[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.
____________________