, take over the direct funding program, take it away from the 
private sector and independent funding so we would have more government 
control and cost another 35,000 jobs we're going to put into the 
unemployment lines. It makes no sense to me.
  My colleagues, I'm very disappointed you did not allow this under the 
rule. We should have fully debated this on the floor. I think you just 
didn't want to debate it because you don't want the American people to 
see, once again, we're putting everything under the control of 
government, every aspect of their lives and now including education.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  Congressman Carter and I submitted an amendment to Rules Committee 
that was rejected. It was a legitimate and appropriate amendment for 
this bill. Unfortunately, under the House Leadership's modus operandi 
of ``it's our way or the highway,'' I shouldn't be too surprised that 
it was not accepted.
  Here's what the amendment would have done. The amendment stated that 
no funds may be used to promulgate, amend, or repeal any regulation 
pursuant to the Federal Family Education Loan program.
  Although the Carter-Burton Amendment will not be debated today, I 
wanted to make sure that my colleagues know what the damage may be.
  First, I want to thank my colleague from Texas, Representative John 
Carter, for working with me on this amendment. I very much appreciate 
his efforts on the Appropriations Committee to preserve the FEDERAL 
FAMILY EDUCATION LENDING PROGRAM.
  The Rules Committee should have supported the Carter-Burton 
amendment, and I will tell you why.


        THE FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION LOAN PROGRAM (FFELP) WORKS

  The Federal Family Education Loan Program--FFELP for short--was first 
established as part of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and has 
provided higher education funding for 53, tens of millions of 
Americans.
  Since its creation, FFELP has disbursed more than 194 million loans 
to college students totaling nearly 695 billion.
  A key component of FFELP is that it utilizes private capital, not 
taxpayer dollars, to fund loans with the Federal Government providing 
guarantees against loss.
  Competition and choice in student loan delivery and support are 
hallmarks of the Federal Family Education Loan Program.


                       EFFORTS TO DISMANTLE FFELP

  Right now there are efforts underway to weaken and dismantle the 
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP).
  The President's FY2010 budget plan contained a proposal that would 
effectively end FFLEP and force all student loans through the 
government's Direct Lending.
  The President's plan calls for all Federal student loans--beginning 
with the 2010-2011 academic year--to be made under the Direct Lending 
Program. Moving to 100 percent Direct Lending in 2010-2011 coincides 
with--the expiration of the temporary loan purchase programs that were 
authorized by Congress in response to the credit crunch that swept this 
country last year.
  The Department of Education is currently using appropriated dollars 
to implement the President's proposal, which has been considered by 
neither house of Congress, nor is authorized under current law.
  They are writing letters to schools, enhancing systems, and otherwise 
using appropriated funds for a proposal not authorized by Congress.
  Evidence of this comes in the form of a July 8, 2009, letter from the 
Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid at the Department of 
Education to college presidents detailing the steps the Department is 
taking to ensure a smooth transition into the Direct Loan Program.
  Quotes from the July 8th letter from the Department of Education to 
college presidents:

       Since the President's announcement last February, we have 
     taken numerous steps to ensure a smooth process for the 
     transition of schools into the Direct Lending Program. We 
     have expanded the capacity of the automated system that is 
     used for the origination of Direct Loans.
       Of course, what is most important to you and your 
     colleagues at other colleges and universities is whether 
     campuses will be ready to move to Direct Lending. To assist

[[Page 19151]]

     you, we will establish the electronic accounts that will 
     enable your institutions to electronically send and receive 
     Direct Loan records and reports. The establishment of these 
     accounts does not obligate your institution to move to the 
     Direct Lending Program at this time; it simply takes care of 
     one of the first steps, so that when you are ready you can 
     select the Direct Loan processing and funding options that 
     work best for you.
       However, to ensure a smooth transition, please encourage 
     your staff to learn more about the Direct Loan Program and 
     the business processes that are used to deliver these 
     important financial resources to students and families. If 
     they run into any problems that have not been satisfactorily 
     addressed by our staff please let me know immediately.

  The Rules Committee should have supported this amendment if they were 
serious about preserving American jobs. More than 30,000 private sector 
jobs nationwide are directly connected to the Federal Family Education 
Loan Program.
  In my home state of Indiana 2,356 people are employed in the FFELP 
industry. In my district--the 5th Congressional District of Indiana--
there are more than 1,500 jobs. The Nation's unemployment rate is 
running around 9.5 percent. In Indiana, which has been hit extremely 
hard by the current economy, the unemployment rate is 10.7 percent.
  This amendment was a chance for this House to support thousands of 
hard-working Americans who are employed in industries supporting the 
Federal Family Education Loan Program.
  Without the Carter-Burton Amendment, we leave open the door to the 
very real possibility that the existing FFELP infrastructure, which 
supports over 35,000 jobs nationwide, could be dismantled.
  If you believe in a student loan industry that is driven by consumer 
choice, competition, continuous innovation, and dedicated customer 
service then you should join me in opposing this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would like, at this time, to ask of the 
Speaker how much time remains on each side, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 15\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from Texas has 16 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, 
my good friend, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro.
  Mr. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I 
commend the chairman and the staff for an excellent bill which reflects 
our noblest priorities as a Nation. It has been said that a society 
should be judged by how it treats it's least fortunate members. And 
with this bill, I believe we do our Nation proud. The goal of the bill 
has always been to make a strong investment in our future, to take 
seriously our responsibilities to the American public on the issues 
that affect people every single day, from our health, to our children's 
education, to scientific research that will unlock the cures of 
tomorrow, from protecting workers to providing the training that they 
need to succeed in today's economy.
  Our bill does not disappoint. And, yes, to help States serve both the 
14 million unemployed Americans and the many more millions of 
underemployed Americans, the bill provides resources for training, for 
supportive services to workers affected by mass layoffs and plant 
closures.
  On worker protection, the bill provides an increase to key health and 
safety programs that protect the more than 140 million strong American 
workforce. On education, the bill restores critical funding to Title 1 
so that disadvantaged children can continue to gain the educational 
skills that they need to thrive. On special needs education, the bill 
says to our States, the Federal Government is going to begin to make 
good on its promise, not leave you with an unfunded mandate to pick up 
the cost for special needs kids, but we are going to make a 
contribution to that, and we do so with a 25 percent Federal 
contribution.
  I'm personally grateful to the chairman for continuing the funding 
for the Even Start Program. The bill makes real progress toward aiding 
college students with a significant increase in the Pell Grant, 
allowing us to raise the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,550. And with 
regard to my colleague's comments on direct loans, yes, essentially 
what we're doing there is taking bank profit out of that equation and 
allowing for families to be able to get the kinds of loans that they 
need for their children without having to pay additional money to add 
to the coffers and the profits of banks.
  In the area of medical research, the bill provides continued 
investment and lifesaving innovations at the National Institutes of 
Health, provides resources to lead us into the future of a new health 
care system. The bill insures that 7\1/2\ million low-income households 
continue to receive home energy assistance. It supports the Community 
Service Block Grant. It allows States to expand critical services such 
as housing, home weatherization, parenting education, adult literacy 
classes and emergency food assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill not only reflects a commitment to our 
longstanding responsibilities, but this Congress' continued commitment 
to fiscal responsibility. In addition to the investments which are 
made, the program includes terminations, reductions and other savings 
when compared to last year totaling $1.3 billion and $3.3 billion when 
compared to what the budget request was about.
  We will accomplish a lot of goodwill with this bill. I especially 
want to highlight and commend Chairman Obey for again including the 
Reducing the Need for Abortion Initiative, total investment of $7.8 
billion for programs such as Title X and Healthy Start teen pregnancy 
prevention, adoption awareness, after school programs and child care 
programs for new parents attending college, just to name a few.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of this subcommittee. Its 
members and the work that we do every year, we live up to our moral 
responsibility to promote the general welfare, care and comfort the 
afflicted. It makes opportunity real for millions of Americans.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this floor is home to lots of people and 
to lots of ideas, but once again, we see from a senior member of the 
Democratic Party the words ``fiscal responsibility'' attached to this 
Congress. Incredible. Secondly, we heard, ``and let's take the bank 
profits out of the equation.'' Once again, the dialogue from this floor 
is really to bankrupt this country and to kill the free enterprise 
system. I see it firsthand right here on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman, the 
ranking member of Education, Labor and the Work Force, the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition of this rule. Yet 
again, this majority is stifling debate, and it is limiting 
opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle to have a say in 
how we fund vital and some not so vital spending programs. 
Unfortunately, this time, it comes at the expense of some of our 
Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here because I had hoped to debate an amendment 
that would benefit every school in America and would begin to fulfill a 
commitment that has been slighted by Congress for far too long. This 
amendment, offered by Mr. Tiahrt of Kansas and myself, would have 
provided critical support for the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA.
  This act was created in 1975 to help States provide a free, 
appropriate public education for children with disabilities. At that 
time, Congress told the States that Congress would provide 40 percent 
of the excess costs of educating these students. Now, almost 35 years 
later, that funding stands below 17 percent, and even with the onetime 
spike of the stimulus bill, we fall far short of the 40 percent. We are 
overdue in keeping our promises here. We must fulfill this commitment. 
Our amendment would have taken a small step toward that goal by giving 
the IDEA an additional $1 billion this year. Had it been ruled in 
order, this amendment would have increased funding for IDEA to 18.3

[[Page 19152]]

percent, and it would have put us on a course toward meeting this 
obligation for the long term.
  This may be seen as a small step, but Mr. Tiahrt and I believe it is 
time to put first things first, and that means living up to our funding 
commitments under IDEA before we create and expand unnecessary programs 
that are contained in this bill. If we were to fully fund IDEA, our 
local schools would have more of their own money to use for their 
specific needs, whether that is recruiting new teachers and the best 
new technology, reducing class sizes, or encouraging community service.
  Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of amendment that should have 
been made in order. It is 100 percent germane. It addresses priorities 
within the confines of the jurisdiction of this bill.
  Should we spend more money on a new program or should we meet our 
commitment? We, the Members of this body, all of us, ought to have the 
chance to say where those priorities lie. Do they lie with our schools 
across the board, with every school in America? Do they lie with our 
children's special needs or do they lie with some new program? That is 
a fair debate and one we ought to be having.
  What has happened is, perhaps the chairman, perhaps the Rules 
Committee chairman, perhaps leadership on the other side has decided 
what those priorities ought to be, and the rest of us will have no say 
in making that determination. This body is supposed to have the 
opportunity to represent our constituents, to represent our best 
judgment and to give us a say in where those priorities are, and this 
rule denies that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when I was a child, there was a 
radio program called ``Let's Pretend.'' It came on Saturdays. I really 
enjoyed that program, and I'm beginning to enjoy my colleagues who 
pretend as if other days didn't exist. Twelve billion dollars was put 
in the exact same program that the previous speaker spoke about just 
past. Not one Member of the Republican Party voted for it. Come on, 
gang. Let's stop playing ``let's pretend.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong 
opposition to the Pence amendment.
  At a time when we are consumed with discussions of expanding health 
care to the uninsured and on improving our health care system, I find 
this amendment confusing. The Pence amendment would effectively cut off 
1.7 million women from what, in many cases, serves as their primary 
care provider, Planned Parenthood.
  Aren't we trying to expand coverage, not limit it?
  Thirty-six percent of women receiving family planning care through 
the Title X program do so through Planned Parenthood. Let's be clear: 
These services do not include abortion. Title X dollars are prohibited 
from being spent on abortion. The services we are talking about cutting 
include breast exams, the testing for cervical cancer, the screenings 
for sexually transmitted diseases, HIV screening, and family planning 
services.
  Planned Parenthood has worked for over 90 years to educate women 
about pregnancy and to help prevent unintended pregnancies and, thus, 
the need for abortion. For 1.7 million, the only medical care they will 
be able to receive this year is from a provider at Planned Parenthood. 
Why, when we are working so diligently to reform our health care 
system, would we take away the only source of health care to so many 
women?
  Vote ``no'' on this destructive amendment. Vote ``no'' on the Pence 
amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, the Republican 
Conference chairman (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise 
in support of the Pence amendment.
  I welcome the opportunity to debate my distinguished colleague on the 
topic on the floor, and will do so respectfully in an effort to 
alleviate what he described as his confusion about the bill.
  A couple of basic facts: Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion 
provider in America. According to their annual report, most recently, 
they boasted of having performed more than 300,000 abortions in this 
country.
  Another fact: Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of Federal 
funding under Title X. According to that same annual report, Planned 
Parenthood received approximately $350 million in government grants and 
contracts.
  The Pence amendment before the Congress today simply states that none 
of the funds made available under this act shall be available to 
Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health 
Services Act. The largest abortion provider in America should not also 
be the largest recipient of Federal funding under Title X. As I believe 
a majority of the American people would attest, the time has come to 
deny all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America.
  Now the case for that: The Public Health Services Act was first 
enacted in 1946 and in 1970. It included the creation of Title X. Title 
X is the only Federal grant program that provides Americans with 
comprehensive family planning and related preventative health care 
services.
  As my colleague just said, let me echo: Title X does provide a broad 
range of important and quality services to the underserved community in 
this country. Over 4 million Americans are served every year, 67 
percent of whom are low-income. Approximately 600,000 abortions are 
prevented by Title X family planning funding, and it's reassuring to 
many of us that abstinence education is required of many clinics.
  First, the Pence amendment does not cut or reduce the budget for 
family planning by one penny. Let me say that again to my colleagues in 
the majority, to whom I am grateful today to have been extended the 
opportunity to bring this amendment. The Pence amendment does not cut 
one penny from the budget of Title X.
  Also, let me make a very clear point. I understand that current law 
and regulation prevents Title X funds from going directly to fund 
abortions, as my colleague just said, but there is no question that the 
money that Planned Parenthood receives for its operational expenses 
from the Federal Government frees up resources that can be used to 
provide and to promote abortions through its abortion clinics. Common 
sense teaches no other idea.
  So these are important points as I rise and urge what I believe will 
be bipartisan support for this amendment. I believe it echoes the views 
of millions of Americans on the point as well. We could talk about the 
role Planned Parenthood plays in the abortion trade in this country. We 
could talk about the real scandal of the fact that 1 out of every 2 
African American pregnancies ends in abortions. We could talk about the 
allegations of fraud and investigation; but let me just say to my 
colleagues:
  The time has come to deny all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood. 
We have the opportunity to do it today. I urge the adoption of the 
Pence amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to my good friend, the gentleman from California and a member of 
the subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education (Mr. 
Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I am just a little bit concerned about 
information that has been shared with the public and through the media 
about the student loans and about the criticism of the fact that banks 
and other financial institutions were being eliminated from this 
ability to provide direct student loans to our students and were 
charging them interest rates.
  As a teacher and as a person who used to receive student loans, I 
think that it's really misleading the public when we say that they're 
being put out of business when, in fact, the Federal Government 
subsidizes these banks and these financial institutions to provide the 
student loans, and then they add on top of that the subsidy that 
they're

[[Page 19153]]

going to charge interest to the students so that these banks and 
financial institutions will be making money on Federal dollars and on 
the backs of students. That is so wrong, and I think that that has to 
be clarified.
  So I just wanted to make that clarification, not only as a person who 
used to receive student loans and who made it through school, but also 
as a teacher who wants to make sure that our students get a fair break 
and that the taxpayers get a fair break.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tarkio, Missouri (Mr. 
Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this proposed rule. I 
don't know what it is about open debate and process that some leaders 
in this House fear so much.
  Today, the House of Representatives is considering an appropriation 
bill under a closed rule. In fact, yesterday, we learned that the 
option of the health care legislation's bypassing the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee isn't off the table since neither the Speaker nor 
the chairman have the votes in committee to pass their multitrillion-
dollar Big Government health bill.
  My own amendment that I offered, along with Congressman Bonner, to 
today's bill was rejected. It didn't violate a single rule of the 
House, but because the Speaker doesn't want Members to protect small 
businesses from their onerous mandates and tax increases, the message 
is loud and clear to me. The majority has no plans to protect small 
businesses in any health care plan that comes to this floor.
  This is unacceptable, and the majority leadership's legislative game 
of hide-and-seek can only last so long. Sooner or later, when health 
care legislation comes to the floor, Members of this body are going to 
have to make a decision. They're either going to vote to increase taxes 
and force everybody into a government-run health care plan or they're 
going to have to vote it down.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in standing up 
for our Nation's small businesses today by voting against this rule. I 
appreciate the opportunity.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to clarify something that was said earlier. The 
gentleman from the Rules Committee mentioned or suggested that I had 
tied up the Leg Counsel office by offering 540 amendments for the no-
bid contract in the defense bill for next week.
  In truth, we went to the Leg Counsel office because we were concerned 
about that, and they worked with us so that we could draft all of those 
amendments and so that they didn't have to do any of it. We didn't 
consume any of their time.
  If the gentleman has other information, I would ask him, please, to 
say so, but I think to suggest that we're doing that is, one, unfair to 
Leg Counsel. They work hard over there, and they do a great job. 
Secondly, it's unfair to my staff, who has worked a long time, late 
into the night, to do that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. When I stood before, evidently, you were 
distracted, and didn't hear me when I said I was duly chastened and 
appreciated the fact that you took that burden off of legislative 
counsel. I said, perhaps, you ought to consider taking that burden off 
your staff as well.
  Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate it. I have a very hardworking staff. They 
deserve a lot of credit.

                              {time}  1030

  Also, since we have the chairman of the Appropriations Committee here 
and he was mentioning the process that's been gone through, and I, like 
our representative from the Rules Committee, are now learning who it 
seems controls what goes on in the Rules Committee. But I'm wondering 
why my unanimous consent request to simply swap amendments that were 
germane, like, for example, on financial services, the amendment to 
protect broadcaster freedom was not allowed. It came within the time 
constraints. It was germane. It was even offered last year and passed 
by an overwhelming margin. Why was unanimous consent not received to 
swap that?
  I would ask either the gentleman from the Rules Committee or the 
gentleman from the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I will.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I believe you understand that it was not 
made in order under the rule, and toward that end, I think that's your 
answer.
  One of the things I keep hearing--
  Mr. FLAKE. I reclaim my time.
  There was another one. I asked unanimous consent to swap one of my 
amendments for the D.C. voucher amendment in D.C. Again, it fell within 
the time constraints.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think the gentleman, Mr. Flake, makes a point that 
it's a shame that we have to come beg the Rules Committee for what for 
229 years has been appropriate on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
his yielding and for his relentless work on the Rules Committee that 
has taken on a responsibility that goes beyond what was anticipated by 
the Founding Fathers or the tradition of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, 229 years, and Members are reduced to sitting in tiny 
little chairs with their elbows tucked into their waistline, not having 
room for their own staff to come in the room, sending e-mails out where 
the staff has congregated in order to get a piece of paper handed in 
that you might need to beg the Rules Committee to allow for an open 
debate here on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is the 
deconstruction of deliberative democracy. This usurps 229 years of 
tradition in this House, and it muzzles Members of the United States 
Congress and disenfranchises the people on this side of the aisle 
especially that represent over 600,000 people.
  I have offered, the number goes upwards of 40 amendments to the Rules 
Committee. Only two have been allowed to come to the floor. Both of 
them passed. In 2007, the last time we had a legitimate open rules 
process under appropriations, I offered something like 12 amendments; 
nine of them passed. I don't think anybody in Congress was successful 
in passing more amendments than I happened to have been myself, but my 
constituents have been muzzled by this.
  Today, my amendment that was offered would have cut off funding to 
the criminal enterprise ACORN in light of this report that came out of 
the Government Reform Committee that is about 82 pages long and now 
lists 361 entities that are affiliated with ACORN and claims that there 
has been systemic fraud, that they have created a paper wall, that they 
are a criminal conspiracy, that they have laundered Federal money, that 
they manipulated the elections and the electorate of the United States 
of America, that they have evaded taxes, that they have obstructed 
justice, that they have covered up embezzlement of $948,607.50 
embezzled by the brother of the founder and covered it up for 8 years.
  The gross abuse of tax laws that is affiliated with that and other 
bookkeeping procedures, the documents they have from insiders, the 
definitive evidence that is here, this amendment needs to be allowed, 
and this rule needs to be voted on.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are on the floor today asking 
the question, where are the jobs and what about the process of the 
ability to come and talk on this floor about

[[Page 19154]]

issues and ideas, ideas that these Members have.
  I was reminded again today in looking at Congress Daily dated Friday, 
July 24, and while it was talking about health care, it's really a 
philosophy, and they're quoting the House Rules Committee Chairman 
Louise Slaughter of New York. And I will quote what's in here: We can 
do anything up there in the Rules Committee. We can do anything.
  What that really means is they can do whatever they want to do. 
Evidently Speaker Pelosi really does run the Rules Committee. We can do 
anything up there, even muzzle all of the Members of this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so we can amend this horrible rule, the muzzle rule, and allow 
for an open rule. There is no question that the rule the majority 
brings forth today will only submit the dangerous precedent the 
majority set earlier this year. Every single appropriations bill. It 
will only damage bipartisanship and, really, the nature of this body.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
can allow free and open debate on the appropriations bills and uphold 
the right of millions of Americans, or perhaps more than that, just the 
Members of Congress who come here and do this work every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a 
``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress need to get this. Every single one 
of us can say ``no'' to the way this body is being run and just put us 
on a different course, a course that we have had for all these years. 
We recognize what open and honest and ethical government is. And today, 
we had Members of this body come to the floor and talk about openness, 
about ethics with the gentleman, Mr. Flake, and about the ability of 
this body to run as it has in its entire history.
  We Republicans don't understand why this big change. We do understand 
why we are in a deep recession. We do understand President Obama has an 
economic problem because he has helped create that, and we do 
understand Obama economics are about destroying the free enterprise 
system of this country on behalf of government. What we don't get is 
why can't Members of Congress openly debate this issue.
  Vote for it and have openness and ethics at the same time. Mr. 
Speaker, I'm going to vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I will take just one moment to make it very clear that there is 
nothing that's being done by the President of the United States or this 
Congress that is going to destroy the free enterprise system in the 
United States of America. The free enterprise system cannot be 
destroyed by any of us.
  The proposals that are being offered on a variety of measures, and 
particularly this one, increases opportunity for the least of us and 
those in the middle that have been hit the hardest by our colleagues on 
the other side. They can name it anything they want to. It doesn't have 
to be class warfare. People can come up here and talk all they please. 
Middle class Americans have carried the weight of this country for a 
substantial period of time.
  Now we're in two wars and we find ourselves in a position of having 
to try to right an economy that allows, among other things, that we had 
taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit. That is irrefutable.
  President Obama has been in office 6 months. Let's give him a little 
bit more time. Let's give this Democratic Congress the time, as we are 
undertaking right now, to do something that hasn't been done in quite a 
while, and that is to complete the appropriations process, which is our 
principle work here on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, for years, Republicans thought that they could ignore 
our children and ignore the poor, ignore the middle class, ignore the 
unemployed and ignore the uninsured, and somehow our Nation would 
magically prosper. Footnote right there: All of these people that keep 
talking about health care, all of these folks who say we can't do 
health care, I have been here 17 years and we haven't done it. One 
thing I know for sure is, if we do nothing, health insurance rates will 
rise and the cost of health care will increase.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, now we are seeing the repercussions of the 
philosophy of the past. Our economy is in grave distress. Everybody 
knows that. Millions are out of work. My colleague asked, Where are the 
jobs? There is no one in the House of Representatives that would not do 
anything and everything that he or she could to ensure that every 
American is employed. Much of what's in these programs will help many 
of those Americans.
  Our Nation's schools are falling further behind than their overseas' 
counterparts right in our face and have been, and these are the people 
that said leave no children behind. They didn't only leave children 
behind, they lost them and couldn't find them.
  Now, while my Republican colleagues continue to play politics with 
this measure, I remind them that we are facing grave problems in this 
country. We must put the empty, divisive rhetoric aside and pass the 
bill so that we can provide real relief for those struggling in this 
economy, shoring up our Nation's health and social safety nets by 
protecting our workforce and increasing access to the education and 
training opportunities that are vital to our country's long-term 
economic recovery and success.
  And no, America, no free enterprise is going to be lost. And no, 
America, there is no reason to fear. The fear would come from the 
people that caused us to be in this position in the first place.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule 
and the underlying bill.
  I would like to thank Chairman Obey for his leadership in developing 
a bill that represents a major investment in our nation's human capital 
and strikes a responsible balance between funding critical priorities 
that will put the nation on a path toward growth and prosperity and 
making the necessary adjustments for controlling spending and promoting 
government efficiency. I would like to thank his committee staff for 
all of their hard work in achieving all this within reasonable spending 
constraints.
  As a strong proponent of adequate federal funding for education, I 
believe that this bill builds upon the historic investments Congress 
made in the Recovery Act and provides unprecedented support to help 
close the achievement gap plaguing our schools. The inclusion of 
several key investments will help America achieve educational 
excellence for all children and retain its global competitiveness and 
leadership.
  From funding for schools serving low-income children, special 
education, adult education, adolescent literacy, Head Start, and 
English Language Learners, to Pell Grants and other programs that help 
disadvantaged and first-generation college students to attend and 
graduate from college, this bill takes another bold step toward our 
shared goal of providing educational opportunity to each and every 
child.
  And as a longtime advocate of education reform and innovation, I am 
particularly pleased that this bill proposes more than quadrupling 
funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund, which will help reward 
effective teaching outcomes in high-need schools, and a significant 
increase of $40 million to support the start-up of additional new 
public charter schools. Also, for the first time, this legislation 
recognizes that the federal role in public charter schools needs to 
move beyond the start-up phase to scaling up successful innovation by 
allowing the Secretary of Education to provide up to $30 million to 
organizations to replicate and expand outstanding charter school 
models.
  The need to build on and scale up educational innovation that gets 
the job done is greater than ever and this new flexibility is an 
important step in the right direction. I would like to thank Chairman 
Obey for incorporating

[[Page 19155]]

this recommendation in the Manager's Amendment. However, given the 
large number of exceptional models with a proven track record of 
serving the needs of at-risk students and closing the achievement gap, 
this approach cannot meet our public charter school expansion and 
replication needs.
  That is why I will soon introduce the All Students Achieving through 
Reform (All-STAR) Act to create a new competitive grant program in the 
Department of Education to enable and encourage excellent public 
charter schools to expand and replicate. This bill will allow more 
students in underperforming schools to access educational opportunity 
and realize their full potential, while strengthening accountability 
and transparency.
  But in addition to education investments, which will pave the road 
for our nation's long-term future, this bill provides immediate relief 
to the American people who are experiencing the longest and deepest 
economic downturn since the Great Depression and tackles the challenges 
facing hard-working families, local communities and states across the 
country. With vital services being cut back and eliminated, this bill 
protects the most vulnerable among us, supports our health and social 
safety net, and gives hope to all those struggling for economic 
survival.
  Few things can be more disruptive and destabilizing than a job loss. 
Uncertainty and economic insecurity have a devastating effect on 
families and communities. This bill helps unemployed and underemployed 
workers by providing training and supportive services to dislocated 
workers, veterans transitioning to the civilian workforce, and older 
workers. It offers at-risk youth the opportunity to earn high school 
credentials and construction skills training while building affordable 
housing for homeless families, and prepares workers for careers in 
energy efficiency, renewable energy, health professions, and other 
high-demand and emerging industries. It also helps States process 
unemployment insurance claims, strengthens worker safety and health law 
enforcement, and ensures that approximately 7.5 million low-income 
households continue to receive the home energy assistance they need in 
a volatile energy market.
  As we move forward to enact meaningful health care reform, we must 
also continue to support the infrastructure that serves many of the 
uninsured and most vulnerable populations. This bill achieves this goal 
and lays the groundwork for the comprehensive reform we're working so 
hard to pass. Community health centers play an essential role in rural 
and urban areas by addressing unmet primary health care needs. 
Recognizing this, the funding in this bill will serve 17 million 
patients, of whom 40 percent are uninsured, in 7,500 service delivery 
sites.
  My district is home to several such community health centers, 
including Clinica Family Health Service. Clinica's mission is to 
provide high-quality health care services to low-income and other 
underserved people in South Boulder County, Broomfield County and West 
Adams County. Last year, Clinica provided 160,190 medical, dental, 
behavioral health and health education encounters to 34,257 Coloradans 
at its four clinics, which are located in Boulder, Lafayette, Thornton 
and unincorporated Adams County. Half of its patients had no health 
insurance.
  I would like to thank Chairman Obey for providing Clinica with funds 
that will be used to help cover the cost of technology upgrades and 
medical and dental equipment for a new clinic in Boulder and a dental 
clinic in West Adams County. The new facilities will allow Clinica to 
serve an additional 1,500 people with medical care and 3,500 people 
with dental care annually, while the information and communications 
technology upgrades will significantly improve clinical quality and 
efficiency.
  Finally, this bill also provides funding to the National Institutes 
of Health for biomedical research to improve health and reduce health 
care expenditures that will help doctors move away from today's costly 
and predominantly curative model to a presumptive model, allowing 
intervention before disease occurs. Further, it increases funding for 
public health programs administered by the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention and for mental health services, and substance abuse and 
treatment programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration.
  Mr. Speaker, by helping people train for jobs, protecting workers, 
meeting the needs of our nation's most vulnerable populations, laying 
the groundwork for comprehensive reform of health insurance, and 
providing historic levels of education funding, this bill represents a 
responsible, yet bold, step to a more prosperous, healthier, and 
stronger America.
  I urge passage of this rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Res. 673 Offered by Mr. 
                           Sessions of Texas

       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. 3293) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, 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 hack 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 form 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

[[Page 19156]]

     for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and 
     allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer 
     an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. 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.

                          ____________________