[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15925-15934]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4785, RURAL ENERGY SAVINGS PROGRAM 
                                  ACT

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1620 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1620

       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. 4785) to amend the miscellaneous rural 
     development provisions of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 to authorize the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to make loans to certain entities that will use 
     the funds to make loans to consumers to implement energy 
     efficiency measures involving structural improvements and 
     investments in cost-effective, commercial off-the-shelf 
     technologies to reduce home energy use. 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 amendments specified in this 
     resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the Committee on Agriculture and the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Agriculture now printed in the bill, it shall be 
     in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the

[[Page 15926]]

     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under 
     clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question. 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. 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.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Agriculture 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).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. 
Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate 
only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1620.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1620 provides for consideration of H.R. 4785, 
the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. The rule provides 1 hour of 
general debate controlled by the Committee on Agriculture and Energy 
and Commerce. The rule makes in order as original text an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Rules Committee 
report, and the rule also makes in order four amendments printed in 
part B of the Rules report and provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that too many American families are 
unemployed. Too many American families are having trouble paying their 
energy bills. Too many of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas to 
China and to other countries.
  Now, the Democratic Congress has brought bill after bill after bill 
after bill to the floor to help American families weather these tough 
economic times and make long-term investments in a clean economy so 
that the United States maintains its status in the world as a leader in 
innovation.
  And every time, and every time we bring a bill to the floor, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle have overwhelmingly voted 
``no.'' They have become the party of no, no to everything. 
Unfortunately, based on some of the statements by some of my Rules 
Committee colleagues last night in the Rules Committee, I think that 
that will be their strategy today on this Rural Star bill.
  This is a good, cost-effective bill. Rural Star will create high-
skilled, high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs while delivering 
energy savings to millions of Americans by providing access to capital 
and energy-efficient technologies.
  In fact, the National Association of Home Builders endorsed this 
bill, saying that H.R. 4785 will ``save energy for American families, 
create jobs, and reap environmental rewards.''
  Let's not forget that this bill will put people to work, keep good-
paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and lower the 
utility bills of families and farms across the country. The truth is 
more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured 
here in America.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The truth is that more than 92 
percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured right here in 
the United States of America.
  We are talking about insulation, windows, doors and water heaters. 
That's why this is so important. A family or a business will not only 
hire someone to install these energy efficiency products, but these 
products will be made in our backyard right here in our own country. 
Make it in America. That's what Democrats want. That's what we stand 
for.
  There shouldn't be one Member of this body who opposes putting 
Americans to work in this fashion. And not only will H.R. 4785 result 
in more Americans jobs; it will lower families' and farms' utility 
bills. This is particularly important in rural areas where customers 
are facing increasing costs for electric power. Rural electric co-ops 
are facing a growing demand for electric power at a time when they are 
constrained from building new generation capacity.
  The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, supports this bill 
because of the positive impacts on rural electric co-ops, and he said 
so during testimony last night in the Rules Committee. I want to thank 
Mr. Inglis for his support and for putting American jobs over 
partisanship today.

                              {time}  1030

  To my colleagues who argue that this bill will cost too much, I want 
to remind them that the programs in this bill involve loans, not 
grants. These loans must be repaid. CBO has analyzed the legislation 
and concluded that it does not score. The legislation is fully 
compliant with statutory PAYGO and House PAYGO rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone will take a close look at the important 
provisions in the Rural Star bill that will put Americans to work and 
help transition us to a stable clean energy economy of tomorrow.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put 
partisanship aside and support this rule and the underlying bill.

                                           National Association of


                                                Home Builders,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2010.
     Hon. Louise Slaughter,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Louise: On behalf of the 175,000 
     members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 
     I am writing to express our support for H.R. 4785--the Rural 
     Energy Savings Program Act of 2010. We applaud your efforts 
     to create jobs and deliver meaningful energy savings for 
     consumers in rural communities by providing access to capital 
     and efficiency technologies.
       Without meaningful incentives to improve the energy 
     efficiency of the 130 million existing homes and dwelling 
     units that comprise our nation's housing stock, true energy 
     savings will never materialize from the building sector. NAHB 
     believes that H.R. 4785 helps address this problem in rural 
     America by providing low interest loans to consumers to 
     install energy efficient technologies that will save energy 
     for American families, create jobs, and reap environmental 
     rewards.
       NAHB further supports the provisions in the legislation 
     that will establish demonstration programs that help 
     implement measurement and verification approaches to energy 
     audits and investments in energy performance improvements 
     with measurable results. NAHB believes that tracking energy 
     savings improvements in older, less-efficient homes is 
     important to demonstrate the voluntary efforts already 
     underway to reduce GHG emissions from the overall building 
     sector.
       In addition to NAHB's consistent support for other energy 
     efficiency incentives in both new and existing homes, NAHB 
     supports H.R. 4785 as a way to further improve the nation's 
     housing stock and provide avenues for consumers in rural 
     communities to invest in efficiency. NAHB appreciates your 
     thoughtful legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Joe Stanton,
                        Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding 
time. But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to rise today in 
opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.
  Even though we have all had the opportunity to meet with our 
constituents in our districts over the past 6

[[Page 15927]]

weeks, it's clear that the ruling Democratic elite still do not seem to 
get it. My constituents in North Carolina want the Federal Government 
to stop spending, but this bill authorizes an additional $5 billion for 
two new government-funded energy efficiency loan programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the so-called stimulus in 2009 included over 8 billion 
in taxpayer dollars that were supposedly meant for energy efficiency in 
homes. At the time, the ruling Democrats boasted that it authorized 
$4.7 billion for the Department of Energy to issue grants for a home 
weatherization program. However, though it was touted as another 
shovel-ready program, the Department of Energy has used less than 10 
percent of those funds in the program's first year; just over 30,000 
homes were weatherized instead of the hundreds of thousands promised.
  If the Department of Energy can't implement the $4.7 billion program 
in the stimulus, why should we authorize another $5 billion loan 
program? We have not seen any evidence of these programs working or 
being implemented correctly.
  Mr. Speaker, apparently the $8 billion in stimulus spending was not 
enough. The Democrats are now asking that we borrow another $5 billion 
from foreign countries and our grandchildren. The fact is we cannot 
afford, nor do we need, these new government programs, especially at a 
time when we have an unprecedented deficit and return on this spending 
is questionable at best.
  Furthermore, this bill was not vetted by both the committees to which 
it was referred. And it's remarkable that our colleagues continue to 
bring ideas that have been rejected back to the floor. The Rules 
Committee Democrats have issued the self-executing rule to arbitrarily 
force inclusion of the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan program into 
the bill even though 346 Members, including 178 Democrats, already 
voted against it this past May. They are using blunt force to push 
their agenda through, ignoring the will of the American people by 
increasing the program's authorization level from its original $324 
million to a whopping $4.25 billion.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that after having 6 weeks at 
home to listen to their constituents--not just Democrat constituents, 
not just Republican constituents, not just Independent or unaffiliated, 
but folks from all areas of political persuasion. Their constituents 
don't want them to spend more of their hard-earned money on frivolous 
government programs. Instead, they want us to cut spending, lower their 
taxes, and enable businesses to prosper so they can get back to work.
  The goals of these two government programs, new programs, could be 
achieved by existing programs such as the Rural Economic Development 
Loan and Grant program, which controlled approximately $33.77 million 
for loans in fiscal 2010. Why two new programs are being created to do 
something an existing program can already achieve is beyond me.
  Finally, I object to this rule because it is, once again, a 
structured rule. The ruling Democrat elites have chosen to block at 
least nine amendments from being offered on the floor today and instead 
have arbitrarily chosen to allow only four, which are the only 
amendments they will permit us to debate.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, after promising the most open and honest 
Congress in history, Speaker Pelosi has gone back on her word and 
against the will of the American people. When will our colleagues 
across the aisle learn that this House belongs to the people, not to 
them?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 
a problem with American jobs, but 92 percent of the products that have 
been used in this weatherization process were made here in the United 
States of America. We are helping keep jobs and we are helping to 
create jobs. I'm sorry that the Party of No has a problem with that. 
But the Democratic Party believes that we need to make it in America 
and that we need to invest in American jobs, and not only keep American 
jobs, but add American jobs.
  The gentlelady says that somehow the weatherization program in the 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't work. Well, I disagree with her 
very strongly. In some States like North Carolina, weatherization got 
off to a slow start, but in other States like Massachusetts we were 
able to start quickly. This was a function of the State having 
weatherization programs ready to handle these new funds right away or 
if they had to be ramped up.
  Today, over 30,000 homes each month are being weatherized across the 
country thanks to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In 2009, 1,100 
more houses were weatherized in Massachusetts than in North Carolina. 
But in April, May, and June of this year, 1,000 more houses were 
weatherized in North Carolina than in Massachusetts. Today, nearly the 
same number of houses have been weatherized both in North Carolina and 
in Massachusetts. So to say that this program isn't working and that 
it's a failure is clearly and utterly a mischaracterization.
  I hope that my colleagues will look at the facts and not demagogue 
this issue simply for political gain. Those projects on weatherization, 
I will say to my colleague from North Carolina, in her State are 
helping to keep people in their jobs and helping to create more jobs. 
Why is that such a big problem to my friends on the Republican side of 
the aisle? Why do they have a problem with making things here in the 
United States of America and protecting American jobs? That is one of 
the best reasons to support this bill. In addition to saving utility 
costs for families and small businesses, it is about creating jobs in 
the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from 
Massachusetts permitting me to speak on this important bill.
  I could not agree with him more. I did spend a month working in 
Oregon to deal with people who are concerned about the economy. I had a 
meeting just last Friday with over 200 people, including executives, 
presidents of two of our local electric utilities. I have met with 
electrical contractors. I have met with utility contractors and with 
unemployed union workers.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you not only is the initiative under 
the Recovery Act putting people to work in North Carolina and in 
Massachusetts; it's putting people to work in Oregon. But what is 
important here is building on that model to be able to extend it to 
more home builders, more contractors and other utilities. There is a 
potential here to employ 168,000 people over the course of the next 2 
years.
  Now, I come from a region that has invested heavily in energy 
efficiency. We have been able to save hundreds of millions of dollars 
of investment because we are getting more out of the energy we have 
now. The good news is the products that are energy efficient are 
largely made in America. And they are very labor intensive. These are 
installing new windows, installing weatherization, installing more 
efficient appliances, heating and cooling. This is saving money for 
years to come for families while it's putting families to work now.
  An important part of this legislation is that it will empower 
electric cooperatives which provide energy to many in my State and 
across the country to help customers reduce energy use and cost.

                              {time}  1040

  This bill was amended to include the Home Star Energy Efficiency 
program, so it helps people in the 88 percent of the country that are 
not served by electrical co-ops. All Americans should have access to 
these low-cost home improvement loans to save energy and save money.
  And it has a terrific mechanism of working with the utilities, public 
and private utilities, and allowing people to pay it back on a monthly 
basis

[[Page 15928]]

through their energy bills, which are going to be reduced. For many 
people, it is not going to actually cost them anything over the course 
of the next 5 years and it will save them money for years and years to 
come, every month with that utility bill, while it puts people to work 
here in America now.
  It is why homebuilders, contractors, and energy companies all 
combined to support this legislation. I am baffled that my friends on 
the other side of the aisle didn't hear from people at home like I 
heard from who want this opportunity to work in America, to save 
energy, and to put people back to work.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: Fool me once, shame on 
you; fool me twice, shame on me.
  What this bill does once again is bring up what is sort of a mini-
stimulus bill. We were told when the stimulus bill was passed, 
unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent. It would create jobs. It 
would be the great boon for the country. We now have 9.6 percent 
unemployment. I am a member of an electric co-op. I know very well how 
electric co-ops work. If the electric co-ops wanted to do this, if it 
was such a great deal, they would do it. We don't need the Federal 
Government doing this because everything that our friends have promised 
has failed, failed, failed. They want to continue their failed 
programs.
  I don't have a problem with American jobs, but what this creates is 
not American jobs. They want to create more government jobs, which they 
have done, and we will talk about that in a little bit.
  Now I would like to recognize my colleague from Florida, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), who is going to talk about this 
immensely successful project that Republicans have started here called 
YouCut.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).
  Mr. ROONEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years, this Congress has spent the 
American people's taxpayer dollars at a record pace. My friends on the 
other side of the aisle have dug our country into a $13 trillion hole. 
As the old saying goes, when you're in a hole, stop digging. It is time 
to cut out-of-control spending and get our fiscal house in order, even 
if that means saying ``no'' time and time again. This is going to 
require real leadership, and we are going to have to make some tough 
decisions.
  All of these decisions won't be tough, though, and today we face a 
no-brainer. Should we require the IRS to collect unpaid taxes from 
Federal employees? Absolutely. Should they lose their jobs if they 
don't? Of course.
  This cut will reduce the deficit by $1 billion. And while all 
Americans should of course pay their taxes, Federal employees who 
receive their paychecks directly from the American people have a 
special obligation to pay what they owe. It is time to listen to the 
American people. Through the YouCut program, our constituents have cast 
1.7 million votes urging us to cut wasteful spending. Republicans have 
brought forward proposals to cut more than $120 billion in waste from 
the budget. Unfortunately, the majority party has blocked all, all, of 
these efforts. I hope that changes today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. For the record, I want to point out to my colleagues 
that the manager's amendment addresses the issue of Federal employees 
who are delinquent on their taxes, and I quote from the manager's 
amendment that a loan shall not be provided to a Federal employee under 
this act if any of the following apply to the employee: One, that the 
employee has a seriously delinquent tax debt.
  So, yes, everybody should pay their taxes. We all should be concerned 
about the debt and the deficit, but I find it a little bit astonishing 
that the party that took a surplus that Bill Clinton gave them and 
turned it into a record deficit is talking about the importance of 
reducing our deficit. Dick Cheney, I remember the Vice President of the 
United States, made the statement that deficits don't matter. I 
strongly disagree with him, but that was said as the Bush-Cheney 
administration was racking up historic debt. He said it doesn't make 
any difference. He was wrong. They drove this country into a ditch, and 
now they are complaining about the size of the tow truck to get us back 
on the road.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are not going to be 
fooled. I also find it a little bit astonishing that again, while my 
friends are talking about the importance of focusing on the deficit, 
that they have embraced a tax plan that will double the projected 
deficit by adding $4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. 
What they are trying to do is make sure that millionaires and above get 
at least $100,000 in tax breaks. That is where their priorities are.
  The purpose of this bill is to not only help families lower their 
utility costs. The purpose of this bill is to create American jobs. And 
it is to buy products that are made in the United States of America. 
Not buy them from China, not buy them from India, not buy them from 
some other country, but made here in the United States.
  I'm sorry that my colleague from North Carolina doesn't believe that 
the jobs that were created in her district as a result of the 
weatherization investments in the Reinvestment and Recovery Act somehow 
don't matter. They do. People are working and they are supporting their 
families. And we need to do more of that. We need to invest in the 
American people and the American economy.
  I should also point out so there is no mistake: This is not 
additional spending. What this is is a loan program. This is not adding 
one cent to our deficit. This is a loan program where people will pay 
the loans back. CBO says it doesn't score. It is totally compliant with 
PAYGO. So this notion that somehow we are adding more spending to the 
deficit is just plain wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. My colleagues across the 
aisle always want to talk about this wonderful surplus that President 
Clinton had. They always neglect to mention that Congress holds the 
purse strings and it was Republicans who were in charge of the Congress 
the last 6 years of Mr. Clinton's administration. They were in terrible 
shape the first 2 years. Republicans took over and we, Republicans, 
brought the economy to a surplus.
  They also like to point out how bad it was when President Bush left 
office. They always neglect to say you were in charge, Mr. Speaker, and 
your party, when Mr. Bush left office. You drove the American economy 
into the ditch, not the Republicans.
  Every bill that comes up here is to create jobs, but the American 
people understand, again, everything you've done has failed, from the 
stimulus, February a year ago, to now. You want to continue to spend 
money to create jobs. But government only creates government jobs, not 
jobs in the private sector. So I can't let my colleague get by with 
that.
  I would like to point out that the item that our colleague from 
Massachusetts pointed out is such a narrow piece. We want to really do 
something about Federal employees paying their taxes, not just those 
who might apply for a loan under this program.
  I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  We have so many good Federal workers who wake up every morning and do 
good jobs. They go to work. They are working hard to make this country 
great, and we applaud them for that effort. Unfortunately, there is a 
small percentage of people who are not doing what they are supposed to 
be doing. It happens to be that nearly 100,000 Federal workers are not 
paying about a billion dollars a year in taxes.
  The proposal that we will be able to vote on today will allow us to 
mandate and make sure that Federal workers who fall into this category 
of serious delinquent tax debt are fired if they don't pay their taxes.

                              {time}  1050

  The principle is simple: If you're on the Federal payroll, you should 
be paying your Federal taxes. Now, there is a provision in there that 
says if you're

[[Page 15929]]

on a pathway to actually making whole and you're having your wages 
garnished and you're trying to get whole, then fine. We're obviously 
not going to fire you. Yet, according to the data from the IRS, the 
numbers are quite staggering--100,000 people. If you're taking those 
taxpayer dollars, you should be paying your taxes.
  Interestingly enough, on January 20 of this year, President Obama 
gave a speech. He was talking about Federal contractors. I want you to 
listen to the words of the President, who I happen to agree with in 
this case; but I also want you to think, when they say ``Federal 
contractor,'' they should also say ``Federal worker.''
  In quoting President Obama: ``It is simply wrong for companies to 
take taxpayer dollars and not be taxpayers themselves. We need to 
insist on the same sense of responsibility in Washington that so many 
of you strive to uphold in your own lives, in your own families, and in 
your own businesses.''
  He went on to say: ``All across the country, there are people who 
meet their obligations each and every day. You do your jobs. You 
support your families. You pay the taxes you owe because it's a 
fundamental responsibility of citizenship; and yet, somehow, it has 
become standard practice in Washington to give contracts to companies 
that don't pay their taxes.''
  The President is right. Everywhere that it says ``Federal 
contractors,'' it should also say ``Federal employees.'' This is 
simple. This should be bipartisan. Everybody should unite behind this 
because, unfortunately, there are too many people who are on the 
payrolls who are taking taxpayer dollars but who are not paying their 
fair share. They have good-quality, high-paying jobs. Please support 
this measure as it comes up today, and let's do the right thing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just a couple of things. I will remind the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina that what dug us into this ditch were tax cuts for the rich 
that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for and a Medicare 
prescription drug bill that was like five times the cost we were told 
it was, and it wasn't paid for. So let's get the record straight on 
that.
  I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party 
just takes my breath away when they get up here and talk about the 
responsibility that individuals have to pay their taxes. Where were 
they when we tried to crack down on companies that have opened up P.O. 
boxes in Bermuda or in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes, 
and yet they operate here in the United States and get U.S. Government 
money? Where were they? You know, the Republicans voted 170-1 to 
protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and 
95 percent of House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these 
tax breaks. That's where they are. They want to protect these big 
corporations that escape paying U.S. taxes, but they want to go after 
somebody who is working in NIH as a researcher, who is trying to find a 
cure for cancer. Let's focus on those people. That's what they say.
  Look, the point of this legislation here is jobs. It's about saving 
families and farms and small businesses their utility costs, and it's 
about creating American jobs. It's about buying things here in the 
United States of America.
  Why is that so objectionable to the Republicans? Why are they 
fighting this bill that will invest in our economy, that will invest in 
American jobs, that will help protect American jobs, and that will 
create more American jobs? Why is this so controversial? You know, why 
do they insist that we need to have an economy in which we buy 
everything from China?
  What Democrats are trying to do is to steer this economy toward 
making it here in America, toward making these products in America and 
investing in American jobs. That's what this is all about.
  So rather than protecting tax breaks for corporations that escape 
paying U.S. taxes and that get incentives to move jobs overseas, how 
about standing up for the American worker? How about standing up for 
this concept of making it in America and for creating and expanding 
jobs here in the United States?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things to my 
colleague from Massachusetts.
  What is sending jobs overseas are things like the government takeover 
of health care in this country, which is creating such uncertainty and 
which is driving up the cost of health care for everyone, as well as 
the rules and regulations established by the EPA and the programs that 
many of our colleagues across the aisle love so much. They constantly 
talk about tax cuts for the rich. Well, every American got a tax cut 
when the tax cuts went into effect. The tax rate for the lowest-income 
Americans went down from 15 percent to 10 percent. Now they are 
proposing to allow that to go back up on January 1 and to create the 
largest tax increase in the history of this country.
  It sounds to me like my colleague across the aisle is defending 
Federal employees from not paying their taxes. I find that really 
difficult to understand.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, rhetorically it was asked, Where was I? 
Where was I?
  Look, I'm just a freshman here. I didn't create this mess, but I am 
here to help clean it up. I actually stand with some Democrats and the 
President in supporting the idea and the notion that, if you're a 
Federal contractor and if you don't pay your taxes, you should be 
dismissed as a contractor. In fact, you shouldn't get a contract. Let's 
have the guts to have that same standard for Federal employees. That's 
where the hypocrisy comes in. The President was very clear. I read his 
comments about taking care of Federal contractors. The same standard 
should apply to the Federal employees. To suggest that, well, we'll go 
ahead and grant them some special exemption, absolutely not. I think we 
need to hold them to a higher standard, do the same for contractors and 
do the same for the Federal employees. That's the right thing to do. 
Like I said, I didn't create this mess, but we are here to help clean 
it up.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the gentleman and to my friends on the other side of 
the aisle that they've all been long enough here to add to the mess, 
and cleaning up the mess means supporting bills like this that will 
create American jobs, that will protect American jobs. This is an 
important bill.
  Again, for the life of me, I don't understand why there is 
controversy over a bill to invest in America, to invest in our workers, 
to help lower utility costs for small businesses, for individuals, for 
family farms. This is not adding to our deficit one penny. This is a 
loan program to help people weatherize, you know, their homes, and 
that's whether it's a mobile home, a farm or a small business. You 
know, over 90 percent of what is needed to do that is made in America.
  Why is that a problem? Why do you have a problem with investing in 
programs that create American jobs? I mean, that's what this is about.
  You know, again, the Republicans voted 170-1 to protect tax breaks 
for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and 95 percent of House 
Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. Enough of 
that. It is time to invest in American workers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the reason Republicans vote against these 
programs is because we pay attention to what happens. Government 
programs don't work. It's real simple. Our colleagues across the aisle 
simply haven't learned that.
  Again, we go back to the stimulus. We were promised unemployment 
would not go up past 8 percent. It is almost 10 percent. Our economy is 
in the ditch. We are in terrible, terrible shape in this country, all 
because of the spending by our colleagues across the

[[Page 15930]]

aisle and because of the belief that the government is our savior. It 
is not our savior.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the motion on 
ordering the previous question.
  I do so because, this summer, while Members were back home in their 
districts, they heard the growing frustration of the American people 
firsthand. Hardworking Americans can see that our Nation is at a 
crossroads. We have a $13 trillion national debt. That works out to be 
$42,000 for every man, woman and child in America.
  Yet what is the Democratic majority doing today? They are bringing a 
bill to the floor to spend another $5 billion that we don't have to 
continue their failed stimulus policies. All the while, the American 
people are saying that the rampant Federal spending in Washington has 
to stop. The people are speaking out through the YouCut program with 
over 1.7 million votes. The YouCut movement continues to encourage 
people of all stripes to go online and to take an active role in 
determining how their government spends taxpayer dollars.

                              {time}  1100

  YouCut voters have helped Republicans bring to the floor more than 
$120 billion in spending cuts, only to be blocked every time by the 
Speaker and the Democratic majority. This week's winning proposal under 
the YouCut program is an idea put forward by the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Chaffetz) to require the collection of unpaid taxes from Federal 
employees. While all Americans have an obligation to pay the taxes they 
owe, Federal employees can be seen as especially obliged to pay their 
share of the taxes because they draw their compensation from American 
taxpayers.
  Addressing our staggering national debt is not a partisan calling, 
Mr. Speaker; it is a national imperative. And I urge all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to bring this week's 
YouCut proposal to the House floor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that what we are debating 
here is a bill that costs nothing, that adds nothing to our deficit, 
that will invest in American jobs, that will invest in American 
products, versus the Republican plan to add $4 trillion to our deficit. 
That's what this is about here.
  I hear frustration from people back home all the time. What they want 
is they want a manufacturing strategy. They want a strategy to help 
expand and create more American jobs, and they want us to close tax 
loopholes that encourage outsourcing U.S. jobs overseas. They want us 
to provide hometown tax credits to help small businesses hire new 
employees and sell their products and innovation overseas.
  They want to boost incentives to create American clean energy jobs 
like making state-of-the-art wind turbines and solar panels, paid for 
by ending corporate welfare to Big Oil. They want to strengthen rules 
that the U.S. and its contractors buy products made here in America, 
especially to build transportation and energy and communication 
infrastructure. They are tired of us shipping those jobs overseas and 
importing everything. They want to make it here in America.
  They want us to force China and other countries to honor fair trade 
principles or lose American business. There ought to be a consequence 
if a country like China abrogates its obligations to a treaty or to a 
trade bill.
  We need to give incentives to hire and retain America's returning 
veterans for new clean energy jobs, and we need to strengthen 
partnerships with businesses to retain America's workers for jobs in 
the future. That's what the American people want. The frustration is: 
Why are we importing everything from overseas? Why are you giving tax 
breaks to corporations that move their operations overseas or hire 
overseas when we have an unemployment problem here in the United 
States? What the American people are frustrated about is that we are 
losing American jobs that really, quite frankly, should be made here in 
America.
  So I hear the frustration, but I would say the answer is not adding 
$4 trillion to our deficit like they want to do. The answer is in 
supporting programs like this that don't add a cent to our deficit but 
will create American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Worcester 
talk about the unemployment rate, talk about the economic challenges 
that we're facing, and I can tell you we all are well aware of it. Part 
of the area I represent in southern California has a 14 percent 
unemployment rate. Statewide in California, we have nearly a 12.5 
percent unemployment rate. People are hurting.
  Let's remember, we were promised, when the proposals came forward 
from this administration, that we would have an unemployment rate that 
would not exceed 8 percent, and now, as my friend from Grandfather 
Community said, we have an unemployment rate that is between 9.5 and 10 
percent--very, very painful for people all across this country. And 
what it is that we've learned is that a $1 trillion stimulus bill that 
had $4.7 billion in it for weatherization, when only 10 percent of 
those funds have been expended, is obviously not the answer to the 
challenge of weatherization. And so we now have another bill that is a 
loan program, but it's $4.25 billion and is designed, Mr. Speaker, to 
deal with a problem that, frankly, is not the top priority that we have 
out there.
  My friend is absolutely right. We want to create jobs. But I think we 
have learned from the stimulus bill, Mr. Speaker, that the notion of 
spending billions and trillions of dollars is not what needs to be done 
to create jobs. We need to create good, private sector jobs.
  And so what is it they've come forward with? They've come forward 
with another bill to deal with weatherization that they say will be a 
job creator. Well, the policies that we've seen over the past 20 months 
have killed jobs. The report that is coming out this morning is that 
the increase in the poverty rate has been nearly unprecedented. We have 
lots of very, very unfortunate economic indicators out there.
  I am an optimist. I believe that our economy is going to recover. It 
is going to recover in spite of, not because of, the policies that we 
have put into place here in Washington, D.C., over the past few years. 
We will because we are Americans, because we are the United States of 
America. We will, as a Nation, recover, but, Mr. Speaker, what we 
should be doing is we should be breaking down barriers. We should be 
reducing the tax and regulatory burden on working Americans and job 
creators to ensure that we can, as early as possible, have that kind of 
success.
  Now, this rule that we are considering right now is a further 
indication of the arrogance of the majority leadership. There was one 
Republican amendment that was germane that was submitted, and, Mr. 
Speaker, it was submitted by our Texas colleague, Mr. Barton, who is 
the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was denied. 
Five amendments were made in order, all amendments offered by the 
majority.
  Unfortunately, what we've seen is, time and time again, this 
institution, under the Democratic leadership that we have, is simply 
coming forward with proposals offered by Democrats, completely shutting 
out Republicans. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying that in a partisan 
way. I'm saying it because the Republicans represent nearly half the 
American people, and the American people are the ones who are being 
shut out and, unfortunately, many Democratic Members are being shut out 
as well.
  This has tragically been the single-most closed Congress in the 
history of our Republic. The 221-year history of our Republic has never 
seen a Congress as closed as this. Mr. Speaker, I know

[[Page 15931]]

this comes as a surprise to many, but with the exception of the 
appropriations process in the first 2 years of Speaker Pelosi's 
leadership, we have seen a grand total of one bill considered under an 
open amendment process in the entire 3 years. In fact, we are poised 
right now to, for the first time in the history of our Republic, see an 
entire Congress without a single open rule. Why? Because we saw the 
appropriations process close down in this 111th Congress as well.
  The American people want us to focus on job creation and economic 
growth, and they also want greater transparency, disclosure, and 
accountability, and, Mr. Speaker, they are not getting that from this 
Congress. They deserve better. And if we can deliver it, I am convinced 
we will be able to get our economy back on track.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because we can do 
better. First vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we will be 
able to say to those Federal employees who are not paying their taxes 
that they shouldn't be there. We are focusing specifically on ways to 
cut spending. We've got an opportunity to do that. Let's vote ``no'' on 
the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker used the word ``arrogance,'' and I 
would just say that I think it is awfully arrogant for Members of this 
Congress, Members of this body to stand up and vote against bills that 
help small businesses, that help create American jobs, that provide 
loans and lending abilities to small businesses. I mean, small business 
is the engine of our economy, and the bill that we are talking about 
here today will help a lot of small businesses.
  We had a small business bill on the floor that we passed--
unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle voted against 
it, and I'm told that the Senate is going to be taking it up shortly--
that will provide additional credit to small businesses, which is 
desperately needed.

                              {time}  1110

  I think many of my colleagues went home over the break and talked to 
a number of small businesses, and access to credit is a big issue. I 
think we're going to probably get it. It took a long time and a lot of 
fighting to get it, but my Republican friends, the Party of No on the 
other side of the aisle, voted against it. So if you want to talk about 
arrogance, I think that's arrogance.
  This bill before us will not add a penny to our deficit, will provide 
loans that will help create energy-efficient products made here in the 
United States of America and will also help fund the installation of 
these products by American workers. This is about creating American 
jobs. We're going to make it in America, and we're going to create 
American jobs. That my friends on the other side of the aisle find that 
controversial or unacceptable is just astounding to me.
  And when I hear that the money in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act didn't create any jobs when it comes to the issue of 
weatherization and energy efficiency, again, I read the statistics. The 
statistics don't lie. I mean, jobs were created. And many houses have 
been made more energy efficient, which means individuals and businesses 
don't have to pay as much in utility bills. And that's an important 
thing for a small business or a struggling family.
  So this is about American jobs. It's about investing in the American 
people. And I would just say to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, rather than voting overwhelmingly, 170-1, to protect tax breaks 
for companies shipping American jobs overseas, you ought to focus on 
ways to help keep American jobs here in the United States of America. 
That's what we're trying to do with this bill.
  I urge all my colleagues, don't put politics above people. Don't put 
politics above people. Do what's right, and let's help create more jobs 
here in the United States of America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With all due respect to my colleague across the aisle, we do not put 
politics above people. My colleagues and I were out in our districts 
all during the August recess, and we listened to our constituents. We 
know what our constituents want. They want a different direction for 
this country than our friends across the aisle have been taking us, 
along with this administration.
  It wasn't the Republicans that drove this country into the ditch. It 
was the Democrats through their spend, spend, spend program, debt, 
debt, debt program. The American people have awakened. They know what's 
going on, and they don't like it. We're going to do everything we can 
to stop this irresponsible behavior on the part of our colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over 
and over again expecting different results. Our colleagues have talked 
about every bill they've brought up here in the last 18 months as being 
a jobs bill. But what they've done is spend, spend, spend and claiming 
they're creating jobs, but they have failed time after time. The 
results are clear.
  The Democrat elites have run out of ideas about how to get the 
economy moving in the right direction. The American people can't afford 
more of the ruling Democrats' failed policies. They want new ideas for 
getting our economy back on track--not the same warmed-over stimulus 
and bailout policies that have failed to do anything but create new 
taxes, record deficits, and high unemployment.
  Month after month Americans have been asking, ``Where are the jobs?'' 
The Democrats have been in total control of this country for almost 2 
years, and what has President Obama offered? Nothing new but promising 
between now and November he will, quote, remind the American people 
that policies he has put in place have, quote, moved us in the right 
direction.
  Well, good luck, Mr. President, on selling the American people that 
you've taken us from 5 percent unemployment to 10 percent unemployment 
and you want to keep going in the same direction. Those who are 
unemployed aren't going to agree, and those who worry about being 
unemployed aren't going to agree with the President. The American 
people do not need more empty rhetoric and politically driven spin from 
the White House. They need real solutions.
  The only jobs this administration has created have been Federal 
Government jobs, adding to the overwhelming layers of bureaucracy that 
already exist at the Federal level. From February of 2009 to June 2010, 
405,000 Federal Government jobs have been created. Since the so-called 
``stimulus,'' American taxpayers have spent $44.9 billion on these new 
government worker salaries--and yet we continue to see record high 
unemployment in the private sector. All this administration and the 
liberal elite ruling Democrats want to do is grow government and grow 
bureaucracy, and this is evidenced by their backward policies.
  As they try to sell their ``Recovery Summer,'' we know that more 
Americans are concerned about the state of the economic health. An 
August 24, 2010, Reuters' IPSO poll showed that the economy is a core 
concern for Americans, with almost three-quarters--72 percent--of 
Americans very concerned about jobs. It showed 62 percent of Americans 
now think the country is on the wrong track.
  It is clear that though President Obama believes he's sailing the 
ship in the right direction, the American people overwhelmingly 
disagree. Even though the results are in and it's clear the American 
people don't want these policies, our friends across the aisle keep 
trying to shove expensive, wasteful pieces of legislation down the 
taxpayers' throat. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than 
this.

[[Page 15932]]




                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
amendment to which our colleagues spoke earlier and extraneous material 
be placed in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am going to urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to 
allow all Members of Congress the opportunity to vote on a cost-saving 
measure.
  Recently, Republican Whip Eric Cantor launched YouCut, which gives 
people an opportunity to vote for Federal spending they'd like to see 
Congress cut. Americans have cast their votes, and this week the 
American people want Congress to save nearly $1 billion by requiring 
collection of unpaid taxes from Federal employees.
  In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service reported that over 90,000 
Federal employees were delinquent on their Federal income taxes, owing 
a total of $1 billion in unpaid taxes. This includes 1,151 employees 
who owe $7 million at the Department of Treasury which oversees the 
IRS.
  H.R. 4735, of which I am a cosponsor, would prevent persons who have 
seriously delinquent tax debts from being eligible for Federal 
employment. By requiring at a minimum that the IRS work with Federal 
agencies to withhold a portion of each employee's paycheck who is 
determined to have a ``seriously delinquent tax debt,'' we can ensure 
that Federal employees are paying their fair share of taxes. Failure to 
pay required taxes should result in disciplinary actions designed to 
ensure that the taxpayers are made whole. In addition to collecting 
back taxes already due, this reform will ensure future unpaid taxes are 
also collected.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
and ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my colleagues not to put 
politics over people. These are serious, difficult economic times. We 
need to make policy here that invests in our people, that invests in 
American jobs, that helps create a climate where more American jobs can 
be created.
  My colleague from North Carolina talks about how the Republicans 
somehow are not responsible for this massive, colossal deficit that we 
have, but I just want to remind people about the facts. The facts are 
that when Bill Clinton provided George Bush with this record-breaking 
surplus, it was a Republican Congress and a Republican President that 
instituted tax cuts--mostly for the wealthy--that weren't paid for; tax 
cuts that benefited the wealthiest of the wealthy that were not paid 
for.

                              {time}  1120

  It was a prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for and was much 
more expensive than they advertised. It was two wars that they decided 
not to pay for. American soldiers and their families sacrificed, but 
the rest of us are asked to not do anything to help sacrifice or pay 
for the war.
  That all happened when you had a Republican Congress--they were in 
control of everything--and a Republican President. I mean those are the 
facts. I am sorry that it bothers my friends, but it's the truth.
  And now they are coming up with a proposal that will add $4 trillion 
to our deficit. It doesn't seem to bother any of them. Well, it bothers 
me and it bothers the people that I represent. I think it bothers most 
people in this country. One of the things that I think is clear is that 
the American people don't want to go back to the same old policies that 
created this mess.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush holds the worst jobs record of any 
administration in 75 years, including 4.6 million American 
manufacturing jobs lost. House Republican leaders have said, and I 
quote, ``We need to go back to the exact same agenda.'' That's what 
they want to do. They want to go back to the same policies that created 
this mess.
  I am going to repeat what I said before about the fact that 
Republicans voted 170 to 1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping 
American jobs overseas. One hundred seventy to one to protect tax 
breaks that are shipping our jobs overseas. Ninety-five percent of 
House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. I 
mean what are they thinking? One hundred percent of House Republicans 
voted against creating and saving 3.6 million American jobs, including 
advanced vehicle and clean energy manufacturing jobs. We cannot go 
back. We cannot go back.
  You know, when we make it in America more middle class families will 
make it too. It's that simple. And what the underlying bill does is 
provide loans. It doesn't add a single cent to our deficit. It provides 
loans to families and to businesses and to farms to be able to do 
weatherization and energy efficiency. And over 90 percent of the 
products that are needed to do energy efficiency improvements are made 
in America. Not made in China; made in America. This is a good thing.
  The more people take loans and the more people want to weatherize 
their homes and their businesses, they will save money on utility 
costs, and more and more American workers will get a job. Why is that 
so hard for my friends on the other side of the aisle to get? I mean 
they fight tooth and nail to protect tax breaks for millionaires and 
billionaires. That is their big issue. I assume that helps them 
politically in terms of the money given to the Republican National 
Committee. But it doesn't do a damn thing for American workers.
  We need to start insisting that American workers come first. And that 
is what this bill is about. It is investing in our workforce. It is 
about making it here in the United States, creating jobs in the United 
States.
  So Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote to support this 
bill. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the 
rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1620 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 4. 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. 4735) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide 
     that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be 
     ineligible for Federal employment. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. 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. At the conclusion of 
     consideration. of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without. instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of 
     rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 4735.
                                  ____

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

[[Page 15933]]



        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. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 1620, if 
ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on the Senate amendments 
to H.R. 3562.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 186, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 526]

                               YEAS--226

     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Ackerman
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Braley (IA)
     Davis (AL)
     Ellsworth
     Eshoo
     Fallin
     Gordon (TN)
     Hodes
     Inglis
     Marchant
     Meek (FL)
     Mollohan
     Putnam
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Shea-Porter
     Tierney
     Young (FL)

                             {time}   1152

  Messrs. CASSIDY and BACHUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 526 on 
H. Res. 1620,

[[Page 15934]]

I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I should have voted 
``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 188, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 527]

                               AYES--225

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--188

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Ackerman
     Blunt
     Braley (IA)
     Davis (AL)
     Ellsworth
     Eshoo
     Fallin
     Hodes
     Marchant
     Meek (FL)
     Mollohan
     Putnam
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Shea-Porter
     Sutton
     Tierney
     Visclosky
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining on this vote.

                             {time}   1201

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________