This was on final passage of legislation that redirected a portion of the ?TARP? funds, previously used to bail out distressed major financial institutions, to economic stimulus programs. The bill also provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other agencies.

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, was leading the support for the bill. He focused his remarks on the provisions that redirected the use of the TARP funds. Obey noted that they previously ?have been directed to help Wall Street? and are now being directed ?to Main Street to try to help Americans who are struggling to hang onto their jobs, their houses, and their health care.?

Rep. Oberstar, who chairs the Public Works and Transportation Committee which has jurisdiction over many of the programs to which the TARP funds will be redirected, expressed his support for the legislation. Oberstar claimed ?a highly successful record? on that portion of the stimulus that had already been devoted to transportation and infrastructure development. Specifically, he said: ?There are 220,000 direct jobs on over 8,000 projects . . . There is $10 billion paid in payroll checks and $179 million in unemployment insurance compensation checks avoided, and there is $230 million in taxes paid to the federal government by those on these jobs, and there is more to come . . . That is an investment in America.?

Rep. Lewis (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the legislation. He also focused on the redirected use of the TARP funds, calling it ?economic insanity.? Lewis argued  that the redirection of the funds is a policy that ?repeats the failures of the previous ?so-called ?Recovery Act' by pouring another $150 billion into programs included in the original stimulus package that have so far failed to produce real results or real jobs.? He went on to claim that the redirection ?adds an additional $150 billion to a budget deficit that has already tripled in the last year.?

Lewis attacked the bill generally because it had only become available very shortly before it was brought to the House floor for consideration. He said its provisions were ?a virtual mystery?, claiming that Chairman Obey had ?instructed his (Democratic) staff not to share any details or information with the (Republican) staff about the bill? and noting that its contents ?were released just shy of midnight last night . . . and there is no way for anyone to have read or understood it completely.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 217-212.  All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members .Thirty-eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate legislation redirecting funds previously used to bail out distressed major financial institutions to economic stimulus programs, and providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other agencies.

The federal government operates by borrowing funds through the issuance of Treasury bonds and other debt instruments of the U.S. Government. Congress periodically increases the total amount of those instruments that can be issued, which is known as the ?national debt ceiling?. The Treasury Department advised Congress late in 2009 that it had issued the total amount of the then-current national debt ceiling, and that the government would no longer have the funds to operate after December 31, 2009 unless it could issue additional debt. That additional issuance of debt would require an increase in the national debt ceiling.

This was on final passage of the legislation that increased the national debt ceiling. The measure raised the ceiling by $290 billion, which was projected to be a sufficient amount to keep the government operating through early February of 2010.

Rep. Stark (D-CA) was leading support for the debt limit increase. He began his statement by noting that: ?The Treasury Department has told us we will reach our current limit on the national debt on December 31--Happy New Year.?  Stark acknowledged: ?I don't like to raise the debt limit?, but noted: ?Unlike past years, the Treasury Department has informed us they don't have the ability to maneuver and buy more time, so the United States would begin to default on its debt if we do not act.? Stark said: ?It's important that we do this to keep the government running . . . (and) pay our bills because we have an international obligation to many of our creditors.?

Stark went on to say: ?Unfortunately, we will have to revisit this issue early next year. I wish we could have avoided that, but to do so, we would have had to resolve differences with the Senate (which is) . . . preoccupied on other matters (including the health care bill and), that would be impossible before the holidays. Even if the Senate were to pass the larger debt limit increase we sent over to them, we would still have to act again next year.?

Rep. Neal (D-MA) also supported the debt limit increase. He claimed that the measure increasing the debt ?is simply about continuing operations for the federal government . . . getting the Social Security checks out on time . . . providing support for our troops and keeping our museums and our parks open . . .  this is about bills that have already been incurred . . . What this bill does not do is increase or decrease spending.?

Rep. Heller (R-NV), who was leading the opposition to the debt limit increase, began his statement by saying ?here we go again. Christmas is a week away and . . . Americans are doing last-minute holiday shopping (while) the majority (Democratic) party is doing its last-minute spending. This year, many families are cutting back on their holiday shopping . . . You would think that during these tough times when most Americans are forced to tighten their belts, Congress would do the same. No chance under this majority. This majority stumbled into 2009 with a budget that raised the deficit by $1.8 trillion. Then Congress decided to pass an $800 billion stimulus bill, $3 billion on Cash for Clunkers, $1.3 trillion on the Democratic health care bill, a trillion dollars on cap-and-trade and, recently, another $447 billion was spent on Washington, D.C., bureaucrats. After all this spending, the national debt is now $12 trillion. Every American citizen will now owe more than $39,000 to pay for Washington's spending.?

Heller concluded his remarks by claiming: ?Now Democrats want to raise the debt limit to allow even more spending in 2010. The real fat cat is the federal government which spends, spends, while the American public gets stuck with the bill. I urge my colleagues to reject raising the debt limit. Give the gift that America deserves: a responsible federal budget.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 218-214.  All two hundred and eighteen ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Thirty-nine other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate legislation increasing the national debt ceiling to enable the government to continue operations through February of 2010.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for considering the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government departments and agencies. Among the terms of the rule was one that prevented Members from offering any amendments to the legislation.

Ret. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the support for the rule. She argued that the provisions of the legislation related to the military and to domestic programs were connected and were all critical. Referring to the ongoing economic downturn, she said: ?Our economic security and our national security are inextricably linked, and our economic security is still in dire straits.?

Pingree also said that the legislation ?invests in our nation's infrastructure, and it puts more Americans back to work by providing $48 billion to rebuild and repair our national transportation system. This investment provides a measurable return, not only by creating and preserving jobs but by literally building the foundation for a long-term economic recovery. This bill will also preserve the jobs of teachers, of police officers, and of firefighters. For those who have already lost their jobs, the Jobs Act extends unemployment benefits for 2 months, and it maintains the current COBRA subsidy (that extends health care to those who lose their jobs). These programs--these investments, the economic lifelines--have a real impact.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule. She first acknowledged that the bill for which the rule would set the terms of debate ?contains funding for several important and necessary initiatives . . . .? However, Foxx argued that the bill overemphasized non-defense programs over those for defense and claimed that this difference ?represent the wrong priorities of the Democrats . . . (and reflects) a dangerous, wrongheaded policy that does not rightly prioritize the security of our nation.?

Foxx then noted her objection to the portion of the rule that did not permit amendments to be offered to the bill and said that the Democratic majority had ?gone to great lengths to shut down debate. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ?no? on the rule so the bill can be returned to the committee and can be brought back under regular order.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 228-201.  All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Twenty-six other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other departments and agencies.

This was on a motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for considering the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government departments and agencies. Among the terms of the rule was one that prevented Members from offering any amendments to the legislation.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. Her arguments in support of both focused on the legislation for which the rule set the terms for debate. She first said that the legislation provides ?over $363 billion towards protecting our troops abroad and taking better care of their families at home.? She then enumerated some of the programs and benefits which the funding would provide. These included a 3.4% pay increase for all service members, more than $29 billion for what Pingree called ?top-of-the-line medical care? for injured soldiers, increases for the wounded, the ill and injured warrior programs, and more than $472 million for programs designed to prevent child abuse and domestic violence.

Pingree argued that the provisions of the measure related to the military were connected to domestic programs. She said: ?Our economic security and our national security are inextricably linked, and our economic security is still in dire straits.? Pingree went on to say that the ongoing economic crisis has forced American families to decide between ?cutbacks on food or cutbacks on health care.? She added that ?there are millions of Americans who want to get back to work, but they need us to lend the same helping hand that we gave to Wall Street in its time of need (and) the rule before us today allows for the consideration of the (legislation) which will move us down that road.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule and to the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. She first acknowledged that the bill for which the rule would set the terms of debate ?contains funding for several important and necessary initiatives . . . .? However, Foxx went on to note her ?disappointment in the overall funding levels . . . .? Specifically, she noted that the bill increases overall defense spending by ?roughly? 4.5%, which ?is not comparable to nondefense appropriations bills we have voted on this year, which average a 12 percent increase in funding levels.?

Foxx claimed that this difference ?represent the wrong priorities of the Democrats, who are in charge of the Congress, and of the Obama administration. Increasing spending for domestic priorities by double digits while, in comparison, shortchanging national defense represents a dangerous, wrongheaded policy that does not rightly prioritize the security of our nation.?

Foxx also objected to the fact that the legislation was originally intended only to provide defense spending, but that the Democratic majority had ?put into it things that are not related . . . .? She claimed that it contained a ?variety of additional legislation that has been cobbled together without committee consideration.? Foxx then noted her objection to the portion of the rule that did not permit amendments to be offered to the bill and said that the Democratic majority had ?gone to great lengths to shut down debate. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ?no? on the rule so the bill can be returned to the committee and can be brought back under regular order.?

The motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule passed by a vote of 235-193.  All Two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eighteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the term for debating legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government operations.

The Democratic majority wanted to move quickly on legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce. To accomplish this, it needed to have the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the funding bill approved on the same day as the rule was submitted to the House. However, there is a procedural regulation that ordinarily requires two-thirds of the Members to vote in favor any rule, if the rule is to be approved on the same day as it is submitted. There was not sufficient support to achieve the necessary two-thirds waiver vote for the same-day consideration of the rule for this legislation. This was a vote on a waiver of the procedural regulation. A simple majority was required to waive that two-thirds requirement.

The Democratic majority wanted to move quickly on legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce. To accomplish this, it needed to have the rule for the bill approved on the same day as it was submitted. However, there was not sufficient support to achieve the necessary two-thirds waiver vote for the same-day consideration of the rule for this legislation. The purpose of this motion was therefore to eliminate the application of that two-thirds vote requirement to the rule on the legislation.

Rep. Pingree (R-ME) was leading the effort on behalf of the waiver. She said that its approval ?will allow the House to consider today important legislation, including legislation to ensure the funding of our military in addition to measures to put people back to work . . . we must act quickly to deliver the bills before us today . . . .? Pingree added that, if the waiver were approved, ?the House will (be able to) take up (legislation) that will . . . make critical investments in the nation?s infrastructure in order to put people back to work.? She added: ?There is real urgency in the actions before us today, and I truly hope that my colleagues . . . will join me . . . to allow us to move forward.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the effort to waive the two-thirds vote regulation. She referred to the waiver vote as ?same-day martial law.? Foxx argued this was another example of the Democratic majority ?short-circuiting the legislative process so (they) can jam through another major spending bill without the benefit of Members or, more importantly, the citizens of this country having the opportunity to read it.? She claimed that the reason the Democrats were trying to accelerate the process was that it was near the end of the session and ?our Speaker and several Members are going to leave today to go to (a conference) . . . .?

The resolution waiving the procedural rule was approved by a vote of 218-202.  All Two hundred and eighteen ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Twenty-nine other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House waived a procedural regulation that was preventing it from considering  legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies.

The Democratic majority wanted to move quickly on legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce. To accomplish this, it needed to have the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the funding bill approved on the same day as the rule was submitted to the House. However, there is a procedural regulation that ordinarily requires two-thirds of the Members to vote in favor any rule, if the rule is to be approved on the same day as it is submitted. There was not sufficient support to achieve the necessary two-thirds waiver vote for the same-day consideration of the rule for this legislation. The purpose of this motion was to move to an immediate vote on eliminating the application of that two-thirds vote requirement to the rule on the legislation.

Rep. Pingree (R-ME) was leading the effort on behalf of the waiver. She said that its approval ?will allow the House to consider today important legislation, including legislation to ensure the funding of our military in addition to measures
to put people back to work . . . .? Pingree went on to say: ?For those hit hardest by the recession, this bill also provides emergency relief . . . These are measures that we must pass to build a foundation for long-term economic recovery.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the motion and to the effort to waive the regulation requiring a two-thirds vote. She referred to the proposed waiver vote as ?same-day martial law.? Foxx said she understood ?that there are times when we need to move quickly when we are faced with an immediate crisis. However, I think the word ?crisis? has been overused particularly this year.?

Foxx noted that the Rules Committee had met at 8:45 PM the previous evening and ?we?ve had very little time to be able to deal with the (rule or the full substance of the H.R. 2847 legislation).? Foxx added that ?we?ve known about this for a long, long time . . . what have we been doing during that period of time when we should have been preparing for this day??

Foxx claimed this was another example of the Democratic majority ?short-circuiting the legislative process so (they) can jam through another major spending bill without the benefit of Members or, more importantly, the citizens of this country having the opportunity to read it. This (waiver) . . . will let the House consider more than $1 trillion in spending , all done almost in the blink of an eye . . . let us not be fooled by this attempt to say that something is a crisis.?

The motion to have an immediate vote on waiving the two-thirds requirement passed by 226-192.  All two hundred and twenty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-two Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on waiving a procedural regulation that was preventing it from considering  legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Defense and Commerce, the Justice Department and various other government agencies.

This was a vote on passage of legislation designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.

Among other things, the bill created a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, strengthened the enforcement abilities of the Federal Trade Commission, included provisions intended to end the potential of  federal bailouts to institutions that are  ?too big to fail", gave shareholders an advisory vote in executive compensation, strengthened the SEC's powers, initiated regulation of sensitive financial instruments known as ?derivatives, toughened anti-predatory lending practices, imposed a higher liability standard on the rating agencies, and created a Federal Insurance Office.

Rep. Waxman (D-CA) speaking in support of the bill, referenced hearings he had chaired on the financial crisis. He said the hearings demonstrated that ?government regulators were asleep at the switch while Wall Street banks drove our economy off a cliff. Change is necessary, and I believe this legislation will strengthen the federal government's ability to prevent and respond to future crises.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA) chairs the Financial Services Committee, which developed the legislation. He first said that ?the lack of regulation over many years allowed big problems to grow up . . . (and this) led to the largest crisis in recent memory since the Depression.? Frank argued that the provisions in the bill impose the kinds of regulations that will not permit that situation to reoccur. He went on to claim: ?The Republican proposal is . . . (D)o not interfere with the ability of an AIG, Lehman Brothers, Citicorp, Countrywide or any of those other financial entities. Do not prevent them from doing again what they did before. If and when they have done such a bad job that they are collapsing, then let them go bankrupt and don't do anything to deal with the consequences. Let's have another Lehman Brothers.?

Rep. King (R-IA) opposed the legislation. He said the difference between  supporting and opposing it is ?the difference between believing the federal government can regulate more aspects of our society, more aspects of our economy, and the difference in believing whether people can become and entities can become too big to be allowed to fail, or whether small businesses might be too small to be allowed to succeed. And it's about the difference between a free enterprise economy and a managed and controlled economy. It's about the difference between liberty and the difference between a socialized economy.?

Rep, Barton (R-TX), another opponent of the legislation, focused on the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency it created. He argued that the ?nearly limitless power? given to the new agency by the bill is ?questionable at best and tyrannical at worse.? Rep. Royce (R-CA), who also opposed the bill, focused on the powers it gave to regulators ?to rescue certain companies and liquidate others . . . to pay off some creditors and counterparties and not others, and keep failed or failing companies operating and competing in the market for years.? Royce claimed ?the likely outcome? will be that ?larger, politically connected institutions will have the edge over their competitors.? Rep. Lucas (R-OK), another opponent, said the increased regulation it creates will discourage productive new investment.

The vote on final passage was 223-202. All 223?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Twenty-seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted  ?nay?. As a result, the bill implementing the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression passed the House and was sent on to the Senate.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Dent (R-PA) that would have sent back to committee legislation designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The motion would also have instructed the committee to delete all the reform provisions  in the bill, add language terminating the Troubled Assets Relief Program (?TARP?), and requiring all outstanding TARP loans to be repaid with the proceeds used to reduce the national debt. TARP loans had been used to ?bail out? major financial institutions and companies during the recent financial crisis.

Rep. Dent noted that TARP ?was originally enacted as a temporary plan to address an extraordinary crisis in our financial markets as a result of the collapse of financial firms that the government said were just ?too big to fail? . . . (T)hose who voted for . . . TARP did so with the assurance that the money would be returned to taxpayers. It is unfortunate that the President chose to extend the TARP . . . .?

Dent then referenced recent reports that the Obama Administration was planning to use repaid TARP funds for a jobs-creation program. He said: ?Haven't we learned that if we want to create jobs and grow our economy, we must support the private sector and invest federal dollars sparingly and wisely . . . Raiding TARP to fund more government programs that don't create jobs verges on the reckless.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, spoke against the motion. He referred to it as ?a cover? that uses ?anger over the TARP to frankly make sure we'll need another one because (the motion would) kill all regulation.? Referring to the fact that the TARP was instituted in response to the recent financial crisis, he noted that ?it ain't over until it's over on Main Street all throughout America (and) . . . most of us know the emergency is not over.?

Frank then noted: ?The original TARP legislation said . . . any TARP shortfall will be made up by an assessment on the financial community. We've gone further than that. The amendment we (previously added to H.R. 4173) . . . instructs the FDIC . . . to assess the financial institutions to make up any shortfall from the TARP. (This motion would)  kill that . . . (The Republicans) are very upset that we might levy on JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and the others some responsibility financially for what's gone on.?

Frank went on to say: ?So here's what (the Republicans) do (with this motion): First of all, they kill all reform, and . . . secondly, say now that TARP money has gone to the big banks, and they don't have to pay it back . . . they want to get rid of it, and to whose benefit? The big banks.?  Frank concluded his remarks by saying that, if the motion carried, it will be saying ?let's not do anything to change the financial system . . . Let's just . . . save the big banks from having to pay their fair share when the TARP is repaid.?

The motion to send the bill back to committee was defeated by a vote of 190-232. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and thirty-two ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the provisions in H.R. 4173 remained in the bill implementing the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression and language ending the TARP was not added to the bill.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Bachus (R-AL), which was put forward as a Republican substitute for the bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression

Rep. Bachus acknowledged that ?we have a need to reform the financial industry. . . .? He claimed that H.R. 4173, as it was currently written, ?isn't the answer.? Bachus said his amendment would make H.R. 4173 ?a financial recovery and reform bill, not a permanent Big Brother government bailout program.? He claimed it would implement ?reforms that will facilitate competition in the market place and generate more choices for consumers. (It will also implement) reform that will equip consumers with the information that they need to shop around and make the financial decisions . . . We need a stronger regulatory regime to quickly expose, stop, and put behind bars any Wall Street crooks that break the law. And financial firms that fail should do just that: fail through a new, orderly bankruptcy process.?

Rep. Royce (R-CA) supported the amendment and said its provisions that ?reform? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were critical because these companies were ?at the heart of the housing market (and) the root cause of the (recent) financial collapse?. Royce then said that H.R. 4173, which he referred to as ?the Democratic bill?, would ?bail (those companies) out forever in their legislation . . . .? 

Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA) opposed the amendment. He said it ?seems designed to protect Wall Street rather than to reform it. The Republican (Bachus) plan also does little to improve investor protections (and) . . . the GOP substitute does absolutely nothing to address the issue of liability. And without liability, the Republican plan provides no accountability for the rating agencies. The GOP plan additionally chooses bankruptcy for systemically significant firms. Well, Lehman Brothers went through bankruptcy and is still in bankruptcy, which resulted in credit markets freezing up around the world. This is not a real solution. In sum, H.R. 4173 reforms Wall Street for the protection of the consumer and the investor on Main Street. The Republican alternative, in contrast, represents business as usual for Wall Street.?

Rep. Meeks (D-NY) said he opposed the amendment because H.R. 4173, as written, would ?strengthen our system of capitalism and free enterprise. To those who criticize this legislation as anti-markets, I would counter that this legislation is good for consumers and good for businesses because investors are staying out of the market right now and companies across the nation are struggling to stay in business, let alone creating desperately needed jobs. By strengthening protections for consumers and investors and bringing transparency and accountability to the market place, we are restoring the cornerstone of a healthy and sustainable economy . . . .?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 175-251 along almost straight party lines. One hundred and seventy-two Republican and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the provisions put forward in the amendment to substitute for the bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Minnick (D-ID) that would have moved the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency into the Treasury Department, and required that the standards used by it be in accordance with those already used by the Federal Trade Commission.

The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. H.R. 4173 also created the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The debate on the amendment focused on where in the federal bureaucracy the proposed new agency would be located and on what standards it would use to promote consumer projections.

Rep. Minnick began his statement in support of the amendment by saying ?we all support the goal of stronger, more uniform consumer protection regulation. . . .? He then said ?but you don't achieve that by splitting the responsibility between two regulators (the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency and the existing Federal Trade Commission) . . . each with half the responsibility. And you compound that mistake by creating exemptions to the new regulation which create gaps and inconsistency . . . To split the responsibility between two inherently feuding regulators will lead to conflict, inaction, failure, and frustration.? Minnick claimed that the adoption of his amendment would create ?a strong mandate for consumer protection in all of the existing regulators?.

Rep. Boren (D-OK), who supported the amendment, first acknowledged that the ?need to reform the way America's banking and financial regulatory system is important.? He then said: ?The question, though, is: Just how many new government agencies are necessary to accomplish this task? If we create a new federal agency to regulate consumer credit, will it improve the current regulatory framework or will it end up costing American jobs? I think we need to be cautious in our approach.?

Rep. Bean (D-IL) opposed the amendment. She said: ?Reforming our financial system is vitally important to creating a functional, sustainable financial system that American families and businesses can count on. We must not fail to enact adequate safeguards (to prevent fraud and promote disclosure) so that the mistakes of the past do not reoccur . . . In order to accomplish this goal, we need an independent agency whose sole purpose is to protect and empower consumers to make informed financial decisions. The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, would go a long way towards that end, restoring vital protections that were absent and duly needed during the buildup to America's recent financial fallout.?

Rep. Moore (D-KS) also opposed the amendment. He claimed that it would create ?a bureaucratic nightmare.? Moore also suggested that making the changes proposed by the amendment would diminish the capacity of the proposed new agency to control the major institutions that contributed to the recent financial crisis.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 208-223.  One hundred and seventy-five Republicans and thirty-three Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and twenty-three ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. As a result, no language was added to H.R. 4173 moving the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency into the Treasury Department and requiring it to use the same standards as the Federal Trade Commission.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Schakowsky (D-IL) that required additional regulatory review of ?reverse mortgage? lenders to protect senior citizens from abusive lending practices. Reverse mortgages are loans that allow borrowers over the age of 62 to borrow against a portion of the value of their home, and defer the repayment of the loan until they sell the home or die. The number of these mortgages had been increasing.

The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The amendment called for the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which H.R. 4173 created, to conduct the additional regulatory review.

Rep. Schakowsky began her statement in support of the amendment by saying that ?all is not well in the reverse mortgage market.? She noted that a recent report by the National Consumer Law Center ?found many of the abusive practices that were common in the subprime lending market before its collapse are also common in reverse mortgage transactions. Those practices include high fees, incentives for brokers that are harmful to borrowers, and lenders steering consumers to products that are more costly than necessary.?

Schakowsky then added: ?Unfortunately, the complexity of the loans and the age of the typical borrower have made the reverse mortgage market ripe for scam artists. We have to make sure that seniors who use reverse mortgages are protected against unlawful and unfair practices.? She also noted that her amendment was supported by the AARP.

Rep. Garrett (R-NJ) led the opposition to the amendment. He began his remarks by acknowledging that that ?reverse mortgages sometimes in the past have a history in certain cases . . . of causing problems for our seniors, and that is certainly something that regulators need to and have the ability to take a look at. But this (amendment) certainly is not the answer.?

Garrett then argued generally against the creation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency which was designated to conduct the additional regulatory review. He said that the result of establishing this agency and giving it broad powers would be the ?contracting (of) consumer choice, putting limitations on the consumers' ability to buy products that they need and want . . . causing a cost to the overall system of credit . . . .? He said: Experts have shown that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency alone would add . . . about 1.5 percentage points to the cost of credit in this country . . . in the case of reverse mortgages . . . if you have a 6 percent loan now (it) would go up to around . . . 7.5 percent. Just the act of borrowing will be made harder by the cost of the underlying bill.?

Garrett added that ?if the Consumer Financial Protection Agency was not omnipotent enough with their power to reach in basically every single corner of the economy of this country, now we are going to let them go even a little bit further (with this amendment).

The amendment passed by a vote of 277-149.  Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and twenty-six Republicans voted ?aye?. The other one hundred and forty-nine Republicans all voted ?nay?. As a result, language requiring additional regulatory review of reverse mortgage lenders was added to the bill designed to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Marshall (D-GA) that would have allowed bankruptcy courts to modify and reduce the amount of home mortgages, extend the mortgage repayment periods, and reduce the interest rate and fees on them to prevent foreclosure. Under existing law, bankruptcy courts have the authority to modify many loans, including car loans and mortgages on vacation houses. That modification authority does not extend to first mortgages on primary residences.

The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

In his statement in support of the amendment, Rep. Marshall said it ?is intended to address (the) foreclosure crisis without taxpayers having to put money into the deal. It essentially forces the parties to deal with their problems without having vacancies and foreclosures in our neighborhoods. In that sense, it helps all lenders with real estate portfolios. It helps the individuals whose homes might be foreclosed upon. It actually helps the creditors, who . . . in almost every instance (would have) their portfolios improved by not having as many houses in foreclosure, and in almost every instance, they get better deals . . . than they would in the normal foreclosure process.?

Rep. Smith (R-TX) began his opposing statement by saying that the ?number one cause of foreclosures today is job loss. The number two cause is homes which are mortgaged for more than they are worth (and) . . . (T)he jobless (who are losing their homes) do not have the steady incomes that are required to (continue paying on the mortgages even if their principal and interest were reduced)? Smith also argued: ?Allowing bankruptcy courts to (reduce) mortgage principal will only lead to higher interest rates and tougher mortgage terms for all future homeowners.?

Rep. Marshall responded first by noting that, under his amendment: ?If, in fact, you are jobless and don't have income, you are not eligible for (the reduction) . . . It is those who do have jobs and who do have income who could survive if they had the opportunity to restructure their debt. They would be eligible. It's only those folks.  As far as increasing the cost of credit is concerned, this bill . . .  doesn't apply to future credit. Many, many experts have looked at this and have concluded that it will not increase the cost of future credit.?

Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA), who also opposed the amendment, said that its ultimate effect would be to ?make the (foreclosure) crisis deeper, longer, and wider.? He claimed that reducing the amount of mortgages ?will invariably lead to higher interest rates and to less generous borrowing terms for future borrowers.? Goodlatte then claimed that ?many borrowers walk away from their homes, not because they can't afford their monthly payments, but because their homes are mortgaged for more than they are worth. These borrowers should live with the responsibility of their decisions and not receive bailouts from bankruptcy courts. ?

Goodlatte concluded his remarks by noting that the reductions that would be allowed as a result of the amendment ?will not only impact lenders but investors as well. These investors often include pension funds, which represent the retirement savings of millions.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 188-241.  One hundred and eighty-four Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and seventy-one Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the major financial reform bill that would have allowed bankruptcy courts to modify home mortgages to prevent foreclosures.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Peters (D-MI) that permitted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to charge assessments to large financial institutions to help pay for any shortfall in the ?TARP? funding. That funding was used to helped bail out troubled banks. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

Rep. Peters introduced his amendment by saying that its purpose is to see to it ?that taxpayers are not asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's past mistakes . . . .? He also said that the amendment ?will ensure that the Wall Street bailout does not increase the national debt one bit . . . . Instead, large financial institutions that caused the credit crisis will be required to make taxpayers whole. As large banks return to health, there is no reason why taxpayers should pay to clean up Wall Street?s mess.?

Peters also argued that, if his amendment were adopted, it would give ?the American taxpayer certainty that all TARP funds will be recouped from the large financial companies that caused this financial crisis.? He also said that it would guarantee that ?taxpayers will never again be on the hook for bailing out financial institutions. Institutions would pay assessments based on their potential risk to the financial system and broader economy if they were to fail.? Rep. Schauer (D-MI), speaking in support of the amendment, said it would ?ensure American taxpayers will get their money back and that those that created this mess will pick up the tab.?

Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) led the opposition to the amendment. He began by arguing that if the House ?really cares about protecting the taxpayer against losses in TARP, they will . . . vote to end the TARP program . . . .? Hensarling went on to say ?some of the companies that received funds under the (TARP) have now repaid them back with interest. So now we are in the position to tax companies that have proven successful and paid back their funds, tax them for failing companies that didn't pay back theirs. Chrysler and GM received funds under TARP and Ford didn't. So under this, I suppose that we could assess Ford a tax to pay for losses the taxpayers will incur on GM and Chrysler . . . Is that smart? Is that fair? The answer is no.?

Hensarling also claimed:?This is yet another tax to go on capital. You can't have capitalism without capital. And so we have a $150 billion tax for the revolving bailout fund . . . Every time you increase the cost of taxes on capital, you get less lending, you get less credit, more expensive credit. And less credit is fewer jobs.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 228-198.  All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and twenty-five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the major financial reform bill that permitted the FDIC to charge assessments to large financial institutions to help pay for the ?TARP? funding.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McCarthy (R- CA) that would have removed language that was designed to strengthen the liability standards for national credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moody?s. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

Rep. McCarthy began his remarks in support the amendment by saying: ?I'm not here to defend credit rating agencies. I am supportive of other credit rating agency reforms that the committee passed . . . (but) I think the government and the private sector should use credit ratings for what they are--predictive opinions about inherently uncertain futures.?

McCarthy then cautioned that: ?Increased liability may lead to (the rating) agencies being hesitant to even allow their ratings on security offerings, thereby providing potential investors with less information.? He went on to argue that adding language increasing the ratings? potential liability would force them to ?practice defensive ratings for fear of being sued, (and) this would ultimately increase costs and restrict credit. Opening the ratings agencies to unlimited civil liability will not guarantee more accurate credit ratings. Litigating an industry to death does not solve any problems.?

Rep. Kilroy (D-OH) opposed the amendment. She noted that ?the credit rating agencies played a huge role in the collapse of our markets a year ago. In fact, they bragged that they could rate anything, even a cow. And they continue to play a critical role in millions of financial transactions as pension funds, mutual fund managers, and others rely on the ratings from Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch as they make their investment decisions.?

Kilroy claimed that H.R. 4173, as written, ?will provide for greater scrutiny and more responsibility from the credit rating agencies protecting . . . investors. But the amendment . . . would weaken credit rating agency reforms.? She noted that accountants, lawyers, investment bankers, directors, officers, and executives of the issuers are already subject to the liability that the McCarthy amendment would remove from rating agencies.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 166-259.  One hundred and sixty-two  Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-nine  Democrats and ten Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the language strengthening liability standards for national credit rating agencies remained in the financial reform legislation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered to H.R. 4173, a bill designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, Although the bill included provisions imposing greater regulation on public companies, it also contained language exempting public companies with less than $75 million in market value from the audit of internal controls requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These audit requirements were originally imposed to provide protection to all those who invest in publicly-traded companies. This amendment, offered by Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), would have eliminated the language in H.R. 4173 exempting those smaller public companies. Its passage would have meant that all public companies would be subject to federal audit requirements regardless of their size.

Rep. Sarbanes (D-MD), whose father was the co-author of the original Sarbanes-Oxley Act, spoke in support of the amendment. He argued that it would maintain ?critical investor protections (even though) those who oppose this (amendment) say that the smaller publicly traded companies can't handle the burden of compliance. (But the) costs (of compliance) have come way down . . .  because the Securities and Exchange Commission has been careful to work with these smaller companies to make sure that that burden is not too heavy.?

Sarbanes added: ?The fact of the matter is that if you are an investor, it doesn't matter to you whether you are investing in a smaller company or a larger company. What you want to know is that that company is not cooking the books. If we don't pass this amendment, then almost half of the publicly traded companies in this country will be exempt from these basic transparency requirements.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, supported the amendment. He said that the Securities and Exchange Commission ?has recognized the potential problems for people under $75 million. . . The question is . . . whether they should be given a permanent exemption without giving us a chance to have the commission continue its development of more appropriate rules (for these smaller companies) . . . But they are in the process of doing this . . .  I understand the desire of people to help smaller businesses. But at this point it is a license for people who might want to be abusive by guaranteeing them that they will never be audited despite any effort to make an appropriate audit.?

Rep. Garrett (R-MD) spoke in opposition to the amendment.  He first noted that ?small businesses are not the cause of our current financial situation, but they are the ones who are going to get us out of it.? He then added that the exemption the amendment sought to remove from the bill ?does not exempt (these smaller companies from) . . . all auditing requirements.? Garrett then argued that the exemption would ease the regulatory burden on smaller businesses and said: ?The hundreds of thousands of dollars that it will cost them to comply with (the regulations that this amendment sought to reimpose) . . . would be much better spent  . . . to make sure that we can provide more jobs as we see the joblessness rate rise.?

Rep. Adler (D-NJ) also opposed the amendment. He said there was ?clear evidence? that the provision of Sarbanes-Oxley that the amendment would reinstate ?has chased companies out of the United States. We know companies that are doing Initial Public Offerings, not in New York, but in London.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 153-271.  One hundred and fifty-two Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and one hundred and one Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language exempting public companies with less than $75 million in market capitalization from the audit of internal controls requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act remained in the financial reform legislation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) that would have given the Securities and Exchange Commission and other federal regulators the authority to prohibit certain ?swap? transactions they believed posed a risk to the financial market place. A ?swap?is a financial instrument that can be used to lock in the future price for a commodity or as a form of financial insurance. Participating in one can sometimes place an entity in a financially risky position. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

Stupak said that the amendment provides ?additional assurances that the swaps market will be policed and prevents speculative financial companies from evading regulations or otherwise ignoring the law. Under this amendment . . . (C)ertain swaps (which) . . . are pure speculative bets that a company will fail . . . should be banned. As we learned in 2008, credit default swaps and other swap transactions pose a systemic risk to our economy and accelerated the economic collapse.?

Stupak noted: ?This amendment also narrows the definition of determining which companies are and are not bona fide (swap) users. Commercial companies that use commodities and securities to lock in prices and hedge the risk of their products . . . did not create the current financial crisis. H.R. 4173 reflects this reality, but its exception for (certain) . . . swaps . . . is written so broadly that financial speculators and private pools of capital can be treated as bona fide hedgers.?

Rep. Peterson (D-MN), the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over the regulation of swaps, opposed the amendment. He said it reflected ?good intentions?, but expressed concern ?that if we ban these products, they will simply move overseas and outside of our ability to regulate them. And if they are dangerous products and if they are something that shouldn't be done, I don't know if it makes any sense if we are just going to transfer that over to a foreign country.?

Peterson also objected to the fact that ?the amendment limits the applicability of legal certainty of swaps. This amendment asks the question why illegal swaps should be enforceable. The answer is that otherwise you will encourage illegal behavior. If a swap dealer or an end user finds itself in a money-losing swap, it would be easy to engage in some illegal behavior to negate the swap and escape its financial liability.? He also objected to the fact that, based on the language of the amendment, ?(T)he standard of illegality is not very high. You wouldn't have to commit fraud to invalidate a swap; you just don't have to follow the regulations.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 150-279.  One hundred and forty-five Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and five Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and one hundred and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the major financial reform bill, which gave regulators the authority to prohibit certain swaps they believe pose a risk to the financial market place.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) that would have required all financial transactions known as ?swaps? to be executed on an exchange that had registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A ?swap? is a financial contract that can be used to lock in the future price for a commodity or as a form of financial insurance; participating in one can sometimes place an entity in a financially risky position. The requirement that swaps be traded on an exchange registered with the Commission was designed to promote the control and standardization of these transactions. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

Stupak noted that the purpose of H.R. 4173 was to provide a ?comprehensive and thorough regulation of the financial sector?. However, he added that ?it would be meaningless if we continue to leave loopholes in place to evade regulation.? He noted that ?swaps? represent a huge amount of financial transactions, but that the vast majority of them are traded ?in unregulated dark markets (and) . . . (T)hese unregulated markets create a systemic risk across the financial system and helped bring Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and AIG into bankruptcy and our economy to the verge of disaster.?

Stupak said: ?The best way to address this problem is to require Wall Street financial houses to post collateral and clear their swaps contracts on regulated exchanges . . . we should at least require that these trades be made in the open, transparent markets.? He said his amendment ?establishes a simple requirement (that swaps) . . . be reported on an exchange (to insure) . . . a competitive, transparent market.?  He quoted the recent testimony of a federal regulator that ?lack of regulation in these (swap) markets has created significant information deficits''. Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of progressive organizations, including The AFL-CIO, The Consumer Federation of America and AARP expressed its support for the amendment on its web site. The site included the statement that passage of the amendment would provide ?greater transparency to market participants.?

A consumer protection organization known as Stop Oil Speculation Now also expressed its support for the amendment on its web site. The site included the statement that the use of swaps encourages ?reckless speculation (that) artificially raises the price of gasoline . .  , (and the Stupak Amendment would) increase transparency and close known loopholes in the regulation of commodities futures markets.?

Rep Lucas (R-OK) opposed the amendment. Lucas first asked:?What risk is this amendment looking to eliminate?? He noted that the financial reform legislation already contained language recognizing ?that there are swaps that need not go through the cost and formality of . . . an exchange or swap execution facility. As long as the regulator can see the swap and has the appropriate tools to mitigate risk to the U.S. financial system, what more does the exchange execution requirement add??  Lucas also argued: ?Forcing these swaps to be executed on an exchange  will only artificially increase the cost of managing risk or (will) discourage legitimate risk management activity altogether.?

Rep. Peterson (D-MN), the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over the regulation of swaps, opposed the amendment. He first acknowledged that: ?In theory, this (amendment) all makes sense.? His opposition was based in part on the fact that many of those with who use swaps as financial management tools were concerned that the passage of the amendment would interfere with the normal operation of the swap market. These included members of the American Gas Association, the Public Gas Association, and the Public Power Association, as well as 3M, Cargill, John Deere, and Caterpillar.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 98-330.  Ninety-five Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and three Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and one hundred and sixty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the major financial reform bill requiring that all financial transactions known as ?swaps? be executed on an exchange that had registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA) that would have permitted federal regulators to set the requirements for the amount investors would have to deposit as collateral to cover their credit risk on financial instruments known as ?derivatives?. Derivatives are sensitive financial instruments whose value is tied - - or derived - - from other instruments such as bonds whose value is backed by the amount of mortgages that are paid in a timely manner.

The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. A number of commentators had expressed the view that the improper use of derivatives had contributed significantly to the recent financial crisis the country had experienced.

Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of progressive organizations, including The AFL-CIO, The Consumer Federation of America and AARP expressed its support for the amendment on its web site. The site included the statement that passage of the amendment ?would significantly reduce systemic risk by giving regulators a more comprehensive view of market size, players, and dynamics as well as the tools to mitigate . . . risk.?

Speaking in support of his amendment, Rep. Frank noted that its language would allow the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators to establish the amounts require. He emphasized that this would not be a mandate that the commission establish that amount. Frank said ?the question is should we say that the regulators should be denied what they have asked for . . . where they think this is important to avoid the kind of imbalances we had before.?

Franks also said: ?The purpose (of the amendment) is . . . to prevent again the situation where one party or the other makes commitments it is unable to live up to. And this is a requirement--this is an empowerment of the regulators to act where they think there's a problem to prevent this from happening.?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce web site expressed its opposition to the amendment. Part of the explanation given for that opposition was that: ?(M)argin requirements imposed upon end-user transactions would require companies . . .  to divert significant amounts of working capital to margin accounts ? capital that companies could otherwise use to grow, create jobs or invest in new technologies.? The description of the amendment on the House Republican web site noted that, ?Members may be concerned that, (if it passed), many businesses may abandon the derivatives markets or pass (some of their financial) costs to the consumer.?

Rep. Garrett (R-MD) was among those who opposed the amendment. He first claimed that ?neither the administration nor the (Democratic) majority nor the (Securities and Exchange Commission) chairman has provided any substantial evidence whatsoever of (how) . . . derivatives . . . cause a financial crisis . . . Derivatives are something that the companies use to try to hedge the risk. Clearly, we must make sure there's transparency and accountability . . . and we can do so in a way . . . that will not hamper their ability to control costs . . . This (amendment) would all hurt that.?

Garrett went on to argue: ?Derivative dealers and their customers, the end users, they're in the best position to determine what are the appropriate margin requirements, not giving more authority to the Securities and Exchange Commission or . . . any other financial regulators.? Rep. Bachus (R-AL) also opposed the amendment. He argued: ?Requiring greater margin and capital requirements on companies that never got in trouble leads to fewer jobs.? Bachus cited testimony by an official of the John Deere tractor company who said: ?We have a number of (derivative) contracts that extend well into the future. If these existing contracts are not permitted an exemption from . . . collateral requirements, we would have to terminate the transactions at a significant cost.''

Frank responded to the opposition by claiming: ?As to it costing a lot of money, the amendment specifically says that they should be allowed to use noncash collateral. That means they could pledge certain of their own assets, which could mean no cost.?  

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 150-280.  One hundred and forty-nine Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and one hundred and seven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was not added to the major financial reform bill, which required that all swap transactions be executed on a registered facility.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Murphy (D-NY) to substitute a new definition for the term ?major swap participant?, which is an entity that engages in a type of risky financial transaction to which certain regulations apply. The amendment was offered to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression.

The term ?major swap participant? generally refers to any entity that maintains a substantial financial position, based on the movement of a factor such as interest rates or stock prices. A ?swap? is an agreement between two parties that allows one or both to lock in a future price on anything from currency to oil. Participating in a ?swap? can leave one or both of the parties in a financially risky position.

The definitional change in the amendment would result in a greater number of financial companies being subject to more intense regulation, and a lower number of manufacturing companies being subject to that regulation. The National Association of Manufacturers supported the amendment. It wrote a letter to Members of Congress noting that many manufacturers use swaps as a tool to manage and control their borrowing costs and other operating risks, including those associated with fluctuating currency exchange, interest rates and commodity prices. The Association?s letter said that, without the amendment, the new financial requirements imposed by the legislation ?could unnecessarily subject some end-users (of swaps) to burdensome margin and collateral requirements aimed primarily at those whose activities present risk to the financial system.?

Rep. Murphy said the reason for the change was that financial companies ?are systemically risky (and should) be held to a higher standard of accountability, while manufacturing companies use swaps in the normal course of (doing) their business (to hedge) . . .  their actual risk.?

Murphy also said that manufacturing companies should be allowed to make ongoing business decisions without being unduly monitored. He added that, in attempting to address the true underlying issues causing the financial crisis, Congress should see to it that it does not limit ?the ability of responsible companies to access the (markets) . . . they need to keep their businesses up and running.?

Rep. Kratovil (D-MD) co-sponsored the amendment. He argued: ?These (swaps) are not just used by the larger broker and dealer banks who do, in fact, present a systemic threat to the market, but also by smaller companies who use them to manage the risk associated with running an effective business. The fact of the matter is the legislation needs to distinguish between the two. Without this amendment, H.R. 4173 could subject some end users to burdensome costs and penalties that were primarily aimed at companies whose activities do, in fact, present a real risk to the stability of the financial system. Our amendment clarifies that (certain) end users do not pose a systemic risk and should not be designated as ?major swap participants? and incur the unintended costs.

Opponents of the amendment took the position that these additional regulations were needed to reduce the risks and potential abuses inherent in all swap transactions, regardless of whether those transactions were engaged in by financial institutions or by manufacturers.

Rep. Frank (D-MA), who chairs the Financial Services Committee that developed H.R. 4173, was one of those who opposed the amendment. He argued that if any party ?is engaged in an activity that can cause financial problems, then we want them not to be exempt from regulation . . . .? Frank added: ?We don't want to wait for systemic risk. I don't want to wait until people are at the edge of the cliff to start to pull them back. . . . (Those engaging in swaps) can avoid this regulation by being careful . . . (to) use some prudence before (they) engage in a transaction with a counterparty who will be at risk and could begin the kind of chain that we hope would not happen . . . .?

The amendment was approved by a vote of 304-124.  One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and one hundred and thirty-one Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and twenty-four Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the major financial reform bill, which redefined the term ?major swap participant.? 

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Lynch (D-MA) to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. The amendment was designed to prevent a few major financial institutions from controlling the sale and transfer of all ?derivatives?; these are sensitive financial instruments whose value is tied - - or derived - - from other instruments. An example is investment whose value is dependent on the amount of mortgages that are paid in a timely manner. Problems with large amounts of these derivatives had contributed significantly to the financial crisis the country recently faced.

 Lynch began his statement in support of the amendment by noting that H.R. 4173 ?would require over-the-counter trading to be conducted through clearinghouses, which are set up to police derivatives trading and to make sure there is sufficient protection from the reckless behavior that these ?too big to fail? banks have engaged in. Clearinghouses are a good idea. Think of them as financial police stations.? He then went on to note that ?97 percent of the derivatives trading in this country is controlled by just five banks (and four) . . . of those five banks were top recipients (of federal bailout money). During their recent financial meltdown, these same banks engaged in very risky behavior involving complex derivatives, which endangered the entire financial system.?

Lynch said that, without his amendment: ?The big banks would be allowed to own and control the clearinghouses and to set the rules for how their own derivatives deals are handled.?  He noted that his amendment ?would prevent those big banks . . . from taking over the police station--these new clearinghouses.? Rep. Frank (D-MA), who chairs the Financial Services Committee that developed H.R. 4173, supported the amendment. Frank said he disagreed ?with the premise that the large financial investment houses and large financial institutions have earned the degree of trust that our voting against this amendment would require . . . If you let people who have a financial interest in there not being clearing be in charge of clearing, it would take an extraordinarily selfless group of people not to give in to temptation . . . The fact is that if you reject this amendment, you are giving people, who have an incentive to make these things not work well, control over them.?

Rep. Price (R-GA) opposed the amendment. He said ?it would significantly limit competition and undermine the ultimate goal that all of us ought to have, and that is to make certain that the market is, in fact, able to work for more individuals across this land.? He added that the ?New York Stock Exchange . . . Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (and other similar groups) . . . oppose this amendment because they believe strongly that it will decrease the choices available to the American people . . . What this amendment does (is say) . . . government knows best, that we ought to limit the ability of creative thinking and jobs to be formed out there across this land, because government knows best. We are going to limit the choices available to the American people.?

Rep. Garrett (R-NJ) also argued against the amendment saying it ?could very well exacerbate risk by forcing more derivative transactions . . . to fewer clearinghouses, basically concentrating risk and doing the opposite of what the American public wants, to avoid risk burdens and additional bailouts.? Rep. McMahon (D-NY) also opposed the amendment. He argued: ?The way to deal with concerns about conflicts of interest is through changes in governance, not through restricting ownership and investments.? He went on to say: ?The underlying bill grants regulators the strongest authority to police the markets . . . .? He also claimed that ?the proponents of this amendment are using the legislative process to promote one marketplace over the others . . . We are here today to reform American financial services and our regulatory structure, not to drive companies out of business . . . .?

The amendment was approved by a vote of 228-202. Two hundred and ten Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and eighteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-six Republicans and forty-six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the major financial reform bill preventing a few major financial institutions from controlling the sale and transfer of derivatives.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Sessions (R-TX) to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. The amendment would have eliminated a proposed new private right of legal action created in H.R. 4173 against credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poors and Moody?s. These agencies evaluate the financial strength of bonds and other investments and issue formal ratings on them for investors.

Speaking in support of his amendment, Sessions said that ?the Securities and Exchange Commission is already handling regulatory disputes (involving the rating agencies) with no backlog, (but) this new provision allows trial lawyers to take regulatory enforcement into their own hands in the form of frivolous, unnecessary lawsuits. When it comes to a case of fraud, investors already have the right to sue credit rating agencies. This provision is completely unnecessary?. He claimed that the Democrats created this new private right to sue the rating agencies ?to allow trial lawyers to run wild with enforcement capacities.?

Rep. Garrett (R-NJ) also spoke in favor of the amendment. He said that ?bipartisan action taken by this Congress back in 2006 (created the) . . .Credit Rating Agency Reform Act (which) . . . formalized the registration process of credit rating agencies . . . What are we about to do here? Throw that out the window before it's fully implemented, before we fully have had the opportunity to see it roll out and be played out as Congress intended . . . .? He said that the language the amendment was seeking to remove will make it more difficult for the rating agencies ?to make the evaluations that are necessary for the industry. That means it will be harder for credit to be obtained in the marketplaces, and what that means for businesses, of course, harder for them.?

Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), opposed the amendment. He claimed that ?if we had responsible activity by rating agencies we wouldn't have had the tremendous failure last year of so many securitized operations . . . because (rating agencies assigned) . . . 3-plus ratings to securities that didn't deserve it . . . Now, what we're doing here is saying . . .  If you want to put at risk investors, you will suffer the consequences and pay for your gross negligence.?

Rep. Capuano (D-MA) also opposed the amendment. He said the provisions creating this new private right are ?absolutely essential . . . Without (them), credit rating agencies will not be held accountable for anything they do.? He also claimed that ?the SEC has failed to do anything . . . Tell me the last time a credit rating agency was held accountable for giving a AAA rating to a piece of junk. Enron, junk bonds . . . they're never held accountable. All this says is they have to actually look at the books, they have to use anything they know, and they cannot be reckless about it . . . It doesn't say they're held accountable if they're wrong, nor should they be. A legitimate error is fine. All this says is they have to be held accountable to the American public when they basically don't do their job.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 172-257 along almost straight party lines.  One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the provisions creating a new private right of legal action against the rating agencies remained in the bill.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA) to H.R. 4173, a major financial reform bill which implemented the most significant changes in the regulation of the financial industry since The Great Depression. H.R.4173 had been developed in response to the severe problems in the finance and banking industries that had contributed to the severe economic downturn the country was experiencing. 

The amendment, among other things, provided $4 billion for foreclosure relief programs, $3 billion in low-interest loans to unemployed homeowners having difficulty making their mortgage payments, and $1 billion in grants to states for the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed and abandoned residential properties. It also contained language designed to guarantee consumers the same access to their credit scores as lenders; tightened standards on bankers who extended credit to less than ?prime? borrowers; and permitted the FDIC to disregard the pledging of collateral by failed financial institutions shortly before their insolvency.

Rep. Waters (D-CA) supported the amendment. She noted that the Black Caucus, of which she is a member, had requested that the $3 billion in low-interest loans for unemployed homeowners be included in the amendment. She said those funds are needed because ?foreclosures and unemployment present a systemic risk to our economy? and ?our current foreclosure prevention programs address the initial cause of our foreclosure crisis, subprime and predatory lending, and not the current cause, unemployment . . . .? Waters went on to note that ?Pennsylvania has run a very successful (similar) loan program that has saved 42,700 unemployed homeowners from foreclosure.?

Speaking in support of the language giving consumers the same access to their credit scores as lenders, Rep.Tsongas (D-MA) said ? it seems unthinkable to me that . . . consumers would be placed in the dark in regard to their creditworthiness''. She also said that the amendment ?levels the playing field for consumers.?

Rep. Capito (R-WV) opposed the provision in the amendment providing $3 billion in low-interest loans to help unemployed homeowners. She said that ?strapping an unemployed homeowner with more debt is not the answer. Congress needs to support policies that create jobs and not perpetuate any more bailouts.? Capito also opposed the provisions giving $1 billion in grants to states for the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed and abandoned residential properties. She claimed that this ?is a costly bailout for lenders and speculators. This program also could have the unintended consequences of making foreclosure a more attractive option for lenders, thereby compounding the problem.? Capito supported her claim that providing these additional funds was not going to do any good by referring to other recent emergency housing funds Congress had provided and noting that ?not one dollar has made it through HUD's cumbersome bureaucracy.?

The amendment was approved by a vote of 240-182.  Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the major financial reform bill providing several billion dollars to stem the ongoing wave of mortgage foreclosures, giving consumers the same access to their credit scores as lenders, and making other changes designed to curtail abuses in the financial system.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation designed to prevent the kind of major financial crises that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The legislation had been developed in response to the severe problems in the finance and banking industries that had contributed to the ongoing economic downturn the country was experiencing.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule. Referring to the crisis that the financial industry had recently experienced, he said: ?The banking system is our nation's circulatory system for our economy; and last year that circulatory system had a heart attack. We cannot and will not let the banking system fail . . . .?

He claimed that one of the things that the legislation accomplishes is to insure ?that there is no place to hide by closing loopholes, improving consolidated supervision, and establishing robust regulatory oversights.? Perlmutter also claimed that the legislation ?puts the regulation of consumer protection on a level playing field with the regulation of safety and soundness of our financial institutions . . . (and keeps) watch over predatory practices that some lenders have shown a propensity to pursue.? He concluded his remarks by declaring that the systematic changes made by the bill ?are essential to rebuilding Main Street and getting credit flowing to small businesses, creating jobs, and rebuilding our economy . . . .?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He first agreed that there was a need to ?reform our financial regulatory system to prevent the kind of catastrophic breakdown that occurred last year . . . .? Dreier then added: ?Unfortunately, the legislation being considered fails on all counts. (It makes our regulatory system) more complicated and less accountable, more unworkable and less transparent.?

Dreier argued that the focus should not be on whether regulation is increased or diminished. Rather, it should be ?about making (regulation) smarter, more accountable, and more effective. The Democratic majority's so-called reform bill takes us in the opposite direction. By adding multiple layers of new bureaucracy and making agencies like the Federal Reserve even less accountable than before, they threaten to compound the very problems that led to our current situation . . . by further tangling this Byzantine mess of regulators and super regulators (which) . . .will further tie up credit that families and small businesses desperately need . . .? Dreier also claimed that the bill ultimately would ?reduce consumers' access to credit, destroy jobs, and leave our deficit spiraling out of control.?

The rule setting the terms for debating the major financial regulatory reform bill was approved by a vote of 235-177. All two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin consideration of legislation designed to prevent major financial crises and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.

This was on a motion that effectively would allow the House to consider immediately the resolution setting the terms for debating financial reform legislation. That legislation was designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression. The Rules Committee develops the resolution setting the terms for debating all significant legislation. Each resolution must be approved before the House can consider the legislation to which it relates.

There is a House regulation preventing any such resolution from being considered on the same day as it is submitted by the Rules Committee. That regulation may ordinarily be waived by a two-thirds vote. The Democratic majority wanted to consider the resolution setting the terms for debating the financial reform bill on the same day as it had been submitted by the Rules Committee. However, there was sufficient opposition to prevent a two-thirds waiver vote. The purpose of this motion was to eliminate the application of that two-thirds vote requirement to the rule on the financial reform bill.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the effort in support of the motion. He said that he hoped: ?Members on both sides of the aisle will support this (waiver) so that we can move quickly to enact this critically important (financial regulation) legislation.? Hastings referenced the merits of the legislation to buttress his argument in support of the waiver. He said ?the (recent) financial crisis has shown that the deregulation or even the lack of regulation over financial firms is not an option anymore. For the first time ever, this legislation provides key provisions that will mandate oversight of certain parts of the United States financial system.? Hastings concluded his remarks by claiming that the reform legislation would ?provide American consumers with long overdue safeguards and reflects the Congress's commitment to putting the needs of the American people before those of Wall Street.?

Rep. Sessions (R-TX) led the opposition to the motion. He based his opposition both on procedural considerations and on the substance of the bill to which the rule setting the terms for debate applied. Sessions first quoted a statement made three years earlier when the Republican controlled the House by Rep. McGovern (D-MA), a member of the Rules Committee. That statement referred to ?this martial law rule? and ?the outrageous process that continues to plague this House.? The McGovern quote also complained about ?the (House) leadership . . . once again (ignoring) the rules of the House and the precedents and traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.''

Sessions said  a ? ?martial law rule? . . . is what we're being asked to consider here today. We're being asked to consider this outrageous process on the House floor today, yet the Democratic Party knows it's not the right thing to do. It was not right then and it's not right now.?

Sessions then dealt with the substance of the financial regulation legislation. He called it a ?monstrous financial reform package (that) . . .make(s) federal bailout authority permanent, and allow(s) bureaucrats to determine the types of financial products that will be made available to consumers and set(s) the salaries of private sector employees.? He went on to argue that the bill ?does nothing to help create private sector jobs or to provide financial relief to Americans in these tough times, which should be Congress's number one priority.?

The motion to waive the regulation passed by a vote of 239-183. All two hundred and thirty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twelve other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to take up the resolution, setting the terms for debating the major financial regulation, on the same day as it was submitted by the Rules Committee.

This was on passage of legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments. The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between both bodies. The original version of the legislation did provide funding only for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Since fiscal year 2010 was well under way, the Democratic majority decided to add 2010 funding for several other departments to the legislation during the conference.

Rep. Olver (D-MA) led the support for the legislation. He focused on the transportation and housing portion of the bill and said ?it demonstrates our mutual commitment to investing in our nation's housing and transportation infrastructure; our mutual commitment to maintaining critical services in urban and rural communities; our mutual commitment to vulnerable populations such as the elderly and disabled; our mutual commitment to building sustainable communities for our nation's families; and our mutual commitment to maintaining an efficient and safe transportation system that contributes to America's place in a global economy.? Regarding the entire legislation, Olver said that it ?strengthens the foundation upon which our economic turnaround is being built.?

Rep. Latham (R-IA) was leading the opposition to the bill. He said that it was ?unfortunate that . . . Rep. Olver is forced to carry five other (spending) bills with him (in addition to that which funds transportation and housing), bills that should be considered on their own as conference reports.? Latham added that ?we could have and should have been able to bring the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development conference report to the floor by the end of the fiscal year. Instead, here we are today 3 months into the fiscal year . . . .? Latham said each of the other measures should have been considered as a ?stand-alone bill.? He went on to note that the funding for three of the departments provided in H.R. 3288 was not even ?considered in the Senate and (is) buried in this package.?

Latham then pointed to a recent non-binding House vote that instructed the House Members who were designated to develop a final version of the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development funding bill with the Senate not to include the funding for any other departments in the conference report. He added: ?Instead, against the wishes of the House, we've added five bills to this conference report.? Latham concluded by saying ?I regret very much that I am unable to support this bill . . . However, the price tag . . . is simply too high.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 221-202. All two hundred and twenty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments. The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between both bodies. The original version of the legislation did provide funding only for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Since fiscal year 2010 was well under way, the Democratic majority decided to add 2010 funding for several other departments to the legislation during the conference.

Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating this conference report.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA) was leading the support for the rule. McGovern described the money in all the measures included in this legislation as ?critical funding? that will ?reverse years of neglect . . . to our roads and our bridges . . . our lower income neighbors and . . . education system, and . . . our veterans.? McGovern argued that the funds in all the measures included in this legislation were needed to continue the efforts of the Obama Administration, which ?is reversing a long downward spiral that started under the last President.?

McGovern claimed: The (economic) stimulus plan is working as planned. We are making sound investments in helping . . . to breathe life back into our real estate economy.? McGovern went on to describe the efforts of the previous Bush Administration as demonstrating a ?reverse Midas touch (that) turned surpluses into deficits.? He concluded by saying: ?It's time to fund our priorities and meet the needs of the American people.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He first complained that the rule permitted only one hour to debate for a ?$500 billion measure? He then argued that ?when virtually everyone . . . (is) engaged in cutting back spending . . . (W)e've seen an . . . 85 percent increase (in nondefense discretionary spending) at a time when families across this country are working very hard to make ends meet.?

Dreier then complained that the Democratic majority ?shut out real debate . . . (and) made the unprecedented move of closing down the entire appropriations process? on the grounds that it was necessary to complete the spending bills in a timely manner. He concluded that: ?What we have gotten is . . . neither timely nor deliberative action (and) . . . bad process begets bad substance.? He noted that ?It's not unusual for our work on the Federal budget to extend beyond the close of the fiscal year?, but suggested that did not justify moving forward on this large a bill in so short an allowed time.

The rule setting the terms for debating the legislation was approved by a vote of 221-200. All two hundred and twenty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-nine other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments.

This was on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the legislation providing nearly $450 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between both bodies. The original version of the legislation did provide funding only for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Since fiscal year 2010 was well under way, the Democratic majority decided to add 2010 funding for several other departments to the legislation during the conference.

Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating this conference report.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA) was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to bring the rule to an immediate vote. He began his statement in support by acknowledging that he had ?a slightly different perspective on the appropriations (or funding) process than I did 3 years ago. Then, in the minority, I questioned why the then-Republican majority wasn't able to finish their bills on time. I realize now that in many cases, finishing the bills in a timely fashion wasn't always the fault of the majority in the House but rather a result of the dysfunction in the Senate . . . this House, this Democratic majority, did our job. We passed every single bill in a timely way and we did so responsibly, and in many cases joined by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.?

McGovern then suggested that the House Republicans were still going to ?protest about the process here, that this bill is made up of six bills . . . (B)ut we are essentially reaffirming votes that have already been taken on issues that have already been previously debated and discussed.? McGovern went on to describe the money for all the departments that was provided in the legislation as ?critical funding?. He argued that all the bills incorporated in this one piece of legislation ?are about priorities. They are about values. They show who we are as a Congress, and I stand by the values articulated in these bills . . . I see these bills as an opportunity to reverse years of neglect . . . to our roads and our bridges . . . our lower income neighbors and . . . education system, and . . . our veterans.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He first complained that the rule permitted only one hour of debate for this ?$500 billion measure.? He then argued that ?when virtually everyone . . . (is) engaged in cutting back spending . . . (W)e've seen an . . . 85 percent increase (in nondefense discretionary spending) at a time when families across this country are working very hard to make ends meet.? Dreier noted: ?It's not unusual for our work on the federal budget to extend beyond the close of the fiscal year. It's not unprecedented to consider several appropriations bills in one package . . . (T)he task of spending the taxpayers' money . . . demands a great deal of deliberation, which is not always compatible with setting timetables . . . getting it right is more important than getting it done (quickly).

Dreier then complained that the Democratic majority ?shut out real debate . . . (and) made the unprecedented move of closing down the entire appropriations process? on the grounds that it was necessary to complete the spending bills in a timely manner. He concluded that: ?What we have gotten is . . . neither timely nor deliberative action (and) . . . bad process begets bad substance.?

The motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the legislation carried by a vote of 227-187. All two hundred and twenty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seventeen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for several federal departments.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 4173. That bill was designed to prevent the kind of major financial crisis that had recently occurred, and to implement the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.  

Among other things, the bill created a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, strengthened the enforcement abilities of the Federal Trade Commission, included provisions intended to prevent future  bailouts of institutions that are  ?too big to fail", gave shareholders an advisory vote in executive compensation, strengthened the SEC's powers, initiated regulation of sensitive financial instruments known as ?derivatives, toughened anti-predatory lending practices, imposed a higher liability standard on the rating agencies, and created a Federal Insurance Office.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule for this legislation, Perlmutter described the provisions in the bill as ?a comprehensive package of reforms to address the numerous failures that led to the near collapse of our financial system . . . . ? He claimed that, among other things the bill ?makes robust consumer protection repair and reform (and) . . . puts the regulation of consumer protection on a level playing field with the regulation of safety and soundness of our financial institutions.? He also claimed that the bill will ?increase (financial) transparency and accountability . . . (and) is critical to protect taxpayers and consumers by reining in the abuses of Wall Street, while enabling a balanced environment for the financial markets to grow and stabilize our economy. These changes are essential to rebuilding Main Street and getting credit flowing to small businesses, creating jobs, and rebuilding our economy.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He also focused on the substance of H.R. 4173 to support his position. Dreier began by agreeing that: ?We must reform our financial regulatory system to prevent the kind of catastrophic breakdown that occurred last year.? He then added that: ?We must do so in a way that preserves access to credit for families and small businesses, promotes job creation, ends taxpayer-funded bailouts, and allows us to begin to pay down this horrendous national debt that we're all facing. Unfortunately (H.R. 4173) . . . fails on all counts. ?

Dreier argued that the legislation would make the regulatory system ?more complicated and less accountable, more unworkable and less transparent. The task at hand is not about increasing regulation or diminishing regulation. It is about making it smarter, more accountable, and more effective.? Dreier said: ?By adding multiple layers of new bureaucracy and making agencies like the Federal Reserve System even less accountable than before, (the bill could) . . . compound the very problems that led to our current situation.? He particularly criticized provisions that he claimed would ?keep the taxpayers on the hook for a permanent system of bailouts.? Dreier added that one of the negative effects of the additional regulations imposed by the bill would be to increase ?the credit crunch (which) . . . threatens further job destruction and (slows) growth.?

The rule setting the terms for debating the legislation was approved by a vote of 235-177.  All two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republican and voted  ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on the bill imposing the most significant regulatory reform of the financial industry since the Great Depression.

This was a vote on passage of the legislation that extended $30 billion worth of tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year. Among them were the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and the deduction for the payment of certain state and local property taxes. The bill also included provisions to generate revenue to compensate for the revenue ?lost? by the tax deduction extensions. These revenue-generating provisions tightened tax compliance and increased the tax on compensation paid to hedge fund managers and others.

Supporters of the bill claimed it would strengthen the economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses. Rep. Neal (D-MA), a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, noted that the 2010 fiscal year had already begun and: ?There are provisions here in the bottom of the ninth inning, with two out, that are expiring; and we need to give some predictability to decisions that will be made by businesses and individuals over the course of the next year.? Neal said that the bill extends several ?popular incentives? and particularly referenced the continuation of the R&D tax credit that  ?is critical to retaining American jobs.? He also claimed that the bill ?does no harm to the federal budget (because the) cost of these (extended tax) cuts is completely offset by . . . revenue raisers . . . (which, among other things) will shut down abuses by wealthy taxpayers . . . .?

Opponents of the legislation had consistently said they supported the tax reduction extensions, but focused their opposition on the provisions that increased certain taxes to compensate for the revenue lost by those reductions. They claimed, among other things, that real estate partnerships would be hard hit by the legislation, and that this would negatively impact on the creation of jobs in an industry that had suffered during the ongoing economic downturn. Rep. Brady (R-TX) claimed: ?That type of thing is the reason that this new Congress and this (Obama)White House has failed to get the American economy going.? He added that real estate partnerships ?are our local companies that build our office buildings, apartments, shopping centers . . . There are no abuses in this. These are the people who create jobs at home.?

Rep. Camp (R-MI), another opponent of the legislation, said ?we should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes . . . If loopholes exist in law that allow tax cheats to illegally hide assets . . . obviously Republicans stand ready to help close those loopholes in an appropriate way . . . .?but he claimed that the changes made in this legislation were ultimately damaging because they change ?how business income has been taxed for decades, making it so that income that is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent would be taxed at 35 percent, more than doubling that tax in an economic recession. It places one of the highest taxes on investment found anywhere (in return) . . . for 1 year of tax relief.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 241-181. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and ten Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year.

This was a vote on motion to table (kill) the appeal of a ruling by the Speaker. The ruling that had been appealed was that a motion made by Rep. Camp (R-MI), to eliminate language in a pending bill that increased a tax on certain interest generated by businesses, was not in order. The motion had been ruled out of order because it violated the House rule that all proposed revenue reductions, which the Camp motion was, had to be compensated for with spending reductions or other revenue increases. No such revenue increase or spending reduction was included in the motion by Rep. Camp.

The interest on which Rep. Camp was trying to have a proposed tax increase rolled back was called ?carried interest?. It is the interest paid to the manager of a hedge fund or HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity_fund" \o "Private equity fund" private equity fund as the share of the profits of the fund.

Rep. Camp argued that the ruling that his motion was out of order should be reversed both because of the substance of his motion and because of the way the House had previously operated. On the grounds of substance, Camp argued that not permitting him to offer his motion would prevent ?the House from considering the merits of a different approach to the underlying bill, one that would let the American people keep more of their hard-earned income . . . (I)t would prevent the House from considering whether to extend (the current tax rate on carried interest) . . .We should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging it through higher taxes . . . (T)his carried interest tax . . . changes how business income has been taxed for decades, making income currently taxed at 15 percent up to 35 percent, more than doubling it . . . .?

On the ground on procedure, Camp argued that ?granting this point of order would foreclose the House from even considering whether it might want to pass this bill with . . . further tax relief.? He claimed that allowing motions such as his that are not formally compliant with the House rule that revenue offsets must be identified is ?something that all minorities, Republican and Democrat, over the last many years have been permitted . . . including as recently as last year.?

The motion to kill the appeal of the ruling passed by a vote of 251-172 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and fifty-Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the motion that would have eliminated a change in pending legislation that increased a tax on carried interest could not be offered.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation that extended $30 billion worth of tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year. Among them were the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and the deduction for the payment of certain state and local property taxes. The bill for which the rule set the terms for debate also included provisions to compensate for the revenue ?lost? as a result of the tax deduction extensions. These revenue-generating provisions tightened tax compliance and increased the tax on compensation paid to hedge fund managers and others.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY) was leading the support for the rule. He said that its approval ?will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor . . . that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses, but will also do this in a deficit neutral, fiscally responsible way.?  Arcuri noted that many Americans were facing ?harsh realities in addressing the (then) current economic crisis (and) . . . (I)t is vitally important that these tax incentives are extended in order to maintain the economic recovery that has slowly started to take hold in this country.

Arcuri noted that some of the ?important tax credits for individuals . . . extended the deductions for tuition and education expenses, helping families send their children to college . . . and extend the increased standard deduction for state and local property taxes so that working families can keep more of their hard-earned dollars for other necessities during these tough economic times.?

He also cited the bill?s ?extension of several provisions important to businesses, including the credit for a company's R&D expenditures. Extending the research and development credit is vital to ensuring that American companies remain competitive and on the cutting edge of innovation . . . In the past, the R&D tax credit has lapsed, and Congress has had to retroactively extend it. American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuity so they can adequately plan for their long-term research projects. I support this proactive extension to provide that continuity. . . .?

Arcuri concluded his remarks by saying that: ?Supporting this rule and the tax-relief legislation we will consider later today is simple and common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families, spur innovation, retain and create jobs . . . (A)nd we can do it all in a fiscally responsible manner.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) led the opposition to the rule and to the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He first noted that he supported the substance of the underlying bill, which was to extend a number of tax-relief provisions. He then said his opposition was based partly on the fact that he believed ?these tax provisions should be made permanent, or that at the very least they should be extended for more than 1 year.? Diaz-Balart gave as his primary reason that ?year-to-year extensions, while better than no extension, fail to provide the predictability and the certainty that small businesses and families need to plan their budgets.?

Diaz-Balart also said that his opposition was based partly on the provision in the underlying bill that increased certain taxes to compensate for the revenue lost by the proposed tax deductions. Diaz-Balart noted that the Democrats had claimed that some of the provisions that generated revenue in the bill were effectively ?a tax on Wall Street venture funds; but . . . about half of that tax will be paid by real estate partnerships that build apartments, homes and shopping centers in our communities. Those real estate partnerships invest in new infrastructure in our communities and they help create jobs in the construction industry.?

He went on to say: ?The construction industry has been hit very hard . . . and too many jobs have been lost. What we need to be doing is providing incentives for job growth and investment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, we are doing the opposite with this legislation.?

The rule setting the terms for debating the bill was approved by a vote of 237-182.  All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Nine other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation that extended $30 billion worth of tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year. Among them were the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and the deduction for the payment of certain state and local property taxes. The bill for which the rule set the terms for debate also included provisions that generated revenue to compensate for the revenue ?lost? as a result of the tax deduction extensions. These revenue-generating provisions tightened tax compliance and increased the tax on compensation paid to hedge fund managers and others.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY) was leading the support for the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He said that approval of the rule ?will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor . . . that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses, but will also do this in a deficit neutral, fiscally responsible way.?

Arcuri argued that this was ?needed tax relief in a time when American citizens and American small businesses are beginning to turn the corner (on the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression).? He also said that the revenue-generating portion of the underlying bill made ?commonsense changes? that applied the same rules to the compensation of hedge fund managers as ?apply to real estate agents, waiters and CEO stock options.?

Arcuri added ?there are many families and businesses . . . that are struggling in the current economic crisis with rising costs of everyday items . . . (and) we face harsh realities in addressing the current economic crisis . . . (W)hile these are challenging times, we simply cannot endlessly borrow our way out of this situation. The legislation we will consider under the rule strikes the necessary balance between continuing the tax incentives that will help families and businesses continue to improve their position while offsetting the cost of extending these provisions.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) led the opposition to the rule and to the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He first noted that he supported the substance of the underlying bill, which was to extend a number of tax-relief provisions. Diaz-Balart then said his opposition was based partly on the fact that he believed ?these tax provisions should be made permanent, or that at the very least they should be extended for more than 1 year.? He gave as his primary reason that ?year-to-year extensions, while better than no extension, fail to provide the predictability and the certainty that small businesses and families need to plan their budgets.?

Diaz-Balart also said that his opposition was based partly on the provisions in the underlying bill that increased certain taxes to compensate for the revenue lost by the proposed tax deductions. He noted that the underlying bill ?would raise the tax rate on investment gains received from an investment services partnership interest, which is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent, to a rate as high as 35 percent at the end of 2010, and then the tax will rise to 39 percent.?

Diaz-Balart noted that the Democrats had claimed that ?this is a tax on Wall Street venture funds; but (in fact) . . . about half of that tax will be paid by real estate partnerships that build apartments, homes and shopping centers in our communities. Those real estate partnerships invest in new infrastructure in our communities and they help create jobs in the construction industry. Yet once this tax hits those partnerships, they may very well reconsider their investment decisions and abandon their partnerships for other investments, further hurting our communities and hampering possible economic recovery.? He added that: ?The construction industry has been hit very hard . . . and too many jobs have been lost. What we need to be doing is providing incentives for job growth and investment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, we are doing the opposite with this legislation.?

The motion to have an immediate vote on the rule for this tax legislation was approved by a vote of 239-182.  All two hundred and thirty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation extending the tuition tax deduction, the R&D tax credit and several other tax reductions through the 2010 fiscal year.

This vote was on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass a resolution encouraging Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press. Rep. Engel (D-NY) was leading the support for the resolution. He began his statement in support by noting that the recent history of Hungary showed that the country was moving toward democratic practices, and also noting its contribution to the efforts of the U.S. in the war in Afghanistan.

Engel then said that he had ?become concerned about recent reports of possible unfair treatment of foreign investors in Hungary and possible efforts to inject politically motivated demands into the commercial process.? He noted, in particular, ?the actions of the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board, deciding not to renew the national radio licenses for two foreign companies, one of which is American-owned, and to award them instead to two local bidders.?

Engel added: ?According to widespread media reporting, the two foreign companies have alleged that before their renewal bids were due, they were approached by representatives of Hungary's two leading political parties, offering to ensure their licenses would be extended if they agreed to the representatives' demands for a percentage of the company's equity and a say in editorial content. The two foreign companies refused, and the (Board) awarded the licenses to the two local bidders instead, who had submitted tenders that many outside experts have said are not commercially viable.  The day following the award, the chairman of the (Board) resigned in protest . . . Numerous commentators have indicated that on the face of it, the (Board's) decision clearly appears to have been politically motivated and have ignored the economic feasibility of the two local bidders' tenders.?

Rep. Kucinich (D-OH), who chairs the House Hungarian-American Caucus, was among those leading the opposition to the resolution. He argued that the resolution broadly condemned Hungary ?without regard to current legal proceedings that should receive more discussion? and that Members should ?consider the consequence of this legislation before casting a vote.?

Kucinich noted that ?the Hungarian Prime Minister has given statements questioning the award of the contract, that there is a (Hungarian) parliamentary committee looking into it, that courts are reviewing it, and that, in fact, there's a prosecutorial investigation in the offing.? He added that ?the licenses awarded to two national radio stations by the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board are under judicial review . . .  Now, if this doesn't indicate a responsiveness by the government to the award of the contract, I don't know what does.?

Kucinich also questioned having Congress consider the resolution ?before any (House) committee meetings have been held to review the actual extent of the Hungarian Government's involvement or lack thereof (which) is really not consistent with our duties and due diligence on every piece of legislation.?

The resolution passed on a vote of 333-74. One hundred and eighty-two Democrats and one hundred and fifty-one Republicans voted ?aye?. Fifty-five other Democrats, including a number of the most progressive Members, and nineteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed a resolution encouraging Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press.

The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R.3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Transportation and for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As is the usual procedure in such situations, a conference was scheduled between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was on a motion by Rep. Latham (R-IA) that the House instruct its representatives to the conference not to agree to any matter that was not dealt with in either the House or Senate versions of H.R. 3288. The motion also instructed the House conferees not to agree to a final version of the bill unless they had at least 72 hours to review it.

Latham made the motion to prevent a procedure whereby other, unrelated, funding bills would be added to H.R. 3288 in conference and then be voted on by the House as one large package. Latham said he was concerned that House Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI) was ?planning on lumping five other bills with the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development bill . . . .? Latham said three of those other funding bills ?Financial Services, Foreign Operations, and the Labor-Health and Human Services bills (hadn?t) even (been) considered on the Senate floor. Two of the other bills? (for) Military Construction and the (Departments) of Commerce (and) Justice--have passed both the House and the Senate, and there is no reason these bills shouldn't have their own free-standing conferences.?

Regarding the reason for the 72 hour requirement, Latham said: ?There are billions of dollars at stake and a lot of policy to digest. It's our responsibility that we, as elected Representatives representing our districts, know what we're voting on.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA) was leading the opposition to the motion. He noted that, in 2005 when the Republicans were in the majority and controlled legislative proceedings, the House passed a bill combining ten major spending bills into one; he also noted that one of those bills ?had never been considered in the Senate.? Olver went on to note that, in 2004 and 2003, when the Republicans were also in the majority, a similar process was used. He added that ?it is a time-honored process.?

Regarding the 72 hour requirement, Olver agreed that ?in a perfect world, we would have 72 hours to further review this bill.? He said he was opposed to the time requirement at this point because the federal government was already well into the 2010 fiscal year and the funding bills for most federal departments had not yet passed. Olver noted that most departments were operating on ?continuing resolutions? - - which allow them to function in fiscal year 2010 at their fiscal year 2009 funding levels - - but that these departments ?cannot wait much longer for the (2010) funds . . . (which will) fund critical programs.? He added: ?Plus, we all know that we need to have plenty of time for our colleagues on the Senate side to act.?

A number of Democratic Members, including several of the more moderate ones, did not support Rep. Olver. They agreed that the procedure that should be followed is to have the House consider each major spending bill on its own.

The vote on was 212-193. One hundred and sixty-five Republicans and forty-seven Democrats voted ?aye?. All one hundred and ninety-three ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including most of the most progressive Members. As a result, the House instructed its conferees on H.R. 3288 not to agree to include any matter that was not dealt with in either the House or Senate version of the bill, and to wait at least 72 hours after receiving the final version before agreeing to it.

This was a vote on final House passage of legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it. The imposition of the estate tax had become a very contentious issue. Supporters claimed that it was fair and would be imposed on a very small percentage of Americans. Opponents had taken to calling it a ?death tax?. They claimed it was unfair to those who had paid a tax on their previous earnings and that it was especially damaging to small businesses.

Rep. Rangel (D-NY), the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee was a supporter of the bill. He referenced the fact that uncertainty had resulted because the estate tax had previously been suspended for a number of years, and claimed that making the tax permanent would eliminate that uncertainty. Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ), another supporter, noted that the estate tax as imposed in the bill ?affects only estates of significant size--presently, right now, over $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples? and characterized it as ?the most progressive tax in our federal tax system.? He argued that those opposing the implementation of the estate tax ?want to protect . . . one generation of superrich families so they can send (their wealth) on to another group.? Rep. Pomeroy (D-ND) cited statistics showing that only one quarter of one percent of all Americans would be subject to the tax.

Rep. Camp (R-MI), the Ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, was leading the opposition to the bill. He said: ?Death should not force the sale of family farms or the dissolution of small businesses (because of the imposition of the estate tax).? Camp referenced the claim by Rep. Rangel that one of the benefits of the bill is that it would create certainty, and said it is ?the certainty of a federal tax rate that at 45 percent must be considered confiscatory . . . (and) the certainty of an exemption that is not indexed for inflation, meaning that over time . . . more and more family farms and small businesses will be subject to this punishing tax.? Camp also said: ?No American should have the federal government take nearly half of (his or her) net worth.?

Rep. Brady (R-TX), another opponent, asked rhetorically: ?Can you imagine working your whole life to keep your family farm or to build up a small business, and then when you die Uncle Sam swoops in and takes up as much as half of all you've spent a lifetime working for? That's what the death tax does. It is wrong, it is immoral, and in many ways un-American.?

Brady also said that ?the number one reason family farms and small businesses will not be passed down to the next generation is the death tax; and the number one reason the fastest growing number of entrepreneurs, women, and minority-owned businesses will not be passed down to the next generation . . . will be the same death tax.? Brady noted the argument made by supporters of the estate tax that Bill Gates and several other of the wealthiest Americans supported the bill, and countered by saying ?the people most hurt by this tax are . . . real people building wealth in our communities . . . These are not the aristocracies that are being referred to in this debate.?

The vote on passage of the legislation was 225- 200. All two hundred and twenty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-six other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed legislation designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it, and sent the bill on to the Senate.

This was a vote on a motion to send legislation, designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it, back to committee with instructions to add additional language. That additional language would have eliminated the imposition of the estate tax in the remaining portion of fiscal year 2010 and in all of fiscal year 2011.

Rep. Heller (R-NV) had previously attempted to terminate the estate tax completely, but had been prevented from doing under House rules, because he had not identified a way to ?pay for? the revenue lost by eliminating the tax. The issue of whether the estate tax should be made permanent had become a very contentious one, with supporters claiming that it was fair and would be imposed on a very small percentage of Americans. Opponents had taken to calling it a ?death tax?. They claimed it was unfair to those who had paid a tax on their previous earnings and that it was especially damaging to small businesses.

Speaking in support of his motion, Heller argued that ?the federal government shouldn't be entitled to half or even one-third of your assets when you die . . . the purpose of the (estate) tax is to erase all of an individual's net worth within three generations.? Heller went on to call the estate tax ?a jobs destroyer? and noted that: ?One recent study showed that eliminating the death tax will increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion . . . increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent . . . increase payrolls by 2.6 percent . . . expand investment by 3 percent . . . create 1.5 million additional small business jobs (and) . . . reduce the current jobless rate by almost 1 percent.?

During previous debate on the merits of the estate tax, Rep. Polis (D-CO), a supporter of the tax, had argued that wealthy individuals ?like myself . . . with the financial resources to provide a high standard of living for our families, have a duty to our fellow Americans to pay our fair share.? He claimed: ?Many of the people who have accumulated great wealth in this country have, throughout their lives, paid the capital gains tax rather than the income tax rate . . . I'm the fourth-or fifth-wealthiest Member of this body (and) . . . I've paid the capital gains tax. That is a 15 percent tax . . . (a lower) percentage tax than members of my staff here in Congress that earn $50,000, $60,000 a year . . . .? Polis also cited a finding by The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center that only one out of 400 Americans would be subject to it.

Rep. Boyd (D-FL) argued against the specific language that the motion would have added. He said that suspending the estate tax for less than two years would create great uncertainty among those who would be subject to it and not allow them to do well-reasoned estate planning.

The motion to add the requested language was defeated by a vote of 187- 233. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and thirty-three ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, language was not added to the legislation imposing the estate tax that would have suspended it until after the 2011 fiscal year.

This was a vote on whether the House should table (kill) an appeal of a ruling by the Speaker. That ruling was that a motion by Rep. Heller (R-NV) was out of order. The motion would have recommitted a bill designed to extend the estate tax to committee with instructions to add language eliminating that tax. Most Republican Members were opposed to an extension of the estate tax - - which they had taken to calling the ?death tax? - - and the Heller motion was an effort to eliminate the tax.

The ruling of the Speaker had prevented the House from voting on the motion by Rep. Heller. If the Speaker had ruled to permit a vote on the Heller motion to recommit the bill and add his proposed language, and if that motion had prevailed, the estate tax would have effectively been removed from the bill. The reasoning behind the ruling of the Speaker was that the House ?pay-as-you-go? rule prohibits the consideration of motions reducing revenues unless there is an offsetting reduction in spending: The motion by Rep. Heller to eliminate the estate tax and the revenue it was projected to generate did not include any spending offset. Rep. Heller appealed the ruling.

The Republican minority had been claiming all through the year that the Democratic majority was not conducting legislative business in a fair manner. Heller picked up on this argument in his statement supporting his appeal of the ruling. He claimed that the Democratic majority ?has stacked the rules of the House to try to make it impossible for the minority to offer its preferred approach (to the estate tax issue). We . . . are witnessing . . . again today . . . the rules . . . being used to keep us from offering a full and permanent repeal of the death tax.

Specifically, Heller claimed that the bill he wanted to recommit itself ?doesn't even meet the House's own pay-as-you-go rules.? He noted: ?The substance of that bill reduced the rate of the estate tax and increased the amount of the estate that would be exempt from the tax.? Heller then argued that these changes ?would increase the deficit by more than $230 billion. This begs the question, if it's appropriate for the majority to consider estate tax relief . . . without offsets, in violation of the spirit of pay-as-you-go, then why is it now inappropriate, or out of order, for the minority to provide even more tax relief under their amendment??

The motion to table the appeal of the ruling carried by a vote of 234-186. All two hundred and thirty-four ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Fifteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result, the appeal of the ruling of the Speaker that prevented a vote on the Heller motion was killed, and the ruling prevailed. The House therefore did not vote on the Heller motion that would have recommited the legislation with language eliminating the estate tax.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that was designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it. Supporters of the bill focused on the fact that, under its language, in 2011 the amount of an estate exempted from the tax would be increased to $3.5 million and the tax rate would be reduced to 45%. Opponents, who had supported the repeal of the estate in 2002, were against this bill because they claimed it would effectively reinstate that tax.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule. He focused on what he said were the merits of the underlying bill for which the rule set the terms of debate. Polis argued that wealthy individuals ? like myself . . . with the financial resources to provide a high standard of living for our families, have a duty to our fellow Americans to pay our fair share. And an estate tax . . . is critical to prevent a permanent aristocracy from arising in this country.? Polis then cited a finding by The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center that only one out of 400 Americans would be subject to an estate tax.

Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule. He also focused his arguments on the underlying bill. Diaz-Balart said that ?Americans who work hard and pay taxes all of their lives . . . should (not) be punished for responsibly saving with yet another tax when they pass away. He also criticized the estate tax because it would take capital out of the economy ?(W)hen the country has double-digit unemployment . . . .? He focused particularly on what he claimed was the negative impact that ?higher tax burdens? would have on ?small businesses, the engines of economic growth and job creation in the nation . . . Small businesses are often struggling to survive, to meet payroll and avoid layoffs . . . .?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), another opponent, said the bill will result in ?the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history . . . .? Other opponents said the tax was particularly unfair because it would be imposed on those Americans who had already paid the maximum rates on their wealth when the paid their income taxes.

Rep. Polis responded disputed the idea that many of those whose estates would be subject to the tax ?have paid the highest tax rates throughout their lives. Many of the people who have accumulated great wealth in this country have, throughout their lives, paid the capital gains tax rather than the income tax rate . . . I'm the fourth-or fifth-wealthiest Member of this body (and) . . . I've paid the capital gains tax. That is a 15 percent tax . . . (a lower) percentage tax than members of my staff here in Congress that earn $50,000, $60,000 a year . . . .? Polis then cited the support for the measure from the two wealthiest Americans, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

Referring to the claim by Rep. Foxx that the bill would result in the biggest increase ever in the inheritance tax rate, Polis argued ?this is a decrease . . . Instead of 55 percent and $1 million . . .  (the bill) decreases the inheritance tax rate to 45 percent from 55 percent . . . .?

The rule setting the terms for debating the bill extending the estate tax was approved by a vote of 223-192. All two hundred and twenty-three ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-one other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill extending the estate tax.

This was on a motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that was designed to make the estate tax permanent and to reduce its impact on those who will be required to pay it. Supporters of the bill focused on the fact that, under its language, in 2011 the amount of an estate exempted from the tax would be increased to $3.5 million and the tax rate would be reduced to 45%. Opponents noted that the estate tax had been repealed in 2002, and were against this bill because it would effectively reinstate that tax.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to have an immediate vote on it. He began his statement in support by describing the bill as ?a significant tax cut.?  Polis then defended the policy of taxing an estate by claiming that such a tax ?distorts a free market less than an income tax. Instead of taxing productive capital, it takes taxes from a random heir . . . Individuals like myself, who through hard work have been able to start businesses, create jobs, and, as a result, have been rewarded with the financial resources to provide a high standard of living for our families, have a duty to our fellow Americans to pay our fair share. And an estate tax . . . is critical to prevent a permanent aristocracy from arising in this country.? Polis then cited a finding by The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center that only one out of 400 Americans would be subject to an estate tax.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) led the opposition to the rule and to the motion to vote immediately on it. His opposition was based on his opposition to the entire idea of an estate tax, which he suggested should be called a ?death tax?. He claimed that, without the legislation, the estate tax would ?disappear next year.? Diaz-Balart also claimed: ?The underlying bill would undo the repeal of the death tax and instead bring back the tax, extend the estate tax rate of 45 percent, and include an unindexed exemption.?

Diaz-Balart focused on what he said would be the negative impact of the estate tax on small businesses. He noted that small businesses ?are responsible for 60 to 80 percent of all new net jobs that were created in the last decade. If the (Democratic) majority continues with their current policies . . . of placing more and more burdens on small business, the unemployment rate is going to continue to rise.?

 He also expressed his opposition to what he called the ?excessively high rates of taxation, especially when we realize that the tax is imposed at the end of a lifetime of work on which taxes were paid throughout the stages in which income was made . . . This double taxation . . . is destructive to family-owned businesses and farms, which are often torn apart or need to be liquidated entirely just to pay those burdensome taxes at the time of death.?

The motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill extending the estate tax passed by a vote of 228-187. All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Sixteen other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill extending the estate tax.

This was a vote to suspend the usual House rules and pass H.R. 515, prohibiting the importation of certain low-level radioactive waste into the United States. Certain exceptions were made for radioactive waste that was being sent to a federal government or military facility. The bill was prompted by the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was considering the importation from Italy and permanent disposition at a site in Utah of 20,000 tons of low-level nuclear waste.

Rep. Gordon (D-TN) was leading support for the bill. He claimed that, if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission actually imports the material, it ?would be the largest importation of foreign waste ever.? Gordon also said that ?The United States stands alone as the only country in the world that imports other countries' radioactive waste for permanent disposal. Other countries are reading the signs that the U.S. is poised to become a nuclear dumping ground. Permit applications are also pending for the importation of Brazilian and Mexican waste. Foreign waste threatens the capacity that we have set aside in this country for the waste generated by our domestic industries. It is critical that Congress protect that capacity by prohibiting these imports.?

Rep. Matheson (D-UT) also supported the legislation. He claimed the bill was needed to fill what he called a ?gap? in federal policy regarding the importation of low-level radioactive waste. He said this gap was created because ?(I)t just wasn't conceived that we would even take (nuclear) waste from other countries.? Matheson noted that Utah was opposing the importation of the waste, but that federal courts had thus far ruled that the state did not have the authority to stop the shipment. He argued that ?this issue ought to be addressed by Congress.?

Rep Stearns (R-FL) opposed the bill. He said the U.S. needs to ?revitalize our nuclear energy (industry). Instead, we're talking about this bill (which . . . is going to hurt businesses that are trying to create jobs and promote economic growth.? He noted that the bill ?does not focus on high-level radioactive waste, but rather . . . the lowest of lowest levels of radioactive waste.? He then cited testimony by officials of the General Accountability Office that low level nuclear waste disposal capacity ?is simply not a problem.? Stearns went on to argue that the bill ?would prevent U.S. companies from competing in the global marketplace by restraining trade in this very low-level waste.?

 Stearns said that low level nuclear ?should not frighten us once we understand this is the same kind of waste that you find in a home smoke detector . . . I want American companies and American workers to participate fully in the international nuclear renaissance . . . This is an anti-jobs and anti-trade bill. It would simply ban Americans from the marketplace . . . In addition to restricting the ability of U.S. companies to bid on foreign contracts, this bill may prevent U.S. companies in the future from working cooperatively with foreign companies on other nuclear projects.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 309-112. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and sixty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and eleven Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate legislation that generally prohibited the importation of low-level radioactive waste.

This was a vote to suspend the usual House rules and pass H.R. 3029, which established a research and development and demonstration program designed to improve gas turbine power generation systems. The specific purpose of the bill was to create a public-private program to improve the efficiency of natural gas turbines used in electric power systems. The bill authorized $85,000,000 in new spending for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

Rep. Tonko (D-NY) was the leading supporter of the bill. He noted that the Department of Energy had a similar program in the 1990s ?that led to technologies used in turbines today. Resurrecting this capability is essential if our country is going to be the energy technology leader of the world.? Tonko noted that the U.S.  ?uses natural gas for nearly 20 percent of our power generation, and with the recent discovery of natural gas in different regions of our country, that percentage is most likely to grow. Efficiency is paramount in turbines . . .  The energy and fuel savings created by more efficient turbines will help ratepayers save more than a billion dollars per year in fuel costs alone . . . leading to savings in electricity costs of some $180 billion through the year 2040.?
 
Tonko concluded his remarks in support by noting the environmental benefits that will result and arguing ?this bill promotes United States technology leadership, putting our country in a position to assume a greater share of the worldwide energy market by creating and retaining high-value domestic jobs in turbine manufacturing.?

No House Member spoke in opposition to the bill. However, many Republican Members had consistently criticized most new spending bills during the current session. The majority of Republican House Members also opposed this bill because it contained new funding.

The legislation passed by a vote of 266-118. Two hundred and twenty-four Democrats and forty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventeen Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate legislation establishing an r&d and demonstration program to improve gas turbine power generation systems.

This was on passage of legislation that added parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That System consists of rivers or parts of rivers that have unique beauty, recreational or environmental value, historic or cultural significance or some other attribute deemed to be worth preserving. No component of the System can be dammed or impeded in any way.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), who was leading the support for the legislation, said that the designated section of the Molalla River ?is a popular destination for thousands of people who recreate along the river every year. Steelhead, salmon, and cutthroat trout rely on the river for crucial spawning and nursery habitat. The river corridor served as a trail for indigenous tribes long before European settlers reached its banks, and early pioneers found the river a vital source of drinking water for homesteading, as well as an important trade route.?

Grijalva added: ?In more recent times, however, the river was the victim of neglect, with illegal dumping and other activities degrading the water quality. This degradation prompted creation of a broad-based coalition of more than 45 nonprofit, civic and conservation groups; local, regional, state, and federal agencies; numerous waters users; and property owners dedicated to protecting and preserving the Molalla River.  The alliance is a leading supporter of (the) bill . . . .?

He referenced an issue, which had been raised as a point of concern by some Republicans, about including 400 acres of potentially revenue-producing timber land in the protected area. He acknowledged that ?this is a significant issue in Oregon because the revenue generated by harvesting federal timber is used to fund public education in the state.? Grijalva said that it has been clarified that the designation ?does not prohibit logging, and there are no logging contracts in place or planned for the river corridor anyway.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) was leading the opposition to the measure. He said he was concerned with ?the impacts that wild and scenic river designations can have on surrounding property owners . . . and the restrictions that such designations can have on private citizens. Most importantly, such designations preclude the ability to make future decisions . . . without an act of Congress. There are many ways to protect and manage our rivers without imposing such absolute, permanent, and inflexible mandates that do not allow us to adapt to new circumstances . . . .?

Hastings then referred to the potentially revenue-producing timber acreage and said ?funds that come from these harvestings are provided directly to the local schools and communities in that area . . . and they're critical to the ability of hundreds of schools to properly educate their children and for the communities in these areas to provide essential services.? He then claimed that no ?provision or protection or offset (for the potential lost revenue from logging restrictions) has been included . . . .?

The bill passed by a vote of 292-133. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and 40 ?Republican voted ?aye? All one hundred and thirty-three ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that added parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That System consists of rivers or parts of rivers that have unique beauty, recreational or environmental value, historic or cultural significance or some other attribute deemed to be worth preserving. No component of the System can be dammed or impeded in any way.

As with most significant bills, the House had to approve a rule setting the terms for its debate before the bill could be formally considered. The rules for all bills are developed by the House Rules Committee. The rule for this bill did not permit any amendments to be offered on the House floor. During the congressional session, the Republican minority had been continually arguing against rules, such as this one, that limited or prohibited amendments to be offered to individual bills.

Rep. Cardoza (D-CA), was leading the support for the rule. He noted that the area around the river was home to some protected species, that it was used extensively for recreation and that the river had ?served as both a trail for indigenous Molalla Indians and as a vital trade route between pioneers in Oregon.? Cardoza also pointed out that the Bureau of Land Management had determined that the segment of the river should be placed on the System and that designation ?would cause few changes to the Bureau's current administration (of the area).'' He concluded his argument by saying that designations such as that in the bill ?can ensure America's beauty and natural wonderment is preserved both now and for future generations.?

Rep. Bishop (UT) spoke against rule and the motion to bring it to a vote. The primary reason for his opposition was that the Rules Committee had rejected his effort to have the rule permit him to offer amendments to the bill. His amendments would have excluded 400 acres near the Molalla River from the System; this would have allowed the state of Oregon to do logging on those 400 acres.

Bishop noted that Oregon could have used the proceeds of the lumbering to help fund its public education system. He claimed that the bill, without his amendment, will take ?this small amount of land . . . and put in statute the bad administrative decisions of the past which have taken it out of production so it no longer can produce the revenue that (is needed) . . . Today it's 400 acres. Tomorrow it may be 16,000 acres in another bill or 9.8 million acres in another bill.?

He first blamed the Democratic House leadership for unfairly telling the Rules Committee to prevent him from offering his amendment. Bishop then argued that ?putting these 400 acres into the System says . . . there is something terribly wrong in the mindset of the Interior Department here in Washington.  Are we going to try to help states fund their education system or not?? He added that the decision ?simply says, our kids are props for political purposes around here, but we really don't care about trying to find a long-term funding solution.?   

The rule setting the terms for debating the bill was approved by a vote of 244-176 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye? One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin formally debating the legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

This was on a motion that the House immediately vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating a bill that added parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That System consists of rivers or parts of rives that have unique beauty, recreational or environmental value, historic or cultural significance or some other attribute deemed to be worth preserving. No component of the System can be dammed or impeded in any way.

As with most significant bills, the House had to approve a rule setting the terms for its debate before the bill could be formally considered. The rules for all bills are established by the House Rules Committee. The rule for this bill did not permit any amendments to be offered on the House floor. During the congressional session, the Republican minority had been continually arguing against rules, such as this one, that limited or prohibited amendments to be offered to individual bills.

Rep. Cardoza (D-CA), was leading the support for the rule and for bringing it to an immediate vote. He noted that ?the Molalla River is an essential wildlife area for the pileated woodpecker and both golden and bald eagles. It is also within an hour's drive of the Portland and Salem metropolitan areas and provides significant recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting, canoeing, kayaking, white-water rafting, mountain biking, horseback riding, hiking, camping, picnicking, swimming and diving . . . (It draws) over 65,000 visitors annually (and) . . . served as both a trail for indigenous Molalla Indians and as a vital trade route between pioneers in Oregon.?

Rep. Bishop (UT) spoke against rule and the motion to bring it to a vote. The primary reason for his opposition was that the Rules Committee had rejected his effort to have the rule permit him to offer amendments to the bill. His amendments would have excluded 400 acres near the Molalla River from the System; this would have allowed the state of Oregon to do logging on those 400 acres.

Bishop argued that ?in the scope of things, (400 acres is) an insignificant number. . . What is significant, though, is the concept behind (not permitting me to offer the amendment), because it represents a larger, more pernicious issue that simply (says) the leaders of this Congress are failing.? Bishop noted that Oregon could have used the proceeds of the logging on the 400 acres to help fund its public education system. He claimed ?there is a unique correlation to the amount of federal land that is owned (in a state) and the inability of states to fund their public education system . . . .?

Bishop acknowledged that the language of his amendment was technically not ?germane? to the subject of a bill, and that House regulations formally do not permit amendments that are not germane to be offered. His amendments would have also created a reduction in revenues that were not compensated by a corresponding increased in revenue - - which also violated House rules. However, he then claimed: ?Our germaneness rule is used more in its absence than in its regulation?. He said that the real reason it was not permitted was the decision of the ?leadership of this Congress (which) was wrong . . . The Rules Committee made this amendment out of order. I recognize that they can justify that on the grounds of germaneness. They could have just as easily (allowed a non-germane amendment) . . . We do it all the time . . . I recognize that the Rules Committee will take its orders from leadership.? Bishop concluded by claiming that the House leadership ?put kids at a lesser priority than other protected kinds of issues.?

The motion to vote immediately on the rule carried by a vote of 241-176 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Five other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation adding parts of the Molalla River in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3791. That legislation authorized funding for programs that support local firefighters. The bill included grant programs designed to keep local fire departments prepared, to provide funding for the purchase of equipment by the local departments, and to help the departments maintain and hire firefighters. As with most significant bills the House considers, the House had to approve a rule setting the terms for its debate before the bill could be formally taken up. Those terms are set by the House Rules Committee. The rule for this bill limited the amendments that could be offered on the House floor to specific ones that had been designated by the Democratic majority on the Rules Committee. In the case of the rule for this bill, all five of the amendments that had previously been requested to be offered were permitted.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule. She called the programs reauthorized by H.R. 3791 ?vital (to) . . . our local firefighters and our communities.? the unmet needs of our local departments remain staggering. She referenced the facts that: ?In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Emergency Management Agency received over 20,000 applications from fire departments requesting over $3 billion . . . .? Pingree added that: ?The safety of our homes and our neighborhoods has never been a partisan issue . . . .?

Rep. Sutton (D-OH) also expressed support for the motion. She related the legislation to the difficult economic conditions and high unemployment the country was experiencing. Sutton said: ?We need to be able to keep our firefighters on the job . . . I'm pleased . . . that we are including economic hardship waiver language in this bill. This language will, for the first time, work to address some of the devastating effects we have seen in this recession . . . This bill makes it clear that our intent is to allow grants to be used to retain firefighters . . . during the worst recession since the Great Depression.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He first agreed that H.R. 3791 ?is a bipartisan measure.? Dreier then went on to argue that, ?as important as this issue is . . . (and while all) five amendments . . . were made in order . . . it's very sad that we have gone through this entire Congress without a single open rule (allowing any amendment to be offered) . . . but why not consider it under an open amendment process which would allow any rank-and-file Member to stand up and offer an amendment to this legislation?? Dreier said that defeating the rule ?will not in any way impinge on our ability to move ahead and pass this very important legislation dealing with firefighting. At the same time, it will do something else that the American people have been asking us, and that is to read, review, and consider legislation in a very deliberative manner . . . .?

Dreier added that having rules that permit any amendment to be offered on the House floor is a ?very important part of the transparency message which should be coming through.? He argued that voting against a restrictive rule ?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.?

The resolution setting the terms for debating the bill passed by a vote of 245-173 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Two other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the legislation authorizing funding for programs that support local firefighters.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating legislation that authorized funding for federal programs that support local firefighters. The bill included grant programs designed to help fire departments maintain and hire firefighters.

As with most significant bills the House considers, the House had to approve a rule setting the terms for its debate before the bill could be formally considered. Those terms are set by the House Rules Committee. The decision of the committee was controlled by its Democratic majority. The rule for this bill made in order all of the amendments that individual Member requested.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule. She called the programs authorized by the bill ?vital (to) . . . our local firefighters and our communities.? Pingree referenced the facts that: ?In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Emergency Management Agency received over 20,000 applications from fire departments requesting over $3 billion . . . The National Fire Protection Association estimates that 65 percent of fire departments in the United States do not have enough portable radios to equip all firefighters, and that 36 percent of all fire departments involved in emergency medical responses do not have enough adequately trained personnel to respond to these emergencies.? Pingree concluded her remarks by saying: ?The safety of our homes and our neighborhoods has never been a partisan issue . . . .?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He first agreed that the bill ?is a bipartisan measure. Dealing with issues of firefighting obviously transcends partisanship in every way. And this is a very, very important measure that will, in fact, have, I suspect, unanimous support here on the House floor.? 

Dreier then went on to argue that, ?as important as this issue is . . . (and while all) five amendments . . . were made in order . . . it's very sad that we have gone through this entire Congress without a single open rule (allowing any amendment to be offered). And that is, I think, a very, very unfortunate thing. It is a step forward that every amendment submitted upstairs to the Rules Committee was made in order. But why not consider it under an open amendment process which would allow any rank-and-file Member to stand up and offer an amendment to this legislation??

Dreier concluded his remarks by saying ?I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the (motion). It will not in any way impinge on our ability to move ahead and pass this very important legislation dealing with firefighting. At the same time, it will do something else that the American people have been asking us, and that is to read, review, and consider legislation in a very deliberative manner . . . .?

The motion to have an immediate vote on the rule was approved by a vote of 242-174 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-two ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Five other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debating the legislation authorizing funding for programs that support local firefighters.

Much of the focus of the current congressional session had been on the development of major health care legislation. The legislation had a number of goals. The primary ones were to provide coverage for all Americans, to improve the actual coverage of those currently with insurance, and to restrain the continued growth of health costs. It was projected that the legislation would cost $1.1 trillion-dollars over 10 years, which supporters said would be paid for through new fees and taxes, along with cuts in Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office had verified this cost, and estimated it would be less than the amount the federal government would otherwise have to pay for health care under then-existing law.

Among the specific provisions of the legislation was a requirement that all medium and large businesses provide health insurance to their employees or pay a tax penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll. It also required that all that those who would still not be covered by their employers purchase individual health insurance. Provisions were included for federal subsidies to low- and middle-income families to help them purchase that insurance. The cost of these subsidies was to be paid for through tax increases on those making more than $500,000 annually, as well by as new fees on medical providers.

The bill prohibited insurance companies from dropping or denying coverage based on pre-existing health conditions or the cost of care of those covered. It also significantly expanded Medicaid services. It prohibited any benefits from going to illegal aliens. In addition, it established a new insurance market where policies meeting certain specified minimum standards could be purchased. One of the insurance plans that the bill would make available on this exchange would be operated by the federal government. It came to be called the ?public option?. The final version of the bill included language added during the debate that prevented insurance companies from participating in the new insurance market if their policies covered the costs of an abortion.

The bill was very controversial.  Supporters argued that all Americans should be entitled to adequate health care insurance coverage regardless of their economic or health condition, and that the legislation would guarantee that they get that coverage. They also claimed that the measure would extend coverage to 36 million people, end insurance company practices such as not covering pre-existing conditions, and improve the economy over the long-term by bringing health care costs under control.

Opponents countered that the bill would prove to be too costly, ultimately raise insurance premiums, mandate an inappropriate tax increase, reduce Medicare benefits, and give the federal government too large a role in individual health care decisions. Many of these opponents claimed that this undue federal intrusion would create committees they called "death panels", which would have unrelated parties making life and death decisions for elderly patients.  They also opposed the bill because it did not include any tort reform, which they claimed was needed if future costs were to be controlled.

The creation of the public option plan had become the most controversial element in the legislation. Its proponents argued that, as a government-run insurance plan, it would not have to make a profit and would limit future price increased in insurance. Its opponents claimed that it would be too costly, too much of an intrusion of the federal government into the private sector, and could damage private insurance companies because it could unfairly underprice them.

A number of major organizations supported the bill, including AARP, the American Medical Association and the AFL-CIO. Several conservative groups opposed it. Among them was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which focused its opposition on the provisions that mandated most employers to provide insurance and that established ?a public option.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 220-215.  Two hundred and nineteen Democrats, including all of the most progressive Members, and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-six Republicans and thirty-nine Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate major health care legislation.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Cantor (R-VA), the second ranking Republican in the House, to add new language to major health care legislation that the House was debating. The new language was designed to achieve medical liability (tort) reform. The motion also would have added language applying the cost savings Cantor claimed would result from the medical liability reform to a fund he said would be needed to compensate seniors for the amount of cuts to Medicare that would result from the legislation.

The Republican minority had argued, unsuccessfully, during the development of the health care legislation that the bill should include tort reform as a method of cost containment. Rep. Cantor began his remarks in support of his motion by claiming that ?any physician in America will tell you that the simplest way to reduce health care costs is to enact real medical liability reform. The fear of being sued by opportunistic trial lawyers is pervasive in the practice of medicine. Our system wastes billions on defensive medicine that should be going to patient care. That's why real medical liability reform is needed. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that as much as $54 billion can be saved by the federal government alone. It is totally unacceptable that this money is being spent in the courtroom instead of the operating room.?

Cantor cited a statement by Howard Dean, a former chairman of the Democratic Party and a physician, that tort reform was not in the bill because the Democratic majority did not want to take on the trial lawyers. Cantor claimed the language he was proposing ?adds real meaningful medical liability reform . . . .? He also claimed that ?its $54 billion in savings (would be used) to create a fund that will protect seniors, especially those in rural areas, from the steep cuts to Medicare in the Democrats' reform package.?

Rep. Reichert (R-Wash) supported the Cantor motion. Reichert claimed that, under the pending health care legislation, ?one out of every five seniors will lose the Medicare health plan they chose.? He said that creating the fund proposed in the Cantor motion is ?the only way that seniors can choose the preventive treatment they need.?

Rep. Braley (D-Iowa) opposed the motion. He said that ?during this entire health care debate, we've heard a lot from our (Republican) friends . . . about something called medical liability reform, but . . . (not) one word about patient safety. If you want to talk about real meaningful health care reform, it's important to talk about the most critical aspect of true, meaningful health care reform--standing up for patients.?

House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) said that the effect of the language Rep. Cantor was proposing would be to provide ?for substantial billions of dollars back to the insurance companies. That's what their objective is.? He also questioned the claim of Rep. Cantor regarding the unfair treatment of senior citizens, saying that there had been no real study of the matter.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 187-247.  One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and thirteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the effort to add language to the major health legislation to limit medical liability law suits and to create a fund for senior citizens to absorb any potential reductions in Medicare benefits.

Rep. Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, offered the Republican health care proposal as a substitute amendment for H.R. 3962, major health care legislation that the House was debating. The Republican proposal was much more limited in scope than H.R. 3962. Among other things it did not provide an opportunity for consumers to choose a ?public option? insurance plan that would be operated by the federal government. The New York Times reported that, while the health care legislation to which it was offered as a substitute would provide new coverage for 36 million uninsured people, the provisions of the amendment would have only covered three million of the uninsured.

Supporters of the Boehner amendment said it would bring down the costs of private insurance premiums, which they argued was the chief concern of most Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the amendment would have reduced the deficit by $68 billion over ten years. The CBO also estimated that the amendment would have reduced insurance premiums by between 3% and 10% over that period.

According to Rep. Camp (R-MI), who supported the amendment, it would have: Guaranteed access to affordable health care for those with preexisting conditions and prevented insurers from wrongly canceling a policy, while lowering costs for all Americans; reduced the number of ?junk lawsuits? through medical liability reforms that would have lowered insurance premiums; encouraged small business health plans that would have allowed employers to pool together and offer health care at lower prices; encouraged innovative programs by rewarding states that reduced premiums and the number of uninsured; allowed Americans to buy insurance across state lines; promoted prevention and wellness by increasing the financial incentives by which employers reward employees who adopted healthier lifestyles;  and allowed dependents to remain on their parents' policies up to the age of 25.

Speaking in favor of substituting his amendment for the legislation being debated, Rep. Boehner claimed that the approach he proposed was more fiscally responsible than the pending bill. He said ?all of us know that our health care delivery system needs help (but)  . . . The (Democratic) bill before us, in my view, is a big government takeover of our health care system . . . .?

Rep. Tonko (D-NY) summarized the Democratic opposition to the amendment. He said it ?does not end the discrimination based on preexisting conditions; does not reduce the number of uninsured Americans; does not offer assistance to those struggling to afford health insurance; does not repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurers; and does not stop price gouging by insurance companies. Our bill does all these things and more.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 176-258.  All one hundred and seventy-six ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. One other Republican joined all two hundred and fifty-seven Democrats and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the Republican alternative to the major health legislation supported by the Democrats.

This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) to a major health care bill the House was considering. The amendment prohibited any health insurance plan offered by the federal government (the so-called ?public option?) from covering abortions; it also prohibited insurance subsidies, which the health care legislation provided to help low and middle-income Americans purchase insurance, from going toward the purchase of any policy that covered abortions. An exception was made to both prohibitions for the coverage of abortions to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Most of the Members of the Democratic majority supported the health care legislation. Almost every Republican opposed it. However, a number of anti-abortion Democrats had said they would not vote for the bill unless language, such as that in the Stupak amendment, was added to it. The House Democratic leadership determined that it could not pass the bill without the votes of these anti-abortion Democrats. In addition, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a strong supporter of the overall health care bill, had said that it would not support passage without the inclusion of the kind of language that was in the Stupak amendment.

Existing law prohibited federal funds from paying for abortions. Democratic congressional leaders had argued that the bill, even without the amendment, would not direct any taxpayer fund to pay for abortions. However, Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats claimed the language of the bill, without the amendment, could circumvent the existing prohibition and effectively allow for federal abortion funding.

The amendment was very controversial. Speaking on its behalf, Rep. Stupak said that the provisions of the bill without his amendment would be a "direct assault" on the existing abortion funding prohibition. Pro-choice Democrats argued that the amendment could deprive women of abortion coverage because insurers who wanted to sell their policies in the new market created by the bill would have to drop that coverage from their policies. Rep. Schakowsky (D-Ill) referred to the language of the amendment as "an insult to millions of American women". Rep. DeGette (D-Colo), another amendment opponent, argued that its passage ?will be the greatest restriction on a woman's right to choose in our careers."

A number of other Democratic Members took the position that, regardless of whether the bill as written would actually allow for federal abortion funding, approving the amendment was politically necessary to gain the votes of several moderate and conservative Democrats for its final passage.
 
The amendment passed by a vote of 240-194.  All one hundred and seventy-six Republicans, joined by sixty-four Democrats, voted ?aye?. All one hundred and ninety-four ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members. As a result, language was added to the major health care bill prohibiting abortion coverage in any health insurance plan offered by the federal government, and also prohibiting any federal subsidies going to pay for insurance policies that provide abortion coverage.

This was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3962, a major health care bill. Before the House considers most significant measures, it first must approve a rule for the legislation. The rule for H.R. 3962  allowed almost no amendments to be offered. These restrictions on amendments and more importantly the substance of the legislation itself were cited by the Republican minority as the reason for opposing the rule.

Rep. Posey (R-FL) objected to what he called ?the lack of transparency about what it is specifically that we are voting on.? He argued ?that when the Congress considers changes of this magnitude which will affect 17 percent of our entire economy, we should have more transparency and openness . . . Over 200 amendments were filed to this 2,000-page bill. Sadly, out of these 200 amendments, only 1 is allowed to be offered.?

Supporters of the rule and the legislation argued, among other things, that all Americans should be entitled to adequate health care insurance coverage regardless of their economic or health condition, and that the bill would guarantee that they get that coverage. Rep. Matsui said it ?achieves a long-held goal of reforming our health insurance system so that it works for all American families.? She claimed that, among other things, it ?strengthens Medicare . . .  (and) makes health insurance affordable again for businesses who want to provide coverage to their employees and for those who are buying coverage for the first time on their own . . . .? Matsui also claimed that ?the provisions of this legislation build on all that is good in our current health system to strengthen it for the future.?

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), another supporter of the rule and the bill, said that: ?(S)ince 2000, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums for American families have more than doubled . . . If we do nothing, as my Republican friends want to do, family premiums will increase an average of $1,800 every year and the number of uninsured will reach 61 million people by 2020.?

Opponents countered that the bill would prove to be too costly, ultimately raise insurance premiums, mandate an inappropriate tax increase, reduce Medicare benefits, and give the federal government too large a role in individual health care decisions. Rep. Sessions (R-TX), summarized its provisions as being ?about a massive tax increase . . . (and) deep Medicare cuts . . . . ? He claimed that, as a result of its passage, ?millions of jobs will be lost . . . mandates for purchasing insurance will cost an incredible $1.2 trillion, and there will be 118 new Federal bureaucracies created . . . .? Sessions also suggested that private insurance companies, and not the federal government, ?can best take care of the health care for our country.?

Rep. Bishop (R-Utah), another opponent, added that its impact ?would be a permanent shift of power to the federal government to control our daily lives and our health care decisions.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 242-192.  All two hundred and forty-two ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Fifteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-seven Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on major health care legislation.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3962, a major health care bill. It was the first of a series of votes on the health care bill. Before the House considers most significant measures, it first must approve a rule for the legislation. The rule for H.R. 3962 allowed almost no amendments to be offered. These restrictions on amendments and more importantly the substance of the legislation itself were cited by the Republican minority as the reason for opposing the rule and the motion to move to an immediate vote on it.

Rep. Posey (R-FL) objected to what he called ?the lack of transparency about what it is specifically that we are voting on.? He argued ?that when the Congress considers changes of this magnitude which will affect 17 percent of our entire economy, we should have more transparency and openness . . . Over 200 amendments were filed to this 2,000-page bill. Sadly, out of these 200 amendments, only 1 is allowed to be offered.?

Supporters of the legislation argued, among other things, that all Americans should be entitled to adequate health care insurance coverage regardless of their economic or health condition, and that the bill would guarantee that they get that coverage. Rep. Slaughter (D-NY) was leading the effort in support of the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. She said that: ?(S)ince 2000, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums for American families have more than doubled . . . If we do nothing, as my Republican friends want to do, family premiums will increase an average of $1,800 every year and the number of uninsured will reach 61 million people by 2020.?

Rep. McGovern (D-Mass), another supporter, argued that the Republican solution to the health care situation is to ??take two tax breaks and call me in the morning.?? He claimed: ?(F)or 12 years, Republicans had their chance to improve health care in America, and for 12 years they let the number of uninsured skyrocket, while letting the insurance companies make money hand-over-fist . . . With the passage of this bill, we stand for the uninsured, for the underinsured, for those discriminated against by insurance companies because they have preexisting conditions or because of their gender.?

Opponents countered that the bill would prove to be too costly, ultimately raise insurance premiums, mandate an inappropriate tax increase, reduce Medicare benefits, and give the federal government too large a role in individual health care decisions. Rep. Barrett (R-SC) said the bill ?essentially amounts to . . . a government takeover of the health care system, which will result in devastating consequences for families and small businesses across the country.  This massive government expansion will cost nearly $1.3 trillion, which is offset with job-killing tax increases. Small businesses will be hardest hit by these tax increases . . . .?

Rep. Bishop (R-Utah), another opponent, said the impact of the bill ?would be a permanent shift of power to the federal government to control our daily lives and our health care decisions.?

The motion carried by a vote of 247-187.  All two hundred and forty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Ten other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-seven Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating major health care legislation.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2868, which amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in an effort to extend and enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. Among the new set of rules required by H.R. 2868 was one that provided additional protection of whistle blowers, and another that expanded the ability of civil law suits against the Department of Homeland Security, which administers federal regulation of chemical facility safety.

The most controversial aspect of the bill was that it required the application of ?inherently safer technology? (IST) to chemical facility security. ?Inherently safer technology? has been defined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as a set of techniques and designs in which safety features are built into the process, rather than externally controlled and managed. The implementation of IST was a controversial issue. Those supporting it, such as Rep. Hastings (D-FL), argued that ?it is recognized as a ?best practice,? and is widely accepted within the chemical sector.? Those opposed to it argued that it created a vague standard, that it applied undue burdens on industry, and that the Department of Homeland Security did not have the resources or expertise to monitor its implementation effectively.

Rep. Thompson (D-MS) was leading the effort in support of the bill. He said the bill ?closes a major security gap identified by both the Bush and Obama administrations? in drinking water and wastewater facilities? and implements ?reasonable, risk-based security standards for chemical facilities.? Thompson argued that the bill accomplished this by requiring the incorporation of ?best practice?. Referring to the required implementation of inherently safe technology, Thompson claimed that companies that assess security concerns and respond to them by using IST ?often find that good security equals good business.?

Thompson noted that some Republicans were arguing for an extension of the current Department of Homeland Security authority in this area. He said: ?Such an approach flies in the face of testimony that we received about gaps in (the current security protection of these facilities) and would be a rejection of all the carefully tailored security enhancements in the bill.?

Rep. King (R-NY) was leading the opposition to the measure. He began his argument by noting that the Department of Homeland Security had asked for a one-year extension of its current authority, rather than any changes in it. King then said he opposed the legislation because ?it is going to create confusion and undue cost. It is going to cost jobs, and it's going to raise taxes. It gives far too much credibility to IST, or inherently safer technology, which is a concept (that) . . . will have a very stifling effect on the private sector.?

King went on to say: ?The current law is working. . . I believe that we took a good concept . . . of enhancing chemical plant security, and have allowed concepts and ideas regarding the environment . . . to have too large an influence on this bill.? He then focused on the provision that expanded the ability of private entities to file suit against the Department of Homeland Security. King argued that ?with all the work the department has to do, with the difficulty there is in bringing all of these thousands of entities into compliance with the law, I believe the last thing they need right now is to be subjected to civil lawsuits . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 230-193. All two hundred and thirty ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. Twenty-one other Democrats, joined by all one hundred and seventy-two Republicans who were present, voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill designed to extend and enhance the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to protect against acts of terrorism aimed at chemical facilities.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Dent (R-PA) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities by establishing a number of new rules for their design and construction. The amendment would have eliminated the requirement in the bill that designs and techniques constituting ?inherently safer technology? (IST) be required in all U.S. chemical facilities. ?Inherently safer technology? has been defined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as a the latest set of techniques and designs in which safety features are built into the process, rather than externally controlled and managed.

Rep. Dent, in his remarks in support of the amendment, said that the concept of what is ?inherently safer technology? is ?subjective and without a widely accepted definition.? He noted: ?When the Department of Homeland Security's subject matter expert on IST was specifically asked what IST was, she responded, ?There's enough debate in industry and academia that I can't take a position on that very topic.' The Deputy Under Secretary responsible for overseeing the program stated unequivocally that the Department had no staff capable of conducting an IST assessment.?

Dent argued that ?no one at the Department of Homeland Security is in a position to dictate to a wide range of facilities what engineering process or chemicals should be used (to achieve IST) . . . It would be foolish to mandate IST in this bill when there is so much uncertainty and lack of expertise in the Department.? He also argued that the mandate of employing inherently safer technology ?will cost American jobs . . . can we really afford unnecessary congressional mandates that provide little security?

Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) opposed the amendment. She said that its impact would be simply to ?extend the current chemical security program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we included in H.R. 2868.? She also said that Congress had ?the responsibility to the public, the private sector, and the Department of Homeland Security to provide comprehensive, clear congressional guidance about how this program should be executed. The gentleman's amendment . . . just kicks the can down the road another three years. H.R. 2868 addresses acknowledged deficiencies in the current chemical facility security program (and) . . . requires the assessment, and, in some cases, implementation of safer technologies. If we . . . sacrifice all of these improvements (we will) ignore . . . the need to strengthen this program in several key areas.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 193-236. One hundred and seventy-one Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and thirty-six ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members. As a result, the House defeated the effort eliminate the requirement that designs and techniques that constitute ?inherently safer technology? be required in all U.S. chemical facilities.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Dent (R-PA) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities by establishing a number of new rules. The amendment would have extended the then-current Department of Homeland Security regulations until October of 2012, rather than establishing the new ones in the bill.

Rep. Dent, speaking in support of his amendment, noted that Congress ?acted swiftly 3 years ago to give the Department of Homeland Security the regulatory authority it needed to secure (the chemical facilities). In the 3 years since, the Department has taken steps to implement that authority, but it is far from complete . . . The addition of drinking water and wastewater facilities (in) . . . this bill will double the 6,000 security vulnerability assessments already required by the Department. We are asking too much of the Department too soon. The bill proposes to nearly double the Department's workload. . . The Department should be allowed to fully implement its existing regulatory authority.?

Dent added: ?By all accounts, including those of the Democratic majority, the Department is doing an excellent job implementing its current regulatory framework . . . If it isn't broken, don't fix it.? Rep. Olson, who co-sponsored the amendment, said that those opposing it want ?to rush to solutions and mandate that the Department of Homeland Security scrap the current program and start over. Such a move would take 2 years of hard work and throw it out the window.?

Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) opposed the amendment. She noted that it ?would extend the current chemical security program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we included in H.R. 2868.? Jackson-Lee said the legislative description of the current program ?was just (14 lines) long and had many deficiencies.? She argued that passage of the amendment would effectively be eliminating ?inherently secure technology for chemical facilities . . . .?

She added that the effect of passing the amendment would be that Congress would ignore ?our responsibility to respond to what we have learned and to make improvements to the program that the Bush and Obama administrations requested . . . If we merely extend the current program, we will sacrifice all of these improvements and ignore the countless hours of discussion and testimony that highlighted the need to strengthen this program in several key areas.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 186-241. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and seventeen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and forty-one ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members. As a result, the House rejected the amendment that would have maintained the existing Department of Homeland Security federal chemical facility security regulations, rather than imposing new ones.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Barton(R-TX) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. The amendment would have allowed the new federal chemical facility regulations in the bill to supersede any stricter state and local regulations.

Barton noted that, typically, the federal government would prevent states ?from doing things differently than the federal standard.? He then referenced the fact that H.R. 2868 includes language that . . . ?gives states the right, if they want to do things that are more strict . . . to do that . . . this bill sets a floor but does not set a ceiling on what the states can do.? Barton said the purpose of his amendment was to establish ?the traditional federal preemption in these areas.

He called it ?troubling? and ?problematic? not to have ?certainty associated with the federal standard? in these areas. He noted that the language in H.R. 2868 that permitted stricter state regulations comes from ?environmental law, the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Superfund law . . . (However), this so-called new stringency standard appears only once in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (to which H.R. 2868 relates).? Barton went on to say ?Unlike local pollution problems, security at chemical and water facilities does require national coordination. The principle is simple: National problems should have national solutions. This is why Federal preemption has always been the norm in aviation security, nuclear security, hazardous materials transportation security, and port security.?

Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the amendment. He suggested that it was ?bizarre? that Rep. Barton, who ?most of the time is . . . fighting (because) we ignore states' rights . . . would now want to infringe on the right of the states to take extra steps.? Pascrell said that, in his state of New Jersey, ?(W)e have (more) stringent rules. No part of the chemical industry has opposed those rules . . . What right does the federal government have to come in and say that (we) should lower (our) standards . . . ??

Rep. Markey (D-Mass) also opposed the amendment. He argued that it was the right of the highest public safety official in the states ?to determine how much protection they give to their citizens.? Markey claimed this was the reason the National Governors Association opposed the amendment.

Barton responded by claiming that opponents of his amendment ?are trying to have it both ways. You want a federal bill that does lots of things . . . but then you want to let the states that want to go beyond the federal bill (do so) . . . if you're going to have a federal system for security, it should be a federal system.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 165-262. One hundred and forty-seven Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive House Members, and twenty-two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House rejected the effort to allow new federal chemical facility regulations to supersede stricter state and local laws and rules.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Thompson (D-Miss) to H.R. 2868, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. H.R. 2868 was primarily intended to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks on U.S. chemical facilities. The amendment clarified the kind of information about chemical facilities that the Department of Homeland Security is obligated to disclose. The chemical industry had voiced its opposition to the amendment, expressing its concern that the real purpose was to provide information which environmentalists and trial lawyers could use to bring law suits against companies that operated the facilities.

Rep. Thompson chairs the subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which developed H.R. 2868. He said that the purpose of his amendment was to clarify ?the types of information we were excluding from the definition of protected information? and was designed to insure that certain information was made publicly available. Thompson also said the information that the amendment was designed to make available is information that ?is required to be made publicly available under any other law, or information that a chemical facility has lawfully disclosed under another law.?

He added that ?the Department of Homeland Security can (also) determine by regulation that certain information provided for compliance purposes is not protected. This information may include summary data on the number of facilities that have submitted site security plans or the number of enforcement actions taken, so long as information detrimental to chemical security is not disclosed.?

Rep. Barton, the Ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, led the opposition to the amendment. He first agreed that Congress did not want ?to give the Department of Homeland Security the ability to prevent (disclosure of) information that has already been publicly disclosed by somebody we regulate as part of the site security plan.? Barton then referenced the overall security purpose of H.R. 2868, and said, ?if we're going to have a terrorist security bill . . . it ought to be a real terrorist security bill. But the underlying bill is . . . a radical environmental bill masquerading as a security bill.? He said he strongly opposed the amendment because it ?fundamentally weakens the ostensible purpose of (H.R. 2868 and) . . . is a glaring creation of a loophole to give environmental groups and other outside groups the ability to put information on their web sites that's not subject to the penalties of this bill.?

Rep. Barton went on to say that the amendment would create a ?new loophole, that if a group that is not controlled by Homeland Security (and) somehow gets (sensitive) information, they can publish it. They can put it on their web site, and they're not liable.? Barton argued ?that's detrimental to the security . . . of the United States of America.?

Rep. Thompson responded that Rep. Barton was ?exactly wrong? because the amendment ?does the exact opposite. It protects information, and that's why we put it in there. It . . . is a security piece of legislation . . . .? Rep. Markey (D-Mass) supported the amendment and Rep. Thompson?s response. Markey said the purpose of the bill is ?to protect the American people from the (terrorist) attempts by al Qaeda . . . It's not any attempt to have an environmental agenda here at all.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 253-168 along straight party lines. All two hundred and fifty-three votes were cast by Democrats. All one hundred and sixty-eight ?nay? votes were casts by Republicans. As a result, the House approved the amendment that clarified the kind of information about chemical facilities that the Department of Homeland is obligated to disclose.

H.R. 2868 was a bill that amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in an effort to enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. As with most important bills, before it could be considered the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for its debate. This was a vote on the rule for H.R. 2868.

A major part of the debate focused on language in H.R. 2868 that required the application of ?inherently safer technology? (IST) to chemical facilities. ?Inherently safer technology? has been defined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as a set of techniques and designs in which safety features are built into the process, rather than externally controlled and managed. Rep. Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, said that the Republican minority ?may argue that the implementation of IST standards will hurt small businesses and will cause job loss. However, IST is already recognized as a ?best practice,? and is widely accepted within the chemical sector.?

Hastings also noted that: ?The concentration of lethal chemicals near large population centers makes these facilities attractive terrorist targets. The bill protects workers and neighbors of chemical facilities by asking the highest risk facilities to switch to safer chemicals and processes when it is economically feasible.? He claimed that the bill promoted ?innovation and best practices to ensure that our citizens are protected and secure?, and noted that it had been endorsed by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and by the American Public Works Association.

Hastings added that only facilities that are judged most at-risk may be required to implement IST due to the danger posed by the release of large quantities of toxic substances at the facility. He also argued that, before IST is even implemented, it would have to be shown that incorporating IST would significantly reduce the risk of death, injury or serious adverse effects to human health and that implementation is technically feasible and cost-effective.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule. He said he had ?concerns that this bill fails to enhance our security and, at a time when we are facing 10 percent unemployment . . . could endanger economic recovery.? Diaz-Balart focused on the IST that Rep. Hastings had referenced. He said the legislation ?allows the federal government to mandate the use of certain chemicals and technologies regardless of the efficiency and effectiveness of the IST.? Diaz-Balart noted that a witness from the Department of Homeland Security testified that the Department does not employ any specialists with IST expertise. Diaz-Balart went on to argue that ?the IST is an attempt by the federal government to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated and disparate sector of our economy . . . It is not a good use of resources.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 233-182. All two hundred and thirty-three ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eleven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin formal debate on the bill designed to extend and enhance the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to protect chemical facilities.

H.R. 2868 amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in an effort to extend and enhance the protections against terrorist attacks of U.S. chemical facilities. As with all major bills the House considers the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for its debate. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule for H.R. 2868.

A major part of the debate on the motion focused on language in H.R. 2868 that required the application of ?inherently safer technology? (IST) to chemical facilities. ?Inherently safer technology? has been defined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as a set of techniques and designs in which safety features are built into the process, rather than externally controlled and managed. Rep. Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and of the motion to move to an immediate vote on it, said that the Republican minority ?may argue that the implementation of IST standards will hurt small businesses and will cause job loss. However, IST is already recognized as a ?best practice,? and is widely accepted within the chemical sector.?

Rep. Hastings also noted that: ?The bill protects workers and neighbors of chemical facilities by asking the highest risk facilities to switch to safer chemicals and processes when it is economically feasible.? He claimed that the bill promoted ?innovation and best practices to ensure that our citizens are protected and secure?, and noted that it had been endorsed by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and by the American Public Works Association.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule and the motion to move to an immediate vote on it. He said he had ?concerns that this bill fails to enhance our security and, at a time when we are facing 10 percent unemployment . . . could endanger economic recovery.? Diaz-Balart also focused on the IST requirement. He said a witness from the Department of Homeland Security had testified that the department does not employ any specialists with IST expertise. Diaz-Balart went on to argue that ?the IST is an attempt by the federal government to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated and disparate sector of our economy . . . It is not a good use of resources. ?

Rep. Lungren (R-CA) argued that the bill ?misunderstands what (IST) is. Lungren cited testimony by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers that IST is an ?evolving concept, and the specific tools and techniques for application are in the early stages of development . . . .? Lungren claimed that the requirements that would be placed on businesses as a result of the IST language in the bill would be ?unduly burdensome.?

The motion carried by a vote of 241-180. All two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill designed to extend and modify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to protect chemical facilities.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 up to the date that the bill is signed into law.

Rep. Maloney (D-NY) was the primary sponsor of the bill. She acknowledged that it was ?truly unfortunate? that the legislation was required, ?but the credit card companies brought it on themselves. Rather than use the months after the date that (the previously-passed legislation) was signed into law to update their systems to get ready for the new reforms, they have used this time to raise interest rates unfairly at any time and for any reason on consumers retroactively on their balances, capturing many of them in never-ending cycles of debt. . . the Pew Foundation issued a report that showed that interest rates have shot up by 20 percent . . . and 90 percent of all credit card debt . . . has had an interest rate increase since the President signed (that) bill into law.?

She added that: ?(T)he Pew report also found that 100 percent of bank cards were using practices that the Federal Reserve has called unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive . . . What we are doing is moving this date up by 5 months, giving relief and protection to consumers and working to help them.?

The Republican minority had opposed the previously-passed legislation, and was opposing H.R. 3639. Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) was among those leading that opposition. He began his remarks in opposition by saying that ?although there are some good provisions in the (previously-passed) legislation, ultimately many of us predicted that if it passed, credit would become more expensive and less available to millions of Americans, and that's exactly what we see. Now . . . clearly, there have been misleading and deceptive practices by some credit card companies. We need to have better disclosure, more effective disclosure so people understand the credit relationships in which they enter.?

Hensarling added: ?(B)ut we are in the midst of a huge credit contraction that's taking place today . . . Unfortunately, ultimately this (previously-passed) legislation on which (the) effective date is moved up . . . by the bill that is before us will essentially exacerbate that trend.?  He argued that ?if this bill passes, it's going to be a lot harder for people to access the credit they need to pay their bills . . . And it just couldn't come at a worse time . . .  (The previously-passed bill) is only going to exacerbate the matter . . . take away credit cards, make interest rates go up, make credit less available and more expensive . . . .?

Hensarling also said ?when you start taking away the ability of companies to price for risk, the people who do it right end up bailing out a number of people who don't . . . if they had a choice of paying a higher interest rate or of having their credit cards taken away from them, my guess is a number of them would choose the higher interest rate.  But Congress has taken that decision away from them by enacting the (previously-passed) bill, if we choose to enact this bill, (it) will simply hasten what is already a bad process which is making credit less available and more expensive to thousands of small businesses and to millions of Americans . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 331-92. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and eighty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-one Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill moving up the effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. Those rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect on February 22, 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective date of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective date of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. This was a vote on a motion by Rep.  Castle (R-DEL) to send the bill back to committee and have language added that would have required that most of those new protections be effective on February 22, 2010, unless the Federal Reserve System certified that credit card companies could implement them by December 1, 2009, the effective date of the bill.

Rep. Castle represents a district in Delaware, in which a number of major credit card companies are located. He noted that they ?have a lot of work to do to implement (these regulations and) . . . I don't know if they are ready to do this by the date of December 1 or not.? He noted that the proposed language would not change any of the new regulations, but ?just speaks to the date of all this going into place.? Castle argued: ?(T)here is a certain fairness issue in this . . . .? He also argued ?that the Federal Reserve is the best (judge) to do that.?

Castle referenced previous testimony by the Federal Reserve?s Director of Consumer Affairs that, as a result of the new rules, ?card issuers would need to rethink their entire business models to reprogram their systems and redesign their marketing materials, solicitations, periodic statements, and contracts.? He added: ?(I)t's all well and good for us to stand here as Members of Congress and say we'll make this change that would benefit consumers or whatever, but it may not be practical. . . Indeed, if the Federal Reserve makes a decision . . . that it could be done by December 1, we'll move ahead in that time. . . It doesn't alter the fact that we are going to have this change. It just takes this date and allows it to be reviewed by people who have some expertise to determine if they should move forward at this point or not.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), who chairs the Financial Services Committee, opposed the motion. He first noted that the language proposed by Rep. Castle ?empowers the Federal Reserve to cancel an act of Congress? and effectively says ?if the bill passes the House and passes the Senate and is signed by the President, we will then wait for the permission of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to implement it . . . .? Frank also argued that Congress ?should certainly never set the precedent that any agency . . . should be given the power to suspend an act of Congress before it goes into effect . . . I have a lot of respect for the Federal Reserve, but they're not in charge of what we think is feasible. They're not in charge of telling us that we have to wait more for public comments when our constituents, we believe, are being mistreated.?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 171-253. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and six Republicans voted ?nay?.  As a result, no language was added to H.R. 3639 that would have delayed the implementation of new consumer protections for credit card holders.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. Those rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Sutton (D-OH) to impose additional restrictions on credit card issuers. Those additional restrictions included the imposition of a nine month moratorium on increases in annual percentage rates, fees and finance charges on credit cards, and on changes in the terms of balance repayments.

Speaking in support of her amendment, Rep. Sutton first referred to the previously-passed legislation. Sutton argued that: ?Rather than preparing to implement these new consumer protections, the credit card industry saw this as a window of opportunity to squeeze more money out of consumers. They are raising interest rates and minimum payments while lowering credit limits. They are instituting fees of all shapes and sizes.?

She then claimed that her amendment ?tackles the dilemma faced by consumers who receive notice of new fees on their credit card accounts. As credit card companies search for new ways to make money, they are looking to charge fees where there were none before: new annual fees, inactivity fees, fees for failure to carry a monthly balance. Yes, now some credit card companies are indicating they will be charging a fee to consumers who pay off their balances every month . . . I find it outrageous, but the credit card companies argue that if the consumers don't like it, they can close their account . . . The problem is that closing your account can hurt your credit score, and credit scores . . . are used by mortgage lenders, employers, landlords and insurance providers. This amendment is about leveling the playing field.?

Sutton went on to say: ?(T)his amendment protects consumers by preventing the closure of a credit card account because of new fees from negatively impacting a consumer's credit report or credit score. It will allow consumers to cancel their card or shop around for another card with terms without taking a hit on their credit.?

Rep. Maloney (D-NY), who was the sponsor of H.R. 3639, supported the amendment. She argued that it ?gives more responsibility and control to consumers to better manage their own credit. Credit scores should not go down if consumers are trying to do the right thing by getting out of debt . . . This is absolutely wrong when they are . . . trying to . . . better control their own finances, to stop unfair fees and unfair interest rates retroactively on their balances.?

The Republican minority had opposed the previously-passed legislation, was opposing H.R. 3639, and also opposed the Sutton amendment to it. Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) was among those leading that opposition. He argued that Members of Congress  ?are not experts on what constitutes a greater or lesser credit risk, and . . . why do we want to start dictating to credit bureaus about what constitutes a greater risk and what constitutes a lesser risk.? He also said that, although the ?amendment strikes me as fair . . . I don't believe Congress has expertise in this.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 249-173. Two hundred and twenty-eight Democrats and twenty-one Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-three Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to H.R. 3639 that imposed a nine month moratorium on increases in annual percentage rates, fees and finance charges on credit cards, and on changes in the terms of balance repayments.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to have credit card issuers end what were considered unfair practices, and to protect consumers against further large increases in rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill would have moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Maffei (D-NY) to make the new consumer protections effective immediately upon enactment of H.R, 3639, rather than waiting for December 1, 2009. (The vote on the amendment was held on November 4, 2009.)

Speaking in support of his amendment, Rep. Maffei said that the purpose of the previously-passed legislation was ?to protect consumers from the abusive practices that many banks had made standard practice?. He then added: ?(S)ince we passed and enacted (that legislation), credit card companies attempted to fleece customers and hope that Congress didn't notice or have time to act . . .  Every day I hear from more and more constituents who tell me they have good credit, that they pay their bills on time, but that the credit card issuers have found a way to raise the rates to extraordinarily high levels. That is why I want to make all provisions of the (previous-passed legislation) effective immediately.

Maffei added: ?(C)ustomers, especially in this economy, cannot wait any longer for these protections. The credit card companies apparently are able to make any changes in interest rates and procedures instantaneously . . . If we give them a week or two, they will slam our constituents with even higher rates, trying to squeeze more blood from a stone in the middle of a recession. We are not allowed to pass legislation retroactively, even though the card companies have retroactively raised rates on consumer balances. What we can do is make sure that we enact this legislation immediately.?

Rep. Maloney (D-NY), who was a sponsor of H.R. 3639, supported the Maffei amendment. She said: ?(T)he banks and credit card companies have earned this regulation and earned this amendment because they did not use the time allocated to them to upgrade their systems. They used the time to raise rates unfairly . . . The bill that I proposed would go into effect in 5 weeks . . . but I think consumers deserve relief as soon as possible?

The Republican minority had opposed the previously-passed credit card legislation, and was opposing any effort to move up the effective date of that legislation. Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) was among those leading that opposition. He argued against the amendment by saying ?there is never a good time to enact a bad bill. Here we are again in the midst of a huge credit contraction. Every single day people are waking up, they're losing credit cards . . . (at a time that we) have the highest unemployment rate in a quarter of a century. And yet in the midst of this credit contraction, when people are having trouble expanding their business, creating jobs, paying their bills, we are going to enact legislation that . . . makes the whole matter worse.?

Hensarling then spoke generally against the Democratic legislative program, which included major health care reform, that he claimed increased federal spending far too much. He noted that a number of his constituents use credit cards to help pay for their medical expenses, and asked, rhetorically: ?(W)ill our constituents be less able or more able to afford to pay for this $1.3 trillion government takeover of our health care system if we pass this amendment? My guess is that the gentleman from New York's amendment fails that test.?

He also argued that the previously-enacted legislation ?erodes the ability to do risk-based pricing and takes us back to an era where a third fewer people had access to credit cards and everybody paid annual fees and everybody paid one universal high interest rate. The (previously-passed credit card) legislation takes us down that road, and Rep. Maffei's amendment gets us there tomorrow.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 251-174. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and eight Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, an effective date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders, (the date of enactment of H.R. 3639), was added to the legislation.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to  protect consumers against further large increases in credit card rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. As with most other major bills, the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3639. This was a vote on that rule.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the effort in support of the rule for H.R. 3639.  He first acknowledged that some of the changes in the previously-passed legislation would require significant time to implement, and that ?many lenders have made an honest effort to come into compliance with these new rules.? He then noted that the actions of many other credit card issuers ?highlight the need for protections under the (legislation) now more than ever . . . (I)t is in fairness that we require card issuers to act with the same level of responsibility and accountability. H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of certain provisions in existing law related to regulations and operations of the credit card companies. (It) has set deadlines for implementing various reforms and procedures, with most of those measures scheduled to take effect in February and in August of 2010. This bill would move those effective dates forward to December 1, 2009. American consumers don't need protection next year. They need it now . . . .?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the effort against the rule. She first said the rule ?provides for the consideration of a wholly unnecessary and potentially destructive bill that could further aggravate the struggles of small businesses and families who are suffering from an unavailability of credit during these times of economic uncertainty.?

Foxx then noted that she had opposed the previously-passed legislation ?because it was based on the idea that individual card holders should not be allowed to make their own choices and should not take responsibility for their financial situations.?

Foxx went on to point to what she said would be ?the consequences these new restrictions will have on financially vulnerable populations . . . .? Foxx said that advocates of this legislation ?have failed to understand . . . that these changes will dramatically raise the costs of extending loans to cardholders and will cause the riskiest cardholders to be dropped all together, and that will hurt people in the urban community--and minorities most--because their income is lower than average . . . .? She concluded that ?. . . minorities, women and working class families with good records of paying their debts will see credit access dry up.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 234-175.  Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debate on the bill moving up the date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders.

Earlier in 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed  legislation requiring several new credit card rules. These rules were designed to protect consumers against further large increases in credit card rates and ?hidden? charges. Under the terms of that legislation, most of those new rules were scheduled to take effect between February and August of 2010.

Many in Congress subsequently expressed concern that some credit card companies had raised interest rates and decreased credit limits on many consumers in advance of the effective dates of the changes.  In response, H.R. 3639 was developed. This bill moved the effective dates of certain of the new provisions established in the previously-enacted legislation from dates in 2010 to December 1, 2009. As with most other major bills, the House first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating H.R. 3639. This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on that rule.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) was leading the effort in support of the rule for H.R. 3639 and on the motion to move to a vote on it.  He first acknowledged that some of the changes in the previously-passed legislation would require significant time to implement, and that ?many lenders have made an honest effort to come into compliance with these new rules.? He then said: ?(H)owever . . . some lenders have not used this interim period in such good faith. Since the (previous legislation) was signed into law, instead of preparing to implement these consumer protection provisions, some credit card companies have raised interest rates and have decreased credit limits on their consumers in advance of the effective dates. Responsible cardholders . . . have seen their minimum payments and interest rates arbitrarily double and triple . . . and they're hit with new and hidden fees . . .  Card issuers' actions highlight the need for protections . . . .?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the effort against the rule and the motion to move to a vote on it. She first said the rule ?provides for the consideration of a wholly unnecessary and potentially destructive bill that could further aggravate the struggles of small businesses and families who are suffering from an unavailability of credit during these times of economic uncertainty. Here we are on the 4th of November, and the majority thinks that this bill is going to be passed in time to move this date up to December 1. It's totally unrealistic . . . .?

Foxx then noted that she had opposed the previously-passed legislation ?because it took the wrong approach to addressing concerns with the credit card industry.? She added that the effort in H.R. 3639 to accelerate the effective date of that previous legislation would increase costs to borrowers and ?would limit the availability of credit to potential borrowers, which is just the opposite of what our colleagues think they are achieving. These provisions are inappropriate in a credit card market that is fiercely competitive, and those who are concerned about the terms of their credit cards should rely on individual responsibility to become informed.?

Foxx suggested that ?consumers can always exercise the option of either avoiding carrying a balance or of shopping for a different credit card. Many people do not realize that credit cards were created to provide for a convenient form of payment for goods and services. They were not originally intended to serve as a loan system, which is how many people are using them now.?

Foxx added that ?people who take out credit cards are not having guns held to their heads . . . If they don't like the rates of interest that they're paying, they should get other credit cards, but don't blame the credit card companies for extending credit to people who then are irresponsible.?

The motion carried by a vote of 228-176.  All two hundred and twenty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats jointed all one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for the bill moving up the date for certain new consumer protections for credit card holders.

H.R. 3854 modified and expanded a variety of Small Business Administration loan programs. It was developed to help direct capital investments to start-ups and other small businesses in potentially high growth fields such as information technology and clean energy. The bill had general bipartisan support. Rep. Graves (R-MO) was leading the Republicans during the debate on H.R. 3954. He said the legislation will ?significantly strengthen the ability of small businesses to obtain needed capital for retaining and creating new jobs.?

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Cantor (R-VA), the second ranking Republican in the House, to send the bill back to the committee that developed it with instructions to add an additional provision.  As described by a statement issued by the House Republican leadership, that provision required the administrator of the Small Business Administration to conduct a study to evaluate ?whether there is a credit risk to the federal government (in issuing SBA loans) based on (several)  policies (supported by the Democrats).?

Among those policies, according to the House Republican statement are: ?The imposition of a surtax on the income of small business owners, a requirement that small businesses offer health care of a minimum acceptable coverage level, an increase in marginal tax rates of small business owners, (an) increase in the tax on capital gains, . . . increased energy costs resulting from enactment of a cap on carbon dioxide, new regulations on financial, and imposition of net neutrality rules on the Internet.?

Rep. Cantor said the reason for his motion was that ?small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy . . . And right now our small businesses are struggling like never before . . . it is only logical that we do everything in our power to strengthen our small businesses and make it easier for them to create jobs . . . (but) Washington is doing the opposite. The wave of newly proposed tax increases, health care mandates, and financial and energy regulations . . .  have created a pervasive state of fear about the future cost of doing business that is enveloping reluctant job creators.?

Rep. Cantor went on to say ?if the economy is going to be resurgent, small business owners will have to provide the spark, (but) the misguided (Democratic) policies being brought forward either siphon capital away from small businesses or cause them to hoard capital . . . (W)e will see repercussions in the amount of capital investment small businesses attract; in the number of business formations and failures; and the amount of sales and new orders and investment in plant and equipment because of the very actions being proposed in this House and throughout Washington.?

Rep. Velasquez (D-NY) was leading the support for H.R.3854 among the Democrats. She responded to Rep. Cantor by noting that the bill provided $44 billion in capital for small businesses and was projected to create 1.3 million jobs. She pointed to the more than fifty organizations representing small businesses in a range of industries that supported the measure,, and suggested that Cantor ?is interested in studying the problems, (while we (Democrats) are interested in real solutions, and the bill under consideration does that . . . (W)hat I would like to see (added) . . . to the study is how small businesses have benefited from (Democratically-supported) increased expensing limits for purchasing equipment, extended bonus depreciation, reduced capital gains rates on small business stock, and allowing businesses to carry back 5 years of losses.?

She concluded by saying: ?(I)t is interesting to see how (Rep. Cantor) . . . would like to study things that haven't happened, like offsetting the reduction in capital available for such concerns resulting from an increase in tax on capital gains . . . This is a motion that does nothing to provide loans to small businesses or create jobs. But if (Rep. Cantor) wants to do a study, so be it.?

The motion carried by a vote of 272-149.  All one hundred and seventy-one Republicans, as well as one hundred and one Democrats voted ?aye?. The other one hundred and forty-nine Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to H.R. 3854, effectively mandating a study of the effect of several policies on the credit risk of federal small business loans.

This was a vote on passage of legislation providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. The measure increased corresponding 2009 spending by $4.7 billion, or 17%. 

The legislation was included in a conference report developed by representatives of the House and the Senate. The House and Senate had each passed different versions of the funding bill. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies.

Rep. Dicks (D-Wash) chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the House version of the bill and participated in the conference in which the final version was negotiated. He led the support for the conference report during the debate on it. Dicks claimed that ?the programs funded through this bill have been chronically underfunded? during the previous Bush Administration, and that this measure ?would reverse that trend?.

Dicks noted that, between 2001 and 2008, when adjusted for inflation, the amount the Bush Administration had requested for the Interior Department declined by 16%, the amount requested for EPA declined by 29% percent, and the amount requested for the Forest Service other than for fire-fighting declined by35%. He claimed: ?(T)his bill invests taxpayers' dollars in our natural resources, and for this investment all Americans will see a great return.?

Rep. Simpson (R-Idaho) is the Ranking Republican on the subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996, and was leading the minority during the debate on the bill. He began his remarks by saying that ?many things (have been) achieved by this legislation. . . .? He then went on to say: ?(H)owever . . . this conference agreement . . . assumes that more money is the answer to every problem we face . . . (The measure) provides a disproportionate level of funding to one agency, the EPA, and creates an imbalance that undermines what could be a very fine piece of legislation . . . .?

Simpson further argued: ?(T)his package also provides large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure results or the return on our investment.

The legislation passed by a vote of 247-178.  Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and ten Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent to the Senate the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Interior Department, which included a continuing resolution that funded the other federal departments and agencies through mid-December of 2010.

This was on the resolution setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the House-Senate agreement on the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies. Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House.

The conference report contained a ?continuing resolution?, in addition to providing funding for the Interior Department. That ?continuing resolution? provided the authority to keep all other departments and agencies of the federal government operating for two additional months into the 2010 fiscal year essentially at their 2009 fiscal year levels. The conference report for this funding bill was being considered early into the 2010 fiscal year, and the spending bills for most federal departments had not yet been approved by Congress and signed into law by the President. Congress had previously passed a ?continuing resolution? for the early portion of the fiscal year 2010, but it was about to expire.

The Republican minority expressed concern that a continuing resolution was needed. They focused on the fact that the Democratic majority had limited the number of amendments that were allowed to be offered on the other 2010 funding bills, using the argument that Congress needed to maintain a rapid schedule that would allow spending bills to be enacted by the deadline date of the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. In recent years, many spending bills had not been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal years to which they applied.  The Republicans had objected to those limitations on amendments when the other spending bills were considered.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the support for the rule setting the terms for debating the conference report. He asserted that ?the conference report makes available the necessary resources for the federal government to protect our nation's precious natural resources. It also (ensures) clean and safe drinking water . . . and (helps) Native- American communities meet their needs. It will help communities and public lands by focusing on . . . water infrastructure and environmental protection; fire fighting and fuels reduction on Federal land; bolstering our public land management agencies; protecting public lands through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and helping the most vulnerable Native American populations. Together, these priorities and their attendant policies provide for effective federal stewardship of our environmental and cultural treasures . . . . ?

Referring to the inclusion of the continuing resolution in the conference report, Hastings said that it was necessary because the Senate needed ?more time to complete their work (on other 2010 fiscal year funding bills).? 

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule. He focused his opposition largely on the inclusion of the continuing resolution in the conference report. Dreier first acknowledged that: ?Congress has frequently, under both political parties, taken the action of having a continuing resolution . . . .? However, he then added: ?What is unprecedented (in this instance) is the fact that an open debate of the federal budget was completely abandoned for a deadline that has proven to be utterly meaningless . . . we had that inviolable, September 30, end of the fiscal year deadline we had to meet, and here we sit, approaching the 1st of November, and we've completed (only) one-third of our appropriations work . . . because the (Senate) Democratic supermajority (of 60 votes) still can't get the work done.

Rep. Hastings responded by saying that senators, ?regardless of their party, take a great deal of time . . . (T)hat's why the process has slowed down . . . because of . . . their rules, their regulations, arcane though they may be, which make it difficult for us to do our business.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 232-184.  All two hundred and thirty-two ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Fifteen other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Interior Department, which included a continuing resolution that funded the other federal departments and agencies through mid-December of 2010.

This was on a motion to have an immediate vote on the resolution  setting the terms for debating the conference report containing the House-Senate agreement on the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. The House and Senate had passed different versions of that funding bill. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies. Most conference reports, like most bills, require the approval of a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for their debate, before they can be considered by the House.

The conference report contained a ?continuing resolution?, in addition to providing funding for the Interior Department. That ?continuing resolution? provided the authority to keep all other departments and agencies of the federal government operating for two additional months into the 2010 fiscal year essentially at their 2009 fiscal year levels. The conference report for this funding bill was being considered early into the 2010 fiscal year, and the spending bills for most federal departments had not yet been approved by Congress and signed into law by the President. Congress had previously passed a ?continuing resolution? for the early portion of the fiscal year 2010, but it was about to expire.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule. He  expressed the view that a continuing resolution was not needed and should not be included in the legislation. He also focused on the fact that the Democratic majority had limited the number of amendments that were allowed to be offered on the other 2010 funding bills, using the argument that Congress needed to maintain a rapid schedule that would allow spending bills to be enacted by the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. In recent years, many spending bills had not been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal years to which they applied.  Dreier and other Republicans had objected to those limitations on amendments when the other spending bills were considered.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the support for the rule setting the terms for debating the conference report and for the motion to move to a vote on the rule. He said that the continuing resolution was needed, although the House had completed its work on all the 2010 spending bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, because the Senate needed ?more time to complete their work.?  

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the opposition to the rule and the motion to move to a vote on it. Dreier acknowledged that: ?Congress has frequently, under both political parties, taken the action of having a continuing resolution . . . .? However, he then added: ?(W)hat makes this particular series of continuing resolutions so significant . . . is that it exposes this year's unprecedented closed appropriations process (as) . . . a hollow excuse because never before in the history of the Republic have we had the appropriations process shut down, as has been the case through this past summer. Time and again, the Democratic leadership told us . . .  they had no choice but to shut down the debate . . . because they had a schedule to keep . . . There simply was no time . . . for accountability or for the kind of scrutiny that has gone on under both political parties . . . Well, they completed one-twelfth of their appropriations work by that hard, fast, inviolable September 30 deadline.

Rep. Hastings responded by saying that senators, ?regardless of their party, take a great deal of time . . . That's why the process has slowed down . . . because of . . . their rules, their regulations, arcane though they may be, which make it difficult for us to do our business. The House can pass stuff. The Senate has difficulty getting agreements to get to the numbers that are necessary to get past filibusters and the numbers to get the different things that each Senator wants for herself or himself in the measure.?

The motion carried by a vote of 236-183.  All two hundred and thirty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Ten other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-three Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Interior Department, which included a continuing resolution that funded the other federal departments and agencies through mid-December of 2010.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2996, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of the Interior and for environmental agencies. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of representatives of both bodies. Those representatives typically have flexibility in negotiating the final terms. However, prior to the start of the conference, a Member may move to have the House instruct its representatives to insist on a particular provision.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Simpson (R-Idaho) that the House conferees insist on the provision in the House version of the bill prohibiting any funds from being used to implement a regulation requiring reporting of certain greenhouse gas emissions; the regulation related to emissions from manure management systems.

Rep. Simpson argued in support of his motion that: ?(A)ccording to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), livestock manure management systems account for less than 1 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Over 85 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in total come from (other) sources . . . (that) are not subject to the reporting rule. By the EPA's own admission, regulating these (other) sources would be overly expensive and burdensome.?

Simpson, in further support of his motion, claimed that that the conference agreement was likely to include an exemption to a clean air rule affecting ships on the Great Lakes. He said that this exemption was being supported by Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-Wisc), who ?recognized that the excesses of the EPA would place additional hardships upon an economy already devastated by the recession . . . .? Simpson then argued: ?That's no different from what (we are) trying to do to help farmers, ranchers, and livestock producers . . . .? Simpson also said that ?(M)embers of the Agriculture Committee have been warning us for years of the danger of climate change rulemaking outside of the legislative process.?

Rep. Dicks (D-Wash) chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 2996. He opposed the motion. In response to Simpson?s suggestion that the regulation would impose a burden on farmers, ranchers, and livestock producers, Dicks noted that ?only the 90 largest manure management systems in the country would be required to report their emissions, those who annually emit as much in greenhouse gases as 58,000 barrels of oil.? He noted that ?thousands of small farmers would be exempted . . . .?

Dicks said that: "(I)t is important for the EPA to receive information from these systems because the EPA needs reliable data on the greenhouse gas emissions from major facilities in all industries if we are going to be able to base our climate policy on a solid and thorough understanding of the problem.? He argued that ?this rule . . . does the right thing. It exempts thousands of small farmers; but for the ones who have enormous operations, where large amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted, they have to report.  I think that's reasonable . . . Congress directed that this be done . . . so that we could make these decisions based on science, not on just political machinations . . . I think it's a reasonable compromise."

The motion carried by a vote of 267-147.  One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and ninety-nine Democrats voted ?aye?. All one hundred and forty-seven ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members. As a result, the conferees were instructed to insist that language prohibiting any funds from being used to implement a regulation requiring reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems be kept in the final version of H.R. 2996.

H.R. 3619 authorized approximately $10 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard. It increased the number of military personnel in the Coast Guard by 1,500 to a total of 47,000, and increased the allowable number of officers to 6,700. The legislation also included provisions designed to deal with demonstrated problems in the acquisition of equipment by The Coast Guard.

As with most other legislation the House considers, it first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments. The rule for H.R. 3619 limited the amendments that could be offered to only certain designated ones. This was a vote on approving the rule.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the effort in support of the rule. She said that H.R. 3619 ?will strengthen our nation's Coast Guard by making important investments and key changes now, the benefits of which we will see for years to come.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the Republican minority on the debate of the rule. He said: ?(W)hile I support this important underlying legislation, I oppose the rule by which it is being brought to the floor. He asserted that his opposition was based on the restrictions the rule placed on the number of amendments that could be offered. Diaz-Balart argued that it is ?inappropriate to limit the procedural rights of the members of this House? by restricting their ability to offer amendments. He also said that this was particularly the case with the Coast Guard authorization ?that enjoys such widespread and bipartisan support . . . .? He added that, with such popular legislation, members should not ?have to go and beg the Rules Committee for authorization to have their amendments debated.?

Diaz-Balart noted that the last time that a Coast Guard authorization bill was enacted into law, the Republican majority at the time supported a rule that allowed far more amendments to be offered. He concluded his remarks by claiming that this was ?another example of how the current (Democratic) majority restricts, unnecessarily and unfortunately, the procedural rights of all members of this body . . . . .?

Chairwoman Slaughter (D-NY) and the Democratic members of the Rules Committee took the position that they weigh many factors when deciding which amendments to allow, including whether they relate directly to the purpose of the bill, whether they would not add to the deficit, and whether they are ?logical?. They also claimed that the Republican minority did have numerous opportunities to present its ideas while the committee that developed H.R. 3619 was engaged in its deliberations.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 213-192.  All Two hundred and thirteen ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin formal debate of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard.

H.R. 3619 authorized approximately $10 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard. It increased the number of military personnel in the Coast Guard by 1,500 to a total of 47,000, and increased the allowable number of officers to 6,700. The legislation also included provisions designed to deal with demonstrated problems in the acquisition of equipment by The Coast Guard.

As with most legislation, the House must first approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill before it can begin formal consideration. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments. The rule for H.R. 3619 limited the amendments that could be offered to only certain designated ones. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the effort in support of the rule and of the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. She said that H.R. 3619 ?will strengthen our nation's Coast Guard by making important investments and key changes now, the benefits of which we will see for years to come.? Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the Republican minority on the debate of the rule and the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He said ?(W)hile I support this important underlying legislation, I oppose the rule by which it is being brought to the floor.

Diaz-Balart argued: ?(T)he last time that a Coast Guard authorization bill was enacted into law, the Republican majority at the time brought the legislation to the floor with a rule that allowed . . . any Member of the House to offer any amendments to the legislation without having to receive the approval of the Rules Committee as long as the amendment was preprinted in the Congressional Record . . . any amendment could be brought forward, but you had to have preprinted it.? He added,  ?today the (Democratic) majority has . . . decided  . . . that the right of Members to offer amendments should be restricted . . . The last time the House considered this legislation . . . we were criticized (by the Democrats, for even requiring that an amendment had to be pre-printed). That was called restrictive. Well, now we have . . . a structured rule; in other words, only those amendments made in order (by the Democratically-controlled Rules Committee) can be considered.?

Diaz Balart concluded his remarks by claiming that this was ?another example of how the current majority restricts, unnecessarily and unfortunately, the procedural rights of all Members of this body . . . The tradition . . . of this House for many decades with regard to this legislation . . . that enjoys such widespread and bipartisan support . . . is that Members didn't have to go and beg the Rules Committee for authorization to have their amendments debated . . . .?

Chairwoman Slaughter (D-NY) and the Democratic members of the Rules Committee took the position that they weigh many factors when deciding whether to allow an amendment to be offered, including whether it relates directly to the purpose of the bill, whether it would add to the deficit, and whether it is ?logical?. They also claimed that the Republican minority did have numerous opportunities to present its ideas while the committee that developed H.R. 3619 was engaged in its deliberations.

The motion carried by a vote of 236-171.  All Two hundred and thirty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule for the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for The Coast Guard.

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. The bill directed the Secretary of Energy to award grants for manufacturing to industry-led solar technology research, development, and demonstration programs.   The design of the ?road map" in the bill was based on the National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, which was considered to be instrumental in helping semiconductor technology advance rapidly over the previous twenty years.

Rep. Gordon (D-Tenn), who chairs the House Science and Technology Committee, was leading the support for the measure. He described H.R. 3585 as a bill that ?establishes a comprehensive road mapping process for solar technology research, development, and demonstration activities conducted by the federal government in partnership with industry.? Gordon noted that H.R. 3585 had been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and Intel.

Rep. Hall (R-TX) was leading the Republican side during the debate on the bill. He first said that Republican Members are ?supportive of solar energy, and we have so voted--most of the people on my side of the aisle. We certainly see the great potential it has to be a contributor of energy to our constituents.? He then added that Republicans had ?some lingering concerns? about H.R. 3585. The first concern he noted was that the bill authorized $2.25 billion over 5 years, which  Hall described as ?not an insignificant amount, especially in our current financial climate.? He suggested that investment tax credits for solar energy ?or an easing of burdensome regulations would be a better way to encourage the development and use of solar energy.?

A second concern Hall expressed was that the bill directed the Energy Secretary to spend too much of the funding on the research, development, and demonstration set forth by a third party committee focused on the ?road map? described in the bill. He said that this provision ?leaves little flexibility for innovations that may be viable and yet not included as part of the road map.? Hall also expressed a concern that the rules for establishing the membership of this committee may not result in ?an open and transparent (deliberation) process.? He also noted that the Department of Energy had advised the House Science and Technology Committee that it ?shares some of these same concerns.?

Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) responded to Rep. Hall by saying: ?I am a fiscal conservative as well as a scientist and engineer. I have studied and used solar energy for more than 40 years. This bill will not spend too much money. Our country has fallen way behind. The General Accountability Office has documented that the funding level in this bill only begins to reverse 20 years of underinvestment by the federal government in the research and development of solar power--a domestic alternative and a renewable source of energy.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 310-106.  Two hundred and forty-seven  Democrats and sixty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. All one hundred and six ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill authorizing a five-year $2.2 billion program for solar technology.

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. This vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to change the number of years for which the funding was authorized from five to three, and to reduce the amount authorized in each of those three years.

Rep. Broun began his statement in support of his amendment by saying: ?(E)nergy independence and innovation are essential to America's national as well as economic security . . . Many believe the debate is oil and gas versus wind, solar, and renewable sources of energy. That assumption is absolutely false. We need all of the sources of fuel that we know about, both current and any possible ones that we can develop in the future . . . The technological advances in solar-generated energy are growing every day.?

He then added: ?(D)espite my strong support of these innovative and cleaner technologies, this Congress must recognize a simple fact: We do not have enough money to do all the programs that we would all like to do.? Broun noted that his amendment would reduce the amount authorized in the bill to $250 million a year for 3 years. He claimed its purposed was ?to balance the noble goals of this legislation with the overwhelming pressures placed on the budget.? Broun pointed out that the House had previously passed $342 million for solar energy spending in two other measures, including the stimulus bill that was developed in response to the economic crisis the country was facing.

Broun then argued: ?(T)his is more than Congress can and should be doing for solar and other renewable resources . . . I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, economically responsible amendment and . . . stop the outrageous spending that this Congress is doing . . . .? He added that ?government is not the only source of funds. The private sector is already developing (solar technology) . . . .?

Rep. Giffords (D-AZ), the sponsor of H.R. 3585, opposed Broun?s amendment. Giffords noted that ?between 1978 and fiscal year 2007, the United States Government spent $30 billion on R&D for nuclear energy . . . $24 billion on fossil fuel research . . . (and) less than $6.5 billion on solar energy . . . maybe some people think these disparities are appropriate. Maybe they think that solar does not merit the same levels of investment because it is not able to provide as much energy as those technologies. However, looking at the research and where we are with the technology today, that is simply false.?

Giffords added: ?I fully support having strong research programs in other types of energy, whether it's nuclear or coal and a variety of other important energy options. The funding levels in this bill just recognize and help us properly take advantage of the enormous solar resources that we have in the United States.?  Rep. Gordon (D-TN), who chairs the House Science and Technology Committee, also opposed the amendment. He noted that, although the ?United States invented the technology for the solar industry . . . China is the largest manufacturer, exporter and deployer of solar in the world right now. The United States simply cannot compete with them in terms of wages . . . So we have to be ahead of them in technology.? 

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 162-256.  One hundred and fifty-five  Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and thirteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the five-year $2.2 billion total for solar technology remained in H.R. 3585.

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. As with most other legislation the House considers, it first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments.

As was the case with those other rules, the rule for H.R. 3585 limited the number of amendments that could be offered during the formal debate of the measure. This was on a vote on approving the rule.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and supported the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He said the Congress had previously not supported ?the small businesses, the technology, and the policies that could have and should have changed our nation's energy outlook years ago.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule. She argued that it ?does not allow for many of the amendments my colleagues on both sides of the aisle (have) presented . . . .? Foxx also said: ?The money that Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and the Obama administration want to authorize today is all borrowed money . . . We do not have this money. Our constituents do not have this money and the federal government does not have this money.?

Rep. Andrews (D-NJ), arguing against the complaint of the Republicans that that had not been permitted to participate in the development of H.R. 3585 said that he counted ?29 suggestions made by the (Republican) minority which are included in this underlying legislation . . . . ? He also noted that there were 25 other suggested changes made by the Republicans that the Democrats had agreed to add to the bill during its formal consideration.

Rep. Duncan (R-TN) also expressed the view of many Republicans that H.R. 3585 provided for ?multibillion-dollar waste?. He said it contained a ?2.2 billion subsidy for the solar power industry and for the solar bureaucracy, but that solar energy ?has received massive subsidies, with very little progress, ever since the Carter administration.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 241-178.  Two hundred and forty Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to debate the Solar Technology Roadmap Act.

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, was designed to identify and plan for solar technology needs, and to provide $2.2 billion over five years to schools and laboratories for solar research and development. As with most other legislation the House considers, it first had to approve a resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill. These rules had become contentious matters. The Republican minority had been complaining during the congressional session that the Democratic majority was placing restrictions on many of these rules that significantly curtailed the ability of Members to offer amendments. As was the case with those other rules, the rule for H.R. 3585 limited the number of amendments that could be offered during the formal debate of the measure. This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule.

The House Rules Committee develops and submits the rules for bills, including the one for H.R. 3585. Chairwoman Slaughter (D-NY) and the other members of the Democratic majority on the Rules Committee took the position that they need to decide whether proposed amendments relate directly to the purpose of the bill when they determine which amendments to make in order. They also took the position that Republican members of the committee that developed H.R. 3585 had an ample opportunity to present their views during those committee deliberations.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading the effort on behalf of the rule and supported the motion to bring it to an immediate vote. He said the Congress had previously not supported ?the small businesses, the technology, and the policies that could have and should have changed our nation's energy outlook years ago.? He added that: ?(A)merican solar businesses have had to deal with the uncertainty of not knowing what government policies will be in place from one year to the next; production in investment tax credits has ebbed and flowed with no real consistency . . . with no real directive to lead our research or investment. We desperately need to focus our research and focus our investments, and this legislation will do that.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule and the motion to move to an immediate vote on it. She argued that the rule ?does not allow for many of the amendments my colleagues on both sides of the aisle (have) presented . . . This is especially wrong when debating one of the important issues of our time, our nation's energy policy. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the minority and their own colleagues from having any input in the legislative process.   My assumption is that, along with me, all other Members want to see more solar power used in this country; but the Democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents can be adequately represented in the House. Our constituents in both Republican and Democrat districts are struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are simultaneously being shut out of participating in debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the federal government.?
The House Rules Committee develops and submits the rules for most bills, including the one for H.R. 3585. The Democratic majority on the Rules Committee took the position that it weighs many factors when deciding which amendments to allow, including whether they relate directly to the purpose of the bill, whether they would add to the deficit, and whether they are ?logical?. The Democratic majority also claimed that the Republican minority did have numerous opportunities to present its ideas while the committee that developed H.R. 3585 was engaged in its deliberations.

Other Republicans expressed opposition to the motion because they opposed the legislation itself. Rep. McClintock (D-CA) argued that, over the last 30 years, billions of dollars have ?poured into research and development for solar technology . . . and an entire solar industry solely supported by NASA subsidies arose in order to grab those dollars. And what was the result of all of this plunder of taxpayers and rate payers . . . solar power accounts for just one percent of electricity generation. That's not for lack of subsidies; it's because despite all of the billions of dollars of subsidies, the technology remains immensely inefficient and expensive.? Rep. Duncan (R-TN) said he was ?not against solar energy in any way, but it is way past time for this industry to stand on its own . . . The taxpayers simply cannot afford to keep funding a very wasteful program just because it is politically correct or fashionable to do so.?

The motion carried by a vote of 239-176.  All two hundred and thirty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the Solar Technology Roadmap Act.

This was a vote on the passage of the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. The measure authorized $38 million in federal assistance for the design, planning, and construction of six additional water recycling projects for the San Francisco Bay Area. The substance of this measure was not controversial. However, other water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, until there was a vote on legislation to deal with the issue.

The debate on H.R. 2442 focused primarily on disagreements regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue, and on the decision of the Democratic majority not to permit an amendment relating to that issue to be offered to the San Francisco Bay recycling bill.

Rep. Napolitano (D-CA), who represents a largely non-agricultural area of California, supported the legislation. She argued: ?This bill, and the projects it authorizes, will immediately address California's water crisis through local action and provide economic relief through job creation. It will not solve California's water crisis. However, it does provide a valuable and important tool. As we all are very well aware, the drought in California has taken a terrible toll on jobs all over the state, the economy and the environment of the Central Valley in California in particular. . . H.R. 2442 provides a tool to create more water for the Bay Area and, in the process, reduce the amount of water imported from the Sacramento and delta area.?

She went on to say that the legislation provides what she called ?a valuable and important tool to stretch the existing water supply and address the critical water issues of our state.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) noted that a number of other California water bills, sponsored by Republicans had been debated by the House during the current session. He also noted that no effort was made on any of them to have language added relating to the San Joaquin Valley issue. Miller suggested that, because H.R. 2442 was sponsored by Democrats, the Republicans had decided to try to offer that language to it and were now opposing the bill.

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) was leading the debate on H.R. 2442 for the Republicans. He said ?there is an economic disaster occurring in the San Joaquin Valley . . . (because) man-made and government-enforced drought has dried up farm after farm in that valley, with 40,000 workers unemployed, standing in food lines and being ignored by the leadership in this House, when solutions to bring water and relief to this area have been blocked and stymied again by the leadership in this House . . . .?

Rep. McClintock (R-CA), who represents a primarily rural district in Northern California, opposed the bill. He said that ?those who blame the drought for (the Central Valley water) problems ignore the fact that this is a very mild drought by historical standards. In fact, during much more severe droughts than the one we are currently experiencing, far more water flowed to the Central Valley than it does right now.? He suggested that the real cause of the problems was that ?200 billion gallons of water have been diverted from the Central Valley by . . . regulations.?

Focusing on H.R. 2442, McClintock then said: ?It's morally unconscionable that water recycling bills to benefit the pampered and privileged communities of San Francisco can sail through the House while 40,000 families have lost their jobs in the San Joaquin Valley because this government has diverted 200 billion gallons of water in order to indulge one of the environmental left's pet causes, the delta smelt.?

Rep. Nunes, who had lead the unsuccessful effort to have an amendment offered relating to the San Joaquin Valley issue, noted that San Francisco had previously ?exempted environmental laws to build a new airport in the beautiful San Francisco Bay? and ?used their muscle in the past to actually get by other environmental laws? when they succeeded in having a dam built in the Yosemite Valley to provide water for the city.?  He added that ?despite their own record, when folks a mere two hours away are bled dry of water, they have opposed a temporary waiver to allow not 2 billion gallons of water like this (bill) does, but 200 billion gallons of water.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 241-173.  Two hundred and thirty-five Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill to expand the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program.

Water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California.

The House was considering H.R. 2442, which expanded the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. Prior to its consideration, Rep. Nunes (R-CA) had unsuccessfully attempted to have an amendment to the bill relating to the water flow in the San Joaquin Valley made in order. The language of that amendment would have overcome federal actions and a court decision that limited the water flow to the San Joaquin Valley. Since that effort failed, he moved at the conclusion of debate on the bill to send it back to committee and add the language of his amendment. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who supported the federal actions and court decision, successfully requested a procedural ruling that the Nunes motion was out of order because the subject of the San Joaquin Valley water flow was not related to the San Francisco Bay Recycling Program. This vote was on an appeal of that ruling.

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) was leading the debate on H.R. 2442 for the Republicans. He had said during the debate that ?there is an economic disaster occurring in the San Joaquin Valley . . . (because) man-made and government-enforced drought has dried up farm after farm in that valley, with 40,000 workers unemployed, standing in food lines and being ignored by the leadership in this House, when solutions to bring water and relief to this area have been blocked and stymied again by the leadership in this House . . . .? He noted that H.R. 2442 ?provides millions . . . for the Bay Area while tens of thousands of their fellow citizens suffer economic devastation just a few hours south and inland in the San Joaquin Valley.?

Hastings argued that: ?(A)ll that was sought by (Rep. Nunes) . . . was to a have a chance . . . to make the case on the House floor and to (get a) vote for a solution to this disaster in the San Joaquin Valley. . . (He) just asked for the ability to be heard so (he) could persuade others . . .  that chance has been denied .?

Rep. Nunes noted that San Francisco had previously ?exempted environmental laws to build a new airport in the beautiful San Francisco Bay? and ?used their muscle in the past to actually get by other environmental laws? when they succeeded in having a dam built in the Yosemite Valley to provide water for the city.?  He added that ?despite their own record, when folks a mere two hours away are bled dry of water, they have opposed a temporary waiver to allow not 2 billion gallons of water like this (bill) does, but 200 billion gallons of water.?

Rep. Rahall (D-WV) is the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee that developed H.R. 2442. During debate on the bill, he described the proposals of Rep. Nunes as being ?not germane to the subject matter of the bill before us, nor . . . very thoughtful or realistic solutions to the crisis before us.? He added: ?If opponents to this legislation want to work towards solving California's water woes, then I suggest getting real about finding solutions and stop the partisan political attacks . . . The only reason we are here today debating this legislation is because one Member thinks a solution to a severe drought is to gut environmental laws and overturn court decisions. Perhaps that Member should propose a rain dance as well.?

The appeal of the ruling was killed by a vote of 237-176.  All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House effectively decided not to have a vote on whether to send the bill back to committee and order that language be added requiring the resumption of the previous water flow. The House instead moved to a vote on final passage of H.R. 2442 as it was written.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. The substance of this measure was not controversial. However, other water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, until a vote was allowed on the San Joaquin Valley issue; the rule setting the terms for debating H.R. 2442 did not provide for an amendment related to the San Joaquin Valley.

Rep. Matsui, (D-CA), who represents a non-agricultural area in the San Joaquin Valley, was leading the support for the rule. She acknowledged that: ?(W)e all know that there are some serious concerns about the water crisis in California . . .  But one thing is for sure: limiting our state's water supply by holding up recycling projects like those in this bill will not solve anything.

Rep. Napolitano (D-CA), who represents a primarily non-agricultural area in California, also supported the rule. She first agreed that ?there is a great need of assistance to the Central Valley? and that part of that need was for additional facilities to store water for when it was needed.? However, she then added ?but right now (other parts of California) need immediate results and water recycling is one of the tools that (is needed).  H.R. 2442 provides new water to the Bay Area in California. The recycling projects authorized will provide 2.6 billion gallons of water annually, enough to meet the needs of 24,000 families. Why do we stand against water for other areas? All of us need additional water in California.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule for H.R. 2442. He referred to the fact that the rule being considered was ?closed?, meaning that it would not permit any amendments to be offered to H.R. 2442. Diaz-Balart then noted that ?on numerous occasions . . . Rep. Nunes (R-CA) has submitted amendments (regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue) to the Rules Committee so that those amendments could be debated and voted on by the full House.?

Diaz-Balart argued that the there ?never should have been a closed rule, and we need to find out why is it that the majority keeps closing down these rules. I think we may be getting close to the answer if we look back at (the fact that Members of the Democratic leadership) . . . took credit for the lawsuits that turned the pumps off.? Diaz-Balart added that this fact ?made me believe maybe there is some coordination going on between the left-wing radicals and the fringe environmental movement, and how is that being coordinated from this body. These are questions that we need to know about.?

The rule was approved by a vote of 221-193.  All two hundred and twenty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-three other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, House was able to begin formal debate of the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and did not allow any amendment regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue.

This was on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. The substance of this measure was not controversial. However, other water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and some federal actions and a related court decision had limited the flow of water in a few of the state?s major rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, until a vote was allowed on the San Joaquin Valley issue; the rule setting the terms for debating H.R. 2442 did not provide for an amendment related to the San Joaquin Valley.

Rep. Matsui, (D-CA), who represents a non-agricultural area in the San Joaquin Valley, was leading the support for the rule and for the motion to move to a vote on it. She acknowledged that: ?(W)e all know that there are some serious concerns about the water crisis in California . . .  From local and state levels all the way here to Washington, there are a number of different ideas about how to address our water issues in California. Some of them I prefer more than others, and some of them are preferred more than others by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But one thing is for sure: limiting our state's water supply by holding up recycling projects like those in this bill will not solve anything. In fact, it will only prolong our collective efforts to seek solutions to California's water problems.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the rule for H.R. 2442 and to the motion to move to an immediate vote on it. He argued: ?(O)n numerous occasions . . . Rep. Nunes (R-CA), has submitted amendments (regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue) to the Rules Committee so that those amendments could be debated and voted on by the full House. His amendments would restrict the implementation of the . . . opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the. . . National Marine Fisheries Service. However, the (Democratic) majority on the Rules Committee routinely blocked consideration of the amendments . . . .? The reason Mr. Nunes has so steadfastly sought to have the House debate the restriction on those two opinions is that they have diverted water from the San Joaquin Valley, practically turning that area into a dust bowl.?

Diaz-Balart added: ?(A)ccording to a recent University of California Davis study, the water reductions have led to revenue losses of over $2 billion, and this year will lead to 80,000 jobs lost. The area now has an unemployment rate of about 20 percent . . . It is time that the House be given the opportunity to debate the San Joaquin Valley water issue.

Rep. Nunes said ?I would love for San Francisco to have water.  But in the grand scheme of things, this (water recycling program) is a 2-billion gallon project. We are losing 200 billion gallons out to the ocean because we simply won't let the pumps run at historical levels. It is a California water issue here, to provide water for San Francisco; yet we can't even debate or have an amendment to provide water to the bulk of California. Nunes went on to claim that there was ?coordination between the Democrats in the House and radical environmentalists? who were promoting the limitation of water to the San Joaquin Valley.

The motion carried by a vote of 237-178.  All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Seven other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-one Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debating the bill expanding the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, which did not provide for any amendment regarding the San Joaquin Valley issue.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2892, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security.  When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This vote was on House passage.

Rep. Price (D-NC) chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the House version of H.R. 2892, and was leading support for passage of the conference report. He noted that the report provided $43 billion for the department, and that this was a 7% increase over fiscal year 2009. Price argued that the report ?addresses the needs and challenges (the) Department faces. It also represents a considered approach to funding critical domestic security requirements and other core departmental missions within a bipartisan consensus on fiscal responsibility.?

Price then focused on a provision in the conference report dealing with the potential transfer of suspected terrorists and enemy combatants to the U.S. from the prison at Guantanamo Bay. This had become a controversial issue, especially since President Obama had announced that he would be closing the prison by the end of 2009.

Price claimed that ?(T)he conference report establishes strict safeguards on the movement of Guantanamo's detainees, and if the administration chooses to address their cases in U.S. courts, this legislation ensures that that will be done with due consideration, planning, and forethought . . . It allows the transfer of a detainee to custody inside the United States only for the purpose of prosecuting that individual and only after Congress receives a plan detailing the risks involved and a plan for mitigating such risks, the cost of the transfer, the legal rationale and court demands, and a copy of the notification provided to the governor of the receiving state 14 days before a transfer, with a certification by the Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk.?

Rep. Rogers (R-KY) is the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the House version of H.R. 2892. He said that, although he did not ?agree with everything in the conference report, I think it represents a fairly reasonable compromise on most of our homeland security priorities.? He then referenced the provision related to the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to the U.S., which he and many other Members, especially Republicans, opposed. Rogers argued: ?(S)ince the President announced the decision to close Guantanamo some 9 months ago, we have seen . . .  no plan, no idea of how to dispose of the detainees remaining there, and no legal rationale for the prosecution, sentencing and incarceration of these terrorists (has been developed) . . . leaving hundreds of suspected terrorists potentially bound for American soil because no one else in the world will let them be brought to their soil.?

Rogers went on to make the argument that there was ?no reason why we should afford enemy combatants who have been caught on the battlefield battling American soldiers . . . the same constitutional rights as American citizens or the same due process even as criminal defendants in the civilian courts of the U.S., and I see no reason why these terrorists can't be brought to justice right where they are in Cuba before military tribunals, as we have in the past there.?

The conference report passed by a vote of 307-114.  Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and sixty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and eight Republicans and six Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, House approved and sent on to the Senate the conference report containing the final version of the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2892, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security.  When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. A provision in the final version of H.R. 2892 that received a great deal of attention permitted certain detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison to be brought to the United States. This was on a motion by Rep. Rogers (R-KY) to send the report back to the conference that developed it with instructions not to agree to any language allowing a detainee held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be brought to the United States for prosecution or incarceration.

A large number of suspected terrorists and enemy combatants from the war in Afghanistan were being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. President Obama announced early in 2009 that he would close the prison by the end of the year. Many Republican congressional leaders had been suggesting that President Obama would be endangering American lives by closing it, especially if he did so without a plan as to where the detainees would go. House Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH) had argued that the prisoners are ?committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life.? House Minority Whip Cantor (R-VA) had stated: "(M)ost (American) families neither want nor need terrorists around.? Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) claimed that it was part of the "public record" that Democrats want to "transfer or release (Guantanamo) detainees on American soil with full knowledge that some will be released on our streets."

The counter-arguments that had been made to these concerns was that several convicted terrorists and conspirators were already imprisoned in the United States and had been for years, with no security issues, and that those from Guantanamo would be held in highly secure federal ?supermax? prisons, from which nobody had ever escaped. Supporters of the closing of the facility also claimed that continuing to keep prisoners there would not be consistent with U.S. laws and values.

Those supporting the closing of the facility also said that the bad publicity it was receiving effectively served as a tool for recruiting terrorists. Both former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sen. McCain (R-ARIZ) had made statements to this effect. Rep. Edwards (D-TX) had argued that closing it would actually increase the safety of Americans.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 193-224.  One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and twenty-five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, instructions were not given to the House conferees to oppose language allowing a detainee held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be brought to the United States; as a further result, the House moved ahead to a vote on approving the conference report.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This vote was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill.

The Republican minority had been complaining during the entire legislative year about the procedures that the Democratic majority were using. Among those complaints were that bills were being brought to the House floor for a vote too quickly, without giving Members an adequate opportunity to review them. The Republicans raised this matter again in relation to the conference report on this bill.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the support for the rule. He said that the funding in the conference report ?helps secure our borders . . . (ensures) the safety and security of our nation's infrastructure . . . (and) provides the necessary funding to . . . protect our nation's vast transportation network . . . .?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was the leader on the measure for the Republicans, first agreed that ?the underlying legislation provides the Department (of Homeland Security) with the tools and resources that it needs in order to continue to help to protect the nation from other terrorist attacks.? However, he urged a ?nay? vote on the rule that set the terms for formally debating the bill. Diaz-Balart said his position was based on his belief that Members had not had sufficient time to review the legislation for which the rule set the terms of debate.

He asserted that ?the American people have written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at meetings throughout the nation (and asked) . . . whether (House Members) will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is, I think, that people were outraged after finding out that the majority (Democratic) leadership forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or to really even read the bills.?

Diaz-Balart then noted that a separate bill had been introduced ?that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and to the general public for 72 hours before they are brought to the House floor for a vote.? He proposed that the House approve that bill, and then allow Members 72 hours to review the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill and all subsequent legislation.

The resolution setting the terms for debate carried by a vote of 239-174.  All two hundred and thirty-nine ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Four other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to a vote on the rule setting the terms for formally debating the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill, and did not consider requiring a 72 hour time period before considering any bill.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

This was on a procedural motion to have the House move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill. The Republican minority had been complaining during the entire legislative year about the procedures that the Democratic majority were using. Among those complaints were that bills were being brought to the House floor for a vote too quickly, without giving Members an adequate opportunity to review them. The Republicans raised this matter again in relation to the conference report on the bill.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL) was leading the support for the rule. He noted that the conference report ?appropriates over $42 billion in funds necessary to protect the American people and enhance our national security. Through terrorist threat mitigation, natural disaster response, and immigration enforcement, this appropriations bill provides the funding to fulfill the many essential responsibilities of a range of important governmental agencies, from the Coast Guard to FEMA to Customs and Border Protection to the Transportation Security Administration.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was the leader on the measure for the Republicans, first said that ?the underlying legislation provides the Department (of Homeland Security) with the tools and resources that it needs in order to continue to help to protect the nation from other terrorist attacks.? However, he then referred to the Republican complaint about bringing bills to the floor to quickly and opposed the motion to move to an immediate vote on the rule for the conference report.  Diaz-Balart said he wanted the House to vote first on a separate resolution that would have required all non-emergency legislation to be made available 72 hours before debate on begins any such legislation.

Diaz-Balart argued that this other resolution, sponsored by Reps. Culberson (R-TX) and Baird (D-WA), ?will create more transparency of the legislative process by giving lawmakers the time to debate bills with full knowledge and consideration of their implications, while giving citizens time to read legislation and voice their concerns to their congressional delegation.?  Diaz-Balart added that a vote against the motion to move to a second vote on the rule ?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.?

The motion carried by a vote of 243-173.  Two hundred and forty-two Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to a vote on the rule setting the terms for formally debating the 2010 Department of Homeland Security funding bill, and did not consider requiring a 72 hour time period before considering any bill.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2647, the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both legislative bodies before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This vote was on House passage of the final version, which authorized $550 billion in funding, and allowed for the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay that had been announced by President Obama. It also contained a controversial provision, unrelated to defense, that designated a crime motivated by the victim?s sexual orientation as a hate crime.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Skelton (D-MO) was leading support for the legislation. He said:?(T)he vast majority of this bill has bipartisan support? and that it ?provides several major victories for our troops and their families, and . . . strikes a right balance between our focus on the immediate fights in Afghanistan and Iraq and the long-term needs of our military.? Skelton urged approval for the bill because ?we are at war. We should support the troops. We should support their families. We should make sure that they have the finest equipment and training possible. That's what this bill does.?

Skelton acknowledged that he would have preferred if the hate crimes provision had ?been enacted as a stand-alone bill, not on this defense bill?; however, he noted that an amendment incorporating that provision had passed the Senate by ?a strong bipartisan vote (and) . . . the Senate conferees insisted on it.? Skelton concluded his remarks by arguing: ?(W)hatever one's position on hate crimes, I believe that the enormous good done in this legislation merits its support by every Member of the House.?

Rep. Davis (D-CA) expressed her support for the hate crimes provision. She argued: ?(H)ate crimes perpetuate and reinforce historic discrimination and persecution against particular groups. They are committed not simply to harm one particular victim, but to send a message of threat and intimidation to others. Left unchecked, crimes of this kind threaten to unravel the very fabric of American society that our service members fight to protect.?

Rep. McKeon (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said that the bill, ?(T)hough flawed . . . has my support.? He acknowledged that the hate crimes provision is ?anathema to me. I am opposed to hate crimes legislation, and I am especially opposed to the procedure of putting it on a defense bill--especially in time of war, using our troops to get this legislation passed. It's not germane to the work of the committee and needlessly introduces a partisan matter in an otherwise bipartisan bill . . . Unfortunately, congressional Democrats made the political decision to attach the hate crimes legislation to this bill.?

Rep. Bartlett (R-MD), a senior Republican Member of the Armed Services Committee, urged a vote against H.R. 2647, even though he said ?this is an excellent conference report.? He based his opposition on the fact that the hate crimes provision was included in the final version. Bartlett said he was ?appalled that my colleagues would violate House rules and pervert this annual national military strategy bill by including the totally unrelated partisan (provision) . . . .? Rep. Akin (R-MO) referred to the hate crime provision as ?a poison pill . . . (and) we refuse to be blackmailed into voting for a piece of social agenda that has no place in this bill.? Akin added ?why don't they pass it somewhere else? Instead, they put it on the backs of our service men and women . . . .?

Rep. Pence (R-IN) also opposed the bill because of the hate crimes provision. He argued that ?by expanding the federal definition of hate crimes, as this legislation does, we will generate a chilling effect on religious leaders in this country. Pastors, preachers, rabbis, and imams will now hesitate to speak about the sexual traditions and teachings of their faith for fear of being found culpable under the aiding, abetting, or inducing provisions of current law, and that must not be. It is just simply wrong to use a bill that's designed to support our troops to erode the very freedoms for which they fight.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 281-146.  Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and forty-four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirty-one Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the final version of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense and expanding the definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2647, the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

The final version of H.R. 2647 developed by the House-Senate conference included a provision allowing for the transfer or release of individuals imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. The transfer of these prisoners, possibly to the United States, or their release had become a very contentious matter. President Obama announced early in 2009 that he would close the prison by the end of the year. This had raised concerns about enemy combatants and terrorists being moved to facilities in the U.S. This was a vote on a motion to have H.R. 2647 sent back to the House-Senate conference, and to have the House conferees insist on eliminating any provision providing for the transfer or release of individuals imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

Supporters of the closing of Guantanamo Bay facility claimed that continuing to keep prisoners there is not consistent with U.S. laws and values. They also said that the bad publicity it was receiving effectively served as a tool for recruiting terrorists. Both former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sen. McCain (R-AZ) had made statements supporting the idea that the prison had become a recruiting tool.

Republican congressional leaders had been suggesting that President Obama would be endangering American lives by closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, especially if he did so without a plan as to where the detainees would go. House Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH) had argued that the prisoners are ?committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life.? House Minority Whip Cantor (R-VA) had stated publicly: "(M)ost (American) families neither want nor need terrorists around.? Rep. Wolf (R-VA) said he didn't "want to wake up one morning and . . . hear that one of these guys did something."

The counter-argument that had been made to these concerns was that several convicted terrorists and conspirators are already imprisoned in the United States and have been for years, with no security issues, and that those from Guantanamo would be held in highly secure federal ?supermax? prisons, from which nobody had ever escaped.

Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) said that it was part of the "public record" that Democrats want to "transfer or release detainees on American soil with full knowledge that some will be released on our streets." Rep. Edwards (D-TX) responded to Rep. Tiahrt by referencing the argument that the symbolic nature of the prison had become a recruiting tool for terrorists, and claimed that closing it would actually increase the safety of Americans.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 208-216.  All one hundred and seventy-four Republicans joined by thirty-four Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and sixteen ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the language allowing for the transfer or release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay remained in the conference report authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Defense Department funding bill. The rule waived points of order that could ordinarily be made against the bill.

The final version of the bill developed by the House-Senate conference included a provision, unrelated to defense matters, which designated a crime motivated by the victim?s sexual orientation for special ?hate crime? treatment. That provision had been in the Senate version of the bill, but not in the House version. The provision was very controversial.

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), was leading the effort on behalf of the rule setting the terms for debate of the bill. She confined her remarks to the provisions of the bill dealing with defense and national security matters. Regarding the ongoing issue of improper practices by defense contractors, Slaughter noted that the bill ?improves accountability and oversight in awarding defense contracts (and) . . . prohibits a company from being awarded future contracts if its action leads to a service member's death or severe injury.?

Regarding the issue of the treatment of enemy combatant detainees, which was also controversial, she noted that the bill ?bans interrogation of detainees by contractors and requires the Department of Defense to give the International Committee of the Red Cross prompt access to detainees held . . . in Afghanistan. In addition, the bill reforms the Military Commissions Act to clarify rules and improve trial procedures to make military commissions fair and effective, and puts new revisions into place that would forbid the use of statements alleged to have been secured through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Finally, the bill provides the accused with the enhanced ability to select his own counsel . . . .?

Rep. Blunt (R-MO), a member of the House Republican leadership, opposed including the hate crime provision in the Defense Department funding bill, and therefore also opposed the rule. Referring to the hate crime provision, he said ?for the first time that I am aware of . . . the defense authorization bill (has) become a vehicle where other social legislation is finalized, where the country's laws are changed . . . And even if it was something that I was for, I don't think this rule should move forward in a way that changes the (hate crimes) law . . . .?

Rep. Carter (R-TX) also opposed the hate crime provision and the rule. He argued: ?(T)o use this bill in this way is a step in the wrong direction, and I am afraid it's the first step . . . where every bill to defend the country . . . will become a vehicle for other social legislation that has nothing to do (with defense). He added that the debate on the hate crimes issue ?should be resolved independent of this legislation.? Carter further argued that ?those who support hate crimes (sic) should have the courage to come out from underneath the cover of the United States serviceman . . . .?

The resolution passed by a vote of 234-188.  Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-four Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved the rule and was able to debate the final version of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense, which included the new hate crimes language.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funds for the Defense Department and national security programs. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

This was on a procedural motion to have the House move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on the 2010 Defense Department funding bill. The rule waived points of order that could ordinarily be made against the bill.

The final version of the bill developed by the House-Senate conference included a provision, unrelated to defense matters that designated a crime motivated by the victim?s sexual orientation for special ?hate crime? treatment. That provision had been in the Senate version of the bill, but not in the House version. The provision was very controversial.

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), was leading the effort on behalf of the rule setting the terms for debate of the bill. She confined her remarks to the provisions of the bill dealing with defense and national security matters. Regarding the ongoing issue of improper practices by defense contractors, Slaughter noted that the bill ?improves accountability and oversight in awarding defense contracts (and) . . . prohibits a company from being awarded future contracts if its action leads to a service member's death or severe injury.?

Regarding the issue of the treatment of enemy combatant detainees, which was also controversial, she noted that the bill ?bans interrogation of detainees by contractors and requires the Department of Defense to give the International Committee of the Red Cross prompt access to detainees held . . . in Afghanistan. In addition, the bill reforms the Military Commissions Act to clarify rules and improve trial procedures to make military commissions fair and effective, and puts new revisions into place that would forbid the use of statements alleged to have been secured through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Finally, the bill provides the accused with the enhanced ability to select his own counsel . . . .?

Rep. Blunt (R-MO), a member of the House Republican leadership, opposed including the hate crime provision in the Defense Department funding bill, and therefore also opposed moving to an immediate vote on the rule. Referring to the hate crime provision, he said ?for the first time that I am aware of . . . the defense authorization bill (has) become a vehicle where other social legislation is finalized, where the country's laws are changed . . . And even if it was something that I was for, I don't think this rule should move forward in a way that changes the (hate crimes) law . . . .?

Rep. Carter (R-TX) also opposed the hate crime provision and moving to an immediate vote on the rule. He argued: ?(T)o use this bill in this way is a step in the wrong direction, and I am afraid it's the first step . . . where every bill to defend the country . . . will become a vehicle for other social legislation that has nothing to do (with defense). He added that the debate on the hate crimes issue ?should be resolved independent of this legislation.? Carter further argued that ?those who support hate crimes (sic) should have the courage to come out from underneath the cover of the United States serviceman . . . .?

The motion carried by a vote of 237-187.  All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twelve other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy-five Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debate of the final version of the bill authorizing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense, which included the new hate crimes language.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and rural programs. When the two Houses of Congress  pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on House passage of the conference report on H.R. 2997.

The measure provided $23.3 billion in funding, a 13 percent increase over the equivalent 2009 levels. Among the increases was one that was designed to enable  the Food and Drug Administration to conduct more inspections of domestic and foreign food and medical products and another that added monies for farm operating and ownership loans. The bill also increased funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which had been criticized for not sufficiently monitoring speculation in the portion of the securities markets over which it has jurisdiction.  Regarding a matter that had received particular press attention, the conference report included language requiring new onsite audits and inspections of Chinese poultry imports to insure that they comply with American sanitary conditions.

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the bill in the House and was among the leaders of the House conferees on the measure. She said that H. R. 2997 ?focuses on several key areas such as: supporting agricultural research, investing in rural communities, protecting public health, bolstering food nutrition programs and food aid, and conserving our natural resources. The final bill invests in these priorities and the agencies that can help us to meet them while making specific and sensible budget cuts where feasible.?

Rep. Kingston (R-GA) is the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the bill in the House. He said he was ?concerned? about the increased amounts in the 2010 spending levels above 2009 ?because . . . food prices haven't gone up that much.? Kingston illustrated his concern by noting that there was no fiscal year 2010 cost of living increase in Social Security, which ?is based on inflation, which has a reflection of food.?

Kingston also opposed the increased levels because a number of areas funded by the measure had received monies in the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier in the year in response to the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Kingston added that the stimulus legislation ?was financed not on tax dollars but on borrowed dollars and printed dollars. It's a package that our children's children will be paying for.?

Kingston argued that ?we had an opportunity to save some money? during deliberations of the House-Senate conference committee, ?but instead, what we did . . . was air-drop five new pilot programs: a summer food program for $85 million; equipment assistance program, $25 million; Women Infant and Children breast-feeding outreach at about $5 million; nutrition outreach for day care, $8 million; and direct certification expansion of $25 million.? He suggested that these programs ?may have some merit?, but argued that ?they did not come through the authorizing committee. They did not come through the Agriculture Committee. They were not debated. There were not hearings on them.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 263-162.  Two hundred and forty Democrats and twenty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-one Republicans and eleven Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate the final version of the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and for rural programs.

Dyke Marsh is a 485 acre parcel on the edge of the Potomac River in northern Virginia, just south of Washington, DC. It is a 5,000 to 7,000 year old unique ecosystem, with more than 6,500 species of plants, insects, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians.  In 1959, the area was being dredged for commercial purposes. To protect the system, Congress designated the Dyke Marsh ecosystem for protection ?so that fish and wildlife development and their preservation as wetland wildlife habitat shall be paramount''. Among the Members leading that successful effort was Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who was still serving in the House in 2009.

Noting that 2009 was the 50th anniversary of the designation of Dyke Marsh as a protected ecosystem, Rep. Moran (D-VA), in whose district it is located, introduced this resolution. The resolution included language stating that the Congress had ?passed legislation that designated . . . Dyke Marsh as a protected ecosystem for the purpose of promoting fish and wildlife development and preserving their natural habitat?. It also included language identifying Dyke Marsh ?as a unique and precious ecosystem that serves as an invaluable natural resource both locally and nationally?, and noted that wetlands provide services ?such as flood control, attenuation of tidal energy, water quality enhancement, wildlife habitat, nursery and spawning . . . and recreational and aesthetic enjoyment?. In addition the resolution highlighted the efforts of Rep. Dingell and other former Members in protecting the Dyke Marsh ecosystem ?from further dredging, filling, and other activities incompatible with a preserve?.

This was a vote on the resolution designed to recognize the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve ?as a unique and precious ecosystem?. Rep. Moran urged his fellow House Members ?to join me in recognizing the significance of Dyke Marsh, in reaffirming our commitment generally to protecting our nation's ecosystems, and in honoring . . . John Dingell . . . whose leadership and commitment to environmental stewardship were instrumental in the Dyke Marsh's preservation.?

There were no remarks against the resolution. However, a number of Republican Members acknowledged, off the record, that they voted against it to demonstrate their view that the Democratic majority was choosing not to deal with some other matters that Republicans favored. These Republican Members were taking the position that, if the Democratic majority was prepared to pass this type of resolution recognizing the existence of a sensitive ecosystem, it should also take the time to deal with those other matters.

The resolution passed by a vote of 325-93.  Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and seventy-nine Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety Republicans and three Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved the resolution recognizing the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve in Virginia as ?a unique and precious ecosystem.?

Rep. Rangel (D-NY) was chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. There had been numerous articles in the press raising questions both about whether he had been properly reporting his investments and income both on required House forms and on his state and federal tax returns. Many of those forms and returns were subsequently altered after the articles were published.

Among the matters raised were $75,000 in rental income from a villa he owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988 that Rangel never reported on his tax returns; the fact that the interest on the mortgage for the villa had been waived for more than ten years and that this waiver may be a prohibited ?gift? under House rules; and that he failed to disclose the waiver on his required House financial form. These and other matters had been referred to the House Ethics Committee, which had been conducting an investigation of them for almost a year.

Rep. Carter (R-TX) offered a resolution that noted these matters and the fact that the Ethics Committee was investigating them, and calling for the removal of Rangel as Ways and Means Committee chairman.

Rep. Crowley (D-NY) moved that the Carter Resolution be referred to the Ethics Committee, which was conducting the investigation of Rangel. No debate occurred on Rep. Crowley?s motion.

House Minority Leader Boehner, referring to the reports about Rangel, had said in a previous press statement: ?Working families . . . need to have confidence that the individual in charge of the House?s tax-writing panel is following the laws the committee is charged with crafting and overseeing.  It is improper for Rep. Rangel to remain in a position with such vast power and influence while serious questions about his official conduct continue to multiply and go unanswered.?

Rep. Waters (D-CA) had defended Rangel during an interview on a news program. She said that he was making an effort to correct the records and pay his debts, and that ?unfortunately with the requirements for disclosure that we all have, mistakes are made (and) . . . you do get a chance to correct them. And so it looks as if he is correcting those mistakes."

The motion carried by a vote of 246-153 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-three Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result the House referred to the Ethics Committee the Carter Resolution regarding the removal of Rangel as Ways and Means chairman.

Rep. Rangel (D-NY) was chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. There had been numerous articles in the press raising questions both about whether he had been properly reporting his investments and income both on required House forms and on his state and federal tax returns. Many of those forms and returns were subsequently altered after the articles were published.

Among the matters raised were $75,000 in rental income from a villa he owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988 that Rangel never reported on his tax returns; the fact that the interest on the mortgage for the villa had been waived for more than ten years and that this waiver may be a prohibited ?gift? under House rules; and that he failed to disclose the waiver on his required House financial form. These and other matters had been referred to the House Ethics Committee, which had been conducting an investigation of them for almost a year.

Rep. Carter (R-TX) offered a resolution that noted these matters and the fact that the Ethics Committee was investigating them, and calling for the removal of Rangel as Ways and Means Committee chairman. Carter cited a House rule providing that a Member of the House ?shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House'' and suggested that Rangel had not done so.

Rep. Crowley (D-NY) made a motion for the House to move to an immediate vote on referring the Carter Resolution to the Ethics Committee, which was conducting the investigation of Rangel. No debate occurred on Rep. Crowley?s motion.

House Minority Leader Boehner, referring to the reports about Rangel, had said in a previous press statement that: ?When Democrats took the majority, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) promised the most ?open and ethical? Congress in history.  Given the nature and severity of the charges against Rep. Rangel, I would urge all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to do the right thing and support the Carter resolution . . . .?

Rep. Waters (D-CA), during an interview about Rep. Rangel on a news program, said that many lawmakers suffer from innocent lapses in judgment when filing mandatory financial disclosure forms. She noted that ?there are many Members who, if you go back over all of their records, over all of the years, you're going to find that there were disclosures that were not made."

The motion carried by a vote of 243-156 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty Democrats and three Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-five Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result the House moved to an immediate vote on whether to refer to the Ethics Committee the Carter Resolution regarding the removal of Rangel as Ways and Means chairman.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and for the Food and Drug Administration. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. After a final version is developed, it must then be approved by each body. The bill contained $2.7 billion more than the equivalent legislation provided in fiscal year 2009.

This vote was on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of the final version of the 2010 Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration funding bill. Under the rule, any point of order that could be made against the conference report under usual House procedures was waived.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), anticipating the kind of criticisms that the Republican minority had made against the procedure that had been used by the Democratic majority for a series of spending bills, said that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration funding bill had gone ?through the regular order.?

Referring to the increased funding in the bill, he said: ?It is unconscionable to me that anyone can complain about helping people in need during these tough economic times . . . Hunger is a real problem in America, and this bill provides funding that keeps the safety net intact . . . for people who simply cannot make ends meet. Yet some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we cannot afford to properly fund these programs, insinuating that we should turn our backs on these people who are in desperate need.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the Republican side in opposing the rule. She repeated a complaint regarding legislative procedure that the Republican minority had consistently made during the debate on a variety of spending bills, that the Democrats ?took unprecedented steps to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all appropriations bills under (a) closed rule that restricted the offering of amendments.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) expressed his opposition to the substance of the bill itself, although he said that he shared the concern of Rep. McGovern ?about nutrition, child nutrition especially. It is a very high priority.? Dreier went on to say that ?the tired old argument that somehow those of us who are Republicans want to throw children out in the street and have them starve is a nonstarter.? He asserted that there ?are other areas in the legislation where cuts can be made? to pay for the increases he agreed were necessary.

The resolution passed by a vote of 241-178. All two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eight other Democrats joined all one hundred and seventy Republicans voted and ?nay?. As a result the House was able to begin formal debate of the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and for the Food and Drug Administration. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. After a final version is developed, it must then be approved by each body. The bill contained $2.7 billion more than the equivalent legislation provided in fiscal year 2009.

This was on a motion to move immediately to a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of the final version of the 2010 Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration funding bill. Under the rule, any point of order that could be made against the conference report under usual House procedures was waived.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), anticipating the kind of criticisms that the Republican minority had made against the procedure that had been used by the Democratic majority for a series of spending bills, said that this funding bill had gone ?through the regular order.? He also said he anticipated that he would ?hear from my friends on the other side . . . about how this bill spends too much money and that this increase (in spending) is simply unnecessary, especially during these difficult economic times.?

In response to the anticipated remarks about the increased funding level, McGovern argued ?this increase is needed now more than ever. Just look at where the increases in this bill are targeted: to the areas of nutrition, international food assistance, and food and drug safety. Simply, these increases go to protect our food supply and to provide food for those who either cannot afford it or do not have access to it. It is unconscionable to me that anyone can complain about helping people in need during these tough economic times. Hunger is a real problem in America, and this bill provides funding that keeps the safety net intact . . .  I, for one, make no apologies for these increases in food and nutrition programs. We have a moral obligation to step up to the plate to help the most vulnerable people during these difficult times.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the Republican side in opposing the rule and this motion to bring the rule to a vote. She repeated a complaint that the Republican minority had consistently made during the debate on spending bills, that the Democrats ?took unprecedented steps to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all appropriations bills under (a) closed rule that restricted the offering of amendments.? Foxx argued that ?(T)his has consistently eliminated the ability for Members to speak up for how their constituents believe their money should be spent. This is not the way the House should be operating, and we want to express again our concern about this . . . .?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) expressed his opposition to the motion calling for a vote on the rule, to the rule, and to the funding bill itself. He first said that he shared the concerns expressed by Rep. McGovern about child nutrition and called it ?a very high priority.? He added that ?anyone who tries to characterize those of us who are opposed to this conference report as being opposed to child nutrition is totally off base.? Dreier also characterized as a ?nonstarter? what he called ?the tired old argument that somehow those of us who are Republicans want to throw children out in the street and have them starve . . . .?

Dreier noted the increases in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration 2010 funding bill over the 2009 levels, saying that ?every single line item (in it) has . . . an increase?. He then argued ?we can have that strong commitment, as we do in a bipartisan way, to nutrition. There are other areas where cuts can be made.?

The motion carried by a vote of 237-180. All two hundred and thirty-seven ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Eleven other Democrats joined all one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and voted ?aye?. As a result the House moved immediately to a vote on the rule setting the terms for formal debate of the final version of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water programs. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was a vote on passage of the final version of the bill that was negotiated in the conference. It contained $35.5 billion in funding, which represented an increase of $204 million over the corresponding fiscal year 2009 level.

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ) was leading the support for the bill. He said the programs it funded would ?contribute to solving many of the most pressing challenges facing our country, including strengthening and maintaining our water infrastructure, advancing U.S. scientific leadership, combating global climate change with renewable and cleaner energy technologies, and providing security against nuclear threats.

Certain members opposed the legislation because of specific provisions. Rep. Scalise (R-LA) opposed it because, he said, provisions in the House-passed version that ?would have directed the Corps of Engineers to pursue a much safer level of flood protection for the New Orleans region? had been removed in the final version. Rep. Deal (R-GA) and Rep. Scott (D-GA) opposed the final version of the bill because it included language from the Senate version that directed the Corps of Engineers to calculate certain water flows in Georgia. Rep. Deal said this will ?inject (the Corps of Engineers) into a controversy that has been going on for decades in the federal courts . . . (and) to spend Corps dollars (in this way) . . . is a true waste of federal money.?

Many Republicans opposed passage of the measure because of its funding levels. Rep. Sessions (R-TX) said ?the increase in spending over last year's level and destructive initiatives that the Democrat majority continues to pursue . . . have only killed jobs and led to record deficits . . . The fiscal year 2010 energy and water appropriation conference report . . .is . . . above last year's level, and this is in addition to the $58.7 billion provided in (the previously-passed legislation designed to deal with the economic downturn in the economy) . . . this bill does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 308-114. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and seventy Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and two Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result the House approved and sent on to the Senate the final version of the fiscal year 2010 energy and water development funding bill.

The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 3183, the bill providing $35.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 funding for energy and water programs. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was held between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of the final version that was negotiated in the conference. The resolution restricted procedural objections, such as points of order, that ordinarily could be raised against spending bills such as this one.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the support for the rule. She said that H.R. 3183, for which the rule set the terms for debate, will ?keep communities safe from flooding, invest in clean energy and renewable technologies, fight nuclear proliferation, and create jobs through infrastructure development.? Matsui noted that the conference agreement provided $27 billion for the Department of Energy ?to help fund clean energy development and perform basic scientific research.? She also noted that the bill ?takes a responsible approach toward nuclear energy by providing $700 million in that area . . . .?

Matsui concluded her remarks by pointing to the funds in the legislation for infrastructure, saying as ?we rebuild our infrastructure, we rebuild our economy. The infrastructure funding in this conference report before us today will continue this pattern of creating jobs.?

Members of the Republican minority repeated the complaint it had been making about what they said was the unfair practice of limiting the number of amendments and the points of order that could be offered or raised on spending bills such as H.R. 3183. The Democratic majority had been responding to those complaints by asserting that the limitations were required in order to meet the goal of passing spending bills before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. In recent years, many spending bills had not been passed before the beginning of the fiscal year to which they applied.

Rep Sessions (R-TX) argued that the Democratic majority ?for the first time in history shut down the appropriation process by placing extremely restrictive rules on every single appropriation bill that has come to the floor of the House this year . . . There are hundreds of good amendments . . . by all of my colleagues which were rejected in this unprecedented fashion. Now that this House has finished all the appropriation bills, you would think that my friends on the other side of the aisle would allow for an appropriate time and an appropriate process for consideration of the conference reports . . . for Members to be heard from and for us to go back to a process which this House was used to in its precedents for so many years.?   

Regarding the substance of the funding bill, Sessions said ?the increase in spending over last year's level and destructive initiatives that the Democrat majority continues to pursue . . . have only killed jobs and led to record deficits . . . the only thing up to now that (the Democrats) really have accomplished is record deficits, record spending and record unemployment numbers all across America. The fiscal year 2010 energy and water appropriation conference report . . . is . . . above last year's level, and this is in addition to the $58.7 billion provided in (the previously-passed legislation designed to deal with the economic downturn in the economy) . . . this bill does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 239-181. All 234 ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result the House was able to begin formal debate on the final version of the fiscal year 2010 energy and water development funding bill that was negotiated between the House and Senate.

(H.R. 2892) The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Homeland Security. As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was scheduled between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill.

This was a vote on a motion by Rep. Rogers (R-KY) for the House to instruct its representatives to the conference on a few matters. One of the positions was to insist on a prohibition of the transfer to the United States of terrorism suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. A second was to insist on a prohibition of the publication of pictures of the prisoners. The third was to require that the final version of the bill agreed on in the conference be made public at least 72 hours before being considered on the House floor.

Rep. Rogers, arguing in support of his motion, said its purpose is ?protecting the American people from all threats, including the warped intentions of terrorists and radical extremists.? He noted that ?the Obama Administration has insisted the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay be shuttered within the year. But what have we seen during that time in preparation for that? Absolutely nothing . . .? Rogers added: ?(N)ow . . . the administration is thinking of releasing up to 75 of the detainees there . . . this motion prohibits the granting of any immigration benefit for any reason to these detainees. Without such a benefit, there is no legal way to bring these terrorists to American soil . . . That means these terrorists cannot be granted the same constitutional rights as American citizens. After all, these detainees are enemy combatants caught on the battlefield . . . and they should not be granted legal standing in our criminal courts . . . .?

Regarding the instructions to prohibit the release of photographs, Rogers approvingly quoted President Obama saying: ?(N)othing would be gained from the release of the detainee photos other than allowing our enemies to paint our troops with a broad, damning, and inaccurate brush.'' Regarding the 72 hour requirement, the Republican minority had been arguing during the entire congressional session that the Democratic majority had been rushing important and complex bills to the House floor without giving Members adequate time to review them.

Rep. Price (D-NC) opposed the motion. He argued that the instruction not to allow the bringing of any prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay to the United States for the purpose of prosecution ?goes against basic American principles, as well as basic American interests. People are to be given due process and access to a fair trial in this country, and it is certainly in this country's interest to bring these people to trial, to dispose of their cases.? He added that the instruction Rep. Rogers proposed is ?basically saying that our judicial and law enforcement officials are unable to handle these criminals here in the United States, and that our country's core values and interests do not apply in these cases. That's just wrong. The U.S. has successfully tried dangerous terrorists before . . . .?

Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee, also opposed the motion. He argued that the Guantanamo Bay prison problem was created by the previous Bush Administration, which, he said ?had no process by which to separate the merely criminal or the merely misguided from the truly evil. And as a result . . . the United States . . . has come to be seen by some these days as a pretty major apologist for torture and imprisonment without review or remedy.? Obey also said the Guantanamo Bay facility had to be closed and its prisoners transferred to the U.S., if necessary, because the prison ?has become a major liability to this country in the court of world opinion and in some cases has become a recruiting ground for the very forces that we wish to contain.?

Rep. Price also opposed the instruction requiring 72 hours before the bill can be considered.  He said ?this bill has been a long time in the making . . . it's a thoroughly vetted bill, and the issues in this bill have been thoroughly examined.?

The motion passed by a vote of 258-163. One hundred and seventy-eight Republicans and eighty Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-two Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result the House conferees were instructed to insist on a prohibition of the transfer to the United States of terrorism suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison, on a ban on the publication of pictures of the prisoners, and on a requirement that the final version of the bill be made public at least 72 hours before being considered on the House floor.

H.R. 2442 contained six new projects to be part of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program that were expected to save 2.6 billion gallons of water annually. This was a vote on a motion to suspend the usual House rules and pass the legislation.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) was a leading supporter of the bill. He described the projects it authorized as being part of an ?innovative new program . . . that reduces (California?s) demands for fresh water from the (San Francisco) Bay-Delta. California had been experiencing a long period of water shortage problems. Miller argued that the six water projects in the bill ?add enough water to the system to meet the needs of 24,225 households? in the San Francisco Bay area. He added, ?more importantly, these water projects will help the state as a whole . . . We cannot solve California's water situation without a significant investment in recycling wastewater and putting it to beneficial use. This program is a smart and efficient way to conserve water supplies, lessen our impact on our natural resources, and create jobs and support local businesses.?

Miller concluded his remarks by saying the bill ?authorizes cities across the Bay Area to join in a strong federal-state -local partnership that is providing our region a sustainable and reliable clean water supply.?

Water issues in California had become controversial matters. There was an ongoing drought in the state, and a court decision had limited the flow of water in certain of the state?s rivers to protect the habitat of certain fish. The combination of these events had caused problems for the farmers in the Central Valley of California. Earlier in the session, Rep. Nunes (R-CA) had unsuccessfully offered an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have overcome the court decision and increased the flow of water to the Central Valley.

In response to a request from Rep. Nunes, Republicans decided to oppose any California water-related bill, including this one, that did not allow for a vote on an amendment to deal with the issue. H.R. 2442 was being debated under a procedure that did not permit such an amendment. That procedure suspended the usual House rules, and limited the time for debate as well as preventing any amendment to be offered. The procedure also required a two-thirds vote for passage, rather than the usual majority.

The vote was 240-170 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and thirty -eight Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. Since the two-thirds vote required for passage under this procedure was not achieved, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act was not approved. The failure to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote did not prevent the bill from being reconsidered under regular House rules that require a simple majority for passage.

The House and Senate had passed differing versions of H.R. 2997, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As is usual procedure in such situations, a conference was scheduled between representatives of the two bodies to develop a final version of the bill. This was a motion by Rep. Kingston (R-GA) for the House to instruct its representatives to the conference not to agree to a final version of H.R. 2997 unless it is made available to them 72 hours before they vote on it.

Rep. Kingston, arguing on behalf of his motion, referenced major legislation that had been considered earlier in the session which the Republicans had opposed. He said that Members had not had adequate time to review those measures before voting on them. Kingston then argued generally against moving bills too quickly, and indirectly criticized the very controversial health care bill that the House Democrats were supporting.

Kingston did acknowledge that ?Republicans, as well as Democrats, have been guilty of last-minute bill changing and last-minute arm twisting . . . .? He said ?what we are asking . . . is that Members have time to read bills by putting (them) on the table for 72 hours. That's all that this motion does.?

Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), who chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R 2997, opposed the motion. She said that she is ?someone who agrees that we need to look at bills, read them, understand them, et cetera?, but then added that the House has ?had a thorough examination of all the issues that are in this appropriations bill.? DeLauro noted that the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year, for which the bill provided funding, was starting in two days. She said ?(T)here is that time constraint and this motion to instruct would really tie the hands of the conferees, in trying to be able to move forward given the weeks that have gone into producing the conference report.?

The motion passed by a vote of 359-41. One hundred and ninety-three Democrats and all one hundred and sixty-six Republicans voted ?aye?. Forty-one other Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. A spokeswoman for the Congressional Progressive Caucus suggested that those voting against the motion did so because of their opposition to imposing any formal restriction on the time when this or any other urgently-needed bill could be brought to the floor.

As a result of the vote, the House conferees were instructed not to approve a final version of the 2010 Agriculture Department and FDA funding bill unless it had been available for review for 72 hours.

H.R. 905 modified the boundary of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve in Lake Huron off the coast of Michigan. The existing boundaries of the sanctuary currently contain more than 100 nationally significant historic shipwrecks. This was a vote on passage of the bill expanding the boundaries of the sanctuary to include more than 100 additional shipwrecks. This expansion would put these other shipwrecks under the protection, research, education and public outreach capabilities of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

Rep. Bordallo (D-Guam), who was leading support for H.R. 905, referred to it as ?bipartisan legislation?. Two of the four sponsors of the bill were Republican congressman from Michigan. Bardallo called the sanctuary a federal-state partnership with a unique focus on preserving the large collection of underwater cultural resources. She argued that, ?(B)y authorizing an expansion of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the affected local communities would receive the benefits of having additional historical resources highlighted and preserved, as well as increased tourism, which is an important driver for economic growth of this part of northeastern lower Michigan.? According to her, the bill was ?strongly supported by the Obama Administration, the State of Michigan, the affected counties, the communities, the local chambers of commerce, and the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council.?

Rep. Wittman (R-VA), speaking for the Republicans, noted that there ?have been concerns voiced on this side of the aisle about the potential increased costs of this boundary expansion that expands the current sanctuary by almost nine times its current size.  While the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is entirely within the waters of the State of Michigan, concern has been raised that the cost of this expansion and any future needs will fall on the federal government. Not only will this increase the federal costs for managing the resources that are entirely within state waters, but it could also have a negative effect on the other national marine sanctuaries.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 286-107. Two hundred and twenty-eight Democrats and fifty-eight Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and five Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay? As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill expanding the boundary of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2918, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on House passage of the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate on fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress, which was the first conference report providing funding for 2010 to be completed and considered by the House.

Since the conference report for H.R. 2918 was the first to come to the House floor, the Democratic majority attached a ?continuing resolution? to it. That resolution provided the spending authority to keep all departments and agencies of the federal government operating for a few weeks into the 2010 fiscal year at their 2009 fiscal year levels. Without that spending authority, the government would have had to shut down most of its operations.

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), chairs the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the House version of H.R.2918. She said the conference report  ?preserves all of the priorities of the House, and . . .  the Legislative Branch bill is on time and under budget . . . this package was developed in full cooperation with the minority and represents a fully bipartisan agreement.?

Rep. Aderholt(R-AL), the Ranking Republican on the subcommittee that developed the House version of H.R.2918, said that is ?is a good bill?. However, Aderholt then added ?while I support the underlying bill . . . I regret that because of the attachment of the continuing resolution to this conference report I am unable to support this agreement.? He argued that ?we need a clean continuing resolution and a clean Legislative Branch appropriations bill . . . .?, and claimed that attaching the continuing resolution to H.R. 2918 ?is simply not a reasonable or responsible kind of governing . . . .?

Rep. Lewis(R-CA) is the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee. He objected to having the House debate the 2010 spending bill for the Congress before it debated the spending bills for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security or Veterans Affairs. Lewis claimed: ?(M)embers who are concerned about approving their staff's budget before approving budgets for our veterans, our troops, or the homeland are left with a dilemma of the leadership's making. House Members are faced with the Hobson's choice of either approving their own budget or shutting down the government. Nothing could be more cynical.? Lewis added: ?(I)t's not the continuing resolution that I object to but rather that it's being attached to legislation funding the internal operations of Congress rather than higher priority legislation . . . .?   

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), had argued during a previous debate related to the H.R. 2918 conference report that the continuing resolution needed to be attached to the Legislative Branch spending bill because the Senate had been slow in approving the other fiscal year 2010 spending bills, and the authority to continue spending ?is necessary to ensure that vital programs continue to receive funding.? McGovern had also acknowledged that ?none of us on either side of the aisle are happy with continuing resolutions. They have been used for years under Democratic and Republican majorities, but they are clearly not ideal.?

The vote was 217-190. Two hundred and twelve Democrats and five Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty- two Republicans and twenty-eight Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the conference report containing the agreement between the House and Senate providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress as well as keeping the federal government operating for a few weeks into the 2010 fiscal year.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of H.R. 2918, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for Congress. When the two Houses of Congress have passed different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That conference report must then be passed by both Houses before it can be sent to the president to be signed into law. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the House debate of the conference report on H.R. 2918.

The conference report for H.R. 2918 also contained a ?continuing resolution?, which provided authority to keep all departments and agencies of the federal government operating for six weeks into the 2010 fiscal year essentially at their 2009 fiscal year levels. There were some additional funds added to the 2009 levels for veterans benefits and other purposes.

The conference report for H.R. 2918 was being considered five days before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year and no spending bill for the new fiscal year had yet been approved by Congress. Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who was leading the support for the rule for the measure, said this was because the Senate had been slow in approving new fiscal year 2010 spending bills, and the authority to continue spending ?is necessary to ensure that vital programs continue to receive funding.?

Much of the debate on the resolution focused on the authority it gave to keep the government operating into fiscal year 2010. Rep. McGovern acknowledged that ?none of us on either side of the aisle are happy with continuing resolutions. They have been used for years under Democratic and Republican majorities, but they are clearly not ideal.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule. He argued that the Democratic majority was ?scrambling . . . to buy more time to get our work done with the continuing resolution . . . .? Dreier repeated the complaint the Republican minority had been making against this and other rules that spending bills were being debated under terms that limited the number of amendments and points of order that Members could offer. The Democrats had consistently responded by arguing that this limitation was necessary in order to complete 2010 spending bills before the start of the 2010 fiscal year.

Dreier said that ?continuing resolutions are not unusual, and we recognize that on this side of the aisle . . . What's different is the fact that the Democratic majority shut down debate on our appropriations bills, ostensibly for the sake of completing our spending bills on time . . . They said that there was no time for debate and deliberation while the clock was ticking . . . Now . . . it would appear that the rights of Democrats and Republicans have been trampled on for the sake of a goal that has not come close to being achieved.?

Rep. McGovern responded by saying that ?when the Republicans were in charge here, continuing resolutions were a regular part of the process . . . they got nothing done and dumped all of their appropriations work on the incoming Democratic Congress . . . the bill before us . . . is important and it needs to be passed.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 209-189. Two hundred and eight Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and twenty-five Democrats voted ?nay? As a result, the House was able to begin formally debating the conference report containing the 2010 funding bill for the Congress, and the continuing resolution that would keep the executive branch of the government operating into the early part of fiscal year 2010.

H.R. 3631, The Medicare Premium Fairness Act, would maintain the 2010 premium payments for Medicare Part B at their 2009 levels. Medicare Part B is the portion of Medicare that covers physicians? services, home health care services, and many outpatient services. H.R. 3631 was drafted in response to the fact that the Medicare Part B premium was scheduled to increase although social security payments to seniors were not scheduled to increase. Under usual House rules, Members may offer amendments to any bill that is being debated. This resolution would allow the House to suspend its usual rules and consider H.R. 3631 under terms that would not permit any amendments.

The bill to maintain the premium payments at their 2009 levels had bipartisan support. However, the question of whether to consider the legislation under terms that did not permit amendments was controversial. The Republican minority had been complaining since the beginning of the congressional session about what they claimed were unfair tactics used by the Democratic majority in limiting the ability of Members to offer amendments. The minority argued that this ability was an essential right of every Member in his or her capacity of representing constituents. Those objections had become particularly intense during the previous few months, when a series of spending bills had been debated under terms that restricted the number of amendments that Members could offer.

Rep. Matsui (D-CA) was leading the effort on behalf of the resolution permitting the bill to be considered without amendments. She argued that the resolution would allow the House ?to consider time-sensitive legislation under an expedited process to shield millions of Medicare beneficiaries from harmful premium increases for the coming year.? Matsui also argued ?that inaction is not an option (and) . . . now is the worst possible moment to saddle our seniors with increased premiums.?

Matsui cited the support for H.R. 3631 from the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, and the Alliance for Retired Americans, and argued: ?(B)y acting quickly and decisively on today's bill, we underscore our commitment to preserve Medicare for millions of people . . . But we do not have much time to act . . The (rules) suspension authority . . . will allow the House to move quickly and decisively to move this fix over to the Senate. The sooner we have this bill on the President's desk, the better off millions of Medicare beneficiaries will be.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was leading the opposition to the resolution that prohibited amendments from being offered to the Medicaid bill. He first agreed that the combination of no social security increase and an increase in Medicare Part B ?would leave seniors with less income next year if Congress does not act. So I support the underlying legislation.? He added, however, that: ?(A)lthough I support the . . . legislation . . . I have reservations with the process the majority is proposing today.? Diaz-Balart then referenced a statement by a Democratic member of the House Rules Committee, who he said, referred to the process of suspending the rules in the manner proposed as being ?outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Diaz-Balart went on to say: ?The reason members of the majority previously opposed rules such as this is because they block Members from offering amendments . . . That is a very important procedural vehicle. Yet today, the majority considers this process to be completely legitimate. So it's interesting how they thought it was wrong when they were in the minority, but once in the majority, it's a fine process.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 235-182. All two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Ten other Democrats joined all one seventy-two Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the bill designed to mitigate the impact of the increased Medicare Part B premiums on senior citizens was allowed to be debated without permitting members to offer amendments to it.

In recent years, Congress had often failed to pass spending bills for fiscal years before the beginning of those fiscal years. To maintain government operations on a temporary basis, Congress adopted the practice of passing ?continuing resolutions?, which kept Executive Branch departments and agencies operating at their previously-approved levels until it could pass spending bills for the new fiscal year. The continuing resolution issue had become contentious, with whatever party was in the minority criticizing the majority party for not being able to get spending bills passed prior to the fiscal year to which they applied.

Among the first appropriation bills for fiscal year 2010 that the House and Senate had each passed was the one that funded the operations of the Legislative Branch. This occurred shortly before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. The House Republican minority was concerned that a continuing resolution would be attached to the final Legislative Branch funding bill that would be worked out between the two houses. The attachment of the resolution would occur in the House-Senate conference, where Congress typically works out differences in bills passed by the two Houses. The Republicans wanted the Congress to develop a separate continuing resolution unrelated to the Legislative Branch funding bill. If an unrelated continuing resolution were developed, there would be a separate vote on it. The debate that would occur on this separate vote would give the Republicans an opportunity to focus on the fact that the Democratic majority had not been able to complete the spending bills for the 2010 fiscal year by the beginning of that fiscal year.

Rep. Alderholt (R-AL), who was leading the effort to separate out a continuing resolution, moved to have the House instruct the Members who would be its representatives in the House-Senate conference on the bill not to add a continuing resolution to that bill. Alderholt first acknowledged that: ?(I)f we do not pass a continuing resolution, our nation will face a potentially devastating government-wide shutdown.? He then said ?(H)owever, by attaching the continuing resolution to this Legislative Branch appropriation bill, the majority is forcing Members to choose between voting for our own office budgets or voting for a government shutdown. The majority is also using this parliamentary gimmick to avoid certain debate or votes on the floor that would occur under the normal continuing resolution process.?

Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who was leading the opposition to the effort to separate out the continuing resolution, argued that the motion ?ties the hands of the conference committee . . . and our preference in the House is to make sure the conferees have as much flexibility as possible to ensure that the government can continue to function.?  Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, also opposed the effort to separate out the continuing resolution. Obey noted that, in 2006, the Republicans ?then in the majority--attached the continuing resolution to the Department of Defense appropriation bill. Only two Republican Members of the House voted against that. Mr. Aderholt voted for that process . . . So it would seem to me considerably ill-advised for this House to say that in order to keep the government open, we are not allowed to follow the very same procedure which was followed by the other side of the aisle . . . .?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 191-213. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twelve Democrats and one Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House Members of the House-Senate conference on the 2010 fiscal year Legislative Branch funding bill retained the ability to add a continuing resolution to that bill, which would keep Executive Branch departments and agencies operating.

In recent years, Congress had often failed to pass spending bills for fiscal years before the beginning of those fiscal years. To maintain government operations on a temporary basis, Congress had adopted the practice of passing ?continuing resolutions?, which kept operations going at their previously-approved levels, until it could pass a spending bill for the new fiscal year. The continuing resolution issue had become contentious, with whatever party was in the minority criticizing the majority party for not being able to get spending bills passed prior to the fiscal year to which they applied.

Among the first appropriation bills for fiscal year 2010 that the House and Senate had each passed was the one that funded the operations of the Legislative Branch. This occurred shortly before the beginning of the 2010 fiscal year. The House Republican minority was concerned that a continuing resolution would be attached to the final Legislative Branch funding bill that would be worked out between the two houses. The attachment of the resolution would occur in the House-Senate conference, where Congress typically works out differences in bills passed by the two Houses. The Republicans wanted the Congress to develop a separate continuing resolution unrelated to the Legislative Branch funding bill. If an unrelated resolution were developed, there would be a separate vote on it. The debate that would occur on this separate vote would give the Republicans an opportunity to focus on the fact that the Democratic majority had not been able to complete the spending bills for the 2010 fiscal year by the beginning of that fiscal year.

There were a number of differences between the House and Senate-passed bills to provide funding for the Legislative Branch. The Senate had sent its version to the House and formally requested that the House agree to that version. A motion was made in the House that it not agree to the Senate version, and that it request a conference.

This motion was technically on whether the House should move to an immediate vote on requesting a conference with the Senate to resolve the differences on the House and Senate-passed spending measures for the Legislative Branch. The Republicans opposed the motion because of their concern that a continuing resolution would be attached in the conference to the Legislative Branch funding bill.

The motion passed by a vote, along almost straight party lines, of 240-171. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House formally disagreed with the Senate version of the 2010 fiscal year Legislative Branch funding bill, requested that a conference be held with the Senate to work out a final version of the bill, and no prohibition was adopted against adding a continuing resolution to that final version.

This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 324, a bill that designated the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a national heritage area. National heritage areas are regions of historical and cultural significance that are given this particular designation to encourage their historic preservation and to promote their public appreciation. The Santa Cruz Valley is one of America's longest inhabited regions, with traces of human occupation extending back more than 12,000 years. The designated heritage area included two national parks and two national historic trails, many prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, as well as state and county parks, designated scenic highways back-country trails and 32 museums and 102 buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), one of the sponsors of the bill, said that the designation of the region as a national heritage area ?would allow the National Park Service to support existing and future state and local conservation efforts through Federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance.? He also argued that it ?will be a valuable tool to promote economic development and tourism in . . . an area that has been hard hit by the downturn in the economy.?

Rep. Grijalva also noted that the bill ?is strongly supported throughout the Santa Cruz Valley. All incorporated local governments have supported it and have given this proposal their formal support. Other supporters include two Native American tribes, chambers of commerce and other civic organizations, the Arizona Office of Tourism and other tourism councils, the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association, conservation groups and developers . . . .?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) led the opposition to the bill. He first said that ?Republicans support the wise and responsible stewardship of Federal lands. We also strongly believe the protection and conservation of natural areas is important.? He then went on to say: ?(Y)et it need not be done at the expense of our homeland security or the private property rights of U.S. citizens.?

Hastings noted that ?some of the most heavily trafficked drug smuggling and human trafficking routes in the United States would be designated as a national heritage area under this bill. To make matters worse, the bill lacks sufficient protections to ensure that border security enforcement, drug interdiction and illegal immigration control is not restricted, is not hindered, and is not impeded by this legislation . . . It is critical that policies meant to conserve natural areas or to preserve or promote unique areas in our nation do not become corridors for illegal activities that threaten the safety and security of United States citizens.?

Hastings then dealt with the effect of the measure on the property rights of those in the heritage area. He acknowledged that ?this legislation does include language that expresses support for property protection.? Hastings then went on to say: ?(H)owever, the bill omits stronger protections that have been included in many of the other recently established heritage areas. What should be included in this bill is an assurance that the written consent of property owners be acquired before their property is included into the planning activities of the heritage area's management entities. Property owners should also be permitted the choice to opt out of the heritage area's boundaries if they choose.?

Hastings cautioned that the bill ?would allow a basis for ambitious federal land managers to claim that now they have a mandate and millions of federal dollars to interfere with local decisions affecting the private property of others. The reality is that there are likely a great number of property owners who have no idea that they are being included in this heritage area designation. After all we are talking about over 3,300 square miles. This House should insist that the weak and ineffectual provisions of the bill are strengthened with real and meaningful protections that protect all landowners with the choice to opt out of this designation.?

Rep. Rahall (D-WVA), who chairs the Natural Resources Committee, responded to Hastings. Rahall noted that no provision of H.R. 324 ?abridges the rights of any property owner (whether public or private), including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the national heritage area.'' He also noted that ?(N)ational heritage areas have been around for 25 years . . . Well over 50 million people live, work and recreate in a heritage area . . . and not one of them has been adversely affected. That's because heritage areas have no regulatory powers, no zoning authority, no power of eminent domain.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 281-142. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and twenty-nine Republicans voted ?aye?. All one hundred and forty-two ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House was passed and sent on to the Senate legislation establishing the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area.

H.R. 324 designated the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a national heritage area. National heritage areas are regions of historical and cultural significance that are given this particular designation to encourage their historic preservation and to promote their public appreciation. Some Republicans had expressed concern that the designation of national heritage areas could interfere with the rights of property owners in the designated regions. They had also expressed concern about the results of making this particular region, which was close to the U.S.-Mexican border, a national heritage area because of the potential negative effect on the efforts to prevent the importation of illegal drugs from Mexico.

In response to the concerns about the rights of property owners and the importation of illegal drugs, Rep. Bishop (R-UT) moved that the bill be recommitted (sent back) to committee. His motion mandated that the committee add language requiring that each property owner give consent before its property could be included in the new Santa Cruz Valley heritage area. The motion also mandated that language be added to the bill requiring that the Department of Homeland Security be consulted on land use plans related to the heritage area, and that none of those plans interfere with the operations of the department.

Rep. Bishop acknowledged that there is an argument that the requirement that all property owners agree to be included in the new heritage area, is ?burdensome and difficult.? He then noted ?when tax time comes, the government entities have an easy time finding all the property owners in an area. We could do the same thing, because the matter is not how efficient it is or how easy it is. The matter should be that private property rights are not a burden to government, and they should be respected in every way that is possible, especially in these areas where the National Park Service, who will be administering this, does not have a celebrated history of respecting private property rights and finding unique ways of having willing sellers.?

Regarding the need for the language relating to the Department of Homeland Security, Bishop claimed that, currently, ?when a Border Patrol agent crosses into a national park, he has to get out of his car, park it and walk . . . the Border Patrol has to consult with the National Park Service before they can put up an antenna on that border.? He argued that the language he proposed be added to the bill would ?for the first time, say . . . that Homeland Security must be consulted in coming up with the land use plans.? He argued that the change would make the department ?an equal partner? in the planning and ?(R)ight now they are not . . . When it comes to border security, this bill is a perfect effort for us to move forward . . . .?

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), who sponsored the legislation, opposed the motion. He first argued that ?nowhere in this legislation is there an infringement, a taking of private property rights.? Grijalva then noted that forty-nine other national heritage areas had been created over the previous thirty years and, there had not been ?one incident where a private property owner has been forced, coerced into being part of or permitting their private property to be used as a designation.? He also claimed that the bill already contained language requiring full protection of private property interests.

Grijalva further argued that the requirement would create a serious administrative burden, ?since close to a quarter of a million property owners (would have to) be notified and asked to either be part of or not be part of this heritage area.? He also claimed the process ?would create a swiss cheese designation for that (new heritage) area . . . .? Regarding the language Rep. Bishop proposed relating to the Department of Homeland Security, Grijalva argued that the bill already contained provisions ensuring the ability of the department ?plus all other local enforcement--the sheriffs, local police, tribal police, et cetera . . . to carry out their mission and enforce the law . . . and that the heritage area in no way would impinge, infringe or restrict that ability.?

The motion passed by a vote of 259-167. All one hundred and seventy-four Republicans and eighty-five Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-seven Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, voted ?nay?. As a result, language was added to the legislation establishing the Santa Cruz Valley national heritage area that required each property owner to give consent before his/her property could be included in the new area, and that required the Department of Homeland Security to be consulted in the planning process for the area.

Legislation had been developed to designate the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a national heritage area. National heritage areas are regions of historical and cultural significance that are given this particular designation to encourage their preservation and to promote their public appreciation. The National Park Service has ten criteria for proposed heritage areas. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms under which the House could debate the Santa Cruz Valley legislation. Under House procedures, before a bill can be debated, the House must first approve a resolution containing the ?rule? setting the terms for its consideration.

The Santa Cruz Valley is one of America's longest inhabited regions, with traces of human occupation extending back more than 12,000 years. The designated heritage area included two national parks and two national historic trails, many prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, as well as state and county parks, designated scenic highways back-country trails and 32 museums and 102 buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Rep Cardoza (D-CA) was leading the support for the rule. He said that designating the Santa Cruz Valley as a heritage area would allow the National Park Service to support state and local conservation efforts in the heritage area ?through federal recognition, seed money and technical assistance. This simply means that local groups will have the resources they need to educate the public about the historic, cultural and natural value of the area.? Cardoza argued that approving the legislation will help ?ensure that America's history and natural wonderment is protected for future generations.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), was leading the effort against the rule. She first objected on  procedural grounds. Foxx noted that the legislation designating the Santa Cruz Valley region as a national heritage area, for which the rule would permit debate, had not gone through the usual committee process. Foxx also opposed the legislation because of its cost. She noted that it ?authorizes another $15 million in taxpayer dollars (at a time when) . . . The National Park Service currently has billions of dollars in maintenance backlogs.? She also noted that Congress had ?created 10 new national heritage areas at a cost of $103.5 million? earlier in the session and that the bill ?spends more taxpayer dollars to add yet another heritage area to a system already overburdened.? Foxx pointed to the fact that ?the U.S. national debt stands at $11.8 trillion and counting . . .  This year's deficit alone is expected to soar past $1.8 trillion . . . The time to rein in Federal spending is long overdue. Voting down this rule will take one small step in harnessing the federal government's spending.?

Foxx further argued against the rule and the bill because it ?could lead to restrictive federal zoning and land use planning that usurps private property rights and blocks necessary energy development.? She added that ?national heritage areas are . . . administered by a central managing entity, which includes the federal government . . . This means federal management plans can restrict our residential and commercial property owners to make use of their private property without any notice or warning.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 244-177 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy-two Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin its formal debate on the legislation establishing the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona as a national heritage area.

This was a vote on final passage of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. The bill made a major change in the federal student loan program. It provided that all new federal student loans be originated directly by the federal government rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans. The legislation was designed, in part, to hold down the interest rate on federal education loans, and to make it easier for families to apply for college financial aid. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had estimated that shifting new educational lending from a guaranteed third party loan program to a direct loan program would result in budgetary savings.

H.R. 3221, among other things, also significantly increased federal scholarship and grant program and funding for historically black colleges and community colleges. In addition, it included provisions to help veterans attend college under the GI Bill and to give loan forgiveness to members of the military who are called up to duty in the middle of an academic year.

Rep. Hinojosa (D-TX), one of the leading supporters of H.R. 3221, said America?s ?competitiveness and innovation in the world depends on our ability to invest in human capital and train a workforce for the 21st century?, and that the bill was designed to help reach the goal of having the U.S. ?produce the most college graduates in the world by 2020 and makes our workforce strong and competitive.?

Referring to the provisions changing the student loan program, Hinojosa said the bill ?provides low-income and middle class families with reliable, affordable, high-quality direct Federal student loans, and simplifies the application process for financial aid.? He also claimed that the legislation is ?fiscally responsible and helps reduce the deficit. It . . . directs $8 billion in savings back to the U.S. Treasury to help pay down the deficit.?

Rep. Kline (R-MN) opposed the bill and argued that the move to a student loan program that only allows for direct federal loans is a ?government takeover.? He noted that students already had an option of direct federal loans or federally-guaranteed loans issued by private lenders. Kline argued that the change will put into place ?a one-size-fits-all federal loan model that requires the U.S. Treasury to directly lend tens of billions of dollars each year--tens of billions of dollars we don't have, and will be forced to borrow.? Kline argued that the best method would be a ?competition? between direct federal lending and federally-guaranteed loans by private lenders and ?the best program ought to win in the marketplace.?

Kline also opposed the bill because, he said, it ?is awash with new entitlement programs, including a new early childhood program to develop and fund programs at the state level. He claimed that the bill ?will cost closer to $15 billion over the next 10 years--and when market risk is factored in, the cost spikes to nearly $50 billion more.?

The vote was 253-171. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty- seven Republicans and four Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate legislation providing that all new federal student loans be originated directly by the federal government, and authorizing and extending several major education and school construction programs.

H.R. 3221 amended the Higher Education Act of 1965. Among many other things, the Higher Education Act of 1965 had previously provided federal grants to ACORN, a nation-wide community organization that focuses on housing and voter registration. It had been very active in registering minority voters during the 2008 presidential campaign. ACORN had become an increasingly controversial organization, with Republicans and conservatives, in particular, arguing that it had engaged in numerous improper practices. Immediately before the consideration of H.R. 3221, it was widely reported in the press that some of the representatives of ACORN gave advice about methods for circumventing eligibility requirements of federal housing programs.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Issa (R-CA) to send H.R. 3221 back to committee, with instructions to add language prohibiting any funds from it being awarded to ACORN. Rep. Issa argued that ACORN ?is an organization with a long history of criminal indictments and activities . . . .? He claimed that it engaged in child trafficking, prostitution, and ?many other criminal activities, including voter fraud.? Issa noted that the Census Bureau, which had been using the organization, had ended its funding of ACORN ?to ensure the integrity of their operations.? Issa cited the recent reports about what he termed ?ACORN employees' alleged complicity in illegal schemes? and said: ?(T)o continue funding this organization would . . . be an outrage.?

Issa concluded his remarks by saying: ?(A)n analysis of federal data shows that ACORN has received more than $53 million in direct funding from the Federal Government since 1994, and has likely received substantially more indirectly through states and localities that receive federal block grants. To fully protect taxpayers, we must enact a comprehensive ban on federal funding for this (organization) . . . . ?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who was leading the effort on behalf of H.R. 3221, said he supported the motion. There were no statements made in opposition.

The vote was 345-75. One hundred and seventy-three Republicans and one hundred and seventy-two Democrats voted ?aye?. All seventy-five ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats, including many of the House Members identified as being the most progressive.  As a result, language was added to the bill amending the Higher Education Act, which prohibited any funds it authorized from being awarded to ACORN.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep Guthrie (R-KY) to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. That legislation was designed so that all new federal student loans would be originated directly by the federal government, rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans. The amendment would have cancelled that change, and instead extended and expanded the existing federally-guaranteed loan program operated by financial institutions. The amendment would also have created a commission to develop a new private sector model for student lending. In addition, the amendment would have removed a number of new educational spending programs from the bill, including one that greatly expanded federal funding for community colleges.

Speaking on behalf of his amendment, Rep. Guthrie said the current loan program should be expanded because that will preserve and ensure ?stability and continuity for both students and schools? by using programs that are ?working on campuses all around the country . . . .? He cited, as evidence of the effectiveness of the guaranteed student loan program, the fact that colleges and universities ?would have joined the Direct Loan Program by now, but they haven't.? Guthrie also argued that the current program ?provides a federal backstop to ensure there is no interruption in funding for students?, despite the ongoing credit shortage. He claimed that the current program ?offers the flexibility for private capital to return as economic conditions improve.?

Guthrie went on to say that continuing the existing program will give the government time ?to pursue real student loan reform?, will ?preserve choice and competition for borrowers preventing waste, fraud and abuse (and will avoid) . . . a massive infliction of debt on future generations.?

Rep. Andrews (D-NJ), acknowledged that the amendment, like H.R. 3221, ?recognizes the need for substantial reform in the federal student loan program.? However, he opposed the amendment, in part because it would ?saves about $17 billion less than the approach that (of) the underlying bill . . . (by subsidizing) private institutions that take a risk with taxpayer money.?  Andrews also criticized the amendment because it would remove the provisions that provided additional funding for community colleges that he said ?are burgeoning with new enrollees who need an education because of the tumultuous circumstances in our economy.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 165-265. All one hundred and sixty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. Eight other Republicans joined all two hundred and fifty-seven Democrats and voted ?nay?. As a result, the provisions under which the student loan program became a direct federal loan program operated by financial institutions, and in which aid was expanded to community colleges, both remained in H.R. 3221.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Foxx (R-NC) that would have eliminated the entire ?American Graduation Initiative?, a new twelve billion dollar program to reform and expand U.S. community colleges, from the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. The American Graduation Initiative was designed to help adjust community college curriculums so that Americans would learn the skills needed to compete with workers from other nations, create new online learning opportunities for students, and modernize community college facilities. The Initiative was proposed by President Obama, who said it would increase the effectiveness and graduation rates of community colleges.

Rep. Foxx began her remarks by noting that her background had been in education and that she is a strong supporter of community colleges. She claimed the American Graduation Initiative would be ?duplicative of programs already authorized under the Higher Education Act and the Workforce Investment Act?, and that eliminating it would reduce spending by $680 million between FY 2014 and 2019.

Foxx referred to the new provisions in H.R. 3221 that authorize federal grants to develop online course curricula, which her amendment would also have eliminated, as ?a step towards (a) federal curriculum for schools and colleges.? She claimed those provisions would interfere ?with the authority of states and localities to determine the curriculum that schools provide?. She further argued that it would waste ?taxpayer money to federally fund an online course initiative that's already being provided by 1,000 colleges and universities across the country.?

Foxx went on to say that the programs her amendment would have eliminated were effectively ?a welfare program for the states and the community colleges . . . .? She added that ?community colleges already have programs where they evaluate what they're doing. They have to justify their programs, and the state should be setting priorities and funding those things that are most needed in the state.?

Rep. Andrews (D-NJ), opposed the amendment. He cited a statement of support for American Graduation Initiative from the head of the Business Roundtable, which is the association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies. That statement read, in part: ?This Community College Initiative and the President's American Graduation Initiative reflect the fact that community colleges have emerged as important institutions where acquiring skills for new jobs and new careers will take place.'' Andrews added: ?(T)he United States cannot compete without the most highly skilled and motivated workers in the world, and . . . our odds of achieving that goal in the workforce are severely compromised if our community college sector is not strengthened.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 126-301. All one hundred and twenty-six ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. Forty-five other Republicans joined all two hundred and fifty-six Democrats and voted ?nay?. As a result, the new twelve billion dollar program to reform U.S. community colleges remained in H.R. 3221.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) that would have prevented areas that received school construction funds in the economic stimulus package from receiving funds authorized by a new federal school construction program. H.R.3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, created a new multi-billion dollar federal construction programs for elementary and secondary schools. H.R. 3221 also created a new construction program for community colleges: The bill already had a provision imposing a limitation on that new construction funding going to community colleges in areas that received stimulus funding.

Rep. McMorris Rodgers noted that: ?(W)e just passed $53 billion in the stimulus package that includes funding made available for school construction?. She said the amendment was based on the idea that ?once secure funds have been directed to one area for construction and repair, responsible governance tells us that any remaining funds should go to those areas that have not yet received the funding but have a demonstrated need.? 

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who was leading support for H.R. 3221, opposed the amendment. The reason he gave was that ?the record is starting to develop that very few if any of the school districts were able to use those (stimulus) funds for construction because . . . of the cuts that took place in almost every state across the country.? He said that the funds that school districts received from the stimulus package ?have been used to try to mitigate the firing of teachers, to continue to try to develop a reasonable class size, and (to meet) all of the other costs (of) . . . local school districts (which) were really very hard hit . . . from the downturn in local revenues (and) in state revenues.?   

Miller concluded his remarks by saying that ?opposition to this amendment is important so that these school districts can receive these funds to build clean, modern, and energy-efficient facilities.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 167-251. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and six Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, no restrictions were placed on the awarding of money authorized by the new federal K-12 school construction program to those areas that had received school construction funds in the economic stimulus package.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hoekstra (R-MI) that would have eliminated three new multi-billion dollar federal construction programs for elementary and secondary schools and community colleges. It was offered to H.R.3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009.

Rep. Hoekstra said he offered the amendment because he was opposed to what he termed ?the continued expansion of the role of the federal government in K-12 education?, which he claimed increases costs with ?little improvement in schools, in children's performance around the country.? He argued that the new construction programs authorized in H.R. 3221 represent further federal expansion when what should be done is ?giving back and yielding control for our kids' education back to parents, back to local schools and back to states.?

Hoekstra also complained about the fact that the burdensome restrictions that attach to the granting of the federal school construction funds. Hoekstra cited ?green standards? as an example. He went on to argue that these requirements create extensive and costly reporting requirements.

The result, Hoekstra claimed, is ?that for every construction dollar that we spend, maybe 60-65 cents of it will actually be spent on construction. The other 35 to 40 cents of that dollar will be spent on reporting requirements, applying for it, meeting Federal requirements, and those types of things . . . We will not end up having more construction; we will have less construction because Federal bureaucracy and Federal bureaucrats will end up siphoning a lot of this money . . . to make sure that the local school districts do what Washington bureaucrats want them to do and not what needs to be done in their local school districts.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who was leading support for H.R. 3221, opposed the amendment. He argued that when students ?have the availability of a clean, well-lit place, modern facilities, they in fact do better in school.? Miller then noted that ?community colleges are under tremendous pressure because of the economic dislocation from the recession that has taken place and continues to take place in so many communities and . . . as people are going back to the schools, we recognize the shortage of facilities that are there and what we are saying is this time we will lend a hand to those community colleges . . .?

Miller also said that this new construction funding ?comes at an important time for these local school districts because . . . they are under siege from the loss of revenues in many local districts because of the economic downturn. In some cases they have had to postpone these projects even though they are desperately needed.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 161-262. One hundred and fifty-five Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and sixteen Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, all the funds for the new school construction programs remained in H.R. 3221.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3221, The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. That bill authorized federal funding for combined public-private efforts to develop more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for cars, trucks and other vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The legislation provided $550 million for fiscal year 2010, and called for $10 million in increases for each of the following three years.

Rep. Gordon (D-TN), was leading the support for what he termed a bipartisan bill, which ?follows on recommendations of the National Academies of Science and a diverse group of stakeholders and is endorsed by the likes of . . . GM, Ford, Chrysler, the United Auto Workers Union . . . the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Gordon noted the ?strategic importance of diversifying our nation's vehicle sector through innovation in cleaner and more efficient technologies.? He then pointed to ?the current economic situation (which) has made it all the more difficult for companies to invest in the research and technology development to get us there.?

Gordon argued that the Department of Energy vehicle research programs ?play an invaluable role in filling this critical gap? and that the bill ?provides a critical foundation of support to ensure U.S. leadership in developing and producing the next generation of advanced vehicle technologies . . . It also makes important investments in areas such as vehicle manufacturing and medium- to heavy-duty vehicles research. It accomplishes this goal through continued partnership with industry and strengthened Department of Energy coordination with other federal research agencies.?

Rep. Hall (R-TX), was leading the Republicans who supported the bill. He said that H.R. 3221 would result in the development of ?cost-effective vehicle technologies for wide-scale utilization?, would allow ?for greater consumer choice (and) shorten technology penetration times?, would ensure ?balance and diversity in federal R&D investment?, and would strengthen ?public-private R&D partnerships . . . .?

Rep. Broun (R-GA) led an effort to reduce the new funding authorized in the bill. He said that the government is ?spending money at record rates (and) . . . we can all agree that showing just a tiny bit of fiscal responsibility is in all of our best interests.? Broun argued that money had already been approved for similar programs, and: ?The American taxpayers and future generations are on the hook for trillions of dollars in spending, borrowing, and interest payments over the coming decades. I'm simply asking for us to show a modicum of restraint. For simply put, isn't $550 million a year for a program that already has multiple funding sources enough? I think so.?

Broun also said ?there are some serious concerns with the amount of money being authorized (for other purposes) and where exactly it will go. In recent bills . . . we have provided a lack of appropriate oversight for the money being spent. I do not want to see us make the same mistake with this legislation . . . (and) simply throwing money at a problem is never a solution . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 312-114. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and sixty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirteen Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill providing funding for federal vehicle energy and environmental technology research and development programs.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to recommit (send back to committee) the bill providing additional funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for cars, trucks and other vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The legislation provided $550 million for this advanced vehicle technology development in 2010, and called for $10 million in increases for each of the following three years.

Rep. Broun?s motion included instructions that would have required the insertion of language preventing the spending of any additional funding authorized by the legislation until all other federal funds previously authorized for similar vehicle energy technology development had been spent. It would have further required the insertion of language preventing any funds authorized by the bill from being spent after a year in which the budget deficit exceeded five hundred billion dollars: The deficit for fiscal year 2010 was projected to exceed that figure.

Rep. Broun, speaking on behalf of his motion, said it was designed ?to improve this legislation by allowing it to take effect at a time when our fiscal house is more in order and at a time when no other taxpayer dollars are (available to be) spent on the same activities that are authorized by this bill.? Broun said that all Members agree ?that energy independence is a key economic and strategic goal, but of even more vital interest to our economic and strategic prospects as a nation is our ability to show fiscal discipline . . . .?

Broun noted that there were ?at least five major funding programs related to advanced vehicle technologies that the Department of Energy has announced just in the past 9 months . . . Additionally, the stimulus bill passed earlier this year allocated to the Department of Energy hundreds of millions of dollars for fuel cell production as well as for the production of high-efficiency passenger vehicles and trucks.  Clearly, there is a lot of money out there for programs like this already. Maybe we should look now to take a step backward and remember that we really cannot afford to keep up this level of spending.?

Rep. Gordon (D-TN) led the opposition to the motion. He said he shared Broun?s concerns about the deficit and about duplicating research efforts. Gordon noted that there was already language in the bill requiring the Secretary of Energy to ?ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that (its) activities do not duplicate those of other programs within the (Energy) Department or other relevant research agencies.'' Referring to Broun?s reference to the need to show fiscal restraint, Gordon argued that the bill is designed to combat ?another threat that this country faces . . . that of foreign energy cartels.?

He then pointed to the support that the bill has received from a variety of groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Big Three auto companies, the United Auto Workers, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club.

The motion was defeated by a vote of 180-245. One hundred and sixty-six Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to move immediately to a vote on passage of the bill providing funding for federal vehicle energy and environmental technology development programs.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hall (R-TX) to H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. That bill authorized additional federal funding for the development of more energy efficient and environmentally cleaner technologies for cars, trucks and other vehicles manufactured in the U.S. The legislation provided $550 million in 2010 to develop these technologies, and increased the amount successively by $10 million in each of the following three years. The Hall amendment would have frozen funding for this vehicle energy program through fiscal year 2013 at $550 million, and ended the funding after the 2013 fiscal year.

Rep. Hall, speaking in support of his amendment, said he was effectively asking the Members of the House ?to show the tiniest sliver of fiscal restraint (by) . . . saving $30 million (which) is more than reasonable.? He noted that, in addition to this new funding, ?billions of dollars in funding (is) already authorized and made available to the auto industry in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and . . . millions more (was) made available to them just this year? in what he referred to as ?the nonstimulus bill.?

Hall went on to say ?we are spending money at record rates . . . The American taxpayers and future generations are on the hook for trillions of dollars in spending, borrowing, and interest payments over the coming decades. I'm simply asking for us to show a modicum of restraint . . . isn't $550 million a year for a program that already has multiple funding sources enough??

Rep. Stupak (D-MI) spoke in opposition to the amendment. He argued that the additional research and development supported by this new funding will enable the auto industry to ?move toward better, more fuel-efficient vehicles through applied research and development of materials and technologies. This will directly benefit a number of existing companies in their transition toward new parts and technologies for the domestic auto industry, and encourage entrepreneurs with an innovative idea to enter the market.?

The legislation was defeated by a vote of 179-253. One hundred and sixty-one Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty Democrats and thirteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reductions were made in the funding authorizations for federal vehicle energy and environmental technology development programs.

Under the provisions of H.R.322, all new federal student loans will be originated directly by the federal government rather than by private lenders issuing federally-guaranteed loans. The legislation was designed, in part, to hold down the interest rate on federal education loans, and to make it easier for families to apply for college financial aid. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had estimated that shifting new educational lending from a guaranteed third party loan program to a direct loan program would generate significant budgetary savings. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill.

H.R. 3221, among other things, also significantly increased federal scholarship and grant program and funding for historically black colleges and community colleges. In addition, it included additional funding for early childhood education, and provisions to help veterans attend college under the GI Bill and to give loan forgiveness to members of the military who are called up to duty in the middle of an academic year.

Rep. Polis (D-CO), was leading the support for the rule. He said that there is a serious problem of students either not being able to afford college, or being able to afford it only with ?excessive student loan debt that burdens their families.? Polis claimed that the bill made ?the single largest investment in higher education in history without costing taxpayers any more.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule. She first noted that the title of the bill includes the words ?fiscal responsibility?. She then said: ?(H)owever, this bill and, of course, the rule, which we are debating today, aren't fiscally responsible and this is not the way we should be going.? Foxx quoted the supporters of the bill and the rule as saying: ?(I)t's going to give more freedom to people . . . It's going to close the achievement gap.? She then said: ?(W)ould that the government had that kind of power. Would that money alone (could) do that kind of thing. That's not what this bill is going to do . . . .?

Foxx argued that, by moving all student loans to a government-run system, the bill will increase ?the federal government takeover of . . . higher education . . . It is an insidious intrusion into education at all levels by the federal government . . . .? Rep. Dreier (R-CA) also opposed the bill, claiming that the federal government could not do as good a job in providing educational loans as the private sector. Dreier argued that having competition in the private sector would be the most effective way to keep interest rates on down on education loans.

Rep. Kline (R-MN) opposed the rule because, he said, ?(R)epublicans offered more than a dozen amendments to this deeply flawed legislation . . . Six of those amendments were made in order (under the rule), less than half. By comparison, Democrats offered a total of 32 amendments: 18 were made in order and another five were incorporated into the manager's amendment. That means in total 72 percent of the amendments offered by Democrats will receive a vote today.?

The resolution ending government-guaranteed education loans by third parties and increasing the level of direct government education lending to students passed by a vote of 241-179. All two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats and one hundred and seventy-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin formal debate of the legislation making education loans a direct federal program rather than one administered by third parties.

Rep. Wilson (R-SC) yelled out ?you lie? to President Obama during a September 9, 2009 speech the president delivered to a joint session of Congress on health care legislation. Wilson made the remark after President Obama said that no illegal aliens would be able to benefit from the changes made by the health care legislation. Rep. Wilson subsequently called The White House to apologize for his behavior, but he refused to make a formal apology to the House. This resolution was drafted in response to his refusal to do so.

House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD), arguing on behalf of the resolution, said it relates to the issue of ?whether we are able to proceed with a degree of civility and decorum that our rules and our democracy contemplate and require.? He noted that The House Code of Official Conduct ?requires that each Member . . . ?conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.? There seems to be little or no disagreement that Mr. Wilson did not so conduct himself on the evening of September 9.?

Hoyer then quoted Senator McCain (R-AZ) ?as saying that Mr. Wilson's behavior was ?totally disrespectful (and that) . . . he should apologize for it immediately.?? Hoyer said ?it was the House itself whose rules were offended . . . However, for whatever reason, Mr. Wilson has decided not to take any further action. In light of that, this resolution simply states the House's disapproval of Mr. Wilson's words and actions.?

Rep. Clyburn (D-SC), the House Minority Whip, added: ?(O)ur three separate branches of government have defined roles to play in this process, and those of us who hold positions within these branches are expected and are duty bound to treat each other with proper dignity and respect.?

Rep. Wilson responded by saying ?I think it is clear to the American people that there are far more important issues facing this nation than what we are addressing right now. The President . . . graciously accepted my apology, and the issue is over . . . It is the Democrat leadership, in their rush to pass a very bad government health care plan, that . . . has muzzled the voices we represent and provoked partisanship . . . The challenges our nation faces are far bigger than any one Member of this House.?

Rep. Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, opposed the resolution. He first noted that Wilson ?did the right thing. He called the President and apologized . . . and to put him through this on the floor of the House I think is unacceptable and it is a partisan stunt.? Boehner added: ?(T)here has been behavior that has gone on around here far more serious than this, and it didn't bring a resolution to the floor to condemn someone's behavior . . . The American people sent us here to work together to solve the problems of our country. They didn't send us here to talk about our behavior.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 240-179. Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and seven Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-seven Republicans and twelve Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved a resolution formally disapproving of the behavior of Rep. Wilson during the joint session of Congress.

This vote was on passage of H.R. 965, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act. The Chesapeake Bay Network was characterized by Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), who was leading the support for making it permanent, as a ?highly successful? program. It had been described by the Bush Administration as a ?cooperative conservation success story.?' More than 10 million people annually visit one of the 166 gateway sites supported by the program. They kayak, canoe, hike, bike, picnic, hunt, fish, watch wildlife, or visit one of its maritime museums or historic sites.

The program had originally been authorized for funding for a five year period, and had received additional federal monies subsequent to that initial five year period. Rep. Grijalva noted that ?a National Park Service special resource study concluded that a permanent commitment to the program would ensure its long-term viability and enhance the Chesapeake's status among America's national treasures.? He argued: ?(K)eeping people connected and concerned about the Bay is vital to each step in restoring that great estuary . . . The Gateways Network does just that. This program is a proven success and should be permanently authorized.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) led the opposition to the measure. He first acknowledged that the gateways and watertrails program had ?bipartisan support from the states surrounding the Chesapeake Bay.? Hastings then claimed that the bill ?would extend the current Chesapeake Bay program forever without any constraints or limits on how much money can be spent on the program. (It) may be a popular program in the mid-Atlantic region of our country; yet I don't believe the Natural Resources Committee and this Congress should be in the habit of granting eternal life and unlimited sums of money to government programs.?

Hastings argued: ?(B)ills creating or renewing government programs are typically renewed for a set period of time, usually 5 years, to ensure that there is accountability in these programs, there is a review of these programs, and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being misused, wasted, or unnecessarily spent. There is simply no reason to exempt this Chesapeake Bay program from a periodic review of 5 years . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 311-107. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and sixty-five Republicans voted ?aye?. All one hundred and seven ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

This vote was on a motion by Rep. Hastings (R-WA) to recommit to committee H.R. 965, the bill providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. The motion would also have added language to the bill preventing it from becoming effective until the deficit is less than $1 trillion.

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network was characterized by Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), who was leading the support for the bill, as a ?highly successful? program. The Network had been described by the Bush Administration as a ?cooperative conservation success story.?' More than 10 million people annually visit one of the 166 gateway sites supported by the program. They kayak, canoe, hike, bike, picnic, hunt, fish, watch wildlife, or visit one of its maritime museums or historic sites.

Rep. Hastings, speaking in support of his motion to recommit the bill, acknowledged that the program had ?bipartisan support from the states surrounding the Chesapeake Bay.? Hastings said that the additional language he proposed was intended to add ?a small, small measure of fiscal discipline.? He also argued that ?with unemployment approaching 10 percent, with upside-down mortgages and with homeowners facing foreclosure, I think it is hardly time to add eternal life and unlimited money to a very nice but unnecessary federal program at a time when we are contemplating adding several massive new government programs such as health care . . . .?

Hastings added, ?it might be time to pause and consider the difference between things we need and things that we merely want. Of course, additional water trails and interpretive centers are nice to have, but increasing their numbers is not a necessity at this time. I am not opposed to them, by the way, but I am not prepared to support a law that says that this particular earmark program must be extended for all time with unlimited funds regardless of the deficit . . . I think that restraint is badly needed.?

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) opposed the motion. He first argued that its wording ?doesn't tell us who would have the certification power or how we would meet the standard that the (deficit is one trillion dollars) . . . It's like saying we on the Republican side ran up a huge deficit. Now we want to penalize this one little program until you clean up the mess.? Grijalva then asked, rhetorically, ?(W)hy this program? Why not a program that was done this morning during the Natural Resources Committee meeting where the sponsor of the motion to recommit (Rep. Hastings) had legislation that passed for a road which runs through his district? Should we put the same standard on that legislation?

Grijalva concluded his remarks by arguing that the additional language the motion was attempting to add ?is arbitrary . . . While it attempts to score political points, it also, if passed, jeopardizes a very valuable resource that, if not restored and protected through the legislation, will cause disastrous economic, environmental, cultural, and health consequences--bad consequences for the Mid-Atlantic and for the nation as a whole.?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 194-229. One hundred and seventy-five Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred twenty-nine ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the House moved immediately to vote on final passage of the bill providing for a permanent federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

This vote was on passage of H.R 3123, the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2009. It directed the Bureau of Reclamation in the Interior Department to remedy problems that had been caused by a collapse in the tunnel, which carries water from old mines to a treatment plant north of Leadville, Colorado. These problems related to the possibility that blockage resulting from the collapse in the tunnel could give way, releasing a flood of water and built-up toxic debris. The uncertainty as to whether the Bureau of Reclamation or the Environmental Protection Agency was responsible for dealing with the blockage had prevented an agreement being reached on a long-term solution to the situation. This bill was intended to clarify that uncertainty.

Rep. Lamborn (R-CO), in whose district the tunnel is located, sponsored the legislation. No opposition was expressed to it. However, earlier in the week, Lamborn had successfully led the opposition to an unrelated bill supported by the Democratic leadership that was designed to establish the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in Arizona. A staffer in Lamborn?s office, who declined to be identified, said he believed that, in retaliation, many Democrats had decided to vote against this Leadville tunnel bill.

H.R. 3123 was brought up under a procedure that suspends the normal House rules and requires a two-thirds vote for passage. The vote was 206-191. One hundred and fifty-six Republicans and fifty Democrats voted ?aye?. One hundred and eighty-four Democrats and seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the measure that would have directed the Bureau of Reclamation in the Interior Department to remedy problems that had been caused by a collapse in the Leadville, Colorado Mine Drainage Tunnel was not approved. The result did not prevent the measure from being brought up again under regular House procedures, which would require only a majority vote for passage.

This vote was on passage of H.R. 324, which would have established the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in southern Arizona. National heritage areas have been established to preserve sections that are of ?national significance.? The term ?national significance? has been used in this context by The National Park Service as meaning that the areas possesses ?unique natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic, or recreational resources of exceptional value or quality.? Twenty-four national heritage areas have been established by Congress.

The area that was covered by this bill amounted to 3,325 square miles, including a portion that bordered on the city of Tucson. Much of that area was developable ranch land. It also contained several major copper mines, and land that had other mineral deposits. Once an area is designated a national heritage area, the federal government has some voice in such matters as zoning. The supporters of the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area stated that its creation would have no negative effects on private property, ranching, mining, or mineral exploration.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ), part of whose district would have been included in the proposed heritage area, sponsored the bill. He characterized the support for it in his district and in the district of Rep. Giffords (D-AZ), part of which was also included in the proposed heritage area, as ?astounding.? He said: ?(E)very county, municipality, tribe, federal and state park and land management agency within the proposed heritage area, plus a long list of chambers of commerce, tourism organizations, conservation and historic preservation groups, ranchers, farmers and businesses, all support H.R. 324.

Rep. Lamborn (R-CO) opposed the bill. He acknowledged that that National Heritage Area program is ?well intended?. However, Lamborn claimed that it ?has no established framework? and had ?a lack of guidance (regarding) . . . basic property rights protections.? Lamborn added: ?(U)nfortunately, this bill does not have sufficient protection for the property owners within the boundaries of this area, and it is likely many of them have no idea that they are to be included.? He noted that property owners may ?refrain from participation'' under the formal rules regulating the heritage area, but warned that ?nothing changes the fact that this bill places them within a new federal designation that provides a basis for ambitious federal land managers to claim that they now have a mandate and millions of federal dollars to interfere with local decisions affecting their neighbors' property.?

 Rep. Grijalva responded ?that during the 20-plus years of this (national heritage) program's existence, opponents have not been able to identify a single instance in which someone has been deprived of the use of their property as a result of this designation . . . The Government Accountability Office even investigated potential property rights violations and found none. Nevertheless, this bill contains extensive private property provisions.?

H.R. 324 was considered under a procedure typically used for legislation that the House leadership does not anticipate will be controversial. Under this procedure, the usual rules are suspended and debate is limited. Also, a two-thirds vote is required for passage, rather than the usual majority. The vote was 249-145.Two hundred and thirty-three Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted ?aye?. All one hundred forty-five ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. Since the two-thirds vote required under this procedure was not achieved, the measure that would have established the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area did not pass. The result did not prevent the measure from being brought up again under regular House procedures, which would require only a majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3269, a bill that gave federal regulatory agencies the authority over the level of executive pay and bonuses, and also imposed new restrictions on the manner in which executive pay and bonuses are determined. The bill had been developed partly in response to the great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives at banks and other financial institutions were receiving, particularly at those receiving federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. H.R. 3269 also required all publicly traded companies to hold an annual, non-binding, shareholder vote on pay and bonuses for executives.

Rep. Frank, (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services committee that developed H.R. 3269, said that Democrats ?believe the federal government has (an) interest--not in the level of compensation, that's up to the shareholders -- (but) in the (pay) structure. When you have, as we have seen, structures whereby companies lose lots of money . . . but the people who made those deals make money on them, that has a systemic negative impact on this society because it incentivizes much too much risk.? He claimed that ?the Republican approach? is to do nothing except ?admit that these are problems.?

Frank referred to the charge by opponents of the bill that it essentially creates wage controls as ?nonsense.? He explained that ?what it says is that the SEC shall impose rules that prevent excessive risk-taking, and the reference to wages is only in that context . . . What this bill explicitly aims at is the practice whereby people are given bonuses that pay off if the gamble or the risk pays off, but don't lose you anything if it doesn't. That is, there is a wide consensus that this incentivizes excessive risk . . . All we are saying is that there has to be some balance to the risk-taking.?

Frank also referred to the charge by opponents ?this will cause us a problem with international competition.? He noted that England, which he referred to as ?our major financial competitor? has adopted the same rules as are in H.R. 3269.

Rep. Bachus (R-AL), the Ranking Republican on the Financial Services Committee, was leading the opposition to the bill. He said ?Republicans have introduced legislation, which gets the American people out of the bail out business--that is our response--and prohibits the government from picking winners and losers. We believe that's the solution.? He went on to argue that Republicans have sponsored legislation that ?clearly establishes a structure where failure is not rewarded and market discipline is reestablished . . . .?

Bachus summarized his opposition to H.R. 3269 by calling it a ?sweeping power grab into the private sector under the guise of the government's riding to the rescue?, which relies ?on the government to fix the problem . . . (that) . . . to a great extent was caused by . . . (a) lack of regulation by the government.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 237-185. Two hundred and thirty-five Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and sixteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate a bill that gave federal banking regulatory agencies authority over executive pay and bonuses, and also increased the level of shareholder input on the way pay and bonuses are determined.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Sessions (R-TX) to recommit H.R. 3269. That bill imposed new restrictions on the manner in which the level of executive pay and bonuses was determined, and gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures. H.R. 3269 also mandated that all publicly traded companies hold an annual, non-binding shareholder vote on the level of pay and bonuses for their executives. The bill had been developed partly in response to the great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives were receiving at banks and other financial institutions that had recently received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. The motion made by Rep. Sessions would have also added language to H.R.3269 that required the disclosure of information about any persons or organizations that spent funds in an effort to influence the outcome of the annual shareholder vote on executive pay and bonuses required by the bill.

Sessions, arguing on behalf of his motion, said it would require the same ?transparency and accountability? as is now mandated for political contributions to political candidates. The donor?s name, occupation, and contribution size would have to be provided. Sessions also claimed that the new requirement in his motion would improve what he called ?this interventionist legislation?, by providing information for shareholders.

Sessions also argued: ?The point of the motion is to simply provide voters, in this case shareholders, with access to information about who is spending money and what are they attempting to influence with their vote.? He added: ?(I)f we believe that voters deserve this information, we should also give to shareholders this same level of transparency.

Rep. Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee that developed H.R. 3269, opposed the motion. He objected to the fact that the disclosure requirement proposed in the motion would only apply to contributors on the executive pay and bonus issue, but if a donor wanted to influence a ?vote on a merger or an acquisition or if you want to vote on anything else, you don't have to do it. It's not a uniform requirement . . . and leaves every other vote in the dark. If that's so important, why did we not have a broader version of it??

Frank also claimed that the proposed disclosure requirement would be overly burdensome, and is designed to discourage contacts with shareholders. He supported this point by arguing: ?(I)f you want to spend money to oppose large bonuses, to oppose large salaries, to oppose a company paying 72 percent of its revenue, as recently happened, in compensation, if you are a pension fund, if you are a union, if you want to write to your own members and say this is a bad idea . . . you have to give the identity of all persons or entities engaged in the activity and the activities engaged.  It is not simply a reporting of the amount of money.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 178-244. One hundred and seventy-two Republican and six Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and forty-four ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the House moved immediately to a vote on passage of a bill that gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain executive pay and bonus structures, and imposed new restrictions on the manner in which executive pay and bonuses were determined.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Garrett (R-NJ), which would have made a number of changes in H.R. 3269. That bill gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures and arrangements for executives and individuals, as well as to revise specific bonus incentive arrangements. H.R. 3269 also required all publicly traded companies to hold an annual, non-binding, shareholder vote on the pay and bonuses for executives. It had been developed partly in response to the great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives were receiving at banks and other financial institutions that had recently received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business.

The Garrett Amendment would have deleted the section of the pending bill that gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures and arrangements for executives and individuals as well as to revise specific bonus incentive arrangements. Garret said that the reason for deleting the section was that it ?would allow government bureaucrats rather than shareholders? to set pay structures.

His amendment also would have changed the shareholder vote from an annual process to once every three years, and would have permitted the vote to be discontinued if two-thirds of the shareholders wanted to opt out. Garret claimed that the reason for this change was to overcome the concern that ?Wall Street focuses too much on the short term--on the year, on the 6 months, on the three-quarters or on the end of the quarter.? He said that the reason for giving shareholders the right to opt out of the periodic pay level vote was that ?if we are going to trust the shareholders to be making these decisions, should we not also trust them to make the decision as to whether or not to have such votes on executive compensation in the future??

The amendment was supported by the Center on Executive Compensation, which warned that giving the government the authority to prohibit pay ?portends the federal regulation of compensation in other contexts." The Center also claimed: "(A) mandatory (shareholder) vote on pay seeks to substitute the judgment of the shareholders for the informed judgment of the Board and will open the door to more shareholder votes on other issues". The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also supported the amendment, taking the position that H.R. 3269 ?would represent a tremendous intrusion into affairs of business that have always been left to private actors.?

Rep. Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services committee that developed H. R. 3269, opposed the amendment. He argued that the Republicans who were supporting it had predicted for 2 1/2 years ?that free-market forces are already at work to correct pay excesses.? He then said ?apparently . . . there have been no pay excesses in 2 1/2 years. We've all been hallucinating. They were wrong then, and (they?re) wrong now.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 179-244. One hundred and sixty-nine Republican and ten Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no changes were made in pending legislation that imposed new restrictions on the manner in which the level of executive pay and bonuses was determined.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Frank (D-MA), which would eliminate certain prohibitions on the ability of the federal government to require the return of certain annual bonuses paid to banking executives. There had been a great outcry during this period of economic decline about the large bonuses that executives were receiving at banks and other financial institutions that had recently received federal ?bail outs? in order to remain in business. H.R. 3269 was developed partly in response to that outcry. The bill gave federal banking regulatory agencies the authority to prohibit certain pay structures and arrangements for executives and individuals as well as to revise specific bonus incentive arrangements.

The Frank amendment clarified and expanded that authority. It also required all publicly traded companies to hold an annual, non-binding, shareholder vote on pay and bonuses for executives. At the same time, the amendment prevented the federal government from requiring executives to return certain incentive-based pay and bonuses awarded under any arrangement that was already in effect when H.R. 3269 was enacted into law.

Rep. Frank is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which developed H.R. 3269. He noted that there had been concern about the government requiring executives to ?give back bonuses they'd already received. That would be arbitrary . . . and I agree that there should not be people's pay subjected unreasonably to arbitrary retroactive decisions.?

Frank also noted that he had only recently learned about ?an SEC decision that said that where someone had received the compensation and it subsequently turned out that the transaction was not profitable, although it (had originally) appeared to be, that a return of the money that was given . . . might be appropriate. So our language reflects that (at the same time that) . . . It does give some protection against arbitrary return.?

Rep. Price (R-GA), a Republican member of the Financial Services Committee, led the opposition to the amendment. He said that there was originally bipartisan support in the committee for a provision stating that ?no compensation of any executive having been approved by a majority of the shareholders may be subject to any callback . . . retroactivity, unless it was part of the contract or unless there had been fraud committed.? Price noted that this provision ?was put into the bill (during committee deliberations) with the caveat that Chairman Frank wanted, potentially, a few changes.

Price then claimed: ?(T)here weren't any discussions before the amendment that we now have before us was offered . . . to the (provision) . . . adopted in a bipartisan manner in the committee. And what does the new amendment . . . mean? Well, it means that the SEC, that is the federal government, will be able to dictate pay . . . to publicly held companies. Now, that may be okay if they take (bail out) . . . money, but this would be publicly traded companies that don't take a dime of tax money.?

Price argued that ?the Democrat majority has a great desire to have the government everywhere in our lives, whether it's in financial institutions (or other areas) . . . .? He added that the amendment ?gets to the heart of whether or not we are going to allow the federal government into decisions that ought to be left in a free market and in a private-sector arrangement . . . It cuts at the very core of our free market system.?

The amendment passed by a vote of 242-178. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-nine Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, language was adopted regulating the manner in which the federal government could require certain bank executives to give back a portion of their pay and bonuses.

This was a vote on H.R. 3435, which provided two billion dollars in additional funding for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program that encouraged consumers to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better mileage. Congress had originally passed legislation which created the program and provided one billion dollars in cash rebates, of a few thousand dollars each, to consumers. The goal was to encourage consumers to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better gas mileage. The program was intended to reduce gas consumption and to stimulate new car sales. It was so successful, that the billion dollars in original funding was going to be quickly exhausted. Additional funding was needed. This legislation allowed the administration to transfer up to two billion dollars of previously-approved funds to the Cash for Clunkers program from the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program. It was not anticipated that the loan guarantee program would need those funds for at least a year.

Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, was leading the effort on behalf of the bill. He commented: ?(C)onsumers have spoken with their wallets, and they are saying they like this program; and clearly it is doing what it was intended to do, to spur car sales in this sluggish economy. This action will keep it going . . . . ?

Rep. Israel (D-NY), one of the original sponsors of the Cash for Clunkers program, supported the bill. He noted: ?(F)ew of us realized how well (the Cash for Clunkers program) would work. This program has been truly stimulative . . . We have doubled car sales over the past 5 days . . . It is creating jobs. It is creating a surge for car dealers. The American consumer is satisfied with it, and we need to continue it.? Rep. Miller(R-MI), who was also a sponsor of the Cash for Clunkers program, referenced the previous decision by the administration to provide financial assistance to the domestic auto industry and said ?for those who keep saying that we need to get the government out of the automobile business . . . this is the way to do it . . . .?

Rep. Lewis (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, expressed concern about the bill on procedural grounds. He noted that the car trade-in program had only been operating for one week and that Republicans had only been advised within the previous 24 hours of the need for the additional two billion dollars. Obey responded by saying: ?(W)e are simply trying to react to one program that the public has latched onto. The demand for this was so great that within 3 days of its inception, the funds were, apparently, totally used up. That indicates that we need to do something if we don't want the program to shut down 3 days after it begins. That's what we're trying to do today.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 316-109. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and seventy-seven Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-five Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate a bill providing an additional two billion dollars for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program that encouraged consumers to trade-in their old gas guzzling cars for new ones that get better mileage.

This vote was on passage of H.R. 1752, which would have allowed the House Administration Committee to regulate the payment schedule for employees of the House of Representatives to conform to usual accounting practices. The payment schedule for employees of the House was the last day of each month. Under H.R. 1752, the House Administration Committee would have been given the authority to set an alternative pay schedule, such as bi-weekly or semi-monthly. Both the House Inspector General and Chief Administrative Officer had advised the House that the last day of the month pay system was inconsistent with the rest of the federal government and also required deviations from commonly use business software. The Congressional Budget Office had estimated that it would cost approximately one million dollars over a two year period to modify the relevant computer systems to make the change to bi-weekly payments.

Rep. Davis (D-CA) was leading the Democratic support for the measure. She said H.R. 1752 would provide the flexibility to allow the House Administration Committee to change the payment date to ?be more responsive to the needs of our employees, many of whom have expressed their frustration about the current system. Furthermore, this bill will give us the opportunity to be more consistent with employees in the Senate, the executive branch, and most of the private sector with regard to paydays.?

Rep. Lungren (R-CA), the Ranking Republican on the Committee took no formal position. He did note: ?(P)reliminary financial assessments suggest that after incurring up-front transition costs, this change may reduce overpayments over time and reduce errors by more easily distributing the burden of incorporating payment changes into the system.? Lungren emphasized  that the legislation ?simply grants the Committee on House Administration the authority to change the pay cycle and does not in and of itself authorize any changes . . . It is thus important that the committee granting this authority will act cautiously and only after soliciting and evaluating the feedback of the House community.?

A measure very similar to H.R. 1752 had easily passed the House the previous year, although it did not eventually become law. The Democratic majority anticipated that this measure would again be approved easily. The House Republican minority leadership had been expressing its objections to the manner in which the Democratic majority had been conducting legislative business generally during the congressional session. These objections had become especially frequent during the period prior to the time the vote on H.R. 1752 occurred, when the House was debating a number of spending bills. One of the ways in which these objections were expressed was by having Republican members vote against routine measures such as H.R. 1752.

Since the Democratic majority did not anticipate that this would be a controversial vote, it was considered under a House procedure whereby the usual rules are suspended and debate is limited. Under this procedure a two-thirds vote it required for passage, rather than the usual majority. The vote was 282-144. Two hundred and forty Democrats and forty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred thirty-five Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?nay?. Since the two-thirds vote required under this procedure was not achieved, the measure that would have allowed the House Administration Committee to establish a different schedule for paying the salaries of House of Representative staff did not pass. The result did not prevent the measure from being brought up again under regular House procedures, which would require only a majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2749, a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of domestic and imported food. Among the provisions of H.R. 2746, , as described by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, was a requirement that every food facility implement a food safety plan; that the Department of Health and Human Services issue rules to minimize the hazards from food-born contaminants which are based on actual testing and observations, establish standards for raw agricultural commodities using results from previous inspections, examine facilities based on a schedule that uses historical statistics to determine the likelihood of contamination, create a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform tests of food for import or export, and form a group dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. The bill also created new protections for ?whistleblowers?, or industry or department insiders who report improper behavior.

Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who leading the support for the bill, noted that it also gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ?both the authority and the funds to address not only American foods but foods being imported . . . .? H.R.2749 was supported by the Centers for Science and Public Interest, Consumers Union, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a large industry group.

The reasons for opposition to the bill were expressed by Rep. Lucas (R-OK), who referred to it as ?another example of Federal power without the benefit of careful consideration.? He singled out for ?particular concern? the federal mandate in H.R. 2749 ?that the Food and Drug Administration set on-farm production performance standards. For the first time, we would have the Federal Government prescribing how our farmers grow crops (although) . . . We have been doing it for a very long time, and we have been doing it without the FDA.?

Lucas also argued that the bill ?leaves our nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to objectionable regulatory burdens.? In addition, he claimed: ?(N)ew quarantine authorities for FDA will undermine animal and plant inspection control programs that have been in place at the Department of Agriculture for decades.? Lucas concluded his remarks by saying: ?(T)he vast majority of these provisions, along with new penalties, record-keeping requirements, traceability, labeling, country-of-origin labeling, will do absolutely nothing to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks, but will do plenty to keep the Federal bureaucracy busy.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 283-142. Two hundred and twenty-nine Democrats and fifty-four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and twenty-two Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of both domestic and imported food.

This was a motion by Rep. Lucas (R-OK) to send H.R. 2749, a bill designed to improve the monitoring of domestic and imported food, back to committee with instructions to add language directing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on methods for spending the new revenues generated by the bill. Those new methods included advance purchases of food from producers to allow for its examination before it comes to market, and on additional food inspections.

The bill generated new revenues, which resulted from additional registration fees it imposed on those in the food industry. The instructions, regarding the additional language to be added to H.R. 2749, would have been to use the new revenues from the bill to pay for the additional food inspections mandated by the bill and to create a fund to indemnify growers mistakenly accused by the FDA of causing food contamination.   

Lucas said: ?The legislation before us provides the FDA with numerous punitive authorities as well as a new source of revenue charged to people wishing to be in the food business, but it does not require the FDA to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food . . . if we are going to call this bill the Food Safety Enhancement Act, we should probably have something in here that actually enhances food safety.?

He also said: ?(W)e must not kid ourselves into believing that the FDA will not make . . . mistakes in the future. Wrongly implicating agriculture products to food-borne disease outbreaks can cause severe economic losses to farmers and ranchers, who can ill afford them. Unfortunately, this legislation does not address this real concern.?

Lucas added: ?(N)othing in this motion adds to the cost of the bill, but it does strengthen FDA accountability, and it guarantees enhanced food safety inspection. He concluded his remarks by saying the changes he proposed ?will not fix everything that we feel to be wrong with the legislation, but they will address some of the more significant problems.?

Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who was leading the support for the bill, opposed the motion. He began by making the observation that Rep. Lucas had claimed ?the bill does not require FDA to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food. That is totally false . . . the bill directs FDA to spend its registration fees on food safety activities . . . the bill explicitly provides that food safety activities include conducting inspections. The bill also requires FDA to adhere to a rigorous mandatory inspection schedule based on risk.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 186-240. One hundred and seventy-seven Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and forty ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, the House did not specify methods for spending the new revenues generated by H.R. 2746, and moved immediately to vote on passage of the bill designed to improve the monitoring of both domestic and imported food.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms of debate for H.R. 2749, which was designed to improve the monitoring for safety of both domestic and imported food. The rule did not permit any amendments to be offered to the bill.

Among the provisions in H.R. 2749, as described by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, was a requirement that every food facility implement a food safety plan; that the Department of Health and Human Services issue rules to minimize the hazards from food-born contaminants which are based on actual testing and observations, establish standards for raw agricultural commodities using results from previous inspections, examine facilities based on a schedule that uses historical statistics to determine the likelihood of contamination, create a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform tests of food for import or export, and also create a group dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. The bill also imposed new protections for ?whistleblowers?, or industry or department insiders who report improper behavior.

Rep. Slaughter (D-NY), who was leading the support for the rule, noted that ?every year 76 million Americans are sickened from consuming contaminated food, and 5,000 of those persons die.? She then said these deaths ?come about because of flaws in our food safety system. I am happy to say that these gaps in protection are closed by this legislation.?  Slaughter claimed that the bill ?provides strong, flexible enforcement tools . . . (requires) food facilities to have safety plans in place to identify and mitigate hazards, one of the best ways to make an immediate improvement to food safety . . . (and will) fundamentally change the way we protect the safety of our food supply.?

Slaughter noted that the legislation was endorsed by Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, the American Public Health Association and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a large industry association. She did acknowledge that it was not supported by a number of farm organizations.

The Republican minority had been complaining for a number of months about a series of rules the Democratic majority had been passing, such as the one for this bill, which restricted the amendments that could be offered. They argued that the limitations prevented Members from adequately representing their constituents. Rep. Foxx (R-NC), who was leading the opposition to the rule, repeated that argument. Foxx noted that House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) had promised that this ?would be the most open and honest Congress in history, (and she) has gone back on her word by making this the most closed and restrictive Congress in history.?Foxx claimed that ?Pelosi's justification (is) that ?we won the election; so we decide.?''

Foxx also noted that ?House Majority Leader Hoyer stated this past February his agreement with restoring the House to the regular order process of legislating . . . Regular order gives to everybody the opportunity to participate in the process . . . then why are we faced with another closed rule today? . . It does an injustice to both Democrats and Republicans who want to have the opportunity to offer amendments and participate in debate with their colleagues . . . . ?

The resolution governing debate on the food safety bill passed by a vote of 249-180. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin to debate the bill designed to improve the monitoring of both domestic and imported food.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) to send the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Defense back to the Appropriations Committee. The motion also included instructions to the committee to add money for procurement of 12 additional F-22 fighters and to allow the F-22 program to move forward. In addition, the instructions were for the committee to provide an additional $100 million for the Army military personnel accounts, and to reduce $400 million for Presidential helicopters to pay for the increases.

The issue of whether additional F-22?s would be purchased had become very controversial. The Defense Department did not want to buy any more; but a number of congressman and senators, especially those from districts and states that produced the plane wanted the department to purchase additional fighters. President Obama had threatened to veto the 2010 Defense Department spending bill if Congress passed it with funds for additional F-22?s. Shortly before House debate began on H.R. 3266 in the House, the Senate voted not to approve the purchase of any additional F-22?s.

Frelinghuysen, in support of his motion, first noted that ?much is made of the President's threatened veto of this bill over the F-22 . . . . While I appreciate the President has a role in this process, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power of the purse. I do not believe that we should simply take the President's budget proposal (which excluded additional purchases of F-22?s) and rubber-stamp it.?

Referring to the part of his motion that would provide an additional $100 million for the Army military personnel accounts, Frelinghuysen said this ?begins to fill a known funding shortfall . . . that resulted from (Defense) Secretary Gates' recent decision to increase the total Army end strength by 22,000 troops to support the administration's Afghanistan policy.?

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, opposed the motion, although he supported additional F-22 purchases. Murtha had noted earlier in the debate on the Defense Department funding bill that President Obama had said he would veto the measure if it provided for the purchase of additional F?22?s, and that the 2/3 votes required to override a veto would not be forthcoming in either the House or the Senate. He said ?I have been for the F-22. The point is we'd need 292 votes here in order to pass the F-22. We'd need 66 votes in the Senate. The Senate voted 58-40 against it. So we have no alternative (than to drop funding for additional F-22 purchases).? Murtha also noted that, earlier in the debate, he successfully offered an amendment that provided additional maintenance funding for previously purchased F-22?s.

The Frelinghuysen motion intended to fund additional F-22?s was defeated by a vote of 169-261. One hundred and fifty-four Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-nine Democrats and twenty-two Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the bill was not sent back to committee for the purpose of restoring funds for additional F-22 purchases, and the House moved to immediate passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA), which would have eliminated a $1,500.000 earmark for the Model for Green Laboratories and Clean Rooms project. It was offered to H.R. 3326, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Campbell, had been critical of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. They had been offering a series of amendments to delete many of those earmarks.

Campbell, in his statement on behalf of the amendment, acknowledged that it is Congress' right to say how funds are to be spent.? He then said: ?(H)owever, there is a right way to do that and there is a wrong way to do that.? Campbell argued that singling out funds in legislation for ?no-bid, going-to-private-companies earmarks . . . is not the proper way to do it.? He argued that if this equipment is necessary, it should be procured ?under competitive bidding and get at least three bids and pick that which is deemed to be the highest quality and the lowest cost.?

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, opposed the amendment. He first pointed to a recent policy that had been adopted by the Appropriations Committee, which read: ?The use of Member earmarks awarded to for-profit entities as a functional equivalent of no-bid contracts is ended. In cases where the committee funds an earmark designated for a for-profit entity, the committee includes legislative language requiring the executive branch to nonetheless issue a request for proposal that gives other entities an opportunity to apply and requires the agency to evaluate all bids received and make a decision based on merit. The legislative language included in the bills requires `full and open competition.?? Murtha also noted that H.R. 3326 also contained language requiring that projects considered to be congressional earmarks ?when awarded to a for-profit entity, shall be awarded under full and open competition.?

He added that it was necessary that medical facilities used by the Defense Department ?are clean? and that the funding in H.R.3326 ?provides for development, renovation, (and) maintenance, to test the environmental sustainable laboratories, hospitals, and clean rooms for drug development.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 99-338. Ninety-three Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-three Democrats and eighty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Model for Green Laboratories and Clean Rooms project remained in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have eliminated 70 earmarks, amounting to almost $200 million, from H.R. 3326, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department. Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as these, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills.

All of the earmarks that would have been deleted by the amendment were for contracts for clients of the PMA Group. The PMA Group was a lobbying firm specializing in obtaining earmarks that had recently been raided by the FBI and was being investigated for making illegal campaign contributions. Flake said that ?PMA is emblematic of the troubling circular fund-raising that's become entrenched in the current earmarking process . . . According to the Center for Responsive Politics, since 1998, the firm and its clients have given $40.3 million total to . . . 514 lawmakers, nearly every Member of the current Congress. The Center also reported that members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have collected nearly $1 million in campaign cash since 1998 from PMA employees and the firm's PAC.? Flake also said that each of these 70 earmarks were for ?no-bid? contracts.

Rep. Kirk (R-IL) supported the amendment, and said its passage would ?protect this House . . . (and) make sure that we can be beyond reproach.?

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, opposed the amendment. After noting that $9.7 billion in H.R. 3326 would go to Rep. Flake?s state of Arizona, he said ?we've put the projects in that we thought were worthwhile, not because they're from a Representative . . . Those projects are in the budget because Members, themselves, thought they were good projects.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 118-304. Ninety-nine Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-four Democrats and seventy Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no earmarks were deleted from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.

This was a vote on an amendment, which would have eliminated funding for the Kinetic Energy Missile Defense Interceptor Program. This program was intended to develop and deploy U.S. missiles that could intercept and destroy enemy missiles. The amendment was offered by Rep. Tierney (D-MA) to H.R 3326, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Defense Department.

Rep. Tierney, in his statement in support of the amendment, said: ?(T)he Bush administration made the initial decision to terminate the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program in its fiscal year 2010 Program Objectives Memorandum last fall. Then, President Obama did not include funding for it in his budget proposal, and both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee did not specify funding for it . . . (Defense) Secretary Gates has testified that . . . ?There's no extant ship we can put it on. We would have to design a new ship.?  The head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General O'Reilly, has said that the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program is being terminated because ?its capability is inconsistent with the missile defense mission to counter rogue nation threats.?

 Tierney added: ?(T)he Kinetic Energy Interceptor program was intended to be a 5-year development program that is now a 16-year development program . . . it is never too late to do the right thing, and here is our opportunity to do the right thing. We have to, at some point in time, start looking at all of our budgets, and that includes the Defense budget, to make sure that we're not putting money out that needs to be put towards other priorities.?

Rep. Holt (D-NJ), who co-sponsored the amendment, argued that ?even if the Kinetic Energy Interceptor were successful, it will never work well enough to change our strategy. Missile defense systems must be perfect to achieve their professed goals, and we can never get that perfection. The fact that we don't need them against our friends and that they will only encourage our enemies to build more offensive systems to get around, this so-called shield are the arguments against this missile defense. The best this flawed system could ever provide is a provocative, yet permeable defense.?

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, opposed the amendment. He acknowledged that ?after all these years of no oversight in the Defense Department, they get nothing from the program. We've got the same thing in many of these other programs. What I'm trying to convince them is they have to have oversight earlier in a research program.   Now, the Under Secretary (of Defense) tells me that in the new research programs he is going to try to have a cost cap or some kind of effectiveness so that they measure it, benchmarks of some sort so that they can measure these earlier.  We may have to adjust this in (the House-Senate conference that will reconcile the two versions of the Defense Department spending bills), if this amendment doesn't pass, but I ask the Members to vote ?no? on this amendment, and we will see what we can work out.?

Murtha concluded his remarks by saying: ?(T)he program has already spent $1 billion, and we ought to get something out of it.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote 124-307. One hundred and ten Democrats, including a majority of the most progressive Members, and fourteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and one hundred and forty-four Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, funds for the Kinetic Energy Missile Defense Interceptor Program remained in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.

This was a vote on an amendment redirecting some of the funds originally designated for the purchase of additional F-22 fighter planes to the acquisition of spare parts and engines for existing F-22s, and making certain other changes, in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense. Among the other changes made by this amendment, which was offered by Rep. Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed the funding bill, was the addition of $79,000,000 for Air National Guard equipment and of $50,000,000 for advanced radar development.

The issue of whether additional F-22?s would be purchased had become very controversial. The Defense Department did not want to buy any more; but a number of congressman and senators, especially those from districts and states that produced the plane, wanted the department to purchase additional fighters at a total cost of $1.75 billion. Shortly before debate began on this Defense Department spending bill in the House, the Senate voted not to approve the purchase of any additional F-22?s. This amendment was based on the fact that no additional ones would be bought. It still provided for an additional $369 million for the purchase of spare parts and engines for the 187 existing F-22?s.

Rep. Murtha?s statement in support of the amendment began with him saying ?what I've done is say if we're not going to have (more) F-22?s, let's at least fund the original 187 airplanes at the fullest robust level.? He noted that a disagreement over how to proceed with the F-22 was the only difference that he had with the Republicans on the subcommittee over the terms of the amendment.

Rep. Young (R-FL), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3326, argued that ?187 (F-22?s) just doesn't guarantee that we will have what we need . . . if we need them and don't have them, where are we and where is the soldier on the ground? If we need them and don't have them, somebody else's airplane may be over that battlefield.? Young said ?it would have been better if we could have had a straight up-or-down vote on the F-22 (additional purchase) issue . . . So I will vote against this amendment . . . .?

Murtha agreed with Young that it would have been better if additional F-22?s had been purchased. However, Murtha noted that President Obama had said he would veto the Defense Department spending bill if it provided for the purchase of additional F?22?s, and the 2/3 votes required to override that veto would not be forthcoming in either the House or the Senate.

The amendment passed by a vote of 249-180. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and six Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred seventy Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, funds for the purchase of additional F-22 fighter planes were removed from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense and redirected to the purchase of spare parts and engines for existing F-22s, Air National Guard equipment, advanced radar development, and other purposes.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. Among the provisions of the legislation, as described by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, was a requirement that every food facility implement a food safety plan; that the Department of Health and Human Services issue rules to minimize the hazards from food-born contaminants which are based on actual testing and observations, establish standards for raw agricultural commodities using results from previous inspections, examine facilities based on a schedule that uses historical statistics to determine the likelihood of contamination, create a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform tests of food for import or export, and form a group of inspectors dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. The bill also created new protections for ?whistleblowers?, or industry or department insiders who report improper behavior.

Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who was among the leading supporters of the bill, noted that it also gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ?both the authority and the funds to address not only American foods but foods being imported . . . .? H.R.2749 was supported by the Centers for Science and Public Interest, Consumers Union, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a large industry group.

The reasons for opposition to the bill were expressed by Rep. Lucas (R-OK), who referred to it as ?another example of Federal power without the benefit of careful consideration.? He first objected to the procedure under which it was handled, criticizing the House Agriculture Committee chairman for not asking to review it and ?make improvements? before it was brought to the House floor, although that committee had ?a clear jurisdictional claim?.

Then Lucas said ?this is not just a matter of jurisdiction . . . .?He singled out for ?particular concern? the federal mandate in H.R. 2749 ?that the Food and Drug Administration set on-farm production performance standards. For the first time, we would have the Federal Government prescribing how our farmers grow crops (although) . . . We have been doing it for a very long time, and we have been doing it without the FDA.? Lucas also argued that the bill ?leaves our nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to objectionable regulatory burdens.? In addition, he claimed: ?(N)ew quarantine authorities for FDA will undermine animal and plant inspection control programs that have been in place at the Department of Agriculture for decades.?

Lucas concluded his remarks by saying: ?(T)he vast majority of these provisions, along with new penalties, record-keeping requirements, traceability, labeling, country-of-origin labeling, will do absolutely nothing to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks, but will do plenty to keep the Federal bureaucracy busy.?

The legislation did not pass. The vote was taken under a House procedure whereby the usual rules are suspended and debate is limited. This procedure requires a two-thirds vote for passage, rather than the usual majority. The vote was 280-150. Two hundred and thirty Democrats and fifty Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred twenty-seven Republicans and twenty-three Democrats voted ?nay?. But, since the two-thirds vote required under this procedure was not achieved, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 was not approved. Supporters of the legislation still had the opportunity to bring the bill up under regular House procedures, where it would pass with a simple majority.

This vote was on a motion to table (kill) a resolution that would have disapproved the manner in which the Democratic Members of the commission dealing with the House?s special mailing rights were carrying out their responsibilities. The resolution had been offered by House Republican Leader Boehner (R-OH) as a ?privileged? matter, which meant it would have been immediately taken up by the House. After it was offered, House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) moved that the resolution be tabled (killed).

Members of Congress are permitted to send official mail without postage. The communications may include, among other things, letters to constituents, newsletters regarding legislation and Member votes, press releases about official Member activities, and government reports. They may not send out partisan material without postage. There is a bipartisan commission that oversees these free mailing rights.

The Boehner resolution was prompted by a decision of the Democratic members of the commission to prevent Republican House Members from sending out a chart which contained an illustration of the Democratic health care proposal. According to Roll Call, a publication that covers Congress, the chart consisted of ?a convoluted maze of government offices and programs? and the mailing criticized the Democratic proposal. In response to the action of the Democratic commission Members, Minority Leader Boehner said the Democrats were ?trying to restrict Members of Congress from showing (the problems with the health care proposal) to their constituents, and that?s just wrong.? He then offered this resolution disapproving of the actions of the Democratic members of the commission.

The position of the Democrats, according to Roll Call, was that ?sending out the chart as official mail would violate House rules because the information is misleading (and partisan). Rules . . . bar Members from using taxpayer-funded mail for newsletters that use ?partisan, politicized or personalized? comments to criticize legislation or policy.? INCLUDEPICTURE "http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/ui/clearpixel.gif" \* MERGEFORMAT The Boehner resolution was killed by a vote of 244-173 along almost straight party lines. All two hundred and forty-four ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred seventy-two Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House effectively decided not to disapprove of the manner in which the Democratic Members of the commission dealing with House Members? special mailing rights were carrying out their responsibilities.

H.R. 3326 provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms of debate of the bill. That rule limited the number of amendments that could be offered to it. The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what it said was an unfair practice of the Democratic majority of presenting rules limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) pointed to the limitation on amendments and argued against what he called ?the shutting down of the appropriations process?, which he said had been done ?for the first time in the 220-year history of the United States of America?. He also said the rule on H.R. 3288 was the ?last opportunity? for the House to open the fiscal year 2010 appropriation process because the Democrats had ?closed down? the ability of Members to amend all the previous appropriation bills the House had considered.

Rep. Young (R-FL), also opposed the limitation on amendments. He said that when Republicans ?were the majority, we brought (this appropriation bill) to the floor under an open rule. We allowed all of the Members, not just the members of the subcommittee, not just the members of the Appropriations Committee, but we allowed all of the Members . . . to offer whatever amendments they felt that they should offer and to have the debate.?

Rep. Dicks (D-WA), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, defended the limitation on amendments as ?the responsible thing to do . . . in order to get our work done . . . .? He said that ?we could not let this thing be open-ended when one side (the Republicans) just wants to abuse the process . . . .? Dicks also argued that ?the way to work this thing out is for the two sides to get together before we go to the floor and limit the number of amendments . . . if both sides can control their Members.? He suggested that the Democrats had tried, but failed, to get such an agreement.

Rep. Polis (D-CO) also defended the Democratic approach and pointed to the fact that the rule for the bill did permit a number of amendments to be offered.

The resolution passed by a vote of 241-185. All Two hundred and forty-one ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred seventy-four Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.

This was a motion to bring to an immediate vote, the resolution setting the terms of debate for H.R. 3326; that bill provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Defense.

The resolution setting the terms for debate limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill. The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what it said was an unfair practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Flake (R-AZ) had been among the most vocal opponents of the limitation on amendments. He argued against ordering the previous question and against the resolution. Flake raised a point of order and said the Democratic majority ?has shut down what has traditionally been an open process.? He added: ?(I)n recent years, this bill has been rife with earmarks, (or legislatively mandated grants inserted at the request of individual Members) . . . There are 1,102 earmarks stuffed into this bill, and nearly 550 of them, worth at least $1.3 billion, are going to private, for-profit companies.? Flake characterized the insertion of earmarks as ?corrupting?.

Flake referred to the Democratic claim that a limitation on amendments was needed to keep to a congressional schedule, and said ?(Y)ou cannot vet more than 1,000 earmarks, more than 550 of which are no-bid contracts to private companies, in 18 minutes . . . Maybe the trains are running on time, but we're not doing our job here.? Flake acknowledged that ?when Republicans were in the majority . . . we did a few things that we shouldn't have. But . . . No matter how the Republicans, when they were in power, didn't want to see amendments . . . they allowed them . . . this (amending) process has been traditionally open.?

Rep. Polis (D-CO) was leading support for the resolution setting the terms for debate and for ordering the previous question on it. He noted that that the resolution permitted several amendments to be offered. Polis also argued that the purpose of the point of order raised by Rep. Flake was to delay ?consideration of this (spending) bill and, ultimately, stopping it. I hope my colleagues will again vote ?yes? so we can consider this legislation on its merits and fund the important defense needs of our nation and not stop it on a procedural motion . . . .?

Flake responded by saying: I'm not trying to delay this process unnecessarily. This (point of order) isn't a dilatory tactic. It's just about the only way we can stand and actually register objection to this closed process.?

The motion passed by a vote of 245-176 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred seventy-one Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate for the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Defense.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 556, the Southern Sea Otter Recovery and Research Act. The bill directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a program addressing the decline of the southern sea otter population. That population had experienced very slow growth over the previous decade because of high death rates. The causes of death included disease and parasites, malnutrition and entanglement in fishing gear.

H.R. 556 directed the Fish and Wildlife Service to examine health, mortality, and life history parameters of the southern sea otter, and to develop measures to reduce factors impacting marine ecosystems, health and human activities that limit sea otter populations. Rep. Bordallo (D-Guam) said in her statement in support of the measure that it had been modified from its original form ?to address concerns of coastal fishing interests.? She also said that the funds in the bill provided ?a stable and reliable source of funding for critically needed research, monitoring, and implementation of recovery actions.? Bordallo claimed that southern sea otters ?are a keystone and a sentinel species that are an important part of the California coastal ecosystem.

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) led the opposition to the bill. He said his opposition was based on the fact that H.R. 556 ?will take a threatened species and place its management needs above others, even if those species are in danger of becoming extinct. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the agency with management over the southern sea otter and most other animals listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Service should be afforded the opportunity to make its own determination on how best to use Endangered Species Act recovery funds. I don't believe Congress should get into the habit of promoting one species' needs over other more endangered species. We should let the management agency do its job, guided by the Endangered Species Act. ?

Rep. Farr (D-CA), who introduced the original version of H.R. 556, responded to Hastings by noting that Congress had previously passed measures that singled out certain individual species for protection - - including the African elephant, the bald and the golden eagles, the fur seal, the starfish, the North Pacific halibut, the salmon and the Atlantic striped bass. Farr also noted the several organizations that favored the bill, including the Defenders of Wildlife, the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The legislation passed by a vote of 316-107. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and seventy Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and five Republicans and two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a program addressing the decline of the southern sea otter population.

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3293, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education .The bill included more than $160 billion in spending for the three departments.

Rep. Hastings (D-FL), speaking in support of the bill, said that the funds for the Department of Education were intended ?to prepare America's youth for an increasingly competitive global economy and to ensure that all Americans have access to the education needed to succeed.? He said the funds for the Department of Labor were intended ?to protect and develop our current workforce (and to help) . . . the American economy be more competitive.? He also said the funds for the Department of Health and Human Services were intended to provide ?much-needed assistance to our vulnerable populations.? Hastings added, ?as we in Congress work to pass health care reform in the coming weeks, this bill will help build the capacity of our health care system and provide funding for job training in the health care sector . . . .?

Hastings concluded his remarks by claiming: ?(F)or 8 years, the Republican administration placed the needs of the wealthy and the privileged before those of the middle class and the poor, and now we are paying the price . . .  With our economy in turmoil, Democrats are picking up the pieces of the Bush administration and restoring this Congress' responsibilities to protect our nation's health and social safety nets to ensure equal access to a quality education and to develop a globally competitive workforce.?

The Republican minority opposed the bill on the grounds of both substance and procedure. Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) led its efforts. He noted that the bill increased the equivalent fiscal year 2009 funding levels by $11 billion, but said that ?the true cost to the American taxpayer has to include the $126 billion that was allocated in the (previously-passed) stimulus act? to the departments funded by H.R. 3293. Tiahrt argued that, ?in reality, these agencies have grown by $135.3 billion, or a 93 percent increase over 2 years.? He said the ?massive amounts of money . . . in this bill . . . may be good in the long term but have absolutely nothing to do with bringing this country out of the economic crisis we're facing today.?

Tiahrt then noted the other objections the Republicans had with the bill. He said Republicans had ?serious problems with regard to cost and access and rationing (of health care), and that there were concerns as to ?how this bill will interact with the (pending) health care reform bill, how it will affect the covered agencies, how it will create a situation of rationed health care . . . .?

Tiahrt also repeated complaints that the Republican minority had been making about what it said was an unfair practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on spending bills. He said: ?(O)ne of the most important duties of this House, as directed by article I, section 9 of the Constitution, is to determine the financial obligations of the federal government, the power of the purse . . . Yet instead of being able to have a healthy discussion, as the Founders intended with this representative body, Members, both Republican and Democrat, I note, are shut out of the process and only permitted to speak for a short time without the ability to offer alternatives.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 264-153. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and twenty Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and forty-eight Republicans and five Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent to the Senate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS), which would have send the fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education back to the Appropriations Committee. The motion would have also required the committee to add one billion dollars to the bill for special education programs, and reduce various other categories in the bill by an equal amount.

Rep. Tiahrt supported his motion by noting that ?when the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act . . . was enacted . . . the federal government was committed to pay 40 percent of the costs needed to educate a special-needs child. Today, however, we are falling short of that promise. Now, our good intentions have turned into bad consequences. The federal government's mandate has undermined the public school system's ability to adequately meet the needs of the special children. This is not acceptable for either the children who need special education or those without disabilities who watch their education programs cut in order to fund Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act.?

Regarding the funding reductions that the motion would have made, Tiahrt said ?we only take money from new programs or we continue programs that exist at a lower level than we have today to replace it with a higher priority program, the Individual with Disabilities and Education Act.?

Rep. Obey(D-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee that developed H.R. 3293, opposed the amendment. He said it reflects a practice, in which he was not in favor, of ?legislators who think that the way to do business is to cut everybody else's priorities in order to fund theirs. That's not the way 435 (Members) can come to a constructive conclusion.? He then suggested that the real purpose of the amendment was to enable the Republicans ?to recover politically? from the fact that none of them voted for the recently-enacted economic stimulus bill, which increased special education funding by $12 billion.

Obey noted: ?(I)n the 12 years the Republicans were in control of this House, they increased special education (only) by a total of $8.5 billion. We increased it by $12 billion in 1 year, and not a single (Republican) Member . . . voted for it.  And now, they're belatedly trying, by cutting a laundry list of other programs, to pretend that they found a responsible way to free up money to fund Special Education.?

Obey then noted the reductions the amendment would have made to pay for the increase in special education funding. They included $300 million from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; $170 million from the Community Service and Volunteer Program; a combined $148 million from the Reach Out and Read, Teach for America, Full Service Community Schools, and Reading is Fundamental programs; and $100 million from the School Improvement account .

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 171-248 along almost straight party lines. One hundred and sixty-eight Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and forty-eight ?nay? votes were cast by Democrats. As a result, no increase in the special education category and no decreases in any other category were made in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and the House moved to an immediate vote on H.R. 3293.

This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Wittman (R-V A) to H.R.3293, the bill that provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The amendment would have reduced total funding in the bill by $803 million or .5% of its total amount

 Wittman said he did not question the value of many of the programs funded by this bill, but ?I offer this amendment because our nation cannot continue on this path of deficit spending without serious, negative, long-term consequences.? He noted that the bill had more than $160 billion in discretionary spending, which was 7% over the fiscal year 2009 level, and a 12.8% increase in spending over the 2008 level. Wittman added that ?(I)t's hard to explain to a family that has had to make tough choices about their own spending that Washington can't make the same tough choices.?

Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) supported the amendment. He claimed that, including the funds for these departments that were provided in the recently-passed economic stimulus legislation, the increase in their spending from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010 is actually 93%. He then said, ?when you look at it in total, a .5% reduction is merely scratching the surface . . . this doesn't eliminate any programs. This doesn't put anybody in a hardship.?

 Rep. Obey (D-WI), who chairs the Appropriations Committee that developed H.R. 3293, opposed the amendment. He began by saying that it ?would cut $803 million out of important investments in this bill.? Obey then claimed that the Appropriations Committee ?has already cut a total of $10 billion from the President's discretionary spending request, and this bill . . . on a comparable basis, is (actually only 3.6% above the equivalent 2009 spending levels). That is hardly runaway spending. Furthermore, when you look at program lines, you will see that this bill makes hard choices to terminate programs that are not working, with $1.3 billion in cuts to individual programs below the 2009 level. The bill terminates or cuts 44 programs. The largest single program increase is for the Social Security Administration, effectively one fourth of the bill's entire increase for 2009.?

Obey concluded his remarks by saying that no Democrat ?needs to hear a lecture about deficits. I have opposed the Bush policies, both economic and war policies, which led to the unraveling of the budget, which led to a huge amount of debt and which led to the collapse of the economy. I don't think we need more of that kind of medicine.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 199-229. One hundred and sixty-seven Republicans and thirty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-five Democrats and four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reduction was made in the total amount in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Pence (R-IN) to H.R.3293, the bill that provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. The amendment would have prohibited any family planning and preventive health services funds in the bill from going to the Planned Parenthood organization. The web site of the House Republican Conference, which informed Republican Members about proposed amendments to pending legislation, claimed that Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of federal family planning money, having received ?nearly $350 million of American taxpayer money? in 2007 and 2008. It also said that Planned Parenthood was ?the largest abortion provider in America.? The site claimed that ?one in every five (U.S). abortions occurs at a Planned Parenthood facility.?

Pence began his remarks by saying he believes ?it's morally wrong to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to fund abortion providers.? He acknowledged ?that current laws and regulations prevent (family planning) funds from flowing directly to funding abortions,? but said that Planned Parenthood is ?able to use the resources they receive from taxpayers to . . . free up resources to engage in the abortion trade . . . . ?

In support of the amendment, Rep. Schmidt (R-OH) said: ?Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans are opposed to paying for abortions through their tax dollars. This amendment . . . simply brings the federal family planning funds in line with the sentiment of the majority of Americans.?

Rep. Obey, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, which developed H.R. 3293, opposed the amendment. He noted that there is already a prohibition on using family planning funds for abortions, and that the amendment would ?not reduce overall funds for family planning services.? He then argued that Planned Parenthood clinics funded by the bill ?provide important health care access to low-income uninsured patients, 5 million women in 4,500 clinics nationwide. The breast cancer screenings and the well-mother exams they receive may be the only health care they get all year.    If Planned Parenthood clinics are forced to close, these women may have to forgo critical care because they will lack a single provider providing family planning funding, and this amendment would only make matters worse.?

Rep. Holt (D-NJ), who also opposed the amendment, said the discussion ?should not be an anti-choice or pro-choice debate . . . This debate should be about prevention. It should be about continuing to provide women with the necessary tools for prevention, including contraception and education. It should be about protecting women's health by providing women with access to reproductive health care. We all should be able to agree that we would like to see fewer abortions performed in this country, and comprehensive family planning services that Planned Parenthood provides are a proven means to accomplish that. ?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 183-247. One hundred and sixty-three Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no language was added to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Health and Human Services that would have prohibited federal family planning funds from going to Planned Parenthood.

This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Souder (R-IN) to H.R.3293, the bill that provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being devoted to hypodermic needles that could conceivably be used by those taking illegal drugs. H.R. 3293 included language that allowed federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs: That language was intended to reduce the incidence of HIV.

Souder began his remarks in support of his amendment by claiming that, in most cases, ?the HIV virus does not come through needles. The overwhelming majority comes through sexual activity . . . .? He cited what he called ?recent comprehensive analysis of the evidence by the U.S. Institute of Medicine (which) noted that the evidence that needle exchanges reduce HIV incidence is limited and inconclusive, that the evidence is even worse for Hepatitis C transmission, and that their impact on high-risk behaviors like sex-related risk is inconclusive.?

Souder argued that ?Congress has repeatedly banned needle exchange programs (because) . . . they may undermine community drug-prevention messages and programs, . . . providing needles acts is a way for drug users to sustain and support their intravenous drug use . . . (it) does not address the primary illness of the drug addiction itself, and needle exchange programs direct critical resources away from treatment and intervention programs . . . .?

Rep. Roybal-Allard (D-CA), who had previously worked in alcohol and drug prevention programs, was among those opposing the amendment. She argued that the elimination of ?the ban on Federal dollars for needle exchange programs is based on sound scientific research that tells us these programs are a valuable HIV prevention tool that does not increase drug use.? Roybal-Allard claimed that the Souder Amendment ?returns us to a practice of allowing personal belief rather than science to direct our Federal funding decisions. The science is clear. When addicts have clean needles available, the incidence of HIV infection declines among users. Furthermore, needle exchange programs provide a critical portal to treatment and are an important part of our efforts to reduce the HIV epidemic.?

Rep. Mollohan (D-WV) also opposed the amendment because he felt it could increase the incidence of HIV and other diseases. He said ?those of you who might support this amendment because you believe that withholding clean needles from addicted drug users is somehow helping in the fight against illegal drug use, please allow me to suggest that that is a mistaken view . . . the needle exchange program advocated for and carried out by health professionals is not one of those enablers because . . . at the moment that an addicted person has to have the drug, he or she is driven by this craving and the condition of the needle is not going to deter its use . . . The condition of the needle is not the deterrence and therefore withholding clean needles simply means that they likely use and share dirty needles--and this spreads disease.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 211-218. One hundred and sixty-five Republicans and forty-six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twelve Democrats and six Republicans voted ?nay? . As a result, the language allowing federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs remained in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Health and Human Services.

This was a vote on the amendment offered by Rep. Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which developed H.R.3293, the bill that provided $161 billion in 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The amendment made a number of increases and decreases in various spending programs in the measure, the total of which left overall spending in the bill at the $161 billion figure. The largest change was a $10 million increase in grants that could be made by the Department of Education to charter school program management organizations, and all increases were offset by the total of all reductions. It is not unusual for a committee chairman to offer an amendment, making a number of changes to a bill developed in his or her committee, when it is debated on the House floor.

Among the changes made by the amendment, in addition to that for charter school management grants, were: An additional $5 million for the Department of Labor Career Pathways Innovation Fund; an additional $5 million for the Mathematics and Science Partnership program; an additional $2 million for the Reach Out and Read program; an additional $1 million for the emergency medical services for children's programs; an additional $1 million for the National Center for Health Statistics; and an additional $1 million for university-based modeling and simulation programs. The language of the amendment also prohibited any federal officials from using funds provided by H.R. 3293 for first class travel.

There was significant Republican opposition to the amendment. The opposition was not based on the spending changes made by the amendment, but on the fact that it incorporated nine separate amendments that had been proposed by Democratic Members. The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what it was saying was an unfair practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills. This included the limitation on amendments to H.R. 3293.

Rep Tiahrt (R-KS) said that incorporating those nine Democratic amendments in this way eliminated the need to have them made in order individually, while at the same time individual Republican amendments were not made in order. He then identified a number of other amendments that the Republicans wanted to offer that were not made in order by the Democratic majority.

The Obey amendment passed by a vote of 284-137. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and thirty-two Republicans voted ?aye?. All One hundred and thirty-seven ?nay? votes were cast by Republicans. As a result, a number of increases and reductions of $10 million or less were made in the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

H.R.3293 provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The bill included $161 billion in spending. This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms of debate of the funding bill. The most controversial element of the rule was the language that limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill.

Rep Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the support for the rule setting the terms for debate, presented arguments on behalf of the legislation to which the rule related. He said that H.R. 3293, among other things, included provisions ?providing much-needed assistance to our vulnerable populations . . . (by helping) families stay warm through the winter by providing (funds for the) low-income energy assistance program . . . (and by increasing) nutrition, transportation and other supportive services for seniors . . . .? Hastings also said ?this bill will help build the capacity of our health care system and provide funding for job training in the health care sector, one of the strongest and fastest-growing sectors in our economy.?

The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what they maintained was the unfair practice of the Democratic majority of presenting rules limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had often failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Sessions (R-TX) opposed the rule and cited the limitation on the number of amendments it permitted as the primary reason. He said that Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI) had imposed ?an arbitrary timeline to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills which has forced this Congress and the Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every Republican's and Democrat's chance to offer an amendment on the floor.? He asked, rhetorically: ?Why are we doing this for the first time in the history of this Republic? Why won't they allow for the open and honest debate that they called for just a few years ago??

Sessions went on to say that Republican Members ?offered 12 amendments (to this spending bill) to ensure that a thoughtful and constructive debate could take place . . . Yet what happened? Only four were made in order. . . This Democrat Congress, in unprecedented fashion, continues to reject and silence the American public and to muzzle Members on the floor of the House of Representatives . . . .?

Rep. Flake (R-AZ) also complained about the limitation on the number of amendments that the rule permitted. He argued that ?(even) if we agree to stay within the time constraints, (the Democratic majority) still won't allow us to substitute the amendments that we would like to offer.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 232-187. All Two hundred and thirty-two ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. One hundred seventy-two Republicans and fifteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

H.R.3293 provided 2010 fiscal year funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It included $161 billion in spending. This was on a motion to have the House should move to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms of debate of the bill.

Rep Hastings (D-FL), who was leading the support for the resolution setting the terms for debate, claimed that H.R. 3293 continued Congress' ?commitment to fiscal responsibility by coming in $52 million below the President's request, and cutting 46 individual programs . . . .? The resolution for H.R. 3293 permitted that only a limited number of amendments could be offered to the bill.

The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what they maintained was the unfair practice of the Democratic majority of presenting rules limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Flake (R-AZ), who had been among the most vocal opponents of the limitation on amendments, described the limiting of amendments as ?martial law, in legislative terms . . . .? He said: ?(W)e're in the minority, yes. But we do have some rights . . . .? Referring to the position of the Democrats that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule, Flake said it was ?(even) if we agree to stay within the time constraints, then they still won't allow us to substitute the amendments that we would like to offer.?

He claimed ?We're told, ?We've got to get it done today, and we're only going to allow four amendments from the (Republican) side, and they are the four that we pick.?? Flake added ?bad process always begets bad policy, and it will come back to bite at some point.?

Rep. Sessions (R-TX) argued that this was ?the first time in the history of the Republic? that restrictions on amendments in spending bills have been imposed. He described the schedule set by the Democratic majority on the passage of all spending bills as ?an arbitrary timeline . . . .? and claimed that there were hundreds of amendments that both Democrats and Republicans wanted to offer. Sessions said the limitation on amendments had particularly serious consequences on H.R. 3293, which had a ?huge increase in spending? over the corresponding figures in the current fiscal year.

The motion passed on a vote of 239-181. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred seventy Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the resolution setting the terms for debate on the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Several housing authorities in large cities had imposed prohibitions on the possession of guns. Rep. Price (R-GA) wanted to offer an amendment to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development that would have overturned those prohibitions. The chair ruled his effort to offer the amendment was out of order. He appealed that ruling to the House. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) the appeal by Price of the ruling of the chair

Rep. Price (R-GA) originally claimed that he should have been permitted to offer his amendment as a ?matter of privilege?. The decision of the chair that he had appealed did not permit Price to offer his amendment because House procedures do not permit a ?matter of privilege? to be raised as a way to force a vote on an amendment.

Rep. Price was permitted to argue in support of his claim that his ability to offer the amendment was a ?matter of privilege?. He said Members may raise questions in privileged resolutions regarding their rights, and nothing ?is more fundamental to the rights of the Members of this House than the ability to represent their constituents and to affect the legislation that's brought to the floor.? Price also claimed: ?(T)he Democratic majority . . . has unilaterally--some would say brazenly, some would say repressively--ended a 220-year tradition of allowing any Member to (offer an amendment to) a spending bill.?

Price added: ?(W)hen my constituents sent me here to Congress . . . they sent me here . . . to exercise every single ability that a Member of the House is granted . . . If Members are not allowed to offer amendments, then the Member, him or herself, is unable to represent their constituents and consequently is disenfranchising every single American.?

The appeal was killed on a vote of 238-182. Two hundred and thirty-seven Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred seven-one Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House effectively decided not to allow the offering of an amendment to overturn the prohibitions on guns in public housing projects.

This was a vote on House passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. The bill included $123 billion in spending - - $47 billion for HUD programs and $76 billion for transportation infrastructure and support. Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed HR. 3288, said that the bill ?has emphasized investments in five key areas: One, building healthy communities with environmentally sustainable solutions; two, maintaining services in rural communities; three, supporting vulnerable populations; four, investing in the national infrastructure; and, five, ensuring transportation safety.? He also said that the level of HUD funding ?recognizes that foreclosure rates remain high and the current (poor) economic climate and weak job market have increased demand for affordable housing.?

Rep. Latham (R-IA), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, opposed passage of the bill in its current form. Latham noted that his opposition was based on the fact that its total spending was ?25 percent over the fiscal year 2009 level.?

He also opposed the passage of H.R. 3288 because he claimed that the procedures for debating the bill imposed by the Democrats limited the number of amendments that could be offered to reduce the spending levels. Latham argued that this limitation prevented ?a serious debate . . . to allow our constituents to have some say in how those funds are spent.? Latham gave as an example an amendment he had proposed, but which was not made in order, to transfer funds from rapid rail development to the highway construction fund, which he claimed was going to run out of money.

The legislation passed by a vote of 256-168. Two hundred and forty Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-eight Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Transportation.

H.R. 3288 provided fiscal year 2010 funding bill for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. This was a vote on a motion made by Rep. Latham (R-IA) to recommit (send the bill back) to the Appropriations Committee. The motion also included instructions to the committee to reduce the spending figures in any category that exceed the amount requested by the Obama Administration to those requested levels.

Rep. Latham (R-IA), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, said he ?would be a strong supporter of this bill if the funding levels weren't so astronomically out of proportion with the current reality.? He noted that the total funding in H.R. 3288 was 25% higher than the equivalent fiscal year '09 level, an increase he referred to as ?absurd, especially in the context of the huge sums of funding provided to the Department of Transportation and HUD through the (previously-passed economic) stimulus bill.? Latham also said: ?(T)his bill would fund these agencies at $68 billion on top of the more than $61.8 billion they received through the stimulus. How can these agencies possibly spend through this funding in an efficient and effective manner? So in response to this reckless pattern, my motion . . . saves the U.S. taxpayers $5.4 billion.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed HR. 3288, opposed the amendment. He said that his subcommittee had ?taken an independent view? of the spending levels. Olver contrasted that approach with what he called the ?rubber-stamping? that the subcommittee did when it was controlled by the Republicans and it reviewed the budgets submitted by the Bush Administration. Olver also said that the increases in the bill above the levels submitted by the Obama Administration were to do ?something more for vulnerable populations.? He cited as an example the increase in the Section 8 rental subsidy program, which he said was made because ?the needs got greater from when the requests were made (by the Obama Administration) . . . because there are more people out of work than there were at the time the request was made . . . .?

The motion was defeated by a vote of 192-225. One hundred and seventy Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-four Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation was not sent back to committee to have the levels reduced, and the House moved immediately to a vote on its passage.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), which would have deleted $750,000 earmarked for the Philadelphia Museum of Art Transportation Improvement Program. It was offered to H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling had been constantly criticizing ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills.

Hensarling began his remarks by noting the one trillion dollar federal deficit, and said ?I have no doubt that this is a good use of money . . . but I have a number of questions. Number one, why is this a federal responsibility (and if so) . . . why didn't this money go to the . . . thousands of other art museums in the nation, are they not equally deserving?  And if this is a federal responsibility, is it really a federal priority at a time when, under this Democratic majority, we now have the highest rate of unemployment that we've had in a quarter of a century . . .? Maybe our priority ought to be to try to create more jobs, and there are hundreds of thousands of small businesses . . . that could benefit from that money . . . .?

Hensarling went on to say, ?if I concede the argument that somehow this is not only a federal responsibility but a federal priority, again, is it of equal priority to creating jobs? Is it of equal priority to the money that goes to the National Institutes of Health for cancer research? . . . I think not . . .  it just doesn't meet the test of the taxpayers and the struggling families in this nation.?

Hensarling added that the taxpayers in his Texas district ?don't want to pay for (Philadelphia) transportation projects, and they have transportation needs of their own. If this is such a priority, why doesn't the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania take it out of their share of the Federal Highway Trust Fund? Why doesn't the State of Pennsylvania take it from their taxpayers? Why doesn't the City of Philadelphia take it from their taxpayers, or maybe the art museum has to charge a little bit more so that the struggling taxpayers . . . don't have to pay more in taxes . . . .?

Rep. Brady (D-PA), who was the Member responsible for having the earmark inserted into this spending bill, responded by saying ?the money does not go to the art museum. The art museum is located in the city of Philadelphia, and it benefits the entire region. This isn't private property. It's a public street that runs around a city-owned building. The contracts for this work will be let by Pennsylvania's transportation department, administered by the city of the Philadelphia . . . This area has proven to be extremely dangerous for drivers and pedestrians alike. I requested funding for this earmark because it's vitally important for the safety and well-being of my constituents, as well as the millions of others who visit Philadelphia every year.?   He added that: ?(T)he reason why government was formed is to protect our citizens. . . I am bringing back resources . . . .?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 192-226. One hundred and seventy Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and twenty-five Democrats and one Republican voted ?nay?. As a result, the $750,000 earmarked for the Philadelphia Museum of Art Transportation Improvement Program remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), which would have deleted $2,000,000, earmarked for the reconfiguration of the approach road to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. It was offered to H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. The Golden Gate Bridge is owned and operated by the state of California, which charges tolls on it. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been regularly criticizing ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills.

Hensarling began his remarks by saying that not ?all earmarks are bad. I'm not even here to tell you that somehow this is a bad use of somebody's money . . . I've heard a number of people say, ?Well, relative to the Federal budget, this is kind of pennies and nickels.? Well, yes, maybe it is. I hope . . . I'm never in Congress so long that I consider $2 million to be pennies and nickels . . . if you don't start saving those pennies and nickels, how will you ever save the dollars?? Hensarling then said that the federal deficit is ?on its way to $1.8 trillion (and) . . . maybe $2 million is small relative to that, but if you don't change the culture of spending, how are you ever going to change the spending??

Hensarling then referenced the fact that Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA) was responsible for having these funds inserted into H.R. 3288. He argued that she had said ?prior to becoming the Speaker of the House, I'd just as soon do away with all earmarks . . . (and) if you would just as soon do away with earmarks why don't you lead by example and quit asking for them??

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed HR. 3288, opposed the amendment. He noted that earmarks in the 2010 fiscal year HUD and Transportation Department funding bill had been cut to 50 percent of the 2006 levels they were at when the Republicans were in the majority and controlled the funding process. He also noted that, in 2009, new requirements were introduced by the Democrats ?to continue our effort to ensure that the appropriations process is open, transparent and worthy of the public's trust. As part of that, the committee vetted each (earmark) request with the agency under whose jurisdiction an earmark would fall. Also, each request has been publicly disclosed on Members' Web sites so everyone can know exactly what has been asked by every Member and what ones are being funded.?

Olver also noted that the Golden Gate Bridge and its approach roads are the only link between the San Francisco peninsula and Northern California counties, and are designated as a post-disaster recovery route.

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 124-309. One hundred and twenty-one Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-six Democrats and fifty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $2,000,000 earmarked for the reconfiguration project for the approach road to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $500,000, earmarked for additional turn lanes, signals and a sidewalk on Rib Mountain Drive near Wausau Wisconsin, from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He repeated arguments he had been making against many earmarks in a series of spending bills. He first asked, rhetorically, ?why are we paying for a roadway that doesn't serve an interstate purpose . . . it's a parochial interest.?

Flake then argued ?that the State of Wisconsin has a program where they grant funding for programs like this . . . on a priority basis. Apparently, the State of Wisconsin didn't see this as a priority or they would have funded it, or perhaps they did, but in realizing there was a powerful Member here in Congress, felt they didn't have to because the federal taxpayer could pick up the tab.? The ?powerful Member? to whom he was referring was Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI).

Flake then returned to the claim he had been making during the debate on a number of spending bills that there is a ?pattern? whereby Members of the House leadership and of the Appropriations Committee received what he called the ?spoils? of earmarks. Flake supported that claim by noting that between 46% and 70% earmarked funds in all the recent spending bills had gone to districts represented by these Members, who constitute only 24% of the House.

He concluded his arguments by saying ?we should stand up and say that we cannot sustain this level of spending . . . it's not just a Democrat thing or a Republican thing. This body, as a whole, is guilty of it (and) earmarks are a large part of that . . . .?

Chairman Obey responded by first noting that his state, Wisconsin, receives far fewer federal dollars compared to what its taxpayers contribute than almost any other state. He then referenced the billions of federal dollars that Rep. Flake?s state, Arizona, had received for the Central Arizona Project that facilitated dramatic growth in Arizona, and said Arizona now ?begrudges somebody else trying to get pennies by comparison.?

Obey acknowledged that Rib Mountain Drive was not near the Interstate Highway System, but then asked, rhetorically, ?why on Earth should we confine federal responsibility only to communities lucky enough to be on Interstate roads? Why should we tell small rural towns, ?Sorry. Go off in the corner. You don't have a right to participate in Federal support.?'' He said ?we are trying to help the community of Rib Mountain . . . fix some problems on that heavily traveled and congested commercial corridor . . . .? Obey added that the unemployment rate in the Wausau area was 12%.   

Obey concluded his response by claiming that earmarks ?make up less than 1 percent of the discretionary part of the Federal budget . . . I don't know where (Rep. Flake) was when the previous (Bush) administration was turning $6 trillion in projected surpluses into a $1 trillion deficit.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 105-329. One hundred and one Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-five Democrats and seventy-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $500,000 earmarked for Rib Mountain Drive in Wisconsin remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the Millennium Technology Park project in New Castle, Pennsylvania, from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation. The supporters of the technology park claimed it would create ?new advanced job opportunities by providing small to large forward-thinking companies with pre-permitted, shovel-ready sites.?'

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He said that earmarking funds in spending bills is equivalent to saying that Congress does not trust federal bureaucrats to make the right decisions regarding how the funds should be spent. He added: ?(I)f we don't like the way they do it, then set up a structure and say you have to do it by merit. And if we don't like the way you've distributed it the following year . . . (and) prove that you did it on a basis that is not equitable, then we cut your funding completely the next year.?

Flake asked, rhetorically: ?(W)hy is it that we're being asked, as taxpayers in California and New Mexico, Arizona, New York, to pay for a technology park to attract businesses in Pennsylvania? ? He claimed that earmarks are disproportionately given to the Members in the congressional leadership and to Members of the Appropriations Committee. Flake gave as evidence of that claim the fact that districts represented by only 24% of all House Members received 70% of all earmarked funds.

Rep. Altmire (D-PA ), who was responsible for having this earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded to Rep. Flake. He noted that $18.7 million had already been spent on constructing the technology park and that this additional $500,000 would go only for access roads to it. Altmire said: ?I'm a second-term Member. I'm not an appropriator, and I'm not a chairman of a high-level committee, but I was elected to represent the Fourth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. I was elected to survey the need and to do everything I can to fight for my constituents and to fight for my district . . . I was able to convince the (appropriations) committee to put this money in because this is a good use of taxpayer funding. This is going to create jobs. This is going to grow the economy in two states across nine counties.?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 105-329. One hundred and one Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-six Democrats and seventy-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $500,000 earmarked for the Millennium Technology Park project in Pennsylvania remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $250,000, earmarked for the Monroe County, Kentucky Farmer's Market construction project, from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He repeated arguments he had been making against many earmarks in a series of spending bills and asked, rhetorically ?why are we saddling the taxpayers with a bill for construction of one more farmers' market? I have no doubt that this farmers' market in Kentucky has seen a drop in business as a result of the economy. Virtually every business across this country has . . . The question again here is how do we choose? And why do we say, all right, we're going to aid this one but not another one? And in particular at a time like this, why are we taking money from the taxpayers and then distributing it out as we see fit, rather than allowing them to keep it themselves??

Rep. Whitfield (R-KY), who was responsible for having this earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded to Rep. Flake. Whitfield said that Monroe County ?is primarily economically driven by agriculture and the textile industry, except the textile industry has closed down over the last 10 years or so. The unemployment rate in Monroe County right now is 15 percent. The most important economic engine in Monroe County is agriculture. And that's why I requested (funds) . . . to develop this farmers' exchange facility to help the economic development in that area.?

Whitfield then noted that the farmers market in Washington, DC had recently received two million dollars in federal money, but that ?Monroe County does not have access to high-priced lobbyists. There's not a lot of influence in Monroe County. So when they came to me--and I don't get that many earmarks--I simply felt it was the proper thing to do . . .?

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 98-331. Eighty-nine Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and eighty-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $250,000 earmarked for the Monroe County Farmers Market remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $400,000, earmarked for the renovation of a vacant building to promote economic development in Jal, New Mexico. The earmark is was in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He noted that the building to be renovated with these funds had been vacant for a number of years. He also noted that the city had a buyer in mind for the building, who had previously declined to purchase the old school due to its condition. Therefore, the city intended to use federal funds to rehabilitate the building to enable it to sell it to a private company.

Rep. Teague (D-NM), who was responsible for having this earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded to Rep. Flake. Teague said ?no one in (Washington) would likely ever know the name of (Jal) or that it existed at all . . . my job is) to put Jal on the map, to know the priorities and the needs of communities like Jal and to work to address them. If there is a problem in my district, it is my job to get to work solving it.?

Teague went on to say that Jal?s problem is that it needs to renovate the building for it to be useful again, which will enable the city ?to attract private industry to town. (This) will create jobs in Jal and increase the town's tax base. Projects like this are exactly why the Economic Development Initiative was legislated in the first place, and I'm proud to have sponsored this appropriation for Jal.? He added that he was ?not going to stand by and hope that some faceless bureaucrat looks kindly upon a place like Jal. I know the community's needs. I know the problems. I was elected to stand up for places like Jal, New Mexico, not hope that someone else does.?

Rep. Flake answered by saying that the earmark is ?just saying that we ought to give $400,000 to the city (even though) . . . every city in this country is hurting financially.? He added that if ?we won't trust these faceless bureaucrats to distribute earmarks or distribute Federal funding? as Rep. Teague suggested, then Flake ?would question the existence of this Economic Development Initiative (and) , we probably ought to get rid of it completely given the dire straits we are in financially as a federal government.? Flake concluded his remarks by arguing ?when you have a deficit that may hit $2 trillion . . . sometime this body has to say enough is enough. And if we can't keep (money) from going to a program like this, where are we going to start??

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 125-310. One hundred and eighteen Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and fifty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $400,000 earmarked for Jal, New Mexico remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the construction of a monument honoring Dominican immigrants in New York City from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. In support of his amendment, he made a statement that reflected the arguments he had been making on all the earmarks to which he had been objecting. He said: ?I would hope that you would have people here to make decisions and say we can't fund every district in the country. So maybe we shouldn't have an account that allows Members to simply earmark wherever they will.? Flake also argued that ?the problem with accounts like these economic development initiatives, is (they become) a catch-all term and it seems to act as an account that Members can simply earmark.?

He then repeated another argument he had been making against other earmarks, and said that ?only the powerful Members in this body--either those who are on the Appropriations Committee, which makes up 14 percent of this body . . . or if you include chairmen and ranking minority members--powerful committees in leadership . . . 24 percent . . . takes the bulk--in some cases, in some bills up to 70 percent--of the dollar value of the earmarks.?

Rep. Rangel (D-NY), who was one of the Members responsible for having the earmark inserted in H.R. 3288, noted that private sector interests, many non-profit groups, and the local and state government got together to provide much of the funding for the monument. He also said: ?(W)e should anchor a place of culture where kids can go after school, where we have sports, gymnasiums, poets, health care, and some place where the Dominicans can say that in a great country and in a great city and in a great community, they had a place anchored.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 124-310. One hundred and fifteen Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifth-one Democrats and fifty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $250,000 earmarked for the construction of a monument honoring Dominican immigrants in New York City remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $250,000 earmarked for the Murphy Theatre Community Center in Wilmington, Ohio from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. In support of his amendment, he raised one question that reflected the arguments he had been making on all the earmarks to which he had been objecting: ?Should the federal taxpayers in the State of Washington or Wisconsin or Arizona or Alaska or elsewhere be sending their hard-earned tax dollars to Washington to be earmarked to renovate a theater in Ohio . . . ?

Rep. Turner (R-OH), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded by saying ?all across the country we are all experiencing the economic downturn, but specifically, in Wilmington, Ohio . . .  As a result, the Ohio delegation has sought increased Federal assistance to help the community as they recover from this economic emergency . . . The 91-year-old Murphy Theatre . . . is the actual, as well as symbolic, heart of the downtown . . .Today the Murphy Theatre hosts an average of 35 events a year, serving approximately 6,000 adults and 4,000 children. Funding for this project will provide critical infrastructure assistance to ensure the viability of this local landmark. . . Wilmington hasn't the funds to perform even basic repairs to stabilize the condition of this American landmark.?

Flake answered: ?(T)hat sounds like a wonderful theater. As I mentioned, I think we all have them in all our districts . . . But we can't have a policy at the Federal level where we renovate every theater across the country, particularly while we're running a deficit that could hit $2 trillion this year. How many theaters out there are in need of repair? How many districts are experiencing high unemployment . . . We cannot continue to spend money as we're spending money, and I would submit this is a good place to start to say let's not fund some of these renovations of theaters under the guise of economic development.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 105-328. Ninety-six Republicans and nine Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-one Democrats and seventy-seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $250,000 earmarked for the Murphy Theatre Community Center in Wilmington, Ohio remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ), which would have deleted $500,000 earmarked for the terminal replacement project at Grand Forks International Airport in Grand Forks, North Dakota from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation.

Rep. Flake had been a constant critic of ?earmarks?, or legislatively mandated projects such as this one, that were inserted at the request of individual Members into funding bills. He said ?we're told that the funds that are being earmarked from this Airport Improvement Program . . . is a widely used competitive grant program that others can apply for grants from. The Competitive Grant Program stipulates later that the funds can't generally be used for terminals or terminal improvements. So the biggest question . . . is why in the world we're designating money from this account that is an account for competitive grants to be received by applicants, why we're designating it as an earmark to an airport terminal that typically falls outside of the purview of the funds in this account.?

Rep. Pomeroy (D-ND), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted into H.R. 3288, responded. He presented statistics showing that about 1/8 of the money in the competitive grant program is used for airport terminals. He said it is used where terminals are ?beyond repair and must be attended to on a priority basis for the needs of the general public . . . They involve issues of safety.? Pomeroy noted that the Grand Forks International Airport is the 22nd busiest airport in the country because is hosts a major pilot training program, which ?places a tremendous traffic burden on what would otherwise be a small airport facility.? 

Flake responded by saying ?I'm not questioning the need for renovations to the terminal?, but then repeated an argument he had been making against earmarks in a series of spending bills. He said ?we appropriate money to the various agencies, and we'll instruct them to establish a competitive grant program to distribute the moneys to worthy recipients. Then the folks at home in the municipal airports or states or whatever district they're in will decide that they want . . . these funds . . . I'm not blaming Democrats. Republicans are just as guilty of this . . . In this particular case, this earmark is taken from an account that is supposed to be competitively offered, and grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis on the basis of merit.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 108-327. One hundred and two Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-four Democrats and seventy-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the $500,000 earmarked for the Grand Forks, North Dakota International Airport remained in the bill providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Stearns (R-FL) which would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation by 25%.

Stearns argued that ?with the economy contracting and unemployment rising, it's not responsible to drastically increase spending . . . .? He pointed to the additional amounts provided to HUD and the Transportation Department in the recently-passed economic stimulus bill, and claimed that the total amount provided for the two departments would effectively remain at the fiscal year 2009 level ?if the stimulus act funding is taken into account, even with the 25 percent reduction that I am proposing . . . .?

Stearns acknowledged that there are ?a lot of good programs in this bill that I strongly support . . . .? He then said that ?funding for programs within this bill will have increased 146 percent since the Democrats took over in the year 2007. This level of spending is simply unsustainable in the light of the nation's growing deficits and the debt.? He also argued that additional spending ?at a time when we're drowning in debt and experiencing the worst economic crisis in decades is simply unwise.?

He referenced a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office warning ?that excessive spending proposed by this administration and the Democrat leadership in Congress such as contained in this bill . . . will (double) the national debt in 5 years. So we must hold . . . attempt to hold the line on spending and make sound budget choices . . . .? that are sustainable and that do not rely on continued deficits and borrowing. He then agreed that ?there's plenty of blame to go around, but here at this point we have an opportunity to stand up.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to what he described as a ?slash and burn? amendment. Olver referenced previous arguments he had made to similar amendments in which he said that the amendments contained ? no direction as to how one might do it,? in which he raised the problem of not being able to determine the kinds of impacts they would have.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 152-279. One hundred and forty-seven Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-three Democrats and twenty-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reduction was made in H.R. 3288 providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) which would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation by $13.5 billion. The resulting amount would have equaled the funding provided to those departments in the 2009 fiscal year.

Rep. Neugebauer began his remarks by noting that the Department of Transportation received more than $21 billion in the recent ?rushed? legislation designed to stimulate the economy but that only eleven projects had been initiated. He said that his amendment is an acknowledgement that ?(W)e were wrong. We thought we could spend this $21 billion. We needed to get it out immediately. We found out we can't, so we're going to give part of that money back. We're going to give $13 billion of it back.? Neugebauer argued that not taking any of the money back is effectively saying:?(Y)'all did such a bad job of not spending the $21 billion we gave you back in the Spring that we're going to reward you. We're going to give you another $21 billion of the taxpayers' money.? He then added: ?(B)y the way, it's $21 billion we don't have.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to what he described as a ?slash and burn? amendment. He argued that it contained ?no direction as to how one might do it, and I'm left with the question of what kinds of impacts this one might have.?

Olver then went on to argue that those impacts would be negative on transit programs ?that move people around in as efficient a way as they possibly can.? He also argued that the reductions in the amendment would have a negative effect ?on all of our air traffic safety programs, on all of the efforts that we have to make in order to have our airports and our air traffic controller systems function appropriately.? Neugebauer disputed the claim that these impacts would occur. He said: ?They're not even going to spend this $21 billion probably in the next fiscal year. They've spent only 11 percent since the inception of this bill. So we're not cutting anything.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 166-267. One hundred and fifty-two Republicans and fourteen Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and twenty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reduction was made in H.R. 3288 providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jordan (R-OH) which would have reduced the total amount in H.R. 3288, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Transportation by $20 billion. The $20 billion dollar reduction would have put the funding for those departments at the same levels they were at in the 2008 fiscal year.

Rep. Jordan began his remarks in support of his amendment by noting that the federal deficit had just reached $1 trillion, ?and some estimate that this could go as high as $2 trillion.? He asked, rhetorically, ?(H)ow bad does it have to get before we can simply say this: Let's just hold the line. Let's just quit making the problem worse.? Jordan claimed ?this is not a cut.? He described his amendment as taking the ?first step in trying to get our fiscal house in order? by going ?back to where we were just 9 1/2 months ago (when the government was operating on the funding in the 2008 fiscal year HUD and Transportation bill), before the stimulus, before the omnibus, before all this ridiculous spending got a hold of Congress . . . After all, there are all kinds of families, all kind of small business owners, all kinds of American taxpayers who are doing just that.?

Rep. Olver (D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to the amendment. Referring to the fact that Jordan was proposing going back to fiscal year 2008 figures, Olver said ?(W)e're talking about a (fiscal) year starting several months from now and going forward a year, and he's talking about 9 1/2 months ago being the end of that fiscal year, the end of the 2008 fiscal year, and that was funding the year prior to that. So it is really taking a step backward 2 years in the funding level.? He also argued: ?There is no direction in the amendment, itself. It merely says cut the total expenditure by $20 billion, which is one-sixth of the sum total of the legislation.?

Olver referenced the recent weak economic conditions and argued that ?taking $20 billion out of this appropriation, then has the effect of cutting a huge number of programs by an average of 16 percent for the next fiscal year. It is an unsustainable number for the kinds of efforts that one needs to have in housing . . . .  On the transportation side, the major point of growth is in the high-speed rail program (which) . . . creates jobs over a period of time in the building of that infrastructure.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 145-287. One hundred and forty-one Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-four Democrats and thirty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no reduction was made in H.R. 3288 providing the 2010 fiscal year funding for the HUD and the Department of Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to H.R. 3228, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. The amendment would have made a 5% across-the-board reduction in all funding in the bill that was not otherwise required by law.

Rep. Blackburn said she was trying to decrease the level of federal spending, because increased spending ?hasn't brought back the millions of lost jobs . . . (and) hasn't promoted the economic growth that is so desperately needed. What it has done, it has produced a deficit that will likely top $2 trillion this year.? Blackburn noted that spending on the programs in H.R. 3288 ?has increased by 146 percent over the last 3 years . . . (and they) have already gotten $62 billion this year from the stimulus (legislation).? She also claimed that, even with a 5 percent reduction, the amounts in H.R. 3288 ?would allow each of the programs to still grow by 11 percent from last year's funding.?

Blackburn noted that states ?which function under balanced budget amendments, are great labs of experimentation in state budgeting? and they often make across-the-board cuts. She also claimed that ?a good thing about making across-the-board cuts is that it helps reset? budgets back to their baselines, from which judgments can be made about whether they should be increased.

Rep. Olver D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to the amendment. Olver claimed that an across-the-board cut ?is the worst possible way that one can? reduce spending. He then argued that the increased funding for the department of housing and urban Development was especially needed ?to fill the gap for what has happened over the last 8 years of cuts in so many of the housing investment programs.? cuts those places that we particularly wanted to put money into in order to fill the gap that has been growing over a period of years, and it's the wrong thing to do.

Olver then argued that a 55 reduction ?would hurt our elders. It would hurt our people who are in affordable housing in either the tenant- or the project-based systems . . . It would cut the program for housing for people with AIDS . . . and disabled housing.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 181-252. One hundred and sixty-one Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-eight Democrats and fourteen Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no across-the-board reduction was made in the fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Latham (R-IA) to H.R. 3228, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Transportation. The amendment would have reduced fiscal year 2010 funding for high speed rail service by three billion dollars, from the four billion dollars in the bill back to the one billion dollars requested by the Obama Administration.

Rep. Latham noted that eight billion dollars was approved for high speed rail in the previously-enacted economic stimulus package. He also noted: ?(W)e are just now embarking on this high-speed rail initiative. The stimulus funds are still in the Treasury. They haven't been spent, and there is little reason to dump another $3 billion on top of an unspent $8 billion . . . .? Latham acknowledged that there was a large pent-up demand for high-speed rail, but asked, rhetorically, ?(A)re we really ready to embark on (when) . . . We don't even know if those grant applications have any feasibility at all??

Rep. Olver D-MA), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3288, led the opposition to the amendment. Olver said that the inter-city high-speed rail program ?is the most important transportation initiative since the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System . . . which took a generation, basically, to build.? Olver did claim that there was ?a huge? pent up demand for it, and noted that $100 billion of applications had already been submitted for $8 billion in the economic stimulus program.

Olver argued: ?(I)f we do not add significantly . . . by adding $4 billion to the $8 billion that is already there, then people will lose faith or wonder, Are we in this seriously? Are we going to do high-speed and intercity passenger rail, as had been proposed and put forward in the recovery bill earlier or aren't we intending to do that? I think we must keep this momentum going . . .

 Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) also opposed the amendment. She said that the large amount of funding for high-speed rail was needed ?to improve our way of life, create jobs, (and) foster long-term economic growth? and that those funds would ?leverage hundreds of billions of dollars in private capital to put toward rebuilding America.? Latham responded by saying ?I'm not against high-speed rail . . . but I'm just saying to have this money sit here and do nothing when we've got a critical issue, as far as the highway trust fund that needs funding immediately, is simply wrong.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 136-284. One hundred and thirty-two Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and forty Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the four billion dollars in fiscal year 2010 funding for high-speed rail remained in H.R. 3288.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) to H.R. 3228, which provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amendment would have eliminated funding for HUD's HOPE VI program, which receives $250 million in the underlying bill.  The program provides competitive grants to local housing authorities to construct, rehabilitate and transform distressed public housing units into mixed-income communities. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website noted that the HOPE VI program ?has completed its goal of contributing to the demolition of 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.?

Rep. Hensarling began his remarks in support of his amendment by claiming ?this Democratic-controlled Congress has spent $1.1 trillion on a government stimulus plan (and) . . . also passed an omnibus bill costing $410 billion . . . (and) We now have the single largest Federal deficit that we have ever had in our Nation's history. He then cited the previous remark by President Obama that: ?(I)f we're going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, we need to change the way we do business in Washington. We need to spend money wisely . . . That starts with the painstaking work of examining every program . . . and asking ourselves: Is this program really essential? Are the taxpayers getting their money's worth??

Hensarling then focused on the HOPE VI program and cited the OMB statement as evidencing the fact that ?the program . . . has already accomplished its original objective.? He then said he had been told ?that the program is sitting on almost $1 billion of unexpended balances.? Hensarling concluded his remarks by saying we're shoving more money their way and they can't even spend the money that they already have. It's time for us to lead by example, terminate one program . . . .?

Rep. Frank (D-MA) responded to Hensarling?s claim about the program having unexpended balances and therefore not needing any more funding. Frank said: ?(I)f program money is spent too rapidly and it is then spent inefficiently, there is criticism. What has happened with HOPE VI is that in response to some legitimate criticism, some controls were proposed to slow things down. This money ultimately (will) get spent, but it (will) get spent in a way that is less likely to be abused. He referred to that situation as a ?kind of a catch-22?.

Frank also said that that there are ?lose either way'' arguments made against public housing and the HOPE VI program. He claimed: ?(O)ften the criticism is in that public housing warehouses people in large projects that do not have the capacity to provide a decent living environment. HOPE VI is an effort to preserve the units, because we do have a shortfall for family public housing in many parts in the country . . . by redoing the projects to remove the stigma that has attached. And if you get rid of the HOPE VI program, you then abandon the notion that you are going to go to existing public housing to try to make it more livable and less concentrated. ?

Frank concluded his statement by arguing that, ?to simply shut the (HOPE VI) program off is, I think, to say to the people who live in the public housing that was built inappropriately--the residents didn't build it, society built it and put them there. It would say we are abandoning any effort to improve the livability of where you are, and also then make them more vulnerable to criticism and build opposition to the whole notion, when the alternative is to make the living conditions better for the people in the surrounding communities.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 152-276. One hundred and forty-four Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-six Democrats and thirty Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the $250 million in fiscal year 2010 funding for HUD to make grants to construct, rehabilitate and transform distressed public housing units into mixed-income communities, remained in H.R. 3288.

H.R. 3288 provided fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. Included in H.R. 3288 was a total $41.1 billion in federal spending. The resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill included a limitation on the number of amendments that Members could offer. This was a vote on the rule.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY), who was leading the effort on behalf of the rule, said that H.R. 3288 would, among other things, decrease traffic congestion, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The major element of disagreement in the rule was that it limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill.

The Republican minority had been engaged in an ongoing effort against what they were maintaining was the unfair practice of the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered on bills, especially spending bills such as H.R. 3288.The Democrats were taking the position that a limitation on the number of amendments was necessitated by the need to keep to a congressional schedule of passing all spending bills in a timely manner. In recent years, Congress had been well behind schedule in completing spending bills, and had failed to pass all of them before the beginning of the fiscal year they covered.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who was leading the Republican effort against the rule, argued: ?(H)istorically, appropriations bills, such as the one being brought to the floor today, have come to the floor under an open rule, a rule that allows any Member, from either side of the aisle, to offer amendments . . . The new doctrine and process (of limiting the number of amendments) not only breaks two centuries of tradition and precedent in the House; it also runs contrary to one of the central tenets of the Democrats' election campaign. During the 2006 campaign, they claimed that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. . . But here we are today, Congress for the first time in history (is) completely shutting down the previously open appropriations process.?

Rep. Flake (R-AZ) raised a technical point of order against the rule, and characterized the limitation on amendments as forcing Republicans to be ?living under what is the equivalent of legislative martial law, where the majority has stated that they cannot allow appropriation bills to come to the floor because we have to get through this process . . . .? He argued that ?appropriating is one of the most--if not the most important--thing that Congress does. We maintain the power of the purse under article 1. This is our responsibility . . . It's not about an issue of time. Flake concluded with the claim that ?a bad process begets bad policy.?

Arcuri responded by noting that the rule made 23 amendments in order, ?each of which is debatable for 10 minutes.? He claimed that the point of order raised by Flake ?is not about anything other than delaying the passage of this very important bill.? Arcuri then referenced the many amendments Flake had been allowed to offer to a series of previous spending measures, said that H.R. 3288 was a ?critical bill?, and asked Members to ?vote ?yes?' so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it by virtue of a procedural motion.?

The resolution passed by a vote of 235-183. All two hundred and thirty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Thirteen other Democrats joined with all one hundred and seventy Republicans present and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin debating the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development.

There had been an ongoing dispute between farmers and environmentalists regarding the protection of a small fish that lives in the Sacramento River in the Central Valley of California. The environmentalists had won a federal court ruling to limit water flow in the river in order to protect the fish. This dispute was occurring during a period of severe drought, which was causing major problems for Central Valley farmers. Legislation designed to overcome the court ruling, called the ?Turn on the Pumps Act?, had been introduced by Members representing the Central Valley. That bill had been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, which would not report it to the full House for consideration.

A resolution to force the Natural Resources Committee to report the bill for House consideration had been offered by Rep. Nunes (R-CA), who represents part of the Central Valley. He called the resolution a matter of ?privilege?. Under House procedures, ?matters of privilege? are voted on immediately. The Nunes resolution had been ruled out of order by the chair because House rules do not permit a ?privileged? resolution to be used to force a committee to report a bill. Nunes appealed that ruling. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) his appeal.

Speaking in support of his resolution and his appeal of the ruling, Nunes said that passage of the ?Turn on the Pumps Act? would ?rectify the problems that the Democrat leadership has created out in California. If we move forward with this today, 40,000 people can go back to work . . . .?

The appeal of the ruling was killed by a vote of 249-179 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty eight Democrats and one Republican voted ?aye?. One hundred seven-five Republicans and three Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House decided not to force the Committee on Natural Resources to report legislation overcoming the federal court decision limiting Central Valley water flow.

This was a vote on House passage of the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act. This Act required that any action reducing federal revenues be offset by new revenue increases, and any spending increases be offset with other spending reductions. It also required an automatic reduction in federal spending in the event that the Act was violated.

Rep. Spratt (D-SC), the Chairman of the Budget Committee, was leading the effort on behalf of the Act. He said it was a move ?towards budget discipline?. He noted that the Obama Administration had ?inherited a colossal deficit swollen to accommodate massive recovery measures. As these measures pull us up out of the slump, we must focus attention on our longer-term fiscal fate.? Spratt acknowledged that: ?By themselves, budget process rules cannot convert deficits into surpluses, but . . . they can play a vital role. Statutory ?Pay-As-You-Go? works by reining in both new entitlement spending and new tax cuts . . . by insisting on deficit neutrality for these new policies, Pay-As-You-Go buffers the bottom line, holds it constant . . . at its core, it's a commonsense rule that everybody can understand: When you are in deficit, don't make it worse. When you want to spend a dollar, save a dollar.? Spratt acknowledged that the bill does not, in itself, solve the federal fiscal and deficit problems, but said ?it is a significant step in the right direction.?

Rep. Ryan (R-WI), the Ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, was leading the opposition to the Act. He first criticized the procedure the Democrats had adopted for bringing the bill to the House floor directly, rather than following the usual procedure of having the Budget Committee review and amend it before consideration by the entire House. Ryan described this procedure as an example of what he called ?a disturbing trend? of having legislation developed ?in the (Democratic) leadership offices, rush it to the (House) floor, ram it through Congress without legislators legislating.?

Ryan then moved to criticizing the substance of the bill. He said that ?we have got to do some things to get our fiscal house in order. We need to equip Congress with more and better tools to get this budget under control. Unfortunately, this (?Pay-as-You-Go? bill) isn't the tool. This tool does not work.? Ryan also said the bill was ?well-intended?, but then noted that there were already pay-as-you-go rules in effect and the deficit had increased from $161 billion to $1.8 trillion since those rules were adopted.

Ryan added that, unless specific spending caps that he had previously proposed unsuccessfully were included in the Pay-As-You-Go rules, the result would be ?a machine to raise taxes to pay for new and more costly government programs. It does nothing to attack the fact that just this year alone, discretionary spending is going up 8 percent . . . .? He concluded by arguing that passage of the proposed Act would be ?like buying a fire extinguisher after your house has burned down. Congress is going to commit all of these fiscal crimes only to put Pay-As-You-Go in place after they've been committed.?

Rep. Doggett (D-TX) responded by arguing that: ?Republican ideologues (had previously) urged the irresponsible approach of fiscal deficit with more borrow-and-spend and tax cuts as the best tactic to starve government and ensure that Democrats would never be able to address the other deficits in our society: Educational deficits, health care deficits, and more . . . This year, (Democrats,)with only 7 months so far to correct 8 years of (Bush Administration) failure, as we clean up the mess that we were given, we reaffirm our commitment to pay-as-you-go . . . Today's vote signals that we are abandoning the Republicans' fiscal model, which is straight out of the Magic Kingdom. Their rule, like the first law of Disney, is that ?wishing will make it so.? That may work well in the law of fairy tales, but it has been a budgeting disaster and an economic nightmare that we begin correcting today.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) then asked, rhetorically, why the Republicans ?when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, all of our government, for 8 long years, why didn't they control Federal spending??

The vote was 265-166. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and twenty-four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and fifty-three Republicans and thirteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act and sent it on to the Senate.

This was on a motion by Rep. Ryan (R-WI) to recommit legislation known as the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act to committee with instructions to add language that would have imposed new limits on federal spending in fiscal years 2011 through 2013. The ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act required that any action reducing federal revenues be offset by new revenue increases, and any federal spending increases be offset with other spending reductions. The Ryan motion would also have imposed a requirement that the Congressional Budget Office report the interest costs of all legislation, and also calculate the spending impact of all provisions included in all House-Senate reports which reconcile any differences in the versions of the same legislation passed by the House and the Senate.

The language in the Ryan motion was taken from a proposal that had been made earlier by the House ?Blue Dog? Democrats. The ?Blue Dogs? are a group of conservative Democratic Members.

Rep. Ryan, in his remarks in support of his motion, quoted from a 2004 statement by House Budget Committee Chairman Spratt (D-SC), when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans controlled the House. Spratt had said that ?Democrats believe that a set of discretionary spending caps arrived through bipartisan negotiation is an important part of an effective budget enforcement.? Ryan then said ?we agree that this bill will be far more effective if discretionary spending caps were added to it.?

Spratt responded to Ryan?s remarks by noting that the spending caps Ryan was seeking to impose had been proposed eight months previously, and that economic conditions had changed significantly since that time. Spratt also claimed that the Ryan motion ?is an effort . . . to kill (the Pay-As-You-Go bill and) . . . if we vote for the motion to recommit, we will (put its passage) at jeopardy because this is a procedural device to defeat a bill that they cannot defeat on the substance of the merits of the bill itself.?

Spratt?s arguments were supported by Rep. Hill (D-IN), the primary sponsor of the original Blue Dog proposal. Hill said ?I want to award an ?A' to the Republicans over here for cleverness because this is a very clever thing to do, but it's not the right thing to do.? Rep. Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, also opposed the motion and said the Republicans do not like the bill since it ?constrains you in cutting taxes because it makes you pay for that, just as it makes us pay for any increases.?

The motion was defeated by a vote 196-234. One hundred and seventy-seven Republicans joined by nineteen Democrats voted ?aye?. All two hundred and thirty-four ?nay? votes were cast be Democrats. As a result no future year spending caps were added to the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act and the House moved to a vote on its final passage.

The ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act, as it was being debated, required that any change in the law reducing revenues or increasing spending be offset by other changes making up for the reduced revenue or increased spending. This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ryan (R-WI) that would have significantly changed the terms of the measure. The approach of the Ryan Amendment was to cap all discretionary spending increases at the same percentage as the inflation rate, and to cap total spending at a designated percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. Ryan described the basis of his proposal as relating the federal budget directly to the size and capacity of the economy.

 In his remarks in support of the amendment, Ryan said it was his goal ?to keep the size of the federal government relative to where it has been in history, and no larger, meaning don't let the government grow faster than the economy. Don't let the government grow faster than our constituents have an ability to pay for it . . . we keep spending historically where it has been, slightly above 20 percent of gross domestic product. ? He contrasted that approach with the one in the Pay-As-You-Go Act, which, he claimed ?allows spending to grow far in excess of where it has been before, meaning . . . it locks in place the growth of the Federal Government so that it will grow faster and higher than it ever has . . . .?

Rep. Spratt (D-SC), the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, opposed the amendment. He said, under its terms, Congress would have to ?rewrite the budget resolution, which we wrote and passed in both the House and Senate months ago, to go back to square one and basically begin all over again . . . go back and take at least $48 billion out of all those bills to comply with the numbers that Mr. Ryan proposes . . . .?

Spratt also criticized the way the Ryan Amendment calculated what would be allowable spending. Spratt said those calculations were too complicated, and that the language of the amendment did not actually impose a cap on spending. He also opposed the amendment because it required a two-thirds vote in each House to overcome any spending caps it set. Spratt suggested that changes in the cap numbers would be necessary ?if we had a downturn in the economy?, but that a two-thirds vote would be very difficult to obtain. Ryan responded by saying that ?we want to make it very difficult for Congress to avoid this budget discipline.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 169-259. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and twelve Republicans vote ?nay?. As a result, the caps on spending proposed in the Ryan Amendment were not added to the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for House debate of H.R. 2920, the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act. The Act required that any future change in the law reducing federal revenues or increasing federal spending be fully offset by other revenue increases or spending reductions. The ?Pay-As-You-Go?Act also included a provision requiring an automatic reduction in federal spending in the event that the legislation was violated.

Rep. Arcuri (D-NY), was leading the effort on behalf of the rule. Referring to the substance of the Pay-As-You-Go-Act, he said ?(W)e in Congress must be forced to balance our spending the same way that every American family does. We should not spend what we cannot afford. In order to spend a dollar, we must find a dollar either in savings or in new revenue.? Arcuri claimed that the Act ?will force a serious examination of wasteful subsidies in the budget and of tax loopholes that can be eliminated to offset more worthwhile programs.? Anticipating Republican criticism that the bill was not strong enough, he said ?every journey is completed one step at a time. This bill is just a first step. It is part of a clearly delineated path toward fiscal responsibility.?

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was leading the Republican opposition to the rule and the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act. He first noted that the federal deficit for the current fiscal year had already exceeded one trillion dollars. Dreier then said the, because of the severe economic downturn, Americans ?are spending less; they're saving more; they're paying off their debts; and they're asking themselves, Why is my government doing precisely the opposite?? Among Dreier?s specific criticisms of the Act was that it would only deal with automatic spending programs, and would leave out the 40% of the budget that is discretionary; he also said that its terms would effectively prevent Congress from enacting tax reductions.

Rep. Dreier went on to claim that ?the Democratic leadership wants to give the appearance of an interest in fiscal responsibility? He gave as support for his claims the fact that the Democratic-controlled Congress claimed it had adopted pay-as-you-go rules in 2007 when the deficit was $162 billion, and it had since ?skyrocketed? to more than one trillion dollars. Rep Scalise (R-LA) also opposed the rule and the underlying bill. He said there was a major flaw in the current ?pay-as-you-go? regulations because they had been waived on twelve different occasions. Scalise also criticized the rule for H.R. 2920 because it did not allow him to offer an amendment that he said would improve the measure.

The resolution passed by a vote of 243-182. All two hundred and forty-three ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Six other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy-six Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to begin its formal consideration of the ?Pay-As-You-Go? Act.

On a motion to suspend the House rules and pass H.R.2729, which authorizes the Secretary of Energy to designate national environmental research parks. The bill specifically authorized the designation of six existing locations in various parts of the country. The purpose of the parks is to provide facilities for scientific research on a range of subjects, including plant development, biomass energy production, environmental behavior, revegetation of lands, and the effects of increased temperature on fresh water ecosystems. The parks were also intended to provide facilities to educate the public on environmental sciences.

Rep. Lujan (D-NM), a member of the House Science and Technology Committee which developed H.R 2729, was leading the effort on behalf of the bill. He said that the measure ?was developed through a collaborative process that took into account comments and concerns from each of the sites, as well as helpful input and amendments from both minority and majority Members. I'm happy to present a bill with bipartisan co-sponsorship.? Rep. Hall (R-TX), the Ranking Republican on the Science and Technology Committee supported the bill.

Rep. Hastings (R-WA) expressed concerns about the impact of the legislation on the Hanford, Washington weapons facility, which is in his district. That facility produced nuclear weapons and was undergoing what Hastings referred to as ?the largest and most complex nuclear waste cleanup effort in the world.? He said:?(A)t a time when decisions about future uses of lands on the Hanford site have yet to be made, it is critical that this Congress and the federal government maintain flexibility in order to keep all options on the table--and not enact legislation that could complicate or prohibit future activities . . . .? He added that he had ?very serious concerns about rushing through permanent decisions on Hanford lands via legislation . . . with zero input from either the (Hanford) community or their Representative . . . .?

The legislation passed by a vote of 330-96. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and eighty Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety-five Republicans and one Democrat voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill authorizing the Secretary of Energy to designate national environmental research parks.

This was a vote on House passage of the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. The total expenditures in H.R. 3183 were more than $33 billion, which was approximately the same as the corresponding fiscal year 2009 figure and $1.1 billion less than the amount requested by the Obama Administration. The economic stimulus bill enacted earlier in the session had provided an additional $44 billion to the agencies funded by H.R. 3183.

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ), a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that had developed H.R. 3183, was leading the support for the measure. He described the bill as providing funding to deal with ?critical issues that affect our nation's security and prosperity--from addressing high gas prices, our energy crisis and climate change to advancing science and innovation, to preventing nuclear proliferation, to encouraging effective project management, and to investing in our nation's flood control and water infrastructure projects.? The measure also required the administration to submit a nuclear weapons strategy before any new nuclear warheads would be funded.

Rep. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that had developed H.R. 3183, also supported the bill. He called it ?a significant improvement over the administration's budget request.?   Frelinghuysen did say he was disappointed that there were not additional funds for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada nuclear waste site in which more than $11 billion had already been spent, and which the Obama Administration had decided to close.

The main objection raised by Frelinghuysen was to the limitation that the Democratic majority had placed on the number of amendments that could be offered during the debate on the bill. This complaint had been raised by the Republicans in connection with a series of funding bills on which the number of amendments that could be offered had been limited. Frelinghuysen said: ?(W)ith all the debate about climate change, global warming, conservation, carbon footprints and green jobs, Members of Congress in both parties should have the right to propose amendments to address their concerns and support sources of power that they specifically favor and know about . . . .?

The Democrat majority had been arguing that limitations needed to be placed on the number of amendments that could be offered as a way of completing all the funding bills in a timely manner. During the past few years, there had been a number of occasions in which all the funding bills for a fiscal year were not completed before that year began. In the last of the second Bush Administration, no funding bills were passed before the fiscal year began.

The legislation passed by a vote of 320-97. Two hundred and forty-one Democrats and seventy-nine Republicans voted ?aye?. Ninety Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for the utilities owned by South River N.J. from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. The funds are to be used to buy automated remote electric and water meters. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Rep. Hensarling, in his statement in support of deleting the funds, first said he assumed the project is ?useful, cutting-edge kind of stuff (and) . . . good technology.? He then added that he also assumed ?it's a good use of somebody's money.? Hensarling then raised the questions of whether it is a federal responsibility, and why the funds should be spent in New Jersey and not some other state. Hensarling noted the very high unemployment rate and federal deficit and asked, rhetorically: ?(W)here do you draw the line??

He concluded by saying: ?(E)very dollar that is spent on an automated remote electric water meter for the Borough of South River by the Federal taxpayer . . . cannot be spent on cancer research . . . for a rural veterans health care clinic . . . for tax relief for small businesses--the job engine of America. That's the national priority now, to get the economy moving again.?

Rep. Holt (D-NJ), who had the earmark inserted in the bill, said he understood the argument of Rep. Hensarling about the need ?to rein in excessive government spending,? but then added ?he is really misguided on this one.? Holt argued that the use of the funds would be for ?a demonstration project that would serve as an example for the rest of New Jersey and the Northeast and indeed the whole Nation of how to use technology to conserve energy, to use it more wisely. In fact, every dollar spent . . . on smart metering, is indeed a dollar well spent.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 119-308. All one hundred and nineteen ?aye? votes were cast by Republicans. Fifty-six other Republicans joined with two hundred and fifty-two Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the purchase of automated remote electric and water meters by South River, N.J. remained in the energy and water development funding bill.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) that would have eliminated a $6.2 million earmark for the removal of Pier 36 in San Francisco from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Rep. Hensarling, in his statement in support of deleting the funds, first said: ?(A)lthough I have no doubt that removal of this pier must be a good thing, I'm kind of curious why the San Francisco Port Authority doesn't pay for it itself. I don't think the Federal Government owns this particular pier. I'm not going to debate that it's not a good use of money. I question whether or not it is a good use of the Federal taxpayer money at this time (of large deficits)?. Hensarling argued that was an example of the unfortunate ?culture of spending? that has created the deficits and that: ?(U)nless you change the culture of spending, you're never going to change spending.?

Hensarling noted that this earmark was inserted by Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA), who represents the San Francisco area. He claimed that ?(S)he, more than anybody else, can lead by example. And I'm disappointed this earmark was brought to us today.? He quoted her as previously saying ?I'd just soon do away with all earmarks,'' and then asked rhetorically ?Why is she bringing at least two of them today??

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ), a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3183, argued against the amendment. He first noted that the removal of the pier by the U.S. Corps of Engineers had been authorized in 2007. Pastor then said that the deteriorating sections of decking and wooden support pieces of the pier ?continue to rot, break, and float into the bay, which represents a potential hazard to navigation in the adjacent Federal Channel.? He argued that the pier removal ?is needed to ensure that the continued deterioration . . . would not cause a threat to navigation and the chemicals (in the pier) . . . would be eliminated as an environmental hazard.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 128-299. One hundred and twenty-five Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifth-three Democrats and forty-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the removal of Pier 36 in San Francisco remained in the energy and water development funding bill.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) that would have eliminated a $500,000 earmark for the heating and air conditioning improvements at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Hensarling, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Rep. Hensarling, in his statement in support of deleting the funds, first raised the question of whether it is ?the responsibility of the Federal taxpayer to pay for this improvement in a heating, ventilation and air conditioning system.? He then raised the question: ?(A)nd if it's a federal responsibility is it really a federal priority?? Hensarling went on to note the projected trillion dollar federal deficit for fiscal year 2009, and asked, rhetorically: ?(A)nd if it's a Federal priority, is it equal to other Federal priorities? Is it as important for spending money for the National Institutes of Health to find the cure for cancer? Is it as important as spending money on our veterans? health care system? And particularly in this economy is it as important as giving tax relief to small business, the job engine in America??  Hensarling concluded his remarks by arguing that ?(S)pending is out of control. Let?s start (saving) somewhere.?

Rep. Maloney (D-NY, who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in H.R. 3183, responded by first claiming that the earmark had been reviewed by the Department of Energy, which ?decided that it will not only directly and positively impact my district but the Nation at large.? Maloney claimed that the innovative equipment that will be purchased with the earmarked funds will be energy-efficient, and the result will be ?a significant savings to the environment and a substantial reduction in energy use by a major museum.?

Maloney added that the Metropolitan Museum of Art ?is a national treasure . . . a cultural and artistic center in our country, and . . . part of the economic lifeblood of New York and this country. It pays considerable taxes, and it also generates revenues in our city from the over 5 million annual visitors to the museum. It is one of the top tourist attractions in the country, and by supporting this funding request, you support the thousands of small businesses in the community that will benefit from the many who visit it.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 133-290. One hundred and twenty-seven Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-five Democrats and forty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the heating and air conditioning improvements at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art remained in the energy and water development funding bill.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated a $1,600,000 earmark for the Boston Architectural College's Urban Sustainability Initiative from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of which Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Rep. Flake noted in his statement in support of the amendment that the funds in this earmark would be used to construct a project in the Back Bay area of Boston, which he described as ?one of Boston's most high-rent neighborhoods.? Flake went on to say, ?perhaps this program is worthy of Federal money. Perhaps it isn't. It should have to compete for it. If we don't like the way the Federal agencies have set up the programs for competition, we should change them . . . But instead, here we're saying we don't like the way you do it over there so we're going to create a parallel (earmark) system and we are going to do it ourselves, and that's simply not right.? Flake went on to say: ?(E)armarks mean that you forego the competitive process. You circumvent it. You tell those that are competing for moneys like this, you will have to take a backseat because we're going to take that money that you could have competed for and we are going to give it to somebody else.? He concluded his remarks by arguing: ?(W)e simply can't afford to continue to earmark dollars for this program or others when we're running a deficit that could approach $2 trillion this year.?

Rep. Capuano (D-MA), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in H.R. 3183, acknowledged that Back Bay ?is an affluent neighborhood?, but then added that the Boston Architectural College's ?is not affluent. The neighborhood is not doing the work; the school is going to do it. The neighborhood will benefit from it in some indirect way because they all live near the Charles River. The storm water currently runs into the Charles River and pollutes it.? Capuano then added: ?(T)his college does not have a lobbyist (and) . . . no one from the school has ever donated to my campaign.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 111-316. One hundred and six Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and sixty-six Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Boston Architectural College's Urban Sustainability Initiative remained in the energy and water development funding bill.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated a $2,000,000 earmark for the Fort Mason Center Pier 2 Project at the West Coast Port of Embarkation site from H.R. 3183, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Supporters of the funds for the site, through which immigrants from Asia passed before entering the United States, claimed that it set a standard for historic preservation and urban planning. Rep. Flake pointed out that the facility previously received a $13 million federal earmark. He then said ?I don't know why in the world we keep earmarking dollars for centers like this. They clearly are in areas, in this case, San Francisco, where there is other funding or other funding is already used.?

Flake referenced the fact the Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA), who represents the San Francisco area, had the funds inserted in the bill. He then returned to the argument he had been making during consideration of a number of funding bills, that ?58 percent of the (earmarked) funding is going to just 24 percent of the body, people who know their power and know that they can get earmarks.? He concluded his remarks by asking, rhetorically, ?(A)t what point do we say we have to make priorities here? When you have a deficit that may hit $2 trillion this year, at what point do we say we can't spend another $2 million for the Fort Mason Center Pier 2 earmark??

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ), a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3183, argued against the amendment. He said that the area around the Port of Embarkation site ?has been developing to assist the people of San Francisco and the surrounding areas as a center for culture, education and recreation and . . . this is an earmark that continues the development of the center.? Pastor also said that ?(T)he continued development of the center will now include more and extensive use of solar and wind energy and will serve as a model for sustainable practices within a historically sensitive context.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 125-301. One hundred and twenty Republicans and five Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and fifty-one Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the West Coast Port of Embarkation site remained in the energy and water development funding bill.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated $500,000 in funding for researching the potential of generating ethanol from agricultural products at The Arkansas State University Biosciences Institute from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from funding bills. This was one of those amendments.

Flake had not only been opposing including earmarks in funding bills, but had also been arguing that those earmarks go disproportionately to powerful House Members. Flake noted that, 58 percent of the earmarked dollars in H.R. 3183 went to the districts of only 24 percent of all House Members. He referred to the situation as ?a spoils system? and complained that ?a small number of people in this body control too many of the dollars . . . .?

He also opposed including this $500,000 because the government was already spending a lot of money on ethanol. He noted that the $420 billion had been spent on ethanol research and . . . 30 years later, we are still subsidizing at about $28 billion annually . . . At some point, you have to question are we doing the right thing here with our dollars. When we are already spending $28 billion annually, does it make sense to throw in another $500,000 to Arkansas State University? Are they going to discover something that $28 billion annually for about 30 years has not discovered?? Flake also repeated an argument he had been making against many earmarks that they spent additional money unnecessarily at the same time ?we have a deficit nearing $2 trillion.?

Rep. Berry (D-AR), the Member responsible for having the earmark inserted in the funding bill, opposed the amendment. He said that the United States had succeeded economically and led the work in technology because of research, and that reducing it now would be ?the most foolish thing we could possibly do in this country.? Berry stated that the particular research that this earmark would fund is studying how to take straw left after a harvest and ?convert it to 270 gallons of ethanol.? He said the research will also study how to do the same thing with other crops and ?make it work for the American people and reduce our need for foreign oil.? Berry added that the Biosciences Institute, which would do the research, was created and funded by the state of Arkansas, which has made ?tremendous investments? in it.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 102-318. Ninety-five Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-three Democrats and seventy-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for ethanol research at Arkansas State University remained in the energy and water development funding bill.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) that would have eliminated a $1,000,000 earmark for the Housatonic River Net-Zero Energy Building project at the Housatonic River Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts from the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. An ?earmark? is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. legislatively mandated grant or project inserted at the request of an individual Member in a funding bill. Several Republican Members, including Campbell, had been trying to have a number of earmarks removed from funding bills.

Rep. Campbell noted in his remarks against the earmark that the museum for which it is intended ?doesn't currently exist . . . they're still in the design and development phase of this building, and . . . would not even have construction completed until 2012. And of course, this is the appropriations funding for 2010, so this funding would be available for the museum 2 years before even their Web site indicates they might be completed.?

Rep. Olver, the Member responsible for having the earmark inserted, responded by noting that Congress created the Upper Housatonic National Heritage Area in 2006, and that the Housatonic River Museum was being created to focus on the cultural history of the area. Olver also noted that 90% ?of the money for this project is being raised privately, but the money provided in this bill will allow the museum to maximize energy conservation and efficiency using passive strategies such as natural lighting, natural ventilation, water conservation, high-performance building materials, and, in addition, to generate enough power for its own needs, all from renewable sources utilizing photovoltaic panels, recycled wood pellet boilers and a geothermal well system. The museum will return excess power to the public electricity grid when available and possible. All of these techniques and processes for energy conservation and efficiency will be made available for explanation and demonstration to thousands of visitors of all ages, but especially to school-age children from near and far.? Olver also noted that the museum ?will serve as a flagship demonstration project and an example of sustainable construction.

Olver acknowledged that the museum is not yet under construction, and Campbell raised the possibility that one million dollars could be going to a museum that never gets built. Campbell concluded his remarks in support of the amendment by asking, rhetorically, ?should the taxpayers from California and Texas and Louisiana and every place else put their tax money towards subsidizing a privately funded museum in Massachusetts no matter how admirable the message that that museum may be??

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 121-303. One hundred and eighteen Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-nine Democrats and fifty-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Housatonic River Net-Zero Energy Building project at the Housatonic River Museum remained in the energy and water development funding bill.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funds for energy and water development. The amendment would have made a 5% across-the-board cut in all discretionary amounts in the bill, which would have reduced its total amount by $1.7 billion. Rep. Blackburn noted in her remarks that federal spending on energy and water programs increased by 183% between 2006 and 2009, with the programs funded by the 2010 bill having already $51 billion in stimulus funding and $7 billion in supplemental funding in fiscal year 2009.

Blackburn also justified the proposed cut by noting that, in 2009, Congress had already generated a trillion-dollar deficit, which she said ?represents the height of fiscal irresponsibility and is absolutely unconscionable.? She concluded her remarks by saying that she finds it ?absolutely incomprehensible that this body is not willing to turn to the bureaucrats that line all of these streets and these granite buildings and say, save a nickel out of the dollar.?

Rep. Pastor (D-AZ), a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that had developed H.R. 3183 was leading the support for the measure. He opposed the amendment and responded to Rep. Blackburn by claiming that the 2010 bill meets national priorities, ?supports fiscal responsibility?, was only ?slightly above last year's 2009 funding?, and was $1 billion below the President's request. Pastor described the funding levels in the bill as key parts ?of ongoing efforts to meet the infrastructure needs of the country; and after years of neglect, addressing the inadequacies of our national energy policies, we are trying to do it with this bill. Pastor argued that a 5% reduction would ?undercut a number of priorities at a time when we can ill afford to reduce them further.?

Rep. Frelinghuysen was the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that had developed H.R. 3183. He described the figures agreed upon in the bill as ?well balanced? and developed ?in a bipartisan way.? Frelinghuysen added that ?I worry about indiscriminate cuts . . . that would be pretty devastating.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of167-259. One hundred and forty-seven Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-four Democrats and twenty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no across-the-board reduction was made in the energy and water development funding bill.

This was a vote on the House passage of H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act. The legislation was enacted, in large part, in response to a Bureau of Land Management announcement that it intended to kill 30,000 healthy horses and burros in its care and a Government Accountability Office review documenting many shortcomings in the federal horse and burro program.

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee that developed the bill, said it will prevent the killing of the animals and make the horse and burro program more cost-efficient. Rahall also said it will require consistency in management planning, better methods for calculating the number of animals on the range, strengthen the adoption program so that many more eligible horses and burros can be adopted, and authorize cooperative agreements with individuals and nonprofits so that large numbers of animals might be moved onto non-federal land. 

Rahall emphasized that the bill ?contains no direct spending . . . Any increase in funding for the wild horse and bureau program would be the result of appropriations, not this authorization bill. Increasing the number of federal acres available to horses and burros from the current 13 percent of Bureau of Land Management land back to the 20 percent available to them in 1971 (as the bill does) should not cost the taxpayers anything.?

Rep. Hastings (R-WA), the Ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee that developed the bill, was leading the opposition to it. He asked rhetorically ?what is the response of this Democrat Congress to month after month of lost jobs, record unemployment, out-of-control spending, and skyrocketing deficits? Their response is to vote on a bill to create a $700 million welfare program for wild horses and burros . . . if the American people want an illustration of just how out of touch this Congress has become on spending, they need to look no further than what's happening here on the floor of the House with this issue of wild horses and burros.? Hastings claimed that, when the Republicans controlled the House, they stopped the slaughter of horses and burros with $500,000, but that the Democrats are now doing it with a $700 million bill.

Rep. Lummis (R-WY) also opposed the bill, noting the wild horses were not native to the lands on which they graze and that they do great damage to it. She said the bill ?is based on emotion and not science?, and elevates ?wild horses above threatened and endangered (plant and animal) species?. Lummis noted that it was opposed by the Wyoming Nature Conservancy and Wyoming?s Democratic governor. Rep Moran (D-VA), a bill supporter, responded by saying: ?(T)he Bureau of Land Management's program really isn't working very well. This bill is a much better alternative and The U.S. Geological Survey, the Journal of Wildlife Management, and the General Accountability Office all agree that this (bill) saves more than $6 million as well as saving 30,000 horses.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 239-185. Two hundred and six Democrats and thirty-three Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and thirty-eight Republicans and forty-seven Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House approved and sent on to the Senate the Restore Our American Mustangs Act.

This was a vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for the debate of H.R. 1018, legislation aimed at preventing roundups during which horses and burros were mistreated, promoting adoption of wild horses and burros who are taken off the range, and banning their sale or transfer for their processing into commercial products by the Bureau of Land Management.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who was leading support for the rule setting the terms for debate of the legislation, described the goal of H.R. 1018 as restoring ?important protections for wild horses and burros.? The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the fact that the rules for a series of bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. McGovern claimed that ?(R)epublican and Democratic amendments were offered and accepted through the regular order.? Under House procedures, before a bill can be considered, the House must first approve a resolution or rule setting the terms for consideration of the bill, including the number of amendments that may be offered.

Rep. Foxx (R-NC), was leading the opposition to the rule and also opposed the underlying legislation for which the rule set conditions for consideration. Foxx characterized that legislation as ?a $700 million welfare program for wild horses?, and said that it was being brought up ?at a time when more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats' $1 trillion stimulus bill became law and that it is somewhat of an insult to those people.? McGovern answered by arguing that ?this bill will have no cost.?

Foxx added: ?(W)e have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate and a budget deficit of more than $1 trillion which is predicted to go to $2 trillion before the end of the fiscal year. Given those facts, it's a little unclear to know what exactly are the priorities of the Democrats in charge of this Congress.? Referring to the fact that the bill protecting wild horses and burros had nothing to do with the ongoing economic crisis, Foxx argued: ?(T)his is just another example of how out of touch Washington Democrats are . . . I hardly think this is what the American people expect us to be doing these days as they face the many challenges that they're facing.? McGovern said, ?in response to (Rep. Foxx?) question about what the Democratic priorities are, they are to create jobs, they are to pass an energy bill to create more jobs, and to deal with climate change. Our priorities include passing a health care bill that will lower the cost of health care for average Americans.?

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), the Chairman of the House National Resources Committee that developed the legislation responded to Rep. Foxx? remarks by saying that the committee takes very seriously its responsibility as stewards of American?s animals, which he said ?are important responsibilities that the American people value . . . .? Rep. Foxx countered that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that ?we don't believe in growing government.? She said that the subjects of the legislation ?are not the things the Federal Government should be about. The Federal Government should confine itself to the very narrow set of issues laid out for us in the Constitution . . . which says that if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, then it's a province of the States . . . .?

Rep. King (R-IA) opposed the rule and the bill, claiming that the legislation was ?driven by the Human Society of the United States. They have hundreds of millions of dollars, and they have an agenda. They are seeking to take meat off the plates of the American people and all around the globe. So we just dance to this tune in this Congress because they say so.? Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) noted that, in several western states, there are ?Indian tribes who have a vested interest in the management interest of the horse and burros. For the Democrats to actually deny us an opportunity to allow Native Americans to be represented on the board (overseeing the horses and burros) is just ridiculous?

The resolution passed by a vote of 236-186. Two hundred and thirty-two Democrats and four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and sixth-six Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House was able to take up the legislation protecting wild horses and burros.

H.R. 1018 was aimed at preventing roundups during which horses and burros were mistreated, promoting adoption of wild horses and burros that are taken off the range, and banning their sale or transfer for processing into commercial products by the Bureau of Land Management. This was a vote on a motion to move to an immediate vote on the resolution or ?rule? setting the terms for debating the bill.

Rep. McGovern (D-MA), who was leading support for the rule, described H.R. 1018 as restoring ?important protections for wild horses and burros.? The Republican minority had been expressing its strong opposition to the fact that the rules setting the terms for debate on a series of bills, including this one, limited the number of amendments that could be offered. McGovern claimed that ?(R)epublican and Democratic amendments were offered and accepted through the regular order.?

Rep. Foxx (R-NC) was leading the opposition to the rule and also opposed the underlying bill for which the rule set conditions for debate. Foxx characterized H.R. 1018 as ?a $700 million welfare program for wild horses?, and said that it was being brought up ?at a time when more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats' $1 trillion stimulus bill became law and that it is somewhat of an insult to those people.? McGovern answered by arguing that ?this bill will have no cost.?

Foxx added: ?(W)e have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate and a budget deficit of more than $1 trillion which is predicted to go to $2 trillion before the end of the fiscal year. Given those facts, it's a little unclear to know what exactly are the priorities of the Democrats in charge of this Congress.? Referring to the fact that H.R. 1018 did not deal with the economic crisis, Foxx argued: ?(T)his is just another example of how out of touch Washington Democrats are . . . I hardly think this is what the American people expect us to be doing these days as they face the many challenges that they're facing.? McGovern answered, ?in response to (Rep. Foxx?) question about what the Democratic priorities are, they are to create jobs, they are to pass an energy bill to create more jobs, and to deal with climate change. Our priorities include passing a health care bill that will lower the cost of health care for average Americans.?

Rep. Rahall (D-WV), the Chairman of the House National Resources Committee that developed H.R. 1018, responded to Rep. Foxx? remarks by saying that his committee takes very seriously its responsibility as stewards of America?s animals, which he said ?are important responsibilities that the American people value . . . .?

Rep. Foxx countered that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that ?we don't believe in growing government.? She said that the subjects of H.R. 1018 ?are not the things the Federal Government should be about. The Federal Government should confine itself to the very narrow set of issues laid out for us in the Constitution . . . which says that if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, then it's a province of the States . . . .?

Rep. King (R-IA) opposed the rule and the bill, claiming that the legislation was driven by the Human Society of the United States. King said: ?(T)hey have hundreds of millions of dollars, and they have an agenda. They are seeking to take meat off the plates of the American people and all around the globe. So we just dance to this tune in this Congress because they say so.? Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) noted that, in several western states, there are ?Indian tribes who have a vested interest in the management interest of the horse and burros. For the Democrats to actually deny us an opportunity to allow Native Americans to be represented on the board (overseeing the horses and burros) is just ridiculous?

The resolution passed by a vote of 232-188. Two hundred and thirty Democrats and two Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and eighteen Democrats voted ?nay?. As a result, the House moved to an immediate vote on the rule setting the terms for debate of H.R. 1018.

The Fairness Doctrine is a rule of the Federal Communications Commission that requires the holders of broadcast license to present, in a balanced way, controversial issues of public importance. Rep. Walden (R-OR) had offered a ?privileged? resolution that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to implement the doctrine; the House is required to vote on privileged resolutions immediately. However, the Walden resolution had been ruled out of order based on a precedent that a privileged resolution could not be used to prevent the FCC from implementing a regulation. Rep Walden had appealed that ruling. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) his appeal.

Rep. Walden, a former owner of a radio station claimed that the doctrine was developed at a time when there were comparatively few broadcasting outlets and that ?(T)here are now over 10,000 nationwide radio stations,? with different agendas and philosophies . . . .?

Conservative groups argued against the doctrine, claiming that it would limit the free speech rights of broadcasting stations. Progressive supporters of the doctrine argued that it will promote the free flow of all ideas. Conservatives responded to that point by claiming that progressives support the doctrine as a way of neutralizing the impact of talk radio, which is dominated by conservative hosts.

The appeal of the ruling was tabled (killed) by a vote of 238-174 on an almost straight party line basis. All two hundred and thirty-eight ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Four other Democrats joined one hundred and seventy Republicans and voted ?nay?. As a result, the House decided not to take up a resolution aimed at preventing the FCC from implementing the ?Fairness Doctrine.?

This was a vote on passage of H.R. 3170, providing fiscal 2010 year funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The bill provided $24.15 billion in funding, which represented a 7% increase above the fiscal year 2009 level. The funding focused on five areas: Supporting and expanding the regulatory agencies; providing capital and other assistance grants to small businesses and low-income communities, including $236 million more for the Small Business Administration and $137 million more for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund; supporting, and accommodating the additional work load of the federal courts;  providing for tax collections and taxpayer assistance by the IRS; funding many of the operations of the local government of the District of Columbia.

The bill also included a provision eliminating the prohibition on using local D.C. tax funds for abortions. Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey (D-WI), arguing in support of the measure, said it was a ?key part of efforts to restore the stability of, and public confidence in, America's financial institutions.? Rep. Serrano (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3170, claimed that the funds in the bill are ?directed to those programs where we believe the American people will derive the most benefit.?

Rep. Emerson (R-MO), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3179, said she was ?disappointed? that the Appropriations Committee was not working ?together in a totally bipartisan way?. Emerson said that the amount in the bill was ?much too large? and that ?the resource requirements of the agencies funded in the bill can be met with a smaller allocation.? She argued that ?at a time when every household in America faces difficult budgetary choices, Congress must be diligent when spending the taxpayers' money. The Federal Government, in this bill, is growing at an incredible rate at a time when employers who I represent in the district have cut jobs, and when people are really hurting. They're making the tough choices, and we really should too, as an example to them.?

Emerson went on to say that the 7% funding increase in the bill ?goes straight to the bureaucracy's bottom line. We're not making the tough decisions the American people feel we should consider at a crucial time for our Nation's economy.? She also expressed her objection to the rule that had set the terms under which H.R. 3179 was being considered. Emerson noted that only 17 amendments had been made in order under the rule, although requests for 97 amendments had been submitted to the Rules Committee. She argued that the rule did not display ?bipartisanship or regular order.?

The legislation passed by a vote of 219-208. Two hundred and fifteen Democrats and four Republicans voted ?aye?. One hundred and seventy Republicans and thirty-eight Democrats voted ?nay? As a result, the House approved legislation providing 2010 fiscal year funding for a range of government operations and sent it on to the Senate.

This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to prohibit federal funds from being used by the District of Columbia to perform abortions was out of order.

Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) had moved to add language to the bill providing fiscal year 2010 federal funding for the District of Columbia. That language would have prohibited any funds in the bill from being used by the District to perform abortions. The motion to add that language had been ruled out of order by the Member who was sitting in the chair in the place of House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA). The basis of the ruling that had been appealed was that House procedures do not allow new law, such as Tiahrt was proposing, to be created in a spending bill.

Tiahrt began his remarks against the ruling and on behalf of his appeal by referring to the constitutional requirement that Congress oversee the expenditure of funds in the District of Columbia. He noted that: ?(I)t has been said that we are sidestepping our responsibility, or overstepping our responsibility by becoming mayor and city council member for the District of Columbia. But, in fact, we (do) have a constitutional requirement to deal with the finances of the District of Columbia.? Tiahrt then said that many Members of Congress had ?asked to have an opportunity to reduce the number of abortions (in the District of Columbia) . . . .? He urged that his motion to recommit be made in order ?so that we can have this clean up-or-down vote on the restriction of (abortion) funds in this spending bill.?

The appeal was killed on a vote of 225-195. All two hundred and twenty-five ?aye? votes were cast by Democrats. Twenty-six other Democrats joined one hundred and sixty-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the ruling of the chair prevailed. The House effectively decided not to prohibit the District of Columbia from using federal funds to perform abortions.

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Tech Belt Life Sciences project of the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse is a private-public partnership that assists entrepreneurial life science enterprises in western Pennsylvania. An earmark is a legislatively mandated grant or project that is inserted into an appropriations bill at the request of a particular member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Flake used a statement made by the CEO of the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse to support his amendment. The CEO had claimed that the objective of the tech belt was to ?create some excitement and get funding from the federal government? to build up the region. Flake said: ?(I)t's been successful at that. Believe me. There's a lot of money that has gone in federal earmark money, that's for sure . . . in this year's omnibus appropriation act alone, (the) district received $55 million in federal funding from earmarks.?

Rep. Doyle (D-PA) was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the appropriations bill. He noted in his statement that the goal of this facility ?is to promote partnerships between various biotech industries and encourage growth in biosciences.? He noted that ?the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse has worked with companies in over 20 counties throughout western Pennsylvania (and that) . . . $14.5 million has been committed in over 60 companies which have leveraged over $300 million in additional funding from venture capitalists and angel investors. 228 companies have been launched or grown using Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse services. Over 300 jobs have been created or retained in the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse-invested companies.?

Doyle also claimed that this Tech Belt Life Science Project ?takes these activities to the next level by creating . . . $1 billion in combined National Institute of Health research dollars which can spin off hundreds of companies and, in turn, create jobs.? He concluded his remarks by saying this will ?improve public health, generate economic growth in a region in need of jobs, and ultimately make the region an international destination for biosciences and high-tech innovation. Promoting such growth and development not only benefits the State of Ohio, but the State of Pennsylvania and the entire country as a whole.?

Rep Ryan (D-OH) also opposed the amendment. He referred in his remarks to Rep. Flake?s continued effort to reduce federal earmark funding, which Flake almost always targeted to local areas. Ryan claimed that Flake?s congressional district in Arizona ?wouldn't even exist (but for) . . . the $7 billion Central Arizona Project . . . paid for by the taxes of the steelworkers in Pittsburgh.? Ryan concluded by saying that states with older industries ?helped build the West . . . and now we're saying we need to retool our economy.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 104-325. Ninety-eight Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty Democrats and seventy-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Tech Belt Life Sciences project of the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse remained in H.R. 3170. 

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark for the expansion of the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center in Myrtle, Beach, South Carolina. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

During his remarks regarding the amendment, Rep. Flake acknowledged that he was frustrated because the Republicans ?were in the majority for the first 6 years (and) . . . We could have cut (spending) but we didn't. And now we have appropriators now in the minority party blaming the appropriators in the majority party for doing what we should have done a few years ago.? He also repeated an argument that he had been making, during the consideration of a series of spending bills, that earmarks are disproportionately given to powerful House Members, calling it ?the spoils system?. Flake used as evidence of this argument the fact that ?70 percent of the dollar value of (all) earmarks go to just 24 percent of the House . . . .?

Regarding this particular earmark, Flake noted that the center in Myrtle Beach already draws a large number of civic and public events, having hosted over 500 different groups in 2008, has had a reported annual economic impact of more than $55 million, and was the site of the 2008 South Carolina GOP presidential candidates debate. He then asked, rhetorically, ?(W)hy in the world are we spending another $100,000, when we have nearly a $2 trillion deficit, for a . . . convention and conference center? There are convention and conference centers all over the country. There are many in my home State of Arizona. Why we should choose one and say they're worthy of an earmark and the other one isn't, and saying that they shouldn't compete for dollars . . . ??

Rep. Emerson (R-MO), the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. She noted that the ?funding recommendations included in this bill were made in full compliance with the applicable rules and procedures of the House, and the Small Business Administration was given an opportunity to vet this project, and provided the committee with no negative feedback regarding the project or the grantee.?

Rep. Brown (R-SC) was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill. He began his statement in opposition to the amendment by saying that ?the economy of Myrtle Beach is suffering . . . The tourism industry is the number one industry in the Myrtle Beach region, and the lifeblood of the surrounding area. The Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center is an important part of that industry, with local economy impact . . . However, it has reached capacity, limiting its ability to attract major conventions. In light of this, the community has embarked upon a multiyear effort to expand the Center, funded through a mix of local and other dollars.?

Brown argued: (N)ot only will improvements to the Center assist in attracting national conventions to Myrtle Beach, which will result in more good-paying jobs for the region, but it also serves as the emergency command center for the city of Myrtle Beach in the event of a hurricane or other types of national disasters, which is why this project has received past support from the Department of Homeland Security.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 99-332. Eight-eight Republicans and eleven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and eighty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the International Trade and Conference Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina remained H.R. 3170. 

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $125,000 earmark for the Defense Procurement Assistance Program of the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. This earmark was designed to provide funding to small and medium-sized business in the area with additional support in the government contracting and acquisition process. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Serrano (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. He said that the Defense Procurement Assistance Program advances the goals of developing small business by offering assistance ?on how to work with the Defense Department, including assistance with federal acquisition regulations and workforce training; acting as a liaison between prime contractors and local suppliers to identify opportunities for subcontracting; conducting seminars to enhance the skill sets of the local workforce in this supply chain, including workshops on military certifications, process improvements, and quality assurance; and developing a manufacturing database to identify local companies and their capabilities.? Serrano claimed that ?over the last 3 years, clients (of the program) have been awarded on average $40 million each year in procurement contracts.?

Rep. Flake said the congressional district in which the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland (is) located, is ?hardly the poorest of the poor.? He noted that the district ?has benefited from more than a billion dollars in federal contracts from 2004 to 2009?, and claimed that the majority of those contracts were not awarded on a fully competitive basis. Flake concluded his remarks by arguing ?if we're going to step up at any time, and say, enough is enough, let's step up here; for an earmark for $125,000 to go to . . . an area that (already) receives billions and billions of dollars in defense procurement.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 119-312. One hundred and nine Republicans and ten Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and sixty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Defense Procurement Assistance Program of the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland in Greensburg, Pennsylvania remained in H.R.3170. 

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $90,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Commercial Kitchen Business Incubator in Watsonville, California. The funding was for the purchase of industrial kitchen equipment for food service microenterprise to be used by this small business incubator. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Farr (D-CA) was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill. He first noted that the local area around Watsonville, California had been suffering economically and had an unemployment rate over 25 percent. Farr then said the area was rich in crops and had been trying to ?create businesses that people who have no capital, have no ability to go out and borrow money can start (and one of those) . . . is the catering business . . . .? Farr also said ?in order to do that and to get into the commercial world, you have to have a commercially licensed kitchen.? Farr concluded his remarks by saying the amendment goes ?after the poorest of the poor who want to get on their feet, who want to get off welfare and have that American Dream.?

Rep. Flake, speaking on behalf of his amendment, said ?there are a lot of areas in the country that are hurting . . . (and) there are a lot of business incubator services provided by chambers of commerce, trade associations and private sector organizations just wishing to supply services and to make a dollar. And yet now they are going to be asked to compete with a government entity that is receiving federal largesse. And it simply doesn't work very well. We know we don't have sufficient money to spread around to everybody who wants it. We are running a deficit that could approach $2 trillion. So we have to prioritize here. I would suggest it is time to say that we can no longer fund these business incubators that have kind of a nebulous mission . . . . ?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 120-311. One hundred and twelve Republicans and eight Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-eight Democrats and sixty-three Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Commercial Kitchen Business Incubator in Watsonville, California remained in H.R. 3170. 

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $100,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Activity Based Total Accountability Project of the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Flake noted in his statement in support of the amendment that the earmarked funds are ?to be used for, quote, activity-based total accountability.? He then said ?I find it ironic that we are using the least accountable system, (earmarks), for distributing funds in order to increase transparency somewhere else. At some point, we are all going to scratch our heads and say, wouldn't it be better when we are running at what could be a $2 trillion deficit this year to actually save the money and not spend it and concede to the taxpayers we can't continue to go on this way??

Rep. Culberson (R-TX), a Republican member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3170, opposed the amendment. He said: ?(O)n a bipartisan basis, we have scrutinized thousands of Members' requests and recommended funding for those projects that the committee believes are most meritorious. In addition, the Small Business Administration was given an opportunity to vet this project and provided the committee with no negative feedback regarding the project or the grantee.?

Rep. Posey (R-FL) was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the appropriations bill. He argued that activity-based total accountability, which is what the earmarked project deals with, ?helps us better understand unit-based accounting--what it does, what it costs the government to accomplish a certain task, how does that compare on a State-by-State basis . . . It's the most useful kind of cost accounting which presents the cost for all government activities in a format anyone can understand. Taxpayers can see line by line what government actually accomplishes with its resources.?

Posey noted that the Florida legislature established the Activity-Based Total Accountability Institute on a strong bipartisan vote, and that the state had put $750,000 into the institute. He also noted that activity-based total accountability has been proposed as model legislation by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which he described as ?the Nation's oldest and largest bipartisan and nonprofit association of State lawmakers?. Posey then argued: ?(I)f you support better government accountability, you should vote against this amendment . . . .?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 102-326. Ninety-five Republicans and seven Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-seven Democrats and seventy-nine Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Activity Based Total Accountability Project of the Florida Institute of Technology remained in H.R.3170. 

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $150,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Green Business Incubator project of Montgomery County, Maryland. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from appropriation bills.

Rep. Flake said in his statement in support of the amendment that there is a department for economic development in thousands of counties, ?but we're singling out one here, the Montgomery County Department of Economic Development. We're saying, you don't have to compete with everybody else for any dollars that the Small Business Administration has to send out, because we're going to earmark those dollars, and you're going to get them regardless of the merit of your program. It may be good; it may not be, but it doesn't matter because a powerful Member of Congress can simply say you're going to get that money, and that's what's happening here.? Flake also argued that many private-sector organizations across the country already provide the kind of business incubation services that this earmark would support with public funds.

Flake then repeated an argument that he had been making, during the consideration of a series of appropriation bills, that earmarks are disproportionately given to powerful House Members. Flake claimed that ?60 percent of the share of earmarks are associated with appropriators, leadership, committee chairs or ranking minority members, who comprise just 24 percent of this body, and 70 percent of the dollar value is associated with that group.? Flake said that other entities that apply for funding from the Small Business Administration for the same category of funds earmarked for the Montgomery County incubator ?won't be able to compete because a particular powerful Member of Congress simply siphoned off the funding so that an organization or institution in his or her district could receive those funds without competing for them. . . . It's basically an acknowledgement that you don't want the organization or institution in your district or elsewhere to compete for the funding, so you are going to ensure that they get it.?

Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill, noted that Montgomery County, Maryland had become one of the nation's centers in the biotech area. He claimed that ?(O)ne of the reasons they were able to do that is they pursued a successful strategy of creating incubators.?

Van Hollen also noted that the country was moving toward clean energy technology and energy efficiency, and that: ?(T)hese funds would be used by Montgomery County on a competitive basis to provide seed funding for (energy-efficient) startup small businesses, companies that have to meet very rigorous criteria, just as the kind of criteria they used and was applied in the biotech sector. So I think this is an incredible example of strong public-private partnerships. Again, these will be distributed on a very competitive basis.?

Rep. Edwards (D-MD), who was also responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill, argued that the amendment would ?prohibit funding for a project that will have a tremendously positive economic impact not only to Montgomery County but to the entire State of Maryland.? She also said project is an example of how local communities ?can spark economic growth within a region . . . with small local businesses that are most closely connected to the people and their communities.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 114-318. One hundred and eleven Republicans and three Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-four Democrats and sixty-four Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Green Business Incubator in Montgomery County, Maryland remained in H.R. 3170. 

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $200,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Greenstone Group project of the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, a small business incubator located in Virginia, Minnesota. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Flake argued in his statement in support of the amendment that this project ?is something that private-sector organizations, chambers of commerce, trade associations, and other businesses offer and do all over this country--hundreds in every State. Yet here we are singling one out and are saying this one is worthy of a Federal earmark, and we're going to give $200,000 to it. That's not right. We can't continue to spend money this way.  Every dime that we are spending over and above what we spent last year, and a lot of what we spent last year, is borrowed. When will we decide enough is enough and that we can't continue to do business as usual and fund earmarks in this fashion??

Rep. Oberstar (D-MN), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill, argued that the amendment would ?be muzzling job-creating opportunities in northeastern Minnesota, an area in my district where unemployment rates are 12.9 percent, 15 percent and 16 percent in one community after another.? Oberstar claimed that The Entrepreneur Fund ?has created 1,000 businesses (and) 2,500 jobs (for) people who are . . . paying Federal, State and local taxes that would not otherwise be paid. The return to the federal government on this investment is significant and real and tangible. The Entrepreneur Fund has provided $7 million in loans to 350 businesses. Over 9,000 individuals have been helped by the fund . . . . ?

Oberstar then referred to Rep. Flake?s comment that other entities should be providing this funding and said: ?(T)hey're not doing it all by themselves . . . the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Blandin Foundation, Minnesota Power Company, and the Lloyd K. Johnson Foundation all are partners and participants with the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund and with the Greenstone Group. There is a public-private partnership that has been very successful and that has the support of the private sector.? Oberstar added that ?the Entrepreneur Fund and the Greenstone Group . . . provide, in participation with the private sector, professional business coaching. People with real world business experience have helped these beginning entrepreneurs do the right thing--develop good business plans, get on their feet, and operate successful businesses . . . This is a good investment of Federal dollars.?

Rep. Flake responded that ?rather than continuing to fund entities that have received earmarks year after year and that have no real prospect of not being reliant on federal government funding in the future, we've got to say enough is enough.? Rep Oberstar answered: ?(W)hen (Rep Flake) waves his magic wand over the northeastern part of my district and restores economic stability and growth and job creation, then we won't need this helping hand.?

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 93-337. Eighty-nine Republicans and four Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-two Democrats and eighty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Greenstone Group project of the Northeast Minnesota Entrepreneur Fund remained in H.R. 3170. 

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have eliminated a $200,000 earmark in H.R. 3081 for the Commercial Driver Training Institute project of Arkansas State University. An earmark is a project that benefits only a specific constituency or geographic area, and which is inserted into a spending bill by an individual Member. A number of Republicans, of whom Rep. Flake was the most active, had been consistent critics of earmarks, and had been offering a series of amendments to remove them from spending bills.

Rep. Flake began his remarks in support of his amendment by saying he was ?all for driver safety . . . .? He then went on to say he was ?not sure why the federal government is funding this particular driving program. Nor do I understand why this institute is receiving another earmark, having received nearly a quarter of a million dollars in earmark funds in the omnibus bill that we passed just a few short months ago. In fact, it appears that this institute was established and built in part with taxpayer dollars, federal taxpayer dollars, thanks to a nearly $350,000 earmark it received in the fiscal year 2008 transportation spending bill . . .there are dozens . . . of commercial driving training schools all over the country. None of them have received this kind of federal largesse. Why do we continue to fund institutes like this? Aren't some of the others just as deserving? Or is it just because we have Members in a position to do it??

Rep. Flake then repeated an argument that he had been making during the consideration of a series of spending bills and noted that: ?(S)ixty percent of the earmarks in this bill are going to just 24 percent of the body. That represents appropriators, chairmen, ranking minority members, so-called powerful Members . . . this is a trend that we've seen throughout the appropriation bills this year, a small number of Members get a big chunk of the cash.?

Rep. Berry, (D-AR), who was responsible for having the earmark inserted in the spending bill, first argued that the Constitution provides for members of Congress to direct how federal funds are spent. He then said that the truck driving course that the funds will support trains workers for good jobs in an area that had experienced difficult economic times.

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 115-314. One hundred and nine Republicans and six Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and forty-nine Democrats and sixty-five Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the earmark for the Commercial Driver Training Institute project of Arkansas State University remained in H.R. 3170. 

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Broun (R-GA) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Council on Environmental Quality, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have prohibited any funds in the bill from going to the Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, the so-called ?climate czar?, the Deputy Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, the so-called ?deputy climate czar?, or any position in the Council on Environmental Quality. Rep Broun said he offered this amendment as a way to stop an executive branch practice of avoiding Senate confirmation requirements and congressional oversight by appointing officials such as the ones for whom his amendment would prohibit funding. Broun acknowledged both Democratic and Republican administrations have engaged in this practice.

In his statement in support of the amendment, Broun said he did not have a problem with any administration ?seeking advice from outside experts on the important issues of the day.? Broun argued that the Council on Environmental Quality operates under a ?veil of secrecy (which) . . . should be unacceptable to every Member of this House. It's no small secret that the council's actions are overtly political and lacking a proper legislative check, and it didn't just happen overnight. The previous administration's Council on Environmental Quality had its fair share of problems as well. Congress has the authority and responsibility to oversee the administration, and we're not doing our job, frankly, and it's about time for us to do our job. ?

Broun also argued that the Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change appointed by President Obama ?doesn't look at (the) scientific facts that there are thousands of scientists that say that there is minimal, if any, human effect on global temperatures.? He added that this administration has given (her) tremendous amounts of power outside the purview of what they should have under the Constitution . . . We have an administration that has loaded up this council with people who are carrying out a political process, and it's been politicized, and it should be totally unacceptable.?

Rep. Dicks (D-WA), who chairs the Interior and Environmental Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, opposed the amendment. He suggested that the real purpose of Rep. Broun was to ?defund the Council on Environmental Quality?, which Dicks noted was created by a Republican president (Nixon). Dicks described the amendment as representing ?a misguided view on the subject of climate change and global warming?, and argued that: ?(A)s the United States finally faces up to its responsibility to adapt to climate change, (Rep, Broun) wants to hobble our efforts for some illogical reason.? Dicks also opposed preventing the funding of the positions of Assistant, and Deputy Assistant, on Energy and Climate Change, and said ?(W)e need all of the expertise that we can muster as we figure out how to adapt and mitigate climate change.?

Rep. Serrano (D-NY), who chaired the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that developed H.R. 3170, also opposed the amendment. He said: ?(I)t's amazing that we hear about oversight now . . . (since) the other side never claimed oversight when the (Bush) White House was having meetings determining what our energy policy should be between the White House and lobbyists and no Members of Congress were present . . . .?

The vote was defeated by a vote of 149-282. One hundred and forty-eight Republicans and one Democrat voted ?aye?. Two hundred and fifty-five Democrats and twenty-seven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, no prohibition on funds for the Assistant or Deputy Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, or for the Council on Environmental Quality, was added to H.R. 3170. 

This was a vote on am amendment offered by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) to H.R. 3081, the bill providing fiscal year 2010 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the federal courts and many other federal government operations. The amendment would have made an across-the-board cut of 5% in all discretionary funding in the bill. H.R. 3170 had $24 billion of discretionary spending, which meant that the amendment would have reduced the amount by $1.2 billion.

Rep. Blackburn said in her statement in support of the amendment that she expected the Democratic majority to argue ?how responsible the bill is? and that the programs it funds ?are just too vital to be cut.? She then asked, rhetorically, ?How many hard choices can possibly be being made by Members of this Chamber when every year we spend more and more and more.? Blackburn said she would concede that ?indeed we do have critical programs that need to be funded.? She then went on to urge that ?in this economy, when people are losing their jobs, when businesses are struggling, with a $1 trillion deficit already on the books for this year, we consider reducing by 5 percent the amount (of spending in the bill) . . . .?

Rep. Serrano (D-NY), the chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that developed H.R. 3081, opposed the amendment. He began his remarks against it by noting that, when the Republicans speak about the national debt, they ?never bring up the debt that the last (Bush) administration rang up through the Iraq war. That's got to be at least half a trillion dollars, if not more. And I'm still waiting to find the weapons of mass destruction.?

Serrano then itemized the impact of the amendment that Rep. Blackburn proposed. He said it would ?cut $51 million from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would slash 120 staff members who . . . go after the crooks on Wall Street . . . prevent new IRS enforcement initiatives . . . resulting in over $600 million in lost tax revenues . . . (and not allow) the Small Business Administration . . . to meet the borrowing needs of small businesses. SBA lending, in its popular 7(a) loan program, which both sides support, would be reduced by $875 million.? Serrano also argued that the federal courts would lose 1,000 employees. He concluded by saying that the 5% reduction would be ?hurting the very people we should protect.?

The vote was defeated by a vote of 184-247. One hundred and sixty-four Republicans and twenty Democrats voted ?aye?. Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats and eleven Republicans voted ?nay?. As a result, the proposed 5% across-the-board reduction was not made in the bill providing 2010 fiscal year funding for a range of federal government operations.