Providing for Consideration of HR 1332, Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1332, SMALL BUSINESS LENDING IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2007

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I always enjoy listening to my colleague from Washington State, Mr. Hastings, both on the floor and in the Rules Committee.

I want to respond to a couple of things he said. He talked about the Democrats and taxes. Let me remind him that the biggest tax increase that is looming that could impact small businesses is the alternative minimum tax, or so-called AMT. And the Democratic majority is actually working on a solution so that millions of Americans won't be unfairly burdened with that tax. That is an issue that, when the gentleman's party was in the majority, they chose not to deal with. And the Democrats will deal with that.

Let me say one other thing, Madam Speaker. It is always interesting to hear the gentleman from Washington complain about the rule.

Let me state for my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, that every single germane amendment that was offered to this bill was made in order by the Rules Committee. That is something that very rarely happened when the gentleman's party was in the majority. So I think this is a good rule.

He complains that a nongermane amendment was not made in order, one that deals not with the issue of loans, which the underlying bill deals with, but instead the Buyer amendment deals with contracting. And the gentleman says that we need to do this for our veterans. Well, I want to do all we can for our veterans, and maybe in the right vehicle we can deal with that issue. But I also want to point out to my colleagues here in Congress that when the gentleman's party was in control, veterans health and veterans benefits were woefully underfunded. I mean, we are dealing with scandals at Walter Reed. We are dealing with scandals all over the country dealing with veterans health because of the inadequacy of the funding that came out of the Republican majority, budget after budget after budget after budget.

The Democrats take control and have literally pumped billions of dollars more into veterans programs, including veterans health programs. And I will say to the gentleman from Washington that today he will have the opportunity, in the conference report on the supplemental appropriations bill, to vote for a conference report that adds even billions of dollars more to help our veterans. So if people are concerned about helping our veterans, then they will have an opportunity this afternoon to vote that way.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time, if I may.

What the gentleman knows full well is that even with an open rule, the Buyer amendment would still not be germane and subject to a point of order by any Member of this House. I mean, we have germaneness rules for a reason.

Let me also point out another interesting fact that I think my colleagues should remember. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), during the last Congress, time and time and time again went before the Republican Rules Committee asking for a waiver on an amendment that would repeal the tax cut for the top 1 percent income earners in this country, the multibillionaires, if you will, so that those savings could be put into veterans programs. He needed a germaneness waiver. Time and time and time again, the Republican Rules Committee denied him the right to offer that amendment.

Now, I guess my point is that it is a little bit curious that the gentleman voted routinely to uphold the germaneness rules with regard to amendments to help veterans in the past, but now somehow is complaining that we need a different standard now that they are in the minority.

Madam Speaker, I would simply say that this is a fair rule. Every germane amendment that was offered is made in order. Anybody could have offered an amendment. And this is something that was very rarely afforded to us when we were in the minority. And I think it is a good rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I am going to wait with bated breath while the gentleman gives his closing statement. I have no further requests for time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by responding to a couple things the gentleman from Washington said.

First of all, on the issue of veterans funding, I don't know too many people who will get up and say that the funding under the previous majority for veterans was anywhere near adequate. The fact of the matter is we have more and more veterans each and every day as a result of the wars that we are involved with. The number of disabled veterans has gone up, and we have seen the direct impact of underfunding veterans health with the terrible tragedy at Walter Reed and so many of our other hospitals.

That is one of the reasons why, when the Democratic majority took over this place in January, one of the first items of business was to increase veterans health. And in the conference report on the supplemental appropriations bill that is coming before us today, there are billions of dollars more for veterans health. If you want to help veterans, vote for the money. It is not about rhetoric; it is about action.

Secondly, in terms of fiscal policies, I think there was a reason for the result in the last elections. I think Americans, Democrats and Republicans, were horrified with the fiscal policies of the previous Republican majority. We went from huge surpluses under Bill Clinton and a huge economic boom under Bill Clinton to now record deficits. We have the largest debt in the history of our country. And I think most Americans, no matter what their party affiliation is, have been justifiably horrified by that result. They want a change. They want fiscal responsibility. That is why we are back to pay-as-you-go, and that is why we are for responsible tax relief. And that is what the Democratic majority is going to pursue.

Madam Speaker, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act will go a long way towards strengthening our Nation's small businesses by establishing much-needed improvements to the SBA's primary loan programs. Today we have an opportunity to encourage entrepreneurship, particularly for those who are socially or economically disadvantaged and those who serve our Nation in the Armed Forces, and provide some additional opportunities for small business owners looking to expand.

I want to again commend my colleague from New York (Ms. Velázquez) for her leadership in bringing this promising and long overdue legislation to the floor.

I think this is a fair rule. Everybody who wanted to offer a germane amendment to this bill could have done so. All the germane amendments are made in order. That is somewhat of a departure from the previous Congress, where we were routinely handed closed rules. So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

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

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source