[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.
____________________