Providing For Consideration Of Senate Amendment To H.R. 3326, Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010; For Consideration Of House Joint Resolution 64, Further Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2010; For Consideration Of H.R. 4314, Permitting C
Floor Speech
Providing For Consideration Of Senate Amendment To H.R. 3326, Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010; For Consideration Of House Joint Resolution 64, Further Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2010; For Consideration Of H.R. 4314, Permitting Continued Financing Of Government Operations; For Consideration Of Senate Amendment To H.R. 2847, Jobs For Main Street Act, 2010
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, we have been here before. This is the same point of order that has been raised against almost every appropriations measure during this Congress, and each time it is used to discuss something other than its intended purpose.
I would want to respond to my good colleague from Arizona that I, too, share concerns about the earmarking process, and I encourage him to become a cosponsor on the fair elections bill. As we have in Maine, public financing takes away much of the scrutiny around the link between campaign contributions and earmarks.
But once again, this particular debate is about delaying consideration of this bill and ultimately stopping it altogether. I hope my colleagues will again vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion.
This rule provides for enactment of legislation to fund our Nation's defense. The brave men and women who serve in the military, particularly those who are currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, deserve a swift enactment of this legislation.
This legislation that we will take up later today will also divert TARP money to programs that create and save jobs across the country. We do this by investing $75 billion of TARP money into highways, transit, school renovation, hiring teachers, police, firefighters, supporting our small businesses, funding job training, and affordable housing. And for those hardest hit by the recession, this bill also provides emergency relief by extending programs like unemployment benefits, COBRA, FMAP, our health care funding for the State, and the child care tax credit.
Those who oppose this measure can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this critical legislation today.
I have the right to close, but in the end I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and consider the rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this and the other important items covered by this rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, before I yield to one of my colleagues, I do want to mention one point of concern I have in the bill.
The conference agreement on H.R. 3326 is the first step towards cutting wasteful defense spending, but it is by no means perfect. It is no means the last step that we must take. The conference agreement provides $465 million for the development of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This provision represents businesses as usual in Washington for providing funds for an engine that's already being built and already being built well.
There is no need to devote our precious Federal dollars to a wasteful alternative engine program at this time when Americans are struggling to find jobs to pay their medical bills and to put food on the table. Every defense bill that we spend wisely contributes to our national security, and every defense dollar that we waste hampers our economic security.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss at least one thing my colleague and friend from North Carolina mentioned. I'm a Northerner, so I can't claim to be an expert on crocodiles, but I assume that when you're talking about crocodile tears, you're talking about being insincere, and I want to say I receive letters from my constituents every day about the urgency of what we are doing today. And I have to say that like it or not, I cannot get through the pile of letters without crying tears for real. It's very, very difficult to think about the small businesses, laid-off individuals, individuals worrying about their jobs, what they're going through in my district and the urgency with which they view the actions that we are about to take today and the importance of moving on from this rule and getting to the actual debate.
I want to read one of them that is in front of me here before I yield a little time to my colleague from California.
This one says: ``My housemate and I were both laid off, me in September 08 and she in February 09. We have applied diligently for work in and around Portland with no luck. We had to cash in our meager 401(k)'s, and have been very thankful for the COBRA subsidy so that we could afford insurance during this most harsh of times. But our money is running out fast.
``As you know, the subsidy is about to expire, and we cannot afford the huge jump in premium. We cannot afford both the mortgage and the insurance. We cannot afford our prescriptions, and our health care will be at stake, as if things weren't bad enough. We will lose our home.
``PLEASE help push through the COBRA extension and continuation of the ARRA COBRA subsidy. It is an immediate fix for so many families who will surely gain employment over the next 6 months now that the economy has finally taken an upswing.''
Madam Speaker, those are the things that make us all cry real tears and make us want to pass this rule and go on to passing this legislation today.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is about investing in jobs. It is about investing in infrastructure, and it is about rebalancing our economy. So it's not just the big banks and Wall Street firms that benefit from an economic recovery. This bill is about helping the American family.
This week, a New York Times/CBS News poll surveyed unemployed Americans. Not surprisingly, they found that being unemployed takes a toll far beyond what can be measured in dollars and cents. Half of the people surveyed said they had begun to suffer from depression and anxiety, half said the recession has caused them to make major life changes, and nearly half said they have seen changes in their children's behavior that they know is a result of their difficult financial situation.
We are not just helping men and women who've lost their job, who have suffered from uncertainty, emotional pain, and indignation, but we are helping their families. We are helping their children. It is time for us to invest in the jobs and policies that will get the American Dream back on track and restore the promise of opportunity and prosperity for everyone.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 976
Offered by Ms. FOXX
At the end of the resolution, insert the following new section:
SEC. 32. On the third legislative day after the adoption of this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution (II. Res. 554) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 554.
--
(The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.
Source