[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 191 (Thursday, December 13, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15422-H15424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 69, FURTHER CONTINUING 
                    APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 869 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 869

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 69) making further continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     joint resolution are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI. The joint resolution shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions of the joint 
     resolution are waived. 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 69 
     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.  The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
     shall insert in the Congressional Record at any time during 
     the remainder of the first session of the 110th Congress such 
     material as he may deem explanatory of appropriations 
     measures for the fiscal year 2008.
       Sec. 4.  House Resolution 839 and House Resolution 850 are 
     laid upon the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 869.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 869 provides for the 
consideration of H.J. Res. 69, a simple, 1-week extension of the fiscal 
year 2008 continuing resolution.
  Madam Speaker, every Congress has the constitutional responsibility 
to be good stewards of the money entrusted to it by the American 
people. It is one of our most important responsibilities. Voters do not 
expect us to abdicate that responsibility, or any other, for that 
matter.
  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 majority have been 
absolute in our promise to construct and pass spending bills with broad 
bipartisan support, and I am proud to say we have delivered on those 
promises.
  Of the 12 fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills that have passed the 
House this year, we have garnered an average of 50 Republican votes, 
with one bill collecting as many as 187 votes from the minority. And in 
that spirit of working together, we have successfully pushed ahead our 
bold and new agenda and passed legislation that prioritizes veterans 
health care, education and energy independence.
  Madam Speaker, we all agree that it is unfortunate that we are forced 
to pass a continuing resolution. But, it is something that must be done 
to work out the remaining issues that we have. We all understand it is 
our prime duty to make sure that the government is running efficiently, 
from our children who need quality education to our veterans who need 
the benefits promised to them when they signed up to serve our country, 
and to our senior citizens who need access to health care and 
affordable prescription drugs.
  Many on the other side still fought tooth and nail, with some Members 
holding up the legislative process, in fighting these bipartisan 
appropriations bills, but we remained focused and strong and passed our 
bills on time.
  It is important to note that continuing resolutions are extremely 
common, with a CR being enacted for every fiscal year since 1954. 
Additionally, Congress has averaged five continuing resolutions per 
year. And I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle that over the last 10 years of Republican control, the House has 
considered 75 continuing resolutions.
  Madam Speaker, this is an important resolution that will allow us to 
do the work necessary to fulfill our promises to the American people, 
and I urge its passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H15423]]

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, first, I would 
like to thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, 
for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, here we are 74 days into the new fiscal year, and the 
new majority is requesting their third continuing resolution to fund 
the government because they failed to pass the necessary appropriations 
bills.
  As of today, only one appropriations bill funding the Department of 
Defense has been signed into law. What is the status of the rest? Well, 
another one has made it to a conference committee, and the rest of the 
appropriations bills wait for the majority to decide what to do. They 
control both Houses of Congress, and yet they still have to decide what 
to do.
  They had a chance to bring their record to two appropriations bills 
signed into law. But instead, the majority decided to play politics 
with a bill that had extraordinary bipartisan support, the Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations Act, because the majority thought they could use 
it as a campaign ploy.
  The new majority promised that they would finish their appropriations 
work. About a year ago, my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. 
Slaughter, came to the floor and said things would be different under 
the leadership of the new majority. She said, and I quote, ``The House 
will no longer avoid asking tough questions or fail to live up to its 
most basic duties.''
  Well, today we see that that has not been possible. Next week, the 
majority is expected to propose an omnibus appropriations bill for all 
the appropriations bills that haven't been finished. That bill will 
probably run into the thousands of pages and spend nearly half a 
trillion dollars. Members may not have enough time to read and digest 
that legislation before they are asked to vote on it. And unless the 
majority decides to move the omnibus appropriations bill through a 
conference committee, that bill will fall squarely within one of the 
loopholes to the majority's earmark rule, and the rules of the House 
then would not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be 
contained in that massive omnibus appropriations bill. The majority 
should not be asking Members to vote on a bill that may include 
numerous earmarks that no one is going to be able to vet and that most 
won't even be able to see.
  Because of this loophole in the earmark rule, I, along with Mr. 
Dreier, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Sessions, sent a letter to the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, 
asking him to ``adhere not just to the letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, 
but to its spirit as well and provide the Rules Committee and the House 
with a list of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill 
prior to the consideration by the Rules Committee.''
  I sincerely hope that Chairman Obey will comply with our request. If 
he does, that would, to an extent, provide Members with a bit of 
comfort when the bill comes to the floor.

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 6, 2007.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Obey: Today the Committee on Rules reported a 
     ``martial law'' rule to provide for the same day 
     consideration of an omnibus appropriations vehicle. That 
     measure also includes a provision giving you the option of 
     inserting extraneous explanatory material in the 
     Congressional Record for appropriations measures for the 
     remainder of this session.
       During the markup of that measure, we offered an amendment 
     to the rule to require that you provide the list of earmarks 
     required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus 
     appropriations measure. Unfortunately, that amendment to the 
     rule was rejected along partisan lines.
       Mr. Chairman, we know that you have made an effort during 
     this Congress to provide transparency for earmarks contained 
     in bills coming through your committee. However, because the 
     omnibus appropriations bill will be considered as a Senate 
     amendment to a House bill, it falls squarely within one of 
     the loopholes of the earmark rule and the Rules of the House 
     will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be 
     contained therein. As you were the presiding officer over the 
     motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, the 
     energy bill, you are well aware that no list of earmarks was 
     provided for that measure because it fell within the same 
     loophole.
       We respectfully request that you adhere not just to the 
     letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and 
     provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of 
     earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior 
     to consideration by the Rules Committee. That kind of 
     disclosure will be in the best interest of the House, its 
     Members, and the Nation.
       We appreciate your willingness to consider our request.
           Respectfully,
     David Dreier,
     Doc Hastings,
     Lincoln Diaz-Balart,
     Pete Sessions.

  Madam Speaker, the new majority, again, has failed to live up to 
their promises to finish their work on time and many others, and the 
underlying third continuing resolution is just another example of their 
failure to lead.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I would ask my friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart, 
if he has any speakers.
  We have no speakers, either, so if the gentleman would like to close, 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I thank my friend.
  Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing the 
conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations Act that I made reference to a few minutes ago. 
The House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 of 
this year by a vote of 409-2. The Senate followed suit and named 
conferees on September 6 of this year.
  Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to 
move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. 
They have even refused to name conferees. Instead, the majority plans 
to include the veterans funding in the massive omnibus appropriations 
legislation. But the status of the omnibus is still in doubt.

                              {time}  1045

  Negotiations apparently are ongoing, but we all know there is one 
bill that has extraordinarily wide bipartisan support and that the 
President will quickly sign it into law, the Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill. We already know that we are going to be here next 
week. We should pass the Veterans Affairs appropriation bill and 
provide the veterans the funding they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and 
oppose the previous question. Our veterans deserve better than partisan 
gamesmanship holding back their funding.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
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. Madam Speaker, at this time, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 869 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page H15424]]

     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 from 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. 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. Madam 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. 869, if ordered; 
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 859; and adoption of H. Res. 
859, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 184, not voting 25, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1156]

                               YEAS--222

     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
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     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
     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
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     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
     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
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     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
     Crenshaw
     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)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     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 (KY)
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bono
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Chandler
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Ellison
     Engel
     Heller
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Lewis (KY)
     Mack
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1109

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________