[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17143-17147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3081, 
                  CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1682 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1682

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall 
     be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     3081) making appropriations for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with the 
     Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order except those 
     arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a single motion offered 
     by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his 
     designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments. The 
     Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. 
     The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question.

                              {time}  2210

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1682.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1682 provides for consideration of the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 3081, the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011. The 
rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations, or his designee, that the House concur in the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 3081. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the 
motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all 
points of order against consideration of the motion, except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. And finally, the rule provides the 
Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to approve the continuing resolution 
to maintain a level and consistent funding stream for the government. 
It is an easy issue to demagogue, and it is my hope that everybody will 
work together now and quickly move this bill to passage and to the 
President's desk. The Senate voted earlier this evening on the same 
straightforward bill that keeps funding even for the fiscal year that 
begins on Friday. As you know, the CR before us will fund government 
agencies until December 3, and Congress will revisit the issue in 
November.
  There are some on the other side who question why we are considering 
a CR. They want us to stay here in Washington instead of getting this 
done and heading back to our districts. If you ask me, we've been here 
long enough. It has been an historic, groundbreaking session of 
Congress that will improve the quality of life for millions of 
Americans and has exceeded all of our expectations.
  Generations from now, history will show that Speaker Pelosi and our 
majority helped usher in far-reaching health care reform that had been 
tried for 100 years and put curbs on insurance companies, restructured 
Wall Street rules, reformed student aid, increased small business 
assistance, added new regulations on tobacco, curbed credit card 
abuses, and protected Social Security. It has been one of the most 
productive sessions of Congress that I have ever been associated with, 
and I am proud of all the work that we have behind us. But now it's 
time to approve the CR and go home.
  No one should be surprised with the CR. With the exception of fiscal 
years 1989, 1995 and 1997, one continuing resolution at least has been 
enacted for each fiscal year since 1955. In the 12 years that 
Republicans controlled the House, CRs were enacted 84 separate times. 
As in previous years, we are extending funding with a CR but are making 
no changes in policy. And I hope all of my colleagues would join me in 
voting ``yes'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, before we spend more time on conversations about budgets 
and currency, I want to pause to pay tribute to a very special person 
who is retiring from Congress in November. Katharine Hayford, known to 
the world as Sophie, is more than just a dedicated member of the Rules 
Committee staff. She is an icon in the House, a symbol of the best 
attributes of the dedicated staff that keeps this place humming. She is 
a deep and irreplaceable reservoir of institutional knowledge, and to 
say she will be missed is a critical understatement.
  Sophie is one of those rare people in Congress who has always been 
content to work quietly and professionally in the background. She never 
sought or wanted attention. Her pride was in being prepared for any 
scenario that could unfold in the hearing room or on the House floor. 
And as someone with more than a little experience on the Rules 
Committee, I can vouch for that. Almost anything can and does happen 
here every day, and that is one of the things that makes the place so 
wonderful to work in.
  It's common knowledge to those of us on Rules that the tiny cubby 
holes and shelves behind her desk have more yellowed and dog-eared 
records than the National Archives and more paper and reports than a 
Presidential library. Sophie saved everything. Whenever the members 
were on the floor to manage a rule, Sophie was ready and waiting with a 
massive, double-phonebook-sized binder filled with House precedents, 
statistics, talking points, and even items that she had culled from the 
many blogs and Web sites she devoured.
  My first email from her every morning came between 5:35 and 6 a.m. 
But she is much more than a mini research factory. Sophie has a smile 
for everyone and went out of her way to provide cookies, raisins, 
almonds, crackers, chips, and even doughnuts on a regular basis to our 
hardworking staff. She did that on her own because she knew it was 
needed and appreciated. She bakes cakes, even vegan ones, out of 
deference to our staff that don't eat dairy. Her birthday celebrations 
are a familiar and comforting routine.
  Before we had the privilege of working with Sophie, she worked in the 
personal office of Congressman Joe Moakley, who was a friend to all of 
us. Sophie spent 10 years on Congressman Moakley's staff before coming 
to the Rules Committee in 1986, the year that I was elected to 
Congress, and some of my staff had not yet been born. More recently, 
she has discovered the pleasures of France and is a frequent visitor to 
Paris, where she is learning the language and discovering sites.
  And now, as she prepares to leave the Hill and spend more time with 
Brad,

[[Page 17144]]

her quiet and extremely talented musician husband, it is time for us to 
say goodbye to Sophie and thank her for all this work over these many 
years.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to join in 
expressing both appreciation and congratulations to Sophie Hayford for 
her 34 years of dedicated service to this institution. It is true, I 
think, that the thing that struck me--I mean, I have never analyzed the 
National Archives hidden behind her desk. I have been able to benefit 
from some of the wonderful things that she has cooked. But I will say, 
Mr. Speaker, the most important thing from my perspective is that 
Sophie Hayford has always, always, always offered a smile and 
encouragement, which doesn't always take place from side to side in 
this institution. And that's the thing that I will miss the most.
  I just want to wish her well. I know that her first action is going 
to be to jet off to Paris. And I will say, mine is going to be to jet 
off to Los Angeles, California. And while I am looking forward 
enthusiastically to that, I will say that the idea of going to Paris is 
very appealing. So after 34 years of great service, having worked with 
our Rules Committee colleague Mr. McGovern on the staff of Mr. Moakley, 
and having worked so closely with that great man, our former chairman, 
it is something that obviously taught Sophie a great deal, Mr. Speaker, 
because Joe Moakley was a man from whom I learned a lot, and I know 
others in this body who had the opportunity to serve with him and staff 
members who had the opportunity to work for and with him learned as 
well. So I would say that those 10 years of service in Mr. Moakley's 
personal office obviously played a big role in creating the kind of 
spectacular public servant that Sophie has been. And I want to join in 
wishing her well, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing appreciation to my very 
good friend from Rochester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and to say that, not surprisingly, I believe that based on the facts, 
the American people have a slightly different take on what it is that 
has gotten us to where we are and what it is that we are doing here 
this evening. Apparently, the House is wrapping up its business 
tonight, adjourning early for the campaign season. Our final act will 
be the passage of this continuing resolution, made necessary by this 
majority's many, many failures.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to remind us over and 
over again that they have completed their agenda. We just heard that 
from the distinguished chairwoman. That completed agenda is, Mr. 
Speaker, the failed stimulus bill, the unsuccessful cap-and-trade 
legislation, and the evermore unpopular government takeover of our 
health care system.
  What they will not mention, Mr. Speaker, what they will not mention 
is the work that they did not do. They did not pass a budget for the 
first time since the implementation of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment 
Act. They did not complete work on a single appropriations bill. And to 
make matters worse, they are leaving town with a tax hike looming for 
the American people.

                              {time}  2220

  Mr. Speaker, this is not a record of which to be proud.
  But that is not all. The 111th Congress is departing with another 
dubious distinction. Not a single bill was considered under an open 
amendment process, not one. Not a single bill in this entire Congress 
considered under an open amendment process. This fact alone makes this 
Congress the most closed Congress in history.
  Let me say that again. Sadly for the American people who have been 
denied the opportunity to be heard in this institution, the action of 
not allowing one bill to be considered under an open rule has made this 
the single most closed Congress in the 221-year history of our 
Republic.
  How did we end up here?
  Wasn't it just 4 short years ago that we were promised a new 
direction?
  Didn't Speaker Pelosi assure the American people that their business 
would be conducted in the most open, honest, ethical way possible?
  Those promises are still available on the Speaker's Web site. It is 
almost eerie, as we look at the past 4 years, Mr. Speaker. It is almost 
eerie to read the words that appear on the Speaker's Web site. They 
read, in part: with integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our new 
direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the 
aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is 
our promise to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, those are the words that at this moment are still on the 
Speaker's Web site: with integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our 
new direction for America will use commonsense principles to address 
the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That 
is our promise to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, 4 years later, the hopes and dreams of the American 
people are being crushed by a tragically high unemployment rate and 
rising debt. They are clamoring to understand how and why legislation 
they pleaded with the Congress not to pass could be forced through with 
procedural games. They are wondering why, when they are being forced to 
tighten their own belts, the Congress refused to consider a budget for 
our Nation's spending priorities.
  The American people know that this is not the new direction they were 
promised. They know that this majority has led our country the wrong 
way.
  Today, my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee and I released 
a new report that I have right here; and I would commend to my 
colleagues, and our colleagues who don't have a hard copy of it can get 
it by going to our site, which is house-rulesrepublicans.house.gov. So 
I would commend this to our colleagues: ``The Wrong Way Congress: How 
the Democratic majority took America in the wrong direction with the 
wrong bills in the wrong way at the wrong time.''
  And we have right inside here, Mr. Speaker, symbolic of what it is 
that we have gotten, the sign that many people across this country have 
seen: ``Putting America to Work Project funded by the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act.'' That is what we have right here. And we all 
know that this sign, in and of itself, is an indication of the failure.
  This report outlines the procedural abuses and the failures of the 
111th Congress and the role that the House Rules Committee has played 
in executing them. Rather than focusing on job creation, as the 
American people wanted, the Democratic majority pursued a job-killing 
agenda based on reckless spending, over-regulation and, tragically, tax 
increases. The details are all too familiar by now.
  It all started, Mr. Speaker, with the failed stimulus bill. There 
were no hearings, and well after midnight the bill was rushed through 
the Rules Committee at warp speed. We continue to hear that everything 
is done in the light of day, and the stimulus bill was passed out of 
the Rules Committee after midnight.
  We were told that this lack of regular order, Mr. Speaker, was 
necessary to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. That is why we 
had to rush the stimulus through so we could make sure that the 
unemployment rate that at that point was at 7.7 percent would not 
exceed 8 percent.
  Well, we all know today how painful it is that we across the country 
are suffering with a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, and in my State of 
California, a nearly 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate.
  Next up was the unsuccessful cap-and-trade legislation. Now, I don't 
need to remind any of my Rules Committee colleagues about our meeting 
on that bill. Think back to the cap-and-trade

[[Page 17145]]

legislation. It wasn't considered in the light of day. Mr. Speaker, it 
was 3 o'clock in the morning--not 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock--3 
o'clock in the morning, just hours before we voted here on the House 
floor, that my friend Mr. McGovern was in the process of reading the 
motion to report out the special rule. He had already begun reading the 
motion to move this bill to the floor. And at that time, at 3 o'clock 
in the morning, we had dumped onto our places a very warm, 300-page 
amendment, a 300-page amendment that completely rewrote the bill.
  It was that hearing, and that manager's amendment, that launched the 
hue and cry across this country when the American people said, read the 
bill. And the next day, Republican leader John Boehner stood right 
where I am, and he took his privilege, as leader, to explain to our 
colleagues and the American people what was in that 300-page amendment.
  Then, next up was the health care reform legislation. Who can forget 
the town hall meeting, the public outrage, the long hard slog that they 
went through, Mr. Speaker, to find the votes for its passage?
  Things got so bad that the majority searched for ways to pass the 
bill without actually voting on it. It was dubbed the Slaughter 
Solution, named for our very distinguished committee chair. The public 
outrage was so intense that they eventually abandoned the so-called 
Slaughter Solution strategy.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, that bill was reported from the Rules Committee 
in the middle of the night, not in the light of the day, in the middle 
of the night. The bill was unpopular when it was passed. And as we all 
know from public opinion polls today that we see from virtually every 
source, Democrat and Republican alike, that health care bill is even 
more unpopular now than it was then.
  Mr. Speaker, as they pursued this job-killing agenda, the wrong-way 
Congress abandoned their constitutional responsibilities of budgeting 
and appropriations work. As I said earlier, for the first time since 
1974, when the Budget Act was put into place, the House did not even 
consider a budget resolution. This failure was part and parcel of their 
strategy to shut down the appropriations process and restrict the 
amendment debate. It began in the summer of 2009, a year ago this past 
summer; and it became complete this year. We considered only two of the 
12 spending bills and both with a handpicked list of amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, this crackdown was not without consequence. Listen to 
this number, Mr. Speaker. As the number of amendments declined, the 
rate of nondefense discretionary spending actually increased an 
astounding 91 percent. Nondefense discretionary spending since we put 
into place the crackdown on the opportunity for 435 Members, Democrat 
and Republican alike, to offer amendments, we have seen that increase 
take place since we saw the process for the first time ever completely 
shut down. This was not a coincidence.
  So here we are on the final day of the legislative session before the 
election. The House is operating under unrestricted martial-law 
authority, giving the majority the ability to call up any bill at any 
time with just an hour's notice.
  In the event that any of my colleagues are wondering when that 
happened, let me remind them that they voted for it last week when the 
House approved a rule providing for consideration of small business 
legislation. It is not surprising that most Members wouldn't notice. It 
was tucked into the rule, just as it has been for every single week 
that we have been in session, but one, since the month of May.

                              {time}  2230

  This is the new normal. The majority can do whatever it wants 
whenever they want to do it.
  But let's remember, Mr. Speaker, what they won't do. They won't pass 
a budget. They won't vote to prevent the coming tax hikes that are 
crippling our economy with uncertainty. They won't allow a vote to get 
spending under control. They won't allow the House to debate a bill 
under an open rule.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am an eternal optimist. I was privileged to be 
elected the day Ronald Reagan was elected President, and I believe in 
that Reagan sense of optimism. I believe that there is still a chance 
for the majority to do what was promised in a new direction for 
America, and that is to truly offer a new direction. I believe that the 
``Wrong Way Congress'' can in fact make a U-turn and remove the 
uncertainty that is hurting our economy.
  We can have a vote to prevent tax hikes on all Americans, including 
small businesses and job creators. We can have a vote on a responsible 
level of spending, sending a powerful signal that we will work together 
to get our fiscal house in order, as was promised and as can be still 
read on the Speaker's Web page. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that would 
be the right thing to do for all of us and, most importantly, for the 
American people who have entrusted us with dealing with these very, 
very serious challenges and problems that we as a Nation face.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, and I am going to urge my 
colleagues also to defeat the previous question first. And if we are 
successful in defeating the previous question, we will offer a motion 
to go to the spending levels that were before the failed stimulus and 
before the bailouts, to the 2008 spending levels.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question, and, if we are not successful on that, a ``no'' vote 
on the rule. And I will say let's work together in a bipartisan way to 
deal with these very important issues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I just want to say to my friend, the eternal optimist, that I have 
served here for 22 years. I served in the State legislature in Albany, 
and I served in the county legislature. I have been a student of 
legislatures, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, and I have never heard 
of, seen, or even contemplated any legislature anywhere where one party 
simply opted out and voted ``no'' on every single thing for political 
gain.
  They did have plenty of opportunity at the hearings and all the 
committee meetings to make their input there and had a lot of effect, I 
think, with quite a bit of legislation that we passed. But we had to 
pass it, Mr. Speaker, the hard way.
  I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairwoman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I support the CR, and I hope that 
we will promptly act on it.
  Mr. Speaker, rather than taking my time to talk about how the 
disgraceful policies of my Republican friends drove this economy into a 
ditch nearly bankrupting us and how we have had to spend all this time 
trying to clean up their awful mess, and rather than talk about the 
Republicans' new pledge that they all just took that would drive this 
economy deeper into debt by, get this, passing tax cuts for 
millionaires and billionaires--not about middle-class tax cuts, but 
millionaires and billionaires; and that will be debt on the backs of 
our kids, and we will have to borrow that money from China and other 
countries--and, Mr. Speaker, rather than talking about how my 
Republican friends opposed all of our Democratic efforts to try to 
close corporate tax loopholes that eliminated tax incentives that 
allowed companies to ship jobs overseas, losing American jobs; and 
rather than talking about a number of the policies that they have stood 
for that I think have brought this country right to the edge of a 
cliff, I want to take my time instead to join with the distinguished 
chairwoman to praise my colleague and my friend, Sophie Hayford, who I 
am going to miss very much, not only because I think she represents the 
civility that desperately needs to come back to this House, but because 
she has been an incredible public servant.

[[Page 17146]]

  At a time when we hear people denigrate those who work for the 
government, she is an example of what a government worker is all 
about--somebody who dedicates her entire life to trying to make the 
lives of others in this country better.
  I have learned an awful lot from Sophie.
  I first met her back in 1982, when I came to work here for 
Congressman Joe Moakley of South Boston, and Sophie was already a 
seasoned staffer when I arrived.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman.
  I learned a great deal from Sophie, and I admired her dedication and 
her loyalty to Joe Moakley. He treasured her as one of his most valued 
staff members and he truly loved her, because Sophie gave that job her 
all.
  I got to work with Sophie in a new capacity when I got elected to 
Congress and she was already on the Rules Committee, and she taught me 
a lot about the Rules Committee, even more than I got to know when I 
worked for Joe Moakley. I think she is an incredible human being, and 
everybody who has had the honor and the privilege of working with her I 
think knows what I am talking about.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just say that I think Sophie is a 
model for all of us, not just members of the staff, but Members of 
Congress, about what public service is all about. She has had her 
fingerprints on every major piece of legislation that has impacted the 
lives of millions of people. I will always admire her for that.
  But most importantly and most personally, I admire her for being an 
incredible friend. She has been a wonderful friend for many, many 
years, and I am going to miss her a lot, and I think I speak for 
everybody when I say I love her a lot.
  Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a former member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the underlying 
legislation. In particular, I rise in strong support of the provision 
that extends the period for filing stop loss compensation claims to 
December 3 of this year.
  Under the stop loss measure that I originally introduced in 2008, 
servicemen and -women, including members of the Reserve, who had their 
service extended due to stop loss after September 11, 2001, are 
eligible for stop loss pay of $500 per month.
  Our brave service men and women must know that we honor and respect 
their dedication and sacrifices to protect us and our country.
  I received emails from servicemembers describing the effects of stop 
loss on their lives and the lives of their families. They share the 
hardship of being stop-lossed. They share some of the things that it 
has caused--financial problems and depression, family strife, and even 
divorce.
  I am pleased that this bill will give our soldiers more time to file 
for the stop loss compensation that they deserve for all of their 
extended service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I want my colleagues to know that these payments do not go 
unappreciated and urge all of you to help get the word out about the 
stop loss pay that some may be eligible for.
  Yesterday, a posting online on VetVoice illustrates the importance of 
getting the word out about this pay. A Vietnam veteran tells us of an 
account of telling a few veterans about the stop loss pay, and he says:
  ``One, the big guy--I am over 6 feet and 200 pounds. If I call him a 
big guy, he is a big guy--had tears streaming down his face.
  ```I was stop-lossed 11 months ago,' he said. `I've used up all of my 
unemployment. You mean I can get $5,500?' he sputtered through the 
tears. `Sure,' I answered. `It's as easy as going to the Web site and 
following the links.'
  ``He grabbed me in a bear hug as he told me that his wife hadn't had 
a new thing in many months. His kids didn't even get new clothes for 
school, yet alone supplies. They'd been subsisting on food stamps and 
the occasional visit to the food bank. His gratitude was more crushing 
than his considerable strength.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 30 seconds more to Ms. Sutton.

                              {time}  2240

  Ms. SUTTON. The other veteran said he hadn't quite sunk that low 
financially but he sure could use the money. They offered me their 
thanks, and we parted ways.
  That is what this Vietnam veteran relayed in relation to an account 
that he had to share the news about stop loss pay that they were 
potentially entitled to. I hope that we will all get the word out. I am 
glad that we are extending the deadline. Our servicemembers deserve it 
and have earned it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if my friend is prepared to 
close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is very troubling that we are here at 
this late hour having not passed a budget for the first time since the 
Budget Act was put into place in 1974, having not completed a single 
appropriations bill, and having passed legislation which has 
dramatically exacerbated the debt that is going to be shouldered by 
future generations.
  We can do better, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that we can do better. 
We can do better right now. I and my colleagues are prepared to stay 
here so that we can ensure that Americans don't face the uncertainty of 
a tax increase, which will clearly impinge the potential for economic 
growth as we are struggling to get out of this recession. I am 
convinced that if we stay here, we can in fact get that done; I am 
convinced that if we stay, we could complete a budget; and I am 
convinced we could even complete the appropriations work.
  Now, I know the writing is on the wall. We have passed an adjournment 
resolution. It is up to the majority leader to determine whether or not 
we can do this. But things have moved so quickly, things have moved out 
of the Rules Committee so quickly, I think that we should make an 
attempt to try and address our constitutionally mandated items, like 
passing a budget, like completing our appropriations work.
  So I urge my colleagues to do that. It is very sad that this has 
become the wrong-way Congress. But as I said, I believe, Mr. Speaker, 
that we do have the chance to turn things around, make a U-turn.
  This wrong-way Congress document is not filled with lots of 
hyperbole. It is filled with facts. It is filled with the very sad 
facts about what we have seen over the past 4 years, and I would 
commend it to my colleagues.
  I am going to ask my colleagues to join me now in defeating the 
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer 
an amendment to the rule that will change the budget enforcement 
``deemer'' resolution to reduce our discretionary spending levels to 
pre-bailout and pre-stimulus levels, 2008 levels.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
appear in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this House, as I said, has failed to budget 
and failed to appropriate. The majority leadership of this House has 
actively denied Democrats and Republicans the opportunity to make 
spending decisions, particularly when it comes to cutting its Federal 
deficit. We can see the result, as I have been saying: A 91 percent 
increase in nondefense discretionary spending.
  This amendment we have would restore some sanity to our fiscal 
outlook,

[[Page 17147]]

and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about some of the 
consequences if we were to, and I pray we do not, vote ``no'' on the 
previous question.
  My colleagues say they are going to extend the Bush tax cuts 
permanently, with a price tag of $4 trillion over the next 10 years, 
more than doubling the deficit, while cutting the domestic 
discretionary Federal budget back to 2008 levels, which they say will 
save $340 billion over the next decade.
  Choosing once again to disinvest in America would save less than 10 
percent of the increased deficits their policy would cause, but it 
would result in significant reductions to existing State and local law 
enforcement and crime-fighting programs.
  It would slash and burn JAG grants, which help communities to fight 
crime, by $260 million. It would gut the STOP grant funding that helps 
States prevent and respond to violent crimes against women. Overall, 
the Department of Justice would be cut by $2.4 billion. That would 
result in thousands of law enforcement personnel being laid off.
  The plan would slash $700 million from new law enforcement 
initiatives, including $210 million from DOJ and the FBI's 
cybersecurity, WMD, and counterterrorism programs, and 137 members from 
DEA, ATF and other agencies, all trying to fight the Mexican drug 
cartels that are threatening the communities along our borders.
  The price is really much too great, Mr. Speaker. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

                       Amendment to H. Res. 1682

                  Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:


                           BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

       Sec. 2. In lieu of the budget enforcement levels 
     established by paragraphs (a)(1)(B)(i) and (a)(1)(B)(ii) of 
     House Resolution 1493:
       (1) the new discretionary budget authority established by 
     paragraph (a)(1)(B)(i) for fiscal year 2011 shall be 
     $1,028,893,000,000; and
       (2) the discretionary outlays established by paragraph 
     (a)(1)(B)(ii) for fiscal year 2011 shall be 
     $1,262,152,000,000.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.

                          ____________________