[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 144 (Wednesday, September 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10910-H10912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 52, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 677 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 677

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 52) making continuing appropriations 
     for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the joint resolution and against its 
     consideration are waived except those arising under clause 9 
     or 10 of rule XXI. The joint resolution shall be considered

[[Page H10911]]

     as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of House Joint Resolution 52 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the joint resolution to such time as may be 
     designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3. House Resolution 659 is laid upon the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 677.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 677 provides for consideration of 
H.J. Res. 52, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
2008, and for other purposes.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the 
Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order 
against the joint resolution and against its consideration except for 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
  The rule also provides that the joint resolution shall be considered 
as read. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, every Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be 
good stewards of the money sent to us by the American people. And I am 
proud to say that we here in the House of Representatives have 
fulfilled our fiscal responsibility to the American people by passing 
all of our appropriations bills on time.
  We, in the new majority, have been absolute in our promise to 
construct and pass spending bills with broad bipartisan support, and I 
am proud to say that we have delivered on those promises.
  Of the 12 fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills that passed the House 
this year, we have garnered an average of 50 Republican votes. In a 
spirit of working together, we have successfully pushed ahead our bold 
and new agenda and passed legislation that prioritize veterans, health 
care, education and energy independence.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res 677 provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 52, 
as I said before, for continuing appropriations for the year 2008.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentlelady and chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in just 5 days, fiscal year 2007 will come to an end and 
a new fiscal year will begin. I am disappointed that this rule and the 
underlying continuing resolution are on the floor today. Not one, let 
me repeat that, not one spending bill has been sent to the President 
for his signature this year.
  Congress has a responsibility to fund the priorities of the 
government, and here we are, just days before the start of a new fiscal 
year, and not one of the 12 spending bills that must be signed into law 
have been signed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will support the underlying continuing resolution 
because I recognize the government must continue to be funded. It is my 
strong hope, however, that within the next 6 weeks, 12 separate 
conference reports will come before the House of Representatives.
  I do not believe that omnibus bills are the best vehicles for 
spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, and I truly hope 
that that will not be what we end with on November 16.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no requests for time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing day for the American people. 
Here we are, nearly 9 months into this Congress controlled by the 
Democrat majority, and still the majority has failed to live up to 
their promises by denying every American taxpayer accountability when 
it comes to transparency of earmarks.
  Just yesterday, a challenge was made to an earmark slipped into a 
bill 299 pages long that had not been disclosed. The Democrat majority 
certified the bill was ``earmark free,'' but then denied all 
accountability and scrutiny of this earmark.
  It is vital that the House act today to allow the House to debate 
openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in 
all bills, such as the SCHIP bill yesterday, and not just on 
appropriation bills. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members 
to oppose the previous question so that they may amend the rule to 
allow for immediate consideration of House Resolution 479, the Earmark 
Accountability bill.
  By defeating the previous question, the House will be able to 
consider the continuing resolution today, but will also be able to 
address earmark enforceability in order to restore the credibility of 
this House.
  By considering and approving House Resolution 479, we will send a 
strong message to the American taxpayers that this House will no longer 
turn its head the other way when it comes to transparency of earmarks.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to say simply for the 
record that there are no earmarks in this bill and that everybody knows 
it.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 677 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
     enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)
       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.''

[[Page H10912]]

       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 677 will be followed 
by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 677, if ordered; 
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 678, by the yeas and 
nays; and adoption of House Resolution 678, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 192, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 908]

                               YEAS--220

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     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
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     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)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     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
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     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
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Abercrombie
     Boyd (FL)
     Brown, Corrine
     Carson
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Loebsack
     Meeks (NY)
     Musgrave
     Putnam
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1123

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Messrs. LEWIS of Kentucky, 
BOOZMAN and TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. HILL changed his 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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________