[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.''

                          ____________________