[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2510-H2515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H2510]]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 985, WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 239 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 239
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 985) to amend title 5, United States Code, to
clarify which disclosures of information are protected from
prohibited personnel practices; to require a statement in
nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to the effect
that such policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with
certain disclosure protections, 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 except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour and 20 minutes, with one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of the bill, modified by the
amendments recommended by the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform now printed in the bill, shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment
to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. Each further amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such further amendments are waived except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further 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.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 985
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to a time designated by the
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1245
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from
Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the
rule is for debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 239 provides
for consideration of H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement
Act of 2007 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour and 20
minutes of general debate with 1 hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform. The remaining 20 minutes will be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Homeland Security.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, consisting of the text of the
bill, modified by the amendments, recommended by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, and printed in the bill, shall be
considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives
all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.
Now, the rule makes in order five amendments, three Republican
amendments and two Democratic, which are printed in the Rules Committee
report accompanying the resolution.
The amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and
shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
All points of order against amendments, except for clauses 9 and 10,
are waived.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, today is an important day for the more than 2.7 million
Federal employees who show us, day in and day out, their commitment to
improving our great country. It is an important day because the House,
in bipartisan cooperation, is closing the loopholes which permitted
retaliation against Federal employees who have reported unlawful fraud,
corruption, incompetence and abuse of power.
Today is an important day because the House is saying loud and clear
that whistleblower protection is an essential component of government,
of government accountability and of government fiscal responsibility.
Throughout our history, whistleblowers have played integral roles in
improving our government and holding it accountable for its negligence.
From Shawn Carpenter to Joseph Darby to Mark Felt, and everyone in
between, whistleblowers have faced harsh penalties from those who would
prefer that what they know is never shared with the public. They have,
nevertheless, put their careers on the line, and in some instances even
their lives, to do what they knew was the right thing to do. Their
courage is to be commended and their conviction embraced.
When history judges this current administration, I believe it will
look down upon the drastic and despicable actions taken by this
administration, which have stifled those seeking to speak truth to
power. These actions are, indeed, some of the very reasons why this
bill is so desperately needed.
For example, in 2005, the Bush administration officials placed a gag
on a senior NOAA official who was scheduled to give an interview
arguing that global warming exists and has contributed to greater and
stronger hurricane activity. Three weeks later, Hurricane Katrina made
landfall, first in my State of Florida, and then in Louisiana and
Mississippi and Alabama, killing hundreds and leaving hundreds of
thousands homeless, jobless and ill.
How can we forget former CIA operative Valerie Plame? Her life, and
the lives of others, were placed in jeopardy after the Vice President's
chief of staff revealed her name to a reporter in retaliation for her
husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, revealing that the
administration lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq and where they were trying to retrieve uranium from Africa.
When the Bush administration hasn't been able to directly punish
whistleblowers, it has simply tried to unilaterally change the law.
Just this past September, after a senior Environmental Protection
Agency scientist revealed that the administration had purposefully
misled the public regarding the air safety at Ground Zero following the
attacks of September 11, the Bush administration issued an executive
order declaring that EPA employees are no longer covered by Federal
whistleblower protections. That is outrageous.
These three high-profile cases, and there are a great deal more,
these three capture only a small snapshot of the problems in the
current administration. More importantly, they highlight the need for
extended protection across all agency lines to Federal whistleblowers.
Unfortunately, for nearly the last decade, Federal whistleblowers
have received nothing more than lip service. Let me make it very clear,
I said for the last decade, that includes the previous administration
and this one. Even when the House drafted legislation in 2002
establishing the Department of Homeland Security, it failed to
[[Page H2511]]
include whistleblower protections for DHS employees.
Now, I am proud that I was the author of the amendment which extended
these protections and was the only Democratic amendment adopted by the
House during consideration of the legislation. The protection of
whistleblowers in recent years has unfortunately garnered only lip
service. Today, the House is backing up these words with real action
that protects our 2.7 million Federal workforce.
I close by noting that this bill is not perfect. That is why the
Rules Committee has made five amendments in order, the majority of
which, I might add, are going to be offered by our colleagues, the
Republicans, on the other side.
Democrats are proud to continue our efforts to work in a bipartisan
manner, and to provide the minority with many opportunities to improve
already good legislation.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks during debate on House Resolution 239.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend
from Florida for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Congress has the constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch.
In order to discharge our constitutional oversight responsibility,
Congress depends on information obtained through agency reports and
direct communication from Department heads. However, we also depend on
information provided directly from employees within the agencies who
are witnesses to the misuse of taxpayer dollars and alert Congress of
the possible corruption or incompetence in management.
In 1989, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in an
effort to strengthen statutory protections for Federal employees who
assist in the elimination of fraud, waste, abuse, illegality or
corruption.
H.R. 985 would modernize and expand this protection to Federal
employees, with added whistleblower protection.
For example, the bill would extend protection to FBI agents, CIA
agents, employees of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National
Geospatial Agency and the National Security Agency.
I think it is important to have whistleblower protection for the
intelligence community. I would like to point out, however, that
Congress has already passed such legislation. In 1998, Congress passed
the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act to encourage
the reporting to Congress of wrongdoing within the intelligence
agencies.
In crafting the 1998 legislation, Congress sought to balance the need
for information with national security requirements, giving
intelligence community whistleblowers access to Congress but through
the intelligence committees.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee denied the ranking member of the
Intelligence Committee, Mr. Hoekstra, from offering an amendment
striking section 10 of the bill. Section 10 conflicts with the
provisions of the existing Intelligence Community Whistleblower
Protection Act of 1998.
The amendment, I believe, should have been made in order. National
security is obviously one of the most important issues that we deal
with. Before we make changes to how Congress handles intelligence
oversight, we should have a full and complete debate on that particular
provision. We could have done that if the majority had made the
Hoekstra amendment in order.
Under the bill, defendants in whistleblower cases will now be able to
make their cases to any Federal district court if the Merit Systems
Protection Board does not take action within 180 days.
Part of this provision will allow claims to be processed on a more
timely basis than they are now. However, there are possible problems
with the provision.
{time} 1300
Yesterday, Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member
Davis asked the Rules Committee that his amendment be made in order.
His amendment sought to retain uniformity in the consideration of
whistleblower cases in the Federal courts by keeping in place the
current requirement that all whistleblower appeals go through the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, rather than
opening up appeals to all circuits.
Without the amendment, Federal employee whistleblowers could end up
possessing a different set of rights and protections, depending on
where they file their claim. However, unfortunately, the majority
decided to close down the debate process on that issue, and refused to
allow the House to debate that very important and meaningful amendment.
I believe the majority should have made those amendments, the
Hoekstra amendment and the Davis amendment, in order, along with other
important amendments brought before the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time,
before yielding to my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee,
only to respond to my friend from Florida regarding an amendment that
was not made in order of the ranking member of the Intelligence
Committee.
I serve on that committee, and one amendment that was made in order
contemplates everything that the ranking member of the Intelligence
Committee might have provided in the amendment that he sought.
Quite frankly, I think Mr. Tierney's amendment, which we will have an
opportunity to debate here on the floor, will give a full exploration
of those matters having to do with whistleblower concerns in the
intelligence community. So I commend that to my colleague and all here
in this body.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to a new Member, who is not
so new now, to the Rules Committee, my good friend, Mr. Arcuri from New
York. I yield to him 4 minutes.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from
the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, accountability is a word often used but seldom
implemented. For the last 12 years it is as if Congress forgot one of
its principal responsibilities is to demand accountability from the
administration and protect the American people from waste, fraud and
abuse.
The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which this rule
provides consideration for, will provide additional transparency and
accountability for the way the Federal Government spends tax dollars of
the hardworking Americans.
It is no secret that the only way we can truly gather firsthand
accounts of instances where waste, fraud and abuse occur is from the
people on the inside, the Federal employees. Unfortunately, not all
Federal employees are currently protected from being fired if they
unmask corruption or other fraudulent activities going on inside the
administration.
This legislation goes right to the heart of the issue by extending
much needed whistleblower protections to Federal Government employees
working on national security, government contractor employees and
transportation security employees, including baggage screeners at our
airports. It only makes sense that Federal employees, especially those
who have undergone extensive background investigations, obtained
security clearances and handled classified information on a routine
basis, be afforded the same rights and whistleblower protections as all
other Federal employees.
In addition, this legislation takes some very important steps. It
would abolish the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction for overhearing whistleblower appeals
cases, taking away its Supreme Court-like jurisdiction and allowing the
appropriate Federal appeals courts in the respective circuit where the
incident took place to hear such cases.
[[Page H2512]]
For instance, if the instance of whistleblowing were to occur in New
York, in my district, that is the Second Circuit. The initial decision
rendered by the Second Circuit should be appealed in the Second
Circuit. It should not be required to come to the Federal Circuit here.
The current appeals structures for hearing whistleblower cases not
only places a hefty financial burden on individuals who would have to
travel from across the country to D.C. just to have their appeal heard,
it also provides a disservice to our Nation's legal system by
overburdening one court.
As a former district attorney, I know from experience that having the
ability to draw on decisions from similar cases rendered from different
courts around the country would greatly improve our legal system. It
would benefit all parties involved, and further enhance our Nation's
exceptional legal system. Further, by allowing other Federal circuit
appellate courts to hear whistleblower appeal cases increases the
opportunity for those cases to be heard by the United States Supreme
Court.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to level the playing field for all Federal
employees who have the courage to stand up for the American people.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule
and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules
Committee, Mr. Dreier.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to begin by thanking my friend from
Miami and my friend from Fort Lauderdale. We have got this Sun Belt
linkage now here. The only thing in between it was somebody from
upstate New York there. And I know he likes that better than Los
Angeles, as he told me up in the Rules Committee just before we were
going into our last break. But I am proud that there are three of us at
least who come from the Sun Belt who are representing this debate on
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise to reluctantly oppose both the rule and the
underlying legislation. The bill is very well-intentioned, and it is
designed to clarify and expand the laws regarding those who try to
expose waste, fraud and mismanagement in the Federal Government.
Whistleblowers, oftentimes, put their jobs at risk to expose
wrongdoing in the workplace, and whistleblowers are absolutely crucial
to our Nation's security, safety and success as well. I believe very
much that their protection is an inherent right for all employees, and
it needs to be maintained.
In addition, the whistleblower protections enable Congress to fulfill
our constitutional responsibility of overseeing the executive branch.
It is imperative that we do that. We need to recognize that we are a
separate and coequal branch of our Federal Government. We have a right
to know the actions of the executive branch and to oversee the
implementation of the laws that we create as Members of this body, and
whistleblowers are a very crucial part of that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do support the idea of expanding and modernizing
whistleblower protection laws. But, unfortunately, I believe that this
legislation ends up falling short of that very important goal to which
I believe we all aspire.
The bill aims to extend whistleblower protections to Federal workers
who specialize in national security issues. These workers include
employees of the FBI, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, among
others. Unfortunately, the bill raises significant national security
concerns that have really led me to conclude that I can't support this
bill in its present form.
Within its oversight obligations, Mr. Speaker, Congress is tasked
with protecting highly classified intelligence programs. It is
absolutely critical for us to ensure that any oversight is conducted by
Members and staff with the appropriate experience and expertise.
Now, this bill, in its current form, compromises that duty and
outlines new procedures that have the potential to expose highly
classified national security programs and information.
Now, during the Rules Committee hearing yesterday, an amendment was
offered by the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, Mr. Hoekstra. And I just heard my friend from Fort
Lauderdale, who has served very ably as a member of the Intelligence
Committee, as well as on the Rules Committee, say that there is another
amendment designed to address this.
But, frankly, I believe very strongly that the amendment that was
filed in a timely manner by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra)
was one that was not made in order, and I believe really best takes on
this issue of dealing with a better way to ensure the security of this
important, very important information.
Now, Mr. Speaker, 10 amendments were offered at the Rules Committee,
and while I commend the majority for making five of those 10 amendments
in order, I do believe that an open rule would have been more
appropriate. Give the Members of this body the opportunity to offer
amendments to important pieces of legislation like this, not just on
noncontroversial bills, which is what we have seen the open rule
procedure used for in the past.
At the very least, Mr. Speaker, I think we should have made all 10 of
the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee in order so
that we could have had a free flowing debate on these, and we would
have had a chance for people like the ranking member of the committee
of jurisdiction here, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
Mr. Davis, who served very ably as the chairman of that committee
before we saw last November's election make this change. This former
chairman, the now ranking member, sought to offer an amendment, and he
also was denied a chance to offer that amendment.
I do commend my California colleague, Mr. Waxman, the distinguished
chairman of the committee, as well as Mr. Davis, for their hard work
and expertise on this very critical issue. Unfortunately, I believe
that the bill does, as I say, fall short of that goal. The goal really
is an important one, as I said, to ensure that whistleblowers help us
meet our constitutional responsibility for oversight of the executive
branch.
But the national security concerns that have been raised I think are
such that, in its present form, I am not going to be able to support
this measure.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
And as I said, I am troubled enough that the bill itself, in its
current form, is not legislation that I can support.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong support of
the rule, H. Res. 239, and the underlying bill, H.R. 985, the
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.
And I want to commend, not only the Rules Committee for coming
forward with a fair rule, but also Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member
Davis for moving this important bill out of the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee on which I serve.
The Whistleblower Protection Act has been weakened by court cases in
recent years, and even the weak protections offered under the
Whistleblower Protection Act do not apply to national security
whistleblowers or contractors at those agencies.
The Oversight Committee repeatedly has heard from people who have had
their security clearances revoked after blowing the whistle. In some
cases they have been fired for pointing out lapses in security, for
pointing out waste, fraud and abuse.
We have been told that wrongdoers have been allowed to continue their
actions, while the whistleblowers have been the ones that have been
made to suffer. This is absolutely wrong.
In the 109th Congress I was joined by my colleague, Diane Watson, in
offering an amendment during the committee's consideration of the
Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, that would have
extended whistleblower protections to employees in national security
and in the intelligence community.
I would argue, and I believe many of my colleagues would agree, that
revealing lapses in the security of our
[[Page H2513]]
Nation is a national security priority above all. Whistleblowers in
these categories should be protected.
And I am thrilled that, under Democratic leadership, this has been
included in the bill, that these protections have been extended to
employees of intelligence agencies, and to Federal contractors in
intelligence agencies. This is an important step forward for the
American public. This is an important step forward, I would argue, for
the national security of our country.
Whistleblowers are heroes and heroines. They should not be turned
into villains and be harassed out of their jobs, denied their security
clearance because they see a breach in security or a breach in
accountability in our government.
So I am thrilled with this Democratic bill, and I urge my colleagues
to vote for the rule and also for the underlying bill. I urge all of my
colleagues to support it. It had bipartisan support coming out of our
committee.
{time} 1315
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank again my
distinguished friend from Florida for his courtesy in yielding the
time.
Mr. Speaker, we will oppose the previous question. If the previous
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in
order the amendment offered yesterday in the Rules Committee by the
gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Hoekstra.
The Hoekstra amendment would safeguard our national intelligence and
allow the Intelligence Committee to appropriately address whistleblower
concerns through regular order. While the Tierney amendment which was
made in order, as was pointed out by my good friend, attempts to
address these concerns, it still allows the possible disemination, we
believe, of highly sensitive information to individuals outside of the
Intelligence Community and, therefore, may put our security at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
Hoekstra amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I urge
all Members to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is
desperately needed. Federal employees need to know that Congress is on
their side. They need to know that their jobs will not be at risk if
they choose to reveal fraud, abuse of power, neglect, or corruption in
their workplace.
The extension of these whistleblower protections is absolutely
critical to our national security and our government accountability. I
am proud to support the underlying legislation and hope that my
colleagues will do the same. This is a fair rule for a bill that is
supported by Members from both sides of the aisle, including the
chairman and ranking Republican of the Government Reform Committee.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule, Mr.
Speaker.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 239
Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
Hoekstra of Michigan or a designee. That amendment shall be
debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Strike section 10 of the bill and conform the table of
contents accordingly.
Redesignate sections 11 through 14 as sections 10 through
13, respectively, and conform the table of contents
accordingly.
In section 11(a)(2), as redesignated, strike ``section
2303a (as inserted by section 10)'' and insert ``section
2303''.
In section 13, as redesignated, strike ``section 12(a)(2)''
and insert ``section 11(a)(2)''.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 239, if ordered, and
approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 197, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 145]
YEAS--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
[[Page H2514]]
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--197
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Berman
Brown (SC)
Davis, Jo Ann
Granger
Kanjorski
McCarthy (CA)
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Ruppersberger
Saxton
Wynn
{time} 1342
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. REYNOLDS, and Mrs. BACHMANN
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota and Mr. KUCINICH changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 193, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 146]
YEAS--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--193
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
[[Page H2515]]
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Carter
Cole (OK)
Davis, Jo Ann
Eshoo
Farr
Ferguson
Granger
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Peterson (MN)
Saxton
Scott (GA)
Waxman
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1349
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for
rollcall vote 146 on H. Res. 239, the rule to provide for consideration
of H.R. 985. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________