Homes for Heroes Act of 2011

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 595 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012.

The rule makes 10 of the 11 amendments submitted to the committee in order. Of these, eight are Democrat-sponsored amendments and two are Republican-sponsored amendments.

As noted by the subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Eshoo, during the Rules Committee meeting on this last night, H.R. 3309 has come to the floor under regular order. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held an oversight hearing and subsequently a legislative hearing on Federal Communications Commission process reform.

The subcommittee then circulated a discussion draft before holding an open markup and favorably reporting the bill to the full committee on November 16, 2011. On March 6, 2012, the full committee ordered the bill favorably reported to the House.

In 2010, the communications and technology industry invested $66 billion to deploy broadband infrastructure, $3 billion more than in 2009. New products and services are innovated by this sector on an almost daily basis. With the innovation come high-quality jobs and marked improvements for every American's quality of life.

As a result, all efforts should be made to avoid stalling this important economic engine. The FCC should strive to be the most open and transparent agency in the Federal Government, and any intervention into the marketplace should be the result of rigorous analysis demonstrating the need for government regulation.

The Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act would change the process the FCC must follow in issuing regulations and limit the

agency's ability to set conditions on transactions relating to corporate mergers and acquisitions.

The legislation would require the FCC to be more transparent and methodical in determining whether to intervene in the communications marketplace in dealing with customers and regulated parties, and in reviewing transactions.

Customers, small businesses, and outside-the-beltway stakeholders, in particular, do not have the regulatory lawyers needed for rush review of proceedings. The only way to get their input is to give them time to provide feedback on well-delineated proposals.

Before it starts intervening, the FCC should make sure it has a full understanding of the state of competition and current technologies. By requiring the FCC to be more transparent, to find a market failure before proposing regulations, and to conduct cost-benefit analyses before adopting rules, H.R. 3309 helps promote jobs, investment, and innovation in one of the few sectors still firing on all cylinders in this economy.

In particular, the bill prohibits the FCC from coercing parties to accept concessions, such as network neutrality obligations, as a condition of approving their mergers. Such conditions are typically unrelated to the specifics of the transaction and involve requirements the FCC otherwise lacks the policy justification or legal authority to impose. They also chill transactions that might otherwise advance the economy, and impose unnecessary costs on businesses.

The bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace through a notice of inquiry before proposing new rules that would increase costs for customers and businesses; to establish the specific text of proposed rules before their consideration so the public and industry know what is being considered and have adequate information to provide input, much as House leadership has adopted in the layover requirement for the bills that we now hear on the floor; to identify a market failure or customer harm and conduct a cost-effective analysis before adopting economically significant rules that cost more than $100 million; to set the shot clock and schedules for issuing decisions and to report to Congress on how well it is abiding by them so the public and industry know when issues will be resolved; and to create performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a program that costs more than $100 million.

These proposed process reforms are not radical, nor are they an attempt to cripple the FCC, as some opponents of the legislation have claimed. Instead, this legislation seeks to pull back the curtain on bureaucratic regulation of a sector of our economy that has provided high-tech innovation and investment, and the high-quality jobs that come with it, despite the economic downturn.

So, once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any more speakers because I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time, and will get back to the issue at hand.

This is not necessarily a highway bill, but it does talk about a highway, one which is much faster than the ones we drive on. It is hard to imagine a world without a high-speed wireless Internet service. It is hard to imagine staffers walking down the hallways without some sort of wireless devices that they're communicating with others on, and usually their hands are glued to them.

Communications and technology innovations over the past several years have made us a more connected world. In some instances, the new global connectedness has brought us even closer together, allowing us to share in similarities and differences between our peers in distant cultures. It has given us a chance to marvel at the world's best athletes on the grandest stages, and in some cases it has exposed the atrocities of war, intolerance, and disregard for human life. We want our innovations to continue and our inventors to keep inventing. In the communications and technology fields they have, and they continue to amaze us with new breakthroughs every day.

This bill simply pulls back the curtain on the FCC, the agency charged with regulating the communications sector. It asks them to institute commonsense reforms to better keep the public informed on their actions. It requires the Commission to rigorously

examine the marketplace before intervening; to give increased time for public input and comment; and to increase transparency while approving new rules and amendments. These process reforms are simply good government, and they should be embraced in a nonpartisan fashion.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

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

An Amendment to H. Res. 595 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting

of the text of the bill (H.R. 14) to reauthorize Federal-aid

highway and highway safety construction programs, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this

resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by the

Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

110th and 111th Congresses.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican

Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United

States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).

Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question

vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not

possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding the time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act. There may be beneficial provisions in the underlying legislation to make the FCC's processes more transparent and more efficient.

I do suggest that the FCC has made great strides in this regard under the leadership of Chairman Genachowski, and certainly more can be done. But the fact remains that my friends on the other side of the aisle have squandered important opportunities in this process to walk the walk and talk the talk.

Now, last night an amendment was offered by my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, to require FCC disclosure of spending on political advertisements, which was opposed in committee but made in order to go forward today.

Recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the Citizens United case, have opened the door for unlimited spending by wealthy entities aiming to influence the electoral process. These individuals, organizations, and corporations have the financial resources to reach millions of Americans through cable, broadcast television, the radio, and other media.

Unfortunately, Americans do not yet have the right to know who is paying for these efforts. Under current law, Americans have no way of knowing whether an advertisement urging them to vote for a certain candidate or support certain legislation is being done at the behest of someone who stands to make a lot of money from that candidate or the bill.

That's no way to run a country. That's no way to hold an election. And that's no way to run a government.

Since Citizens United, our government is less like a democracy and more like a mystery. I firmly support the Eshoo amendment and ask all of our colleagues to do so. It aims to provide some clues by requiring the disclosure of any individual or corporation that contributes $10,000 or more for the purpose of airing political programming in an election cycle.

This amendment is modeled after the DISCLOSE Act, sponsored by my friend and colleague, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Both these measures educate voters by disclosing who is donating money to influence the electoral process. It is as simple as that: transparency, accountability, and democracy.

Yet some of my Republican colleague friends continue to be baffled as to why the American people will want to know who is trying to influence them. Last night in the Rules Committee, my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) was indicating his motions regarding this; and I said to him what I say to all of our colleagues and to all Americans, that the day somebody shows up with $500, you would be interested to know, if they are opposed to you, who they are.

So the question remains: Why do some Republicans oppose these efforts now?

Madam Speaker, we know full well about some of the biases that some Republicans have in favor of the wealthiest Americans. When they're not trying to eviscerate social safety net programs--as I suggested in the Rules Committee, and in 40 minutes we will be taking up the proposed budget that does just that--to make room for tax cuts for the well off in our society, it appears that Republicans are eager to allow the richest Americans to hijack the electoral process. Because that is what is about to happen, and it is and will be a hijacking.

When vast sums of money are used to influence the democratic process, the voices of those who do not have such resources get drowned out. When that influence is allowed to remain in the shadows, suddenly we find that the wealthiest interests in this country are the ones driving the bus, the train, the plane, and the rest of us do not know where the stops are.

This amendment, along with the DISCLOSE Act and similar efforts, aims to provide Americans with the basics of who is spending how much on what. It does not impose any new obligations on broadcasters or providers; it does not hold broadcasters or providers liable for inaccurate information; and it does not take action with respect to posting this information online. This is a simple disclosure requirement. It benefits all Americans. It is good for our democracy.

Quite frankly, I think that a commendable thing occurs when many of the amendments are made in order. In this particular instance, I'm especially pleased that my colleagues made the Eshoo amendment in order.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I appreciate my colleague for asking. I was hoping that Mr. Bishop from New York would be here, but in light of the fact that he is not, I'm prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If Mr. Bishop does arrive, then perhaps I would use some of my time to yield to him.

We all know that this legislation is never going to pass the Senate, and so this exercise remains just that, an exercise.

Republicans claim to be in favor of reducing the size of government, but this bill will require the FCC to hire 20 additional staff at a cost of $26 million over 5 years just to handle all the additional work created.

Rather than focus on stimulating the economy, funding infrastructure investments, and improving our democracy, my friends on the other side insist on devoting time and energy in a pursuit that is never going to go beyond this Chamber.

Rather than support transparency and our democratic process, my friends on the other side want to shield the best off in our society and corporations from having to disclose their financial influence on the political process. And rather than work with Democrats to craft comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that can pass the House and Senate, Republicans would rather see their partisan bills die than allow a compromise measure to live. I would say that I'm appalled, Madam Speaker, but this kind of thing seems to happen all the time around here.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 14, the House companion to the bipartisan Senate transportation bill and to discuss our proposal, but before that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

I thank my colleague, Mrs. Biggert, for her support of this legislation as well as many other pieces of legislation that we've had the privilege of working together on.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank you, as well, for your cosponsorship of the legislation. It means a lot to have bipartisan support for our warriors, those who are willing to go to distant places and risk their lives such that we may have better lives.

Many of them do not return home as they left. Many of them find themselves living on the streets of life. As a result, we believe it's necessary for us to do all that we can to help them secure the kind of homes, the kind of housing, the kinds of services that they need so that they can reintegrate themselves into American life. This bill, the Homes for Heroes bill, will help to some degree with our goals and ambitions of helping them to have a place to call home.

The bill does place a person in HUD whose sole responsibility it will be to monitor homelessness among our veterans. This person is to file an annual report with Congress on the status of homelessness among the veterans in this country and to give us some insight as to how we are progressing in eliminating and abolishing homelessness among our veterans. It's not going to do everything that we need to do, but it is a step in the right direction.

If I may say so, I would like to commend HUD for what has been done thus far, because there is a person who does this sort of thing with HUD currently. But what we're trying to do now is institutionalize the position such that administrations may come and go, but the position will still be there, and our veterans will receive the kind of help that they merit and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, in our country in 2009, approximately 136,334 people who self-identified themselves as veterans spent at least one night in an emergency shelter or a transitional-housing program. That speaks volumes about the amount of work that we have to do.

While 136,000 may not seem like a lot to some people, I contend, if we have but one veteran who is finding himself or herself in transitional housing or sleeping in a shelter or sleeping on the streets of life, I think we have work to do. This bill will help us with our veterans who are doing this, who are sleeping in this transitional housing.

I would also add that our veterans compose about 16 percent of the homeless adults while they are 8 percent of the American population. They are 8 percent of the population, but of those who are homeless, they are 16 percent.

This, of course, is something that we cannot continue to tolerate. So I'm going to beg all of my colleagues: please, give serious consideration to this piece of legislation. It will not break the bank. It may not do all that we'd like to have done, but it's a step in the right direction, and somebody will be helped as a result of what we do today. I beg to my colleagues, please support this legislation.

I thank Mrs. Biggert for the outstanding work that she has done. I again especially thank staffers who worked with us on this piece of legislation. And I can say candidly, Mr. Speaker, that but for the assistance of our staffers, we might not be standing here today. They do make a difference. And I would have the veterans know that behind every Member, we have staffers who are working to help them return to our homeland and reintegrate them into our society.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would simply close by saying this: Mr. Speaker, thank you again for your support of this legislation. I would hope that my colleagues will give it the kind of consideration that our warriors are giving us when they decide that they're willing to go to distant places and make great sacrifices for us. Please give it consideration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3298) to establish the position of Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material on this bill.

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

Today I rise in support of H.R. 3298, the Homes for Heroes Act of 2011.

Sadly, approximately one-fifth of our country's homeless population consists of veterans. In part, that's because readapting to civilian life is not always easy even for some of our country's true heroes. But research shows that with a stable living situation, our veterans are far more likely to overcome other challenges. These are men and women who braved bullets and basic training to protect our country and our freedom. They have the will and the strength to overcome any obstacle, but it is our job to give them the tools.

That is why it's essential that HUD and the VA work hand in hand to help our veterans get the housing assistance they have earned.

The Homes for Heroes Act of 2011, of which I'm a cosponsor and which was introduced by my colleague from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and my colleague from New York (Mr. Grimm), establishes the position of Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs within HUD to effectively coordinate services among veterans and to serve as HUD's liaison to the Department of Veterans Affairs' U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, State and local officials, and nonprofit service organizations.

The bill also requires HUD to submit a comprehensive annual report to Congress on the housing needs of homeless veterans and the steps undertaken by HUD to meet those needs, and H.R. 3298 takes these steps within existing budgetary constraints at no additional cost to taxpayers.

Similar to H.R. 403 and H.R. 3329, which are the Homes for Heroes Acts of 2008 and 2009, both of which passed this House, H.R. 3298 has strong bipartisan support. Once enacted, this legislation will help us better understand the needs of homeless veterans while fostering a better working relationship between HUD and the VA. The result will be better services for our heroes; and while we can never repay our veterans for the selfless sacrifices they've made, we can work to ensure that they have a place to call home when they come home.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no further speakers on this side of the aisle if the gentleman would like to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for all of his hard work on this issue.

It is really nice to have these bills that are bipartisan in nature, and certainly homelessness is something that we all hear about and would like to find a way to end. There are different categories in that, and I think the veterans certainly are very important.

With that, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding, and I apologize for my tardy arrival on the floor.

As Yogi Berra once said, it's deja vu all over again. Here we are a week later and we still have not addressed the imminent expiration of our highway programs.

As we witnessed with the implosion of H.R. 7 six weeks ago, we once again saw last night the inevitable result of the Republican mantra: My way or the highway. Last night, House Republicans were forced to remove from floor consideration their short-term extension bill, in part because they absolutely refused to reach out to their Democratic colleagues to get anything done. Meanwhile, I have sponsored the Senate bill, MAP 21--now called H.R. 14 here in the House--a bipartisan path forward that makes meaningful reforms and provides certainty to States.

I'm proud to be offering this bipartisan legislation to refocus the discussion on jobs and economic opportunities rather than the Republican message this week of tearing down Medicare and protecting the 1 percent at the expense of middle class families.

As of today, House Republicans have yet to put forward a credible highway reauthorization that puts Americans back to work. Their only attempt, H.R. 7, which is the Boehner-Mica authorization, was called the worst highway bill ever by United States Department of Transportation Secretary LaHood, who is a former Republican Member of this body. It was drafted in the dark of night without Democratic input. It removed transit, the transit guarantee, from the highway trust fund, and it couldn't attract a single Democratic vote nor even a majority of Republican votes.

MAP 21 passed overwhelmingly in the Senate with a bipartisan majority, a vote of 74 22, and it is fully paid for--something House Republicans seem unable to come close to. MAP 21 pay-fors are less controversial than the House Republican bill. The Senate has estimated that MAP 21 will save 1.8 million jobs and will create up to 1 million more jobs. During a weak economic recovery that's looking for a jump- start, this is the kind of bill we need to be passing and passing as quickly as we possibly can.

Is MAP 21 the silver bullet to our surface transportation needs? No, but there is no silver bullet when it comes to our infrastructure needs.

We all would prefer a 5-year bill, but we need to get a bill passed. MAP 21, H.R. 14, is the path forward. I would urge my Republican colleagues to bring that bill to the floor so that we can vote for it in a bipartisan fashion and send it to the President.