[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1822-1833]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1210
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, FULL-YEAR CONTINUING 
  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011, AND WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF 
     RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 92 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 92

       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. 1) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense and the other departments and agencies of the 
     Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall

[[Page 1823]]

     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except: (1) those 
     received for printing in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII 
     dated at least one day before the day of consideration of the 
     amendment (but no later than February 15, 2011); and (2) pro 
     forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
     received may be offered only by the Member who submitted it 
     for printing or a designee and shall be considered as read if 
     printed. When the committee rises and reports the bill back 
     to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 1, clause 2(f) of 
     rule XXI shall not apply to amendments addressing objects 
     within more than one suballocation made by the Committee on 
     Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       Sec. 3.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of February 17, 2011, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of H.R. 1.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my new friend, the gentlelady from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 92 provides for a modified 
open rule for consideration of H.R. 1. This bill reaffirms our 
commitment to fiscal responsibility by implementing two main pillars of 
our pledge to America: to cut discretionary spending and to ensure an 
open and bipartisan debate.
  If you had told me 6 months ago that I would have been standing here 
on the floor of the House handling my very first rule on the floor of 
the House and that we would have been succeeding on two pillars of the 
pledge to America, I would have told you that might have been wishful 
thinking. But we have come together as a House, not as Republicans, not 
as Democrats, but as a House to bring this process forward today.
  Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, as an experienced Member of the Rules 
Committee in a former life, how unusual it is to have an open process 
on a continuing resolution. I daresay, even the dean of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan, has not seen a continuing resolution come to 
the floor under the open process that we're bringing it to the floor 
under today. And that's important, because as I listened to 1-minutes 
this morning, and I heard some folks on the left and heard some folks 
on the right who weren't quite happy with the way H.R. 1 turned out, 
that was an important consideration over the past 4 years, even over 
the past 10 years, over the past 20 years, because if you weren't happy 
with the way a continuing resolution turned out when leadership brought 
it to the floor, too bad for you. You didn't have a voice. You didn't 
have a vote. You didn't have a process. It was take it or leave it. 
Whether it was Republican leadership or whether it was Democratic 
leadership, take it or leave it. In the 112th Congress, our new 
leadership said we can do better, we have to do better, and the 
American people deserve better. And today, we are fulfilling that 
promise.
  This open process will allow any Member, Republican or Democrat, to 
come to the floor today, tomorrow, bring their amendments to the floor 
so that they can say, We don't think you got it right. My 600,000 
constituents back home want to make a change. We think we can do 
better. We think you did too much. We think you didn't do enough. The 
first time a continuing resolution has come to the floor in this open 
process. I ran on that commitment of openness, Mr. Speaker, and I 
believe in that commitment of openness.
  I can't tell you how many times I said that if Speaker Nancy Pelosi 
rammed a bill through in the middle of the night, that was wrong. And 
if Speaker Newt Gingrich rammed a bill through in the middle of the 
night, that was wrong. That right and wrong are not partisan issues. 
Right and wrong are American issues. I can't tell you how much I 
enjoyed our Rules Committee hearing last night, Mr. Speaker, where we 
had the ranking member and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
come forward, lay out competing views about where they think we should 
take spending in this country, and then agree to come to the floor over 
the next several days to offer amendments, to work through that 
process, to make sure that at the end of the day, no longer do we have 
a take-it-or-leave-it leadership bill from either side of the aisle; 
that at the end of the day, we have a bill that was truly the work 
product of this new 112th Congress of this people's House. And it's 
just with tremendous pride, Mr. Speaker, that I take part in this 
debate today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today still waiting for the majority 
to give us a chance to vote on legislation that will create jobs. We 
are now 6 weeks into the 112th Congress, and we have yet to see a jobs 
bill from the Republican majority. It's high time the majority party 
allows us to debate and vote on legislation to get Americans back to 
work. Instead today, we are debating dangerous and reckless legislation 
that will cut American jobs and seriously threaten our ability to build 
upon our fragile economic recovery.
  At a time when many Americans are still struggling to find 
employment, the Republican majority proposes a spending bill that ends 
construction projects, takes police off the street, and halts 
innovation that spurs job creation. This stands in stark contrast to 
the President's 2012 budget proposal that lowers our Nation's deficit 
and creates jobs for Americans by investing in national priorities like 
education, infrastructure, and emerging energy technology.
  Unlike some within the Republican Party, the American people are not 
looking to completely cripple the Federal Government and leave the 
Nation to the corporate elite. Americans have repeatedly expressed a 
desire to make smart investments in our national priorities that leave 
our country more competitive now and into the future, and I stand today 
with the American people.
  The Republicans' slash-and-burn budget does nothing to achieve this 
goal. It even cuts the most fundamental public services, ending 
policing programs and defunding educational reform efforts here in the 
United States. As nations like China and India pour money into the 
research and development of solar panels, wind power, and high-speed 
trains, creating thousands of jobs for their citizens, the Republican 
majority is removing the most fundamental investments in comparable 
American jobs. This reckless approach not only destroys jobs today but 
also in the months and years to come.
  This is a critical time in America's history, and if we are to 
compete with nations like China to create jobs in the United States and 
win the global marketplace, we must support our own Nation with smart, 
targeted cuts that will lower the deficit but invest in American jobs.
  As I said, 6 weeks into the new Congress, and we are still waiting to 
see

[[Page 1824]]

this smart, targeted plan to get Americans back to work. Instead, we 
see this hastily drawn up CR that takes a meat axe to the middle class. 
And as America waits, the global economy moves ahead, leaving us 
behind.
  As the 112th Congress was sworn into office, we were bombarded with 
promises that an open and transparent process would make a triumphant 
return to this House floor. But as we now consider our first 
appropriations bill, we continue to stand here waiting for that grand 
return.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. Speaker, while this rule may have the word ``open'' in the title, 
I assure you this is not an open process. Through last-minute changes, 
convoluted parliamentary maneuvers, and a pre-printing requirement, the 
Republican majority has provided an extremely convoluted and 
restrictive process.
  An open rule means that as the legislative process proceeds, as an 
amendment passes, it may spark an idea for an amendment that another 
Member may choose to offer with the changes that are made in the 
legislation. This rule takes away that ability.
  Also, the Republicans adopted, in a party-line vote at 9 p.m. last 
night, a parliamentary sleight of hand that blocks the transfer of any 
money from one part of government to another. This means you cannot use 
an offset from one part of the bill to increase spending in a different 
part. In all my years serving in Congress, I have never seen such a 
blanket prohibition, and yet the leadership would have us believe this 
is an ``open process'' and that this is ``regular order.''
  To top it all off, Republicans have even given themselves an escape 
hatch with a martial-law provision of the rule which will allow them to 
report out a new rule for H.R. 1 that shuts down the amendment process 
without the normal 1-day waiting period.
  This convoluted process has once again illustrated that the 
Republican Party continues to believe that claiming the sky is green 
will make it so. The truth is, you can't create jobs with a press 
release. You can't fix the Nation's health care system with a clever 
tag line, and you can't create an open and transparent Congress by 
creating an open rule in name only.
  My fellow Democratic colleagues and I are committed to living within 
our means, while investing in the programs and policies that will help 
our country compete and win the global future. The Republican 
majority's continuing resolution couldn't be more dangerous to these 
values that we all hold dear.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for our communities, support 
legislation that creates jobs, strengthens the middle class while 
reducing our deficit. Today's CR does not meet this threshold and, as a 
result, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you've caught me both on my first rule on the floor and 
a day where I am just so pleased to be here because of the things that 
are going on here today, because of the changes that I believe in, both 
in terms of fiscal responsibility and in terms of openness here in the 
process.
  Now, I understand this rule isn't going to make everyone happy. It 
doesn't make me happy because we're only here today, and it's been very 
confusing for folks back home, Mr. Speaker. We talked so much about 
receiving the President's budget on Capitol Hill yesterday. Of course, 
that was his budget for FY 2012. We're still here working on the budget 
for 2011. This is the fifth continuing resolution that we've had to try 
to get that process right, and it's the first one since I've been sworn 
in that we've been involved in.
  Now, I can tell you, as much of a voice as you have in this 
continuing resolution today, we have not seen this much debate or this 
many amendments in the last four continuing resolutions combined. In 
fact, I'm told that last night more than 400 amendments were filed to 
be eligible to come to the floor.
  Now, I hear from my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, for 
whom I have deep respect and admiration, that they believe this bill 
was put together in a hasty process. I'll tell you, we've been working 
on this bill day and night for weeks.
  But then I hear from my friends that they're disappointed that we 
have a pre-printing requirement to allow for the thoughtful 
consideration of amendments, and they would rather it just be a willy-
nilly process that happens here on the floor as folks come up with good 
ideas, one by one.
  Well, I'll tell you, I look forward to that process. I very much hope 
we can have that as the appropriations bills move forward.
  But, folks, this is a time of urgency. We have troops in harm's way 
overseas. We have economic development projects going on around this 
country that have no idea after March 4 whether there will be a single 
nickel available to support their cause. No idea. It is no way to run a 
government. And, again, to put credit where credit is due and blame 
where blame resides, both parties, over the last decade, have been 
guilty of this horrendous practice of bringing continuing resolutions 
to the floor.
  Today we bring forward a bill that will put a stop to this process, 
that will get us through the end of 2011 and allow us to go through 
regular order to bring the remaining appropriations bills to the floor. 
And it's a process I very much look forward to.
  I see my friend Mr. McGovern in the Chamber this morning. He and I 
had a discussion last night in the Rules Committee about how to go 
after some, what I would call, egregious tax subsidies, those things 
that happen on the tax side of the ledger that shouldn't happen. I 
believe in a fair code. I believe in a code that's transparent, that 
people understand. You'll see my fair tax pin that I'm wearing here 
today. I believe in fundamental tax reform.
  But today we only have a chance to talk about FY 2011 spending. I 
want to have that discussion about fundamental tax reform. I want to 
have the discussion that the gentlelady from New York wants to have 
about entitlement reform because I know precisely what my colleagues 
know, which is if we're going to be serious about budgets, that's where 
the dollars are, that's where the growth is, that's where the change 
has to come.
  But today we have, because it's an open process, simply one bill that 
we can deal with, simply one idea that we can deal with, and that one 
idea is spending for FY 2011.
  It would have been easy, Mr. Speaker, for this new House to have 
punted on making tough decisions. It would have been perfectly 
legitimate for this new House to say, we didn't cause this problem, we 
inherited this problem from last year's Congress, and we're just going 
to continue a continuing resolution on until the end of the year 
because we don't have the time or the commitment to start making tough 
choices. But we didn't. And I'm just so proud that we didn't.
  What we said is, we have 7 months left in the year. Let's start right 
now. Let's start right now; and let's lay these ideas out one by one by 
one, not in big general terms, but in specifics, line item by line item 
by line item across literally thousands of appropriations accounts.
  And we didn't say it's my way or the highway, Mr. Speaker. We said, 
if you have a better idea, if you have a better idea, come to the floor 
and let's talk about it. If you have a better idea, if we did too much 
here, tell us where we did too much and tell us how we can do better. 
And if we did too little here, tell us where we did too little and tell 
us how we can make it better.
  I so look forward, at the end of this rules consideration, as we pass 
this rule and move forward in the general debate, to being able to 
engage in those amendments one by one, not in a back room somewhere, 
not off in the corner where it's just the leadership involved, but here 
on the floor of the people's House, for all of America to see, line 
item by line item by line item about where our priorities are.
  Now, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, you know, as I know, that every 
nickel we

[[Page 1825]]

collect in Federal revenue today goes to fund entitlements and service 
our national debt. And every nickel that we spend on every program 
we're going to talk about today, every program on the discretionary 
side, on the non-defense discretionary side, is a nickel that we 
borrow.
  So when we talk about are these things good to do, I promise you that 
that's not where my heart is today. I know there are some good programs 
out here that are doing good things. What I also know is we're 
borrowing every nickel to fund those programs from our children and our 
grandchildren. When we talk about priorities, one of those priorities 
is paying for what it is we commit this Nation to.
  Again, my good friend Mr. McGovern was very persuasive last night 
when he said, for Pete's sake, they are programs I don't agree with; 
but dadgummit, if we're going to be involved in them, we ought to fund 
them; and I couldn't agree with him more. That's hard.
  We received the President's budget just yesterday; and over a 10-year 
window, our systemic deficit never falls below 3 percent of GDP. We 
don't even qualify to join the European Union. We are so devoid of 
fiscal responsibility at this point in our Nation's history that we do 
not even qualify to join the European Union. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, 
that's a low standard. We should do better. We should do better. We can 
do better. We brought H.R. 1 to the floor today, this rule, we'll bring 
it to the floor this afternoon so that we can do better.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say 
that what I really would love to see us debating today is how we're 
going to get out of Afghanistan and stop paying 8 billion borrowed 
dollars a month for that.
  Also, in an editorial printed today, The New York Times said what I 
think a lot of us are saying, that this bill will cut vital government 
functions and not have any lasting impact on the deficit.

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 14, 2011]

                            The Obama Budget

       On paper, President Obama's new $3.7 trillion budget is 
     encouraging. It makes a number of tough choices to cut the 
     deficit by a projected $1.1 trillion over 10 years, which is 
     enough to prevent an uncontrolled explosion of debt in the 
     next decade and, as a result, reduce the risk of a fiscal 
     crisis.
       The questions are whether its tough choices are also wise 
     choices and whether it stands a chance in a Congress in which 
     Republicans, who now dominate the House, are obsessed with 
     making indiscriminate short-term cuts in programs they never 
     liked anyway. The Republican cuts would eviscerate vital 
     government functions while not having any lasting impact on 
     the deficit.
       What Mr. Obama's budget is most definitely not is a 
     blueprint for dealing with the real long-term problems that 
     feed the budget deficit: rising health care costs, an aging 
     population and a refusal by lawmakers to face the inescapable 
     need to raise taxes at some point. Rather, it defers those 
     critical issues, in hopes, we assume, that both the economy 
     and the political environment will improve in the future.
       For the most part, Mr. Obama has managed to cut spending 
     while preserving important government duties. That approach 
     is in stark contrast to Congressional Republicans, who are 
     determined to cut spending deeply, no matter the 
     consequences.
       A case in point: the Obama budget's main cut--$400 billion 
     over 10 years--is the result of a five-year freeze in 
     nonsecurity discretionary programs, a slice of the budget 
     that contains programs that are central to the quality of 
     American lives, including education, environment and 
     financial regulation.
       But the cuts are not haphazard. The budget boosts education 
     spending by 11 percent over one year and retains the current 
     maximum level of college Pell grants--up to $5,500 a year. To 
     offset some of the costs, the budget would eliminate Pell 
     grants for summer school and let interest accrue during 
     school on federal loans for graduate students, rather than 
     starting the interest meter after graduation.
       Those are tough cutbacks, but, over all, the Pell grant 
     program would continue to help close to nine million 
     students. The Republican proposal would cut the Pell grant 
     program by 15 percent this year and nearly half over the next 
     two years.
       The Obama budget also calls for spending on green energy 
     programs--to be paid for, in part, by eliminating $46 billion 
     in tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies over the next 
     decade. Republicans are determined not to raise any taxes, 
     even though investing for the future and taming the deficit 
     are impossible without more money.
       The budget would also increase transportation spending by 
     $242 billion over 10 years. It does not specifically call for 
     an increased gas tax to cover the new costs, though it calls 
     on Congress to come up with new revenues to offset the new 
     spending. Republicans want to eliminate forward-looking 
     programs like high-speed rail.
       The budget is responsible in other ways. It would cap the 
     value of itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers and 
     use the savings to extend relief from the alternative minimum 
     tax for three years so that the tax does not ensnare millions 
     of middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers for whom it was 
     never intended. For nearly a decade, Congress has granted 
     alternative minimum tax relief without paying for it.
       House Republicans want to leave military spending out of 
     their budget-cutting entirely, but Mr. Obama's budget reduces 
     projected Pentagon spending by $78 billion over five years. 
     If anything, Mr. Obama could safely have proposed cutting 
     deeper, as suggested by his own bipartisan deficit panel.
       The bill for the military is way too high, above cold-war 
     peak levels, when this country had a superpower adversary. 
     There's a point where the next military spending dollar does 
     not make our society more secure, and it's a point we long 
     ago passed.
       Mr. Obama's budget also includes a responsible way to head 
     off steep cuts in what Medicare pays doctors. It would 
     postpone the cuts for two years and offset that added cost 
     with $62 billion in other health care savings, like expanding 
     the use of cheaper generic drugs.
       But not all of Mr. Obama's cuts are acceptable. The 
     president is proposing a reduction by nearly half in the 
     program that provides assistance to low-income families to 
     pay for home heating bills. Shared sacrifice need not involve 
     the very neediest.
       Ideally, budget cuts would not start until the economic 
     recovery is more firmly entrenched. But the deficit is a 
     pressing political problem. The Obama budget is balanced 
     enough to start the process of deficit reduction, but not so 
     draconian that it would derail the recovery.
       The same cannot be said for the plan put forward by 
     Republicans last week. It would amputate some of government's 
     most vital functions for the next seven months of fiscal year 
     2011. (They haven't even gotten to next year yet, never mind 
     the more distant future).
       Real deficit reduction will require grappling with rising 
     health care costs and an aging population, which means 
     reforms in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as 
     tax increases to bring revenues in line with obligations.
       Mr. Obama's budget does not directly address those big 
     issues, but doing so would require a negotiating partner, and 
     Mr. Obama, at present, does not have one among the Republican 
     leaders in Congress. His latest budget is a good starting 
     point for a discussion--and a budget deal--but only if 
     Republicans are willing participants in the process.

  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a 
member of the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, America's top priority is creating jobs. But 
here we are, 6 weeks into the 112th Congress, and the Republican 
leadership has yet to bring a single jobs bill to the floor.
  Once again, we're here today to exercise one of our primary 
constitutional responsibilities as Members of Congress, to pass 
appropriations legislation to fund the many basic and essential 
programs of the Federal Government on which millions of Americans rely. 
Today is an incredible opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to 
work together to bridge the gap between parties and pass a bill that 
meets our shared goals of creating jobs, building infrastructure, and 
strengthening the economy.
  Sadly, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor a 
continuing resolution that jeopardizes American jobs and our economic 
future by rolling back investments that are necessary and important to 
help our private sector grow and help create jobs.
  This CR thoughtlessly makes extreme cuts to appease an extreme wing 
of the other party at the expense of the American people. This CR 
arbitrarily kills jobs. It would set our country back decades in 
scientific research simply because Republicans don't like what the 
science says. Worst of all, it puts our children's health at risk by 
handcuffing the EPA's ability to please polluters.
  The Clean Air Act guards the most vulnerable Americans, those with 
asthma, lung disease, children, older adults, people with heart disease 
and diabetes, from the dangers of airborne

[[Page 1826]]

pollutants. Each year the act prevents tens of thousands of adverse 
health effects, including asthma attacks, heart attacks, and even 
premature death. This year alone, it was estimated by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency that the Clean Air Act will save 
160,000 lives. Yet Republicans plan to starve this lifesaving agency of 
its funding.
  Mr. Speaker, building an excellent public education system that 
provides each and every American the opportunity to succeed is the most 
important investment we can make in our future. As President Obama said 
in his State of the Union address, it is not just about how we cut but 
what we cut. Education is an investment in our future, and we can't 
sacrifice our future. But Republicans, through this CR, seem to be 
willing to sacrifice our future to meet an arbitrary campaign pledge. 
By cutting to the heart of the learning needs of American children and 
youth through this extraordinary and nonsensical measure, Republican 
lawmakers clearly don't understand the meaning of investing in our 
future as a nation.
  Mr. Speaker, at the State and local level, my home State of Colorado 
also receives a slap in the face from this continuing resolution. A 
year ago, Highway 36, the highway that connects Boulder to Denver, was 
awarded a $10 million TIGER/TIFIA Challenge Grant through the Recovery 
Act to expand one of the most used and heavily congested highways in 
our State. The $10 million Federal investment helped to leverage 
additional funds in the area, creating $276 million in employment 
income and 7,200 jobs. This project impacts 191,000 employees, 10 
percent of our State's total.
  This CR would rescind $9.1 million in funding without thought to 
details or consequences upon which the rest of the funding is built. 
This is a critical grant for Colorado that we were promised and 
received leverage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. POLIS. Colorado's U.S. 36 corridor won the TIGER award because it 
was one of the most innovative projects in the country. Mr. Speaker, 
Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can all agree that no State or 
community should be punished for being innovative.
  The American public needs and deserves real solutions. I encourage my 
colleagues to oppose the rule for this CR, as well as the underlying 
CR, to prevent the irresponsible impact of this Republican spending 
bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1. This Congress 
must step up to reverse our Nation's mounting deficit and debt, and 
this measure before us today takes an important step. This is an 
important effort, and we need to cut wasteful and duplicative spending. 
But the reality is these kinds of cuts will never get us to a balanced 
budget.
  Let's be honest. Only 16 percent of our Nation's spending is in non-
security discretionary accounts. Today, we are cutting over $100 
billion from just 1/6 of the Federal spending.
  The infamous bank robber Willie Sutton once said that he robbed banks 
because that's where the money is. In our government, the money is in 
entitlements. For those who are concerned about funding for the 
sciences and education and medical research and infrastructure, as I 
am, the way to ensure that our Nation can pay for the programs so many 
people care about is to deal with the mandatory spending entitlements.
  The President's State of the Union address was disappointing. He had 
a national forum to step up and embrace the recommendations of the 
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility. The Bowles-Simpson 
Commission clearly recognized the looming fiscal crisis and offered a 
framework for a serious national conversation to begin on entitlement 
issues, and do it in a bipartisan way. I didn't agree with every 
recommendation and would have tried to change some. But had I been 
appointed to the commission, I would have voted with Senator Coburn and 
Senator Durbin for the report. If those Senators, from far opposite 
sides, could come together for the good of the country, then where is 
the President?
  As important as it is to tighten the Federal discretionary spending 
bill, we will only continue to tilt at windmills with a budget ledger 
if we don't deal with the entitlements--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security.
  I believe the opportunity is to come together in a bipartisan way to 
put everything on the table to deal with it. Also, we need the 
President to step up to the plate and to be an honest broker on this 
issue and to lead the Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
rule and to the underlying continuing resolution.
  The spending bill that the Republican leadership is bringing before 
the House today is reckless, thoughtless, and heartless; and, most 
disturbingly, it's a jobs killer. I believe that the best way to reduce 
our deficit and long-term debt is to grow our economy, to help 
businesses create jobs.
  At a time when our economy is emerging from the worst recession in 
our lifetimes, when millions of Americans are out of work and millions 
more are struggling to make ends meet, this continuing resolution takes 
exactly the wrong approach.
  Instead of making needed investments in education, medical research, 
infrastructure, and other priorities, this bill takes a meat axe to 
them. Instead of strengthening the middle class on Main Street, this 
bill gives sweetheart deals for Wall Street. Instead of investing in 
our workers, it protects special interest subsidies for big oil 
companies and hedge fund managers.
  A few weeks ago on this floor, Republicans told us that veterans 
programs, education, child nutrition, and health care research would be 
protected. It is clear now that those were empty promises, Mr. Speaker.
  For veterans, the bill eliminates a program that offers housing 
vouchers for homeless veterans. In education, the bill decimates the 
Pell Grant program by reducing the maximum award by $800 and by cutting 
another $4.9 billion from other education programs. For child 
nutrition, the bill cuts $750 million from the Women, Infants, and 
Children's program. And the bill slashes $2.5 billion from the National 
Institutes of Health, jeopardizing important research into diseases 
like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes. It destroys the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, a commonsense program to preserve and protect 
our natural resources and outdoor recreational space, helping local 
economies grow.
  Mr. Speaker, when we brought up the prospect of these cuts a few 
weeks ago, we were accused of demonizing the debate. Now that we have 
seen the numbers before us, I am sad to say it is worse than any of us 
could have predicted.
  I find the cuts in education funding to be particularly troublesome. 
As President Obama made clear in his State of the Union, we must invest 
in our children if we are to compete in the 21st century economy. In 
order to maintain our economic standing, in order to create the jobs of 
the future, in order to compete against China, we must have a well-
educated workforce. So why on Earth would we slash Pell Grants, which 
help millions of families, 12,000 in my district alone, pay for 
college? We shouldn't.
  This bill will also decimate important lifesaving food aid programs 
to feed hungry children and refugees. It would literally take the food 
out of the mouths of some of the most vulnerable people around the 
world. Mr. Speaker, retreating from the global war against extreme 
poverty and hunger will undermine not just our moral authority but our 
national security as well.
  I also want to point out that this bill continues the same misguided 
policy under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike that borrows 
hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. If we are truly

[[Page 1827]]

serious about reducing the deficit, then those wars need to be ended or 
paid for. Along with my colleagues like Walter Jones and others, I'm 
going to continue to talk about this issue. These wars are bankrupting 
us, and we need to have a meaningful, thorough debate about them.
  So again, Mr. Speaker, I believe this continuing resolution contains 
exactly the wrong prescription for our Nation. We should be focusing on 
creating jobs and growing our economy. Instead, this Republican bill 
would lead to more unemployment, more unfairness, and more hardship 
with the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject this underlying 
bill.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
Georgia, Jack Kingston.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday we got the President's budget and it was 
basically more of the same: higher taxes, more spending, more deficits. 
In fact, it will give us the third year of trillion-dollar deficits. 
And it made no mention of entitlement reform. In fact, the President 
ignored the recommendations of his very own hand-picked deficit 
reduction commission. It was very disappointing. But at the same time I 
want to work with the President. Where he wants to save money and 
reduce spending, I think it's important for Republicans to reach out 
and say yes.
  Now it sounds to me like the Democrats want to remove themselves from 
that process, which is interesting because what we are debating in this 
$100 billion spending reduction bill is an open rule process where 
Democrats can put amendments on the board. And if they do agree with 
us, as I'm sure they do, that for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is 
borrowed, that our national debt is 96 percent of our GDP right now, 
and that spending each year is 25 percent of the GDP, a historical 
high, then I know they would want to act with us rather than against us 
and try to address this situation.
  So I say to my Democrat friends, if you feel this is too much, then 
offer your own spending cuts. This is what can change in Washington 
this year. Rather than having the same old hollow, rhetorical debate, 
which incidentally doesn't really pull the rug out from the Republican 
Party; it pulls the rug out from Congress. It damages our own 
credibility that we can't come together as representatives of a nation 
and try to move the country forward together.
  Sure we can skirmish over things. For example, we've got $8\1/2\ 
billion in earmarks eliminated in this mark. Now maybe they want to 
restore the earmarks. That's fine. We have a reduction of 149 different 
spending programs. Maybe they want to restore those. Maybe they want to 
double that amount.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I am pleased to yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Maybe the Democrats want to insist that the stimulus 
money stay in there. We go after the remaining portion, $2 billion. 
Maybe they think that's a bad thing and maybe we should get more out of 
it. But rather than just having the same old drama over and over again, 
hiding behind children and seniors and Pell Grants and everything else, 
why not come to the table and say, ``Here are our cuts''?
  Mr. Speaker, this is 2.6 percent. That is to say that if I owed you a 
dollar and paid you back 97 cents, sure, you might still want that 3 
cents from me, but, you know, you're pretty doggone close. This is a 2 
percent reduction in a $3.7 trillion budget.
  Now, if the Democrats don't like it, don't call it slashing and 
burning and all these other descriptions that are lively and make for 
good rhetoric and good drama. But if anything is irresponsible, it's 
irresponsible to call a cut of 2.6 percent reckless.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. 
Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I join her in 
opposing this rule and urging our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
rule, ``no'' on the previous question, and ``no'' on final passage of 
the bill.
  Voting ``no'' on the previous question will enable us, if it 
succeeds, to bring to the floor our Build America Bonds legislation. 
Build America Bonds is supported, outside the Congress, across the 
board in a nonpartisan way by those who are building America--who are 
dredging our ports to enhance our trade, who are building our schools 
to educate our children, who are building our roads and highways and 
mass transit to get people to work and back, improving the quality of 
their lives; and in moving people and product again to work and to 
market, growing our economy.
  Creating jobs is the number one priority for Democrats. We have said 
that we will judge every measure that comes before this House by 
whether it creates jobs, how it strengthens the middle class and how it 
reduces the deficit.
  Indeed, that is what President Obama's budget released just yesterday 
will do. It will strengthen our Nation, invest in the future, help 
create jobs, and grow the economy, while reducing the deficit by $1.1 
trillion. It sets us on a path, in President Obama's words, to ``out-
educate, out-innovate and out-build the rest of the world.'' That is 
indeed what we must do.
  In terms of innovation and education, the President's budget is a 
commitment to competitiveness that will keep America number one. In 
terms of out-building the rest of the world, consider this quote from 
USA Today:
  ``Associated General Contractors, a trade group for the construction 
industry, estimates the plan could create about 5.4 million 
construction jobs and 10 million more jobs in related industries and 
the broader economy.''
  President Obama's budget is a tough budget and it makes tough 
choices. I don't agree with everything that the President cut in the 
budget, but it is a statement of values that we must support. It makes 
cuts and tough ones in a responsible way. As President Obama said 
yesterday, we must live within our means and invest in the future.
  That is in stark contrast to the Republican legislation we debate 
today. With severe and indiscriminate spending cuts, it goes too far. 
This legislation will destroy American jobs while harming middle class 
families, young adults, seniors, and, yes, even our veterans. Since 
coming into office, Republicans have not put forward any initiatives to 
create jobs. Indeed, with this legislation, they are making matters 
worse. According to an independent study just released, the domestic 
cuts in this bill would destroy 800,000 public- and private-sector 
jobs. Democrats are saying to the Republican majority: Show us the 
jobs. Show the American people where the jobs are.
  Just today, Speaker Boehner said that if jobs are lost as a result of 
Republican spending cuts, ``So be it.''
  So be it? We believe that our budget should be a statement of our 
national values. What is important to us must be included in our 
budget.
  Consider what the Republican legislation we debate today would do to 
diminish our investments in education, halt innovation, destroy good-
paying American jobs and make our neighborhoods less secure. Indeed, 
not even homeless veterans are spared by the Republicans. Our Federal 
budget, as I said, must be a statement of our national values. We must 
ask ourselves, is this Republican legislation a statement of our 
values?
  Is it a statement of our values to undermine our commitment to 
educate the next generation of leaders and innovators? The Republican 
proposal cuts $800 per student in the maximum Pell Grant award; 
thousands of teachers would lose their jobs; and in your neighborhood, 
class size could increase.
  Is it a statement of our values to diminish our efforts to create 
green jobs and fight disease? This bill cuts $1.3 billion in 
investments to spur the clean energy economy of the future. It cuts

[[Page 1828]]

more than $1.3 billion for cancer and other disease research.
  In terms of innovation and education, the President's budget is a 
commitment to competitiveness. This legislation is not.
  Is it a statement of our values to destroy jobs and undermine 
investments in our roads, schools and bridges to rebuild America? Tens 
of thousands of new construction jobs would be lost and 76 projects to 
upgrade our roads in your districts and bridges in 40 States would be 
canceled. I mentioned earlier what the general contractors said about 
creating millions of jobs in the industry and 10 million more jobs 
indirectly.

                              {time}  1250

  Is it a statement of our values to diminish the public safety of our 
neighborhoods? There would be up to 3,000 fewer cops on the beat in 
your neighborhood and 2,400 fewer firefighters on the job in our 
communities coast-to-coast; 3,000 fewer cops on the beat and 2,400 
fewer firefighters in our communities coast-to-coast.
  Is it a statement of our values to cut funding for homeless veterans? 
If there was one example of where this goes too far--think of it: 
Republicans want to eliminate $75 million from an initiative that 
offers housing vouchers to our homeless vets. It is a very effective 
initiative. Republicans want to cut it.
  And is it a statement of our values to deprive women of primary care? 
When it comes to health and education, Republicans put women and 
children last.
  Democrats and Republicans must work together to ensure our Nation 
lives within its means. That is for sure. We must continue to 
aggressively attack waste, fraud, and abuse, and we will subject every 
taxpayer dollar we spend to the toughest scrutiny, ensuring that the 
American people are getting their money's worth. But Republicans have 
not presented a responsible plan for addressing the deficit. We believe 
we can cut the deficit and create jobs. To do so, we must invest in the 
future.
  Democrats do not subscribe to Speaker Boehner's verdict that if jobs 
are lost in this continuing resolution, so be it. Maybe so be it for 
him, but not so be it for the people who are losing their jobs. 
Instead, we support President Obama's budget to out-innovate, out-
educate, and out-build the rest of the world.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
previous question, no on the rule, and no on the underlying bill. Let's 
put this aside and get on with the business the people sent us here to 
do: Creating jobs, reducing the deficit, strengthening the middle 
class, and protecting the American people.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 2 minutes 
to a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the rule and the continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, we would not be in this position this afternoon if the 
leadership of the last Congress let the Appropriations Committee do its 
work last year, to act on the President's budget proposal when it came 
out, to debate our bills in full committee, to debate our bills on the 
floor. So that is why we are here today. It would have been great if 
last year's House leadership had actually listened to the American 
people.
  We would not be in this situation if the President and the 
congressional leadership hadn't borrowed billions of dollars, 
mortgaging our future, to spend on multiple stimulus bills and bailouts 
that did little to create private-sector jobs and restore consumer 
confidence.
  The Department of Energy alone had $39 billion in stimulus money, 
all, I might say, borrowed--$9 billion more than its entire budget. It 
was a recipe for waste, a scatter gun approach that raised many public 
expectations but in the end provided few achievements and fewer yet 
jobs. In many cases it created businesses in the energy sector that 
could not survive without more government funding. To me, it created 
false markets. As some described it, it was more money than some knew 
how to deal with.
  For months, those dollars were not obligated, much less spent, hiring 
up people in the public and private sector that the White House and the 
House and Senate leadership knew would eventually be laid off. Some 
might call it a job Ponzi scheme, a blank check owed to our children.
  So here we are this week to pick up the pieces, right-size the ship 
of state, stop spending money we don't have, and restore trust for the 
American people that has been badly broken.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say, in 
a column printed Sunday in The New York Times, prize-winning economist 
Paul Krugman said the bill will sacrifice the future. He also said, 
``Republicans don't have a mandate to cut spending; they have a mandate 
to repeal the laws of arithmetic.''

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 13, 2011]

                             Eat the Future

                           (By Paul Krugman)

       On Friday, House Republicans unveiled their proposal for 
     immediate cuts in federal spending. Uncharacteristically, 
     they failed to accompany the release with a catchy slogan. So 
     I'd like to propose one: Eat the Future.
       I'll explain in a minute. First, let's talk about the 
     dilemma the G.O.P. faces.
       Republican leaders like to claim that the midterms gave 
     them a mandate for sharp cuts in government spending. Some of 
     us believe that the elections were less about spending than 
     they were about persistent high unemployment, but whatever. 
     The key point to understand is that while many voters say 
     that they want lower spending, press the issue a bit further 
     and it turns out that they only want to cut spending on other 
     people.
       That's the lesson from a new survey by the Pew Research 
     Center, in which Americans were asked whether they favored 
     higher or lower spending in a variety of areas. It turns out 
     that they want more, not less, spending on most things, 
     including education and Medicare. They're evenly divided 
     about spending on aid to the unemployed and--surprise--
     defense.
       The only thing they clearly want to cut is foreign aid, 
     which most Americans believe, wrongly, accounts for a large 
     share of the federal budget.
       Pew also asked people how they would like to see states 
     close their budget deficits. Do they favor cuts in either 
     education or health care, the main expenses states face? No. 
     Do they favor tax increases? No. The only deficit-reduction 
     measure with significant support was cuts in public-employee 
     pensions--and even there the public was evenly divided.
       The moral is clear. Republicans don't have a mandate to cut 
     spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of 
     arithmetic.
       How can voters be so ill informed? In their defense, bear 
     in mind that they have jobs, children to raise, parents to 
     take care of. They don't have the time or the incentive to 
     study the federal budget, let alone state budgets (which are 
     by and large incomprehensible). So they rely on what they 
     hear from seemingly authoritative figures.
       And what they've been hearing ever since Ronald Reagan is 
     that their hard-earned dollars are going to waste, paying for 
     vast armies of useless bureaucrats (payroll is only 5 percent 
     of federal spending) and welfare queens driving Cadillacs. 
     How can we expect voters to appreciate fiscal reality when 
     politicians consistently misrepresent that reality?
       Which brings me back to the Republican dilemma. The new 
     House majority promised to deliver $100 billion in spending 
     cuts--and its members face the prospect of Tea Party primary 
     challenges if they fail to deliver big cuts. Yet the public 
     opposes cuts in programs it likes--and it likes almost 
     everything. What's a politician to do?
       The answer, once you think about it, is obvious: sacrifice 
     the future. Focus the cuts on programs whose benefits aren't 
     immediate; basically, eat America's seed corn. There will be 
     a huge price to pay, eventually--but for now, you can keep 
     the base happy.
       If you didn't understand that logic, you might be puzzled 
     by many items in the House G.O.P. proposal. Why cut a billion 
     dollars from a highly successful program that provides 
     supplemental nutrition to pregnant mothers, infants, and 
     young children? Why cut $648 million from nuclear 
     nonproliferation activities? (One terrorist nuke, assembled 
     from stray ex-Soviet fissile material, can ruin your whole 
     day.) Why cut $578 million from the I.R.S. enforcement 
     budget? (Letting tax cheats run wild doesn't exactly serve 
     the cause of deficit reduction.)
       Once you understand the imperatives Republicans face, 
     however, it all makes sense. By slashing future-oriented 
     programs, they can deliver the instant spending cuts Tea 
     Partiers demand, without imposing too much immediate pain on 
     voters. And as for the future costs--a population damaged by

[[Page 1829]]

     childhood malnutrition, an increased chance of terrorist 
     attacks, a revenue system undermined by widespread tax 
     evasion--well, tomorrow is another day.
       In a better world, politicians would talk to voters as if 
     they were adults. They would explain that discretionary 
     spending has little to do with the long-run imbalance between 
     spending and revenues. They would then explain that solving 
     that long-run problem requires two main things: reining in 
     health-care costs and, realistically, increasing taxes to pay 
     for the programs that Americans really want.
       But Republican leaders can't do that, of course: they 
     refuse to admit that taxes ever need to rise, and they spent 
     much of the last two years screaming ``death panels!'' in 
     response to even the most modest, sensible efforts to ensure 
     that Medicare dollars are well spent.
       And so they had to produce something like Friday's 
     proposal, a plan that would save remakably little money but 
     would do a remarkably large amount of harm.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my fellow New Yorker (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
and, more importantly, in opposition to the underlying legislation.
  I think we all recognize that we must make painful cuts, we must make 
difficult cuts, but I think it is important to recognize that there is 
a real difference between painful cuts and difficult cuts and cuts that 
are destructive, and I want to focus on an area where I think the cuts 
will be particularly destructive. They will be destructive to ambition, 
destructive to aspiration, and destructive to our ability to maintain a 
vibrant economy, and those are the cuts maintained in this legislation 
that would take $6.5 billion, $6.5 billion in one year, out of the 
student financial aid program, cutting Pell Grants by $5.6 billion, 
almost $5.7 billion, and cutting SEOG, a program that has been in 
existence since the late 1960s, completely eliminating it to the tune 
of $800 million a year. These cuts are destructive.
  The most powerful tool that we have to put our economy back on track 
is an educated workforce, and the most powerful tool we have to bring 
about the fiscal stability that we need in this country is a growing 
economy. That is not possible unless we have an educated workforce.
  Sixty-three percent of the jobs that will be created over the next 6 
years will require post-secondary education. Ninety percent of the jobs 
that are expected to be the highest growing areas--science, technology, 
math, health care--require a post-secondary education. And yet the 
response of the current leadership of this Congress to that is to cut 
funding that allows students to go on to college. It is wrong-headed 
and, frankly, it is destructive of our future, and I would urge that my 
colleagues vote against it.
  I will make one last point. The gentleman from New Jersey just said 
the Democrats did not listen to the American people last year. That is 
a continuing refrain. Well, the American people have spoken loudly and 
clearly about education cuts. Sixty-one percent of them believe that 
the Federal Government should spend more on education and only 11 
percent believe that we should cut education.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will control the time on the minority 
side.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, what a difference a new Congress makes. We have seen in 
the last 4 years on the Appropriations Committee a lack of any kind of 
transparent open process. This last year on the other side of the aisle 
when they were in control, they didn't even pass a budget, a blueprint 
for spending. And that is why this year, Mr. Speaker, we have a $1.65 
trillion deficit. One year, $1.65 trillion. We can't continue.
  The President's budget that he brought up, which is not just dead on 
arrival, it is debt on arrival, what this says is that we are going to 
double the privately held national debt, another $7 trillion. This is 
not fiscal restraint. This is not sanity.
  I have four grandchildren, and the reason I am here is to make sure 
that they have a future. We cannot continue this outrageous spending 
that is going on in Washington. And when you look at this bill that we 
are talking about on the floor, $100 billion off of the President's 
proposal for this past year, that is less than 1/16th of the annual 
deficit. It is scratching the surface. But because there has been no 
budget, there has been no fiscal restraint at all in the previous two 
Congresses, this thing has totally grown way beyond what is 
comprehensible by any normal person.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, this is the first step to bring some fiscal 
sanity back to Washington, D.C., to actually understand what the 
ramifications are long-term in spending. We cannot continue. And it is 
amazing to me in this rule to have an open process, where people can 
actually have amendments, I have had some Democrat colleagues come up 
and say, you mean, we are actually going to have amendments? They don't 
know how to handle that, because we have had a closed process for the 
last 4 years. We have second term Members of Congress that have never 
seen an open rule on an appropriations bill. Let's pass this rule and 
get our house in order.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the 
need to be fiscally responsible. I tried last night to offer an 
amendment in the Rules Committee that would simply say that we should 
pay for the war in Afghanistan, that we should not continue to borrow 
the money. Last year, we borrowed $450 billion. That went onto the 
credit card. And that means our kids and grandkids will have to bear 
that burden. That amendment was not made in order. I couldn't offer 
that amendment.
  We talked last night about the giveaways to big oil companies and the 
need to get at those subsidies. The way the bill is written, we can't 
do it. We can't do it. So it's not so open.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, we do believe that reducing our deficit is 
one of the ways to instill confidence and create jobs. So, Mr. Speaker, 
I have a proposal for consideration. We give away $4 billion a year in 
tax breaks to oil companies. Last week, the former CEO of Shell Oil 
Company said they don't need these tax breaks any more because they 
would search for the oil anyway; and, by the way, these companies made 
about a 53 percent profit last year.
  So here's the proposal I would like to make: Let's do away with the 
$4 billion in oil company tax breaks. Let's take 80 percent of that 
money and use it to reduce the deficit, and then let's take the 
remaining 20 percent of the money and spend it on programs for homeless 
veterans.
  There was a report last week that 16 percent of the homeless in our 
country are veterans of the military service. This is obviously a 
condition that's a disgrace to our country and should be stopped. So my 
proposal under this open rule is that I be permitted to offer an 
amendment that says let's get rid of the tax breaks for the oil 
companies, put 80 percent of the money to reducing the deficit, and 
spend the other 20 percent to help the homeless veterans living on the 
streets of our country.
  Now, it's my understanding, reading this rule, that I will not be 
permitted to offer that amendment. I would yield to anyone on the 
majority side if they could tell me whether they agree with my 
interpretation of the rule. Would I be permitted to offer the amendment 
that I am proposing on the floor?
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. As a newcomer 
here to the U.S. House of Representatives, I would certainly defer to 
the Parliamentarian; but I'm encouraging everyone to bring every 
amendment. Bring every amendment, Congressman, to the House floor and 
offer that amendment for debate and discussion.

[[Page 1830]]


  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I would then respectfully ask the 
gentleman if the majority would then not lodge a point of order when my 
amendment comes to the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, to 
respond.
  Mr. WOODALL. I would say to the gentleman that having an open process 
and abiding by the rules of the House is critical to getting our work 
done. And if the rules of the House permit this amendment, I look 
forward to supporting it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I would just read the words of our 
Speaker on opening day when he said to us, You will always have the 
right to a robust debate in an open process that allows you to make 
your case and offer alternatives.
  Always. I'm not sure if ``always'' applies to this rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, yielding.
  I want to stand here today and tell you that we're all worried about 
the economy. We're all worried about getting people back to work; we 
have 9 percent unemployment. But the reality is there are a lot more 
people who have lost their jobs who have given up looking or are 
underemployed. This is the most serious economic problem we've faced 
since the Great Depression.
  Now, unfortunately, the choice of the majority is to cut very 
substantially into programs that are in the domestic accounts and $15 
billion from defense. We all understand we have got to get spending 
under control and we have to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. We have 
to look at this oil subsidy issue, which the oil companies even are 
embarrassed about.
  But what I worry about here is with this approach we are going to 
hurt the economy. We are going to drive unemployment up. We're going to 
drive the deficit up. And it is countercyclical. When you cut this much 
spending, it is going to hurt the fragile recovery, and it's not going 
to put people back to work.
  The other side seems to think that by making these cuts that the 
private sector is going to say, ``aha'', and invest all kinds of money 
and create jobs to offset these cuts. As the Democratic majority leader 
has just said, there are highly regarded studies out there that show 
that 800,000 jobs will be lost because of this bill. That will have a 
major negative impact on the economy.
  Also, one program that I looked into and I hope we can fix is the 
voucher program for homeless veterans. This has been a program that's 
been going on for about 3 or 4 years. Homeless veterans can get a 
voucher and go through their public housing authorities and get a place 
to live. There are almost 30,000 people in this program; and the ones 
that are in it are doing better--less alcohol, less drugs. They're 
getting jobs. They're feeling better about themselves. And there is a 
need, according to General Shinseki, now head of the VA, for another 
30,000 of these vouchers.
  This money is in the 2012 budget request. It was in the 2010 budget 
request. The majority decided to terminate this program. I would hope 
we could reconsider that. The program is working, and we need another 
30,000 of these vouchers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. DICKS. The most recent data indicates that 10,000 of these 
veterans are from the Iraq and Afghanistan war. These are young people 
coming back who have served their country, and they deserve to have 
these vouchers if they need them. And we should restore this program. 
Again, I think we should vote against the rule, vote against the 
previous question.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 3 minutes to a 
true American patriot, a lover of this country, the gentleman from 
Iowa, Mr. Steve King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I'm very 
glad to welcome him to the United States Congress. He knows a little 
bit about what's going on around this organism that we live and work 
and breathe in.
  I come to the floor during this rules debate to raise a subject that 
I think needs to be brought before this Congress, Mr. Speaker, and 
that's this: that even though this House in H.R. 2, the second priority 
of the Speaker, voted to repeal ObamaCare and sent that bill over to 
the Senate where it was taken up and every Republican voted to repeal 
ObamaCare--so every Republican in all the United States Congress has 
voted to repeal ObamaCare. It was bipartisan in this House, by the 
former Speaker's definition. And even though that took place, we did 
not shut off the funding to ObamaCare because in a--I won't say a 
legislative sleight of hand--there was written in the ObamaCare bill 
automatic appropriations that just last week we were able to pull all 
those pieces out and add them up and we received a CRS report last 
Friday that shows that $105.5 billion are automatically triggered for 
spending that will implement ObamaCare whether or not we shut off the 
funds in this CR going forward. These are automatic appropriations.
  I believed--and I've seen it for a long time and worked on this thing 
ever since mid-last summer--that we need to shut off all funding to 
ObamaCare in every appropriations bill going forward. And we had the 
assurance that we would have regular order. Well, the regular order 
that we have is an open rule that closes out an amendment that would 
shut off the funding that's automatically appropriated by ObamaCare. If 
we'd actually had a full regular order, I could have brought that 
amendment before a subcommittee of Appropriations--asked someone to 
do--or the full Appropriations Committee. And actually, at the request, 
I followed all those paths until such time it wasn't written into the 
bill, as was shutting off funding to transferring people out of Gitmo 
or cutting off the 1099 or the stimulus plan of the President's.
  All of that is written out in the bill, but nothing is in the bill 
that allows us to write out the automatic $105 billion dollars. So 
we're faced with the automatic institutionalization of ObamaCare even 
while we cut this budget $100 billion. So I went to Rules last night 
and asked Rules, Protect my amendment from a point of order so this 
House can work its will.

                              {time}  1310

  Even though I have great respect for all of the members of the Rules 
Committee, and the tone and tenor of the debate and the dialogue in 
there could not have been better, the Rules Committee declined to do 
that.
  I am here on this floor now, asking myself: How do I vote ``yes'' on 
a rule that I so oppose?
  That's my position, Mr. Speaker. I think that, if we fail to act now, 
now while we have the maximum amount of leverage and the one of two 
pieces of must-pass legislation--that is the CR, and next is the debt 
ceiling bill--to shut off the funding to implement ObamaCare, we will 
have missed our chance. By the way, every appropriations bill will come 
to the floor with the same kind of rule that will block out anyone from 
offering any legislation that will shut off the funding, the automatic 
appropriations to ObamaCare.
  So as much as it pains me to be standing here at this point, I can't 
figure out how I can vote ``yes'' on a rule that I so oppose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  I was very interested to hear the comments from our friend from Iowa. 
I couldn't sympathize more with him,

[[Page 1831]]

and I know I will have his support later in opposing a point of order 
to an amendment I have to restore Metro funding here in the National 
Capital region and to offset it with some cuts in certain agricultural 
subsidies.
  Mr. Speaker, today we debate the rule on the full year continuing 
appropriations act for 2011. While I understand and support the need to 
establish long-term fiscal responsibility, to reduce spending, to 
reduce the deficit, and to grow the economy, H.R. 1 is not the way. It 
takes a meat ax to American competitiveness and actually destroys jobs.
  That's why I introduced the Build America Bonds Now to Create Jobs 
Act, legislation to extend the successful Build America Bonds program, 
a jobs bill. Creating jobs grows the economy, encourages American 
innovation, and positions us to remain the global economic leader. 
During the past 2 years, $4.4 billion from the Recovery Act leveraged 
$181 billion worth of projects to construct and repair schools, 
bridges, roads, and transit systems in more than 2,270 projects in 
every State of the Union.
  According to Moody's Analytics chief economist and John McCain's 2008 
Presidential campaign adviser, infrastructure investments in the 
Recovery Act resulted in 8 million new or protected jobs that otherwise 
would have been lost in 2009 and 2010. By extending the Build America 
Bonds program, we can do more.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and to support the 
amendment to bring the Build America Bonds Now to Create Jobs Act to 
the floor. Let's create jobs. Let's grow the economy. Let's unleash 
America competitiveness.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from the freedom-loving State of Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. First, let's discuss the rule because we are here 
debating the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this is essentially an open rule. Yes, it does have a 
requirement for preprinting, but any Member can offer any amendment 
they want as long as they preprint it. Now, I understand my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle might not like that. It's kind of 
foreign to them. For the last 4 years, we've had rules come to the 
floor that were closed. Members didn't have an opportunity to amend 
them. In fact, if we were under the previous leadership, what we would 
have here is a closed rule, an hour's debate on this CR. We would pass 
it and it would be done. Members wouldn't have an opportunity to 
influence the legislation before us.
  This is part of this majority's promise that we are going to open the 
process and let the Members of Congress, the elected Representatives of 
the people, have a say in how we craft this legislation and in how it 
turns out in the long run. I don't understand, frankly, why Members 
would oppose the rule. I can understand their opposition to the 
underlying bill, but to oppose the rule makes no sense whatsoever.
  Secondly, I rise in support of the underlying legislation. It is 
tough. The other side of the aisle continues to say all the right 
things: We've got to make tough decisions. We've got to enforce tough 
love. We've got to reduce the deficit. We've got to cut our spending. I 
hear those words and those phrases by every speaker who has come up. 
Yet they oppose every effort to try to reduce the spending of the 
Federal Government as if it is a drastic reduction in what's going to 
happen and as if it's going to destroy our economy and destroy the 
Federal Government. Frankly, none of that is true.
  Remember, as the gentleman from Iowa did say, we've got a $1.65 
trillion deficit in this budget, $1.65 trillion. That's on top of the 
$14 trillion we're already in debt.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SIMPSON. There is no magic bullet. We know we can't balance this 
budget simply by reducing non-security, non-defense spending.
  Yet as the saying goes: The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a 
single step. This is that first step.
  Yes, we have to get after the entitlement programs if we're going to 
reduce this deficit. Yes, we have to look at all of our tax structure 
if we're going to get after this deficit; but we've got to do what the 
American people instinctively know is the right thing to do, which is 
to get back to a balanced budget and quit endangering the future of our 
children and grandchildren.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have entered into the 
Record a statement as to why this is not an open rule and about the 
restrictions that are on Members who are wishing to offer amendments.


                What's Wrong With a Modified Open Rule?

  A modified open rule such as this one imposes several restrictions on 
Members wishing to offer amendments:
  It stifles the free flow of debate by preventing Members from 
offering amendments inspired by the debate or by other amendments.
  Several years ago Chairman Dreier succinctly explained why an open 
rule is superior to a modified open rule. He said: ``An open rule means 
that as the legislative process proceeds, as an amendment passes, it 
can spark an idea for an amendment that another Member may choose to 
offer with the changes that are made in the legislation.''
  A modified open rule also limits Members' ability to respond to 
changes on the floor that would require redrafting an amendment.
  And the rule in front of us goes even further than any modified open 
rule I've ever seen by adding the unprecedented provision that 
prohibits using offsets from one subcommittee allocation to transfer 
funds to a different subcommittee allocation.
  The rule finally provides for same day consideration of another rule 
for H.R. 1, which will allow the Republican Majority to report out a 
new rule shutting down the amendment process and take it to the floor 
that very same day. We haven't even begun debate, and already 
Republicans have prepared to further restrict this supposedly open 
process.
  I think Chairman Dreier said it best just last month when describing 
a rule even less restrictive than this one. He said: ``This is not an 
open rule. I want to make it very clear to all my colleagues again: 
This is not an open rule.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise not only in strong support of the 
rule but also in strong support of the continuing resolution.
  The American people didn't send us here to pass promises. They didn't 
ask us to start making tough choices next year. There is always next 
year, but our effort to rein in the size, scope, and cost of the 
Federal Government has got to start right now. This continuing 
resolution honors our commitment, starting with funding for the 
remainder of the 2011 fiscal year.
  As chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee, I want to say that our financial services section contains a 
total of $20.4 billion, which is a $3.8 billion, or a 16 percent, 
reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels, and a reduction of $4.9 
billion, or 19 percent, from the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
  Reductions of this magnitude are really challenging but are very 
necessary given the fiscal situation facing the Nation. Priority 
funding in this bill is focused on the most essential programs, such as 
security for the courts, counterterrorism, financial intelligence 
operations, as well as drug task forces. Yet other programs can easily 
achieve the new efficiencies this fiscal environment demands, 
especially at the executive office of the President and the Treasury 
Department. These agencies should set an example for the rest of the 
executive branch by recognizing significant budget savings.
  For the IRS, the committee believes the agency can achieve 
efficiencies and has reduced its funding accordingly. In addition, the 
bill prohibits the IRS from using CR funding to implement the 1099 
provision in the health care reform act, which would cause great harm 
to our small businesses.
  It also requires the GSA to become more efficient, and it eliminates 
funding for construction or major alterations to Federal buildings that 
have been earmarked in the past by Congress and by the President.

[[Page 1832]]

  Government has to be accountable to the people and so must government 
spending. This bill strikes that balance, and it makes priorities at a 
time when our Congress and our country must begin to face some very 
tough choices.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by complimenting my friend. 
He has an amazing honor. He is able to make history here. We've not 
been able to find a time that a continuing resolution has been brought 
to the floor under a modified open rule, and he has done a superb job 
in managing it.
  I didn't really hear my friend from Worcester say much of anything, 
so I suspect he did a reasonable job in recognizing that we are making 
history and that we are going to, for the first time, allow any 
Democrat or Republican to stand up on this floor and offer an amendment 
to the appropriations bill that is going to be before us, the 
continuing resolution.

                              {time}  1320

  I think that, Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that 
it's not only a new day when it comes to the process in this House for 
us to consider appropriations bills, but it's a new day in that we have 
stepped forward and recognized that if we don't get our fiscal house in 
order and bring about dramatic spending cuts, our future is very much 
in question. And I say that because people used comparisons to crazy 
places like Greece and California when they talk about the potential 
problems that the United States of America faces. And I've got to say 
that, if we don't bring about these kinds of spending cuts, we are 
going to be passing on to future generations a responsibility that they 
do not deserve to have. That's why it's up to us to do our job and make 
sure we get our fiscal house in order.
  I mean, as the distinguished chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations, Mr. Rogers, has said so well, the cuts in this bill 
that are going to be before us are larger than the gross domestic 
product of 126 countries, and that's why we've got a monumental 
responsibility and a chance for Democrats and Republicans together to 
work on this thing.
  And I'm so pleased to see my friend Norm Dicks, the distinguished 
ranking member, already working on his great product that's going to be 
coming forward as we seek to have the two of us come together as 
political parties to resolve our Nation's challenges.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats very much want to eliminate wasteful spending. 
We are committed to making the tough choices to get this budget more 
balanced, to get our deficit reduced, and start paying down the debt. 
That's not the issue. The issue is where do you make those cuts.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle talked about shared 
sacrifice. Well, the only people that seem to be sacrificing under 
their approach are middle-income families and the poorest of the poor 
in our country. A few weeks ago, at their insistence, millionaires and 
billionaires got an extension of the Bush tax cuts at a cost of 
billions of dollars in terms of more borrowed money added on to our 
deficit. So the Donald Trumps of the world are not sacrificing.
  Big Oil is not sacrificing. Just to put it into perspective that BP, 
Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell made a combined profit 
of over $1 trillion during this past decade, and yet taxpayers are 
subsidizing Big Oil companies. Why? And for all the talk about how open 
this rule is, we can't come up with an amendment that is germane or 
that will be made in order to go after the subsidies because they are 
protected.
  I mentioned, earlier, the war. We borrowed $450 billion last year. 
Our soldiers are sacrificing, their families are sacrificing, and we're 
not paying for the war. We're just putting it on our credit card. That 
is unconscionable, and yet an amendment is not eligible to be brought 
up to insist that we pay for this war.
  So where do they cut? Education, more than 200,000 kids kicked out of 
Head Start and thousands of teachers would lose their jobs. An $800 
reduction per student in the maximum Pell Grant award. Innovation, 
20,000 fewer researchers supported at the National Science Foundation 
trying to find a cure to cancer; a $1.4 billion reduction in science 
and energy research to spur a clean energy economy of the future; $2.5 
billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, again, trying to 
find cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's. If we found 
a cure for Alzheimer's, we would never have another problem with 
Medicaid again. Yet you are cutting back on those important 
investments. High-speed rail being cut back. A loss of 25,000 
construction jobs if your bill becomes law. You're cutting cops and 
firefighters, and yet we're protecting the very wealthy in this 
country. We're protecting subsidies to major oil and gas companies. It 
is just wrong, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so that I can offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, 
immediately after the House adopts this is rule, it will bring up H.R. 
11, the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act.
  Unlike the irresponsible bill the Republicans want to bring up, which 
will cut jobs, threaten American innovation, and slash initiatives that 
create economic growth, this bill will spur job creation here at home 
by extending through 2012 the successful Build America Bonds to help 
State and local governments finance the rebuilding of American schools 
and hospitals, water systems and transit projects at significantly 
lower costs.
  It has been calculated that every $1 billion in Federal funds 
invested in infrastructure creates or sustains approximately 35,000 
jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity.
  Build America Bonds are broadly supported by American business, the 
construction industry, and President Obama, as well as State and local 
governments. And at a time of fiscal restraint, they're a good deal for 
the American taxpayer, wisely using small public investments to 
leverage significant private funds to rebuild America and create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass real jobs 
legislation. The American people want us to talk about jobs and how to 
create jobs and protect jobs. This will do it.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on 
the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I will say again, I can't believe that here 
on my first rule we have an open process; for the first time in the 
history of this House, the best I can tell, an open process on a 
continuing resolution. Now, we're only dealing with this continuing 
resolution because of the mess we were left in last year, and we're 
doing the very best we can with it.
  You've heard words like ``draconian,'' ``decimates,'' ``slashes.'' I 
want to put it in terms that I think we can all understand. I want you 
to think about it in terms of your family grocery budget, Mr. Speaker. 
If you went to the grocery store today and bought your groceries for a 
month, our friends on the other side would have you believe that we 
want you to fast for an entire day, because that's about what it is, 
this $100 billion, about 1 day out of a month's grocery budget.
  But if you took that 30 days of groceries and you spread those 30 
days around--and that's what we do under an open process. We let you 
spread it around--add where you want to add; cut where you want to cut; 
spread that

[[Page 1833]]

around. Can we do that? Can we do that as a very first step towards 
getting our fiscal house in order? Not only can we do it, Mr. Speaker, 
we must do it.
  I'm grateful to the leadership for allowing us to do it. I urge a 
strong ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as 
follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 92 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon 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. 
     11) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the 
     Build America Bonds program. 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 Minority 
     Leader or their respective designees. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the 
     bill are waived. 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.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 4 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)


        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 Republican 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 Republican 
     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 Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In 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 Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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.

                          ____________________