[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 193 (Monday, December 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15508-H15512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 873 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 873

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of December 17, 2007, providing for 
     consideration of any of the following measures:
       (1) The Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2764) making 
     appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
       (2) The Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce 
     our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, 
     renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new 
     emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, 
     and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables 
     Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other 
     purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 873.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 873 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which 
requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee. This waiver would apply to any rule 
reported on December 17 that provides for consideration of the omnibus 
appropriations bill or the Senate-amended energy bill. Madam Speaker, 
the Rules Committee has reported a separate rule for the energy bill, 
but the House is not expected to take up the Senate-amended energy bill 
tonight.
  With passage of this rule, the House will move one step closer to 
passing the omnibus appropriations bill that will fund the government 
outside of the Department of Defense, which we have already funded. 
It's an important bill, and although it is not everything I wanted, I 
believe it deserves to be approved in its current form.
  Madam Speaker, Democrats took over the majority in the House and the 
Senate with a promise of a new direction for America. The House moved 
an aggressive and positive agenda forward, including the timely 
consideration and passage of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills. 
Unfortunately, the President and the Republican leadership of the House 
and the Senate are still stuck in the past. Instead of working with 
Democrats in moving towards a new direction, the Republican leaders in 
the House and Senate did everything they possibly could to delay and 
obstruct the process until we had no option but to bring an omnibus 
appropriations bill to the floor.
  In fact, the Senate minority leader, Senator McConnell, actively 
blocked consideration of these appropriations bills. Why would the 
Republican leadership block these bills from even being considered in 
the Senate? The answer, Madam Speaker, is that they were playing 
politics. Instead of allowing important funding for our roads and 
bridges, funding for the sick and the hungry, funding to protect our 
food system and funding for homeland security, the Republican 
leadership decided to block these funds to try to score political 
points.
  So when my friends on the other side of the aisle complain that we 
are not considering these bills individually, remember that they were 
the ones that prevented us from doing just that. That's unfortunate but 
it's reality. The reality is that because of Senate rules, it takes 60 
votes to order pizza, let alone to consider and vote on important 
pieces of legislation.
  All told, the Democratic majority wanted to pass appropriations bills 
that were fully paid for and that increased spending by $22 billion 
over the President's request. The President and his allies here in 
Congress said, No, no, that's too much. That's too much for education, 
too much for health care, too much for medical research, too much for 
veterans. The irony, of course, is that the President continues to ask 
for hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq, none of it 
paid for. Billions to patch the alternative minimum tax, none of it 
paid for.
  Some of my Republican friends, as I read in the press, are now 
proclaiming a great ``victory'' because the omnibus bill meets the 
President's top-line number. Let's take a look at that.
  Because of the Republicans, there will be fewer medical research 
grants at NIH than Democrats would have liked. ``Congratulations,'' I 
guess.
  Because of Republicans, there will be fewer cops on the beat than 
Democrats would have liked. ``Job well done,'' I suppose.
  Because of the Republicans, there is less funding for important 
education programs that Democrats would have liked. ``Mission 
accomplished,'' my Republican friends.
  The fact is that this Republican so-called ``victory'' is hollow at 
best. And I've been wracking my brain all day, but I just can't 
remember the Republican campaign commercial from last fall that said, 
``Vote for me and I'll follow the President off the cliff and spend 
billions more in Iraq while I cut domestic priorities.'' Maybe that 
commercial did exist and it just didn't run in Massachusetts.
  Despite all of that and despite the Republican obstruction, Chairman 
Obey has put together a bill that makes important new investments in 
our national priorities. More money than the President wanted for 
medical research and rural health. More money than the President wanted 
for K-12 education. More money than the President wanted for renewable 
energy and energy efficiency. More money than the President wanted for 
homeland security, for local law enforcement, for our crumbling 
infrastructure. And perhaps most importantly, more money than the 
President wanted and requested for our veterans. All of that changed, 
all of that progress because of this new Democratic majority.
  Madam Speaker, unlike last year, we are getting our work done. We are 
completing our appropriations bills, not kicking the can down the road 
with another continuing resolution, which is what the Republicans did 
last year when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White 
House, I should add. And the same-day rule before us takes us one step 
closer to making that happen.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to 
thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, ``I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule 
and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague 
this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the 
leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the 
procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to 
run a democracy no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party 
affiliation.''
  Madam Speaker, those are not my words; those are the words of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. He spoke those words on the floor on 
several occasions last year regarding what he eloquently called a 
``martial law rule.''

[[Page H15509]]

  So, although they are not my words, they are quite relevant to this 
debate. Since I have already used some of the gentleman's words, I will 
continue to point out one more comment that the gentleman made on 
martial law rules. I think this one quote is particularly interesting 
because it was given on December 7, 2006, just a month before the 
Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. It speaks about 
how the Democrats proposed to run the House, and it is in sharp 
contrast to how they are actually running the House. This is what the 
gentleman said:
  ``There is a better way to run this body. The truth is that the 
American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th 
Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness 
and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debates on 
the issues that come before this body.''
  Now, I ask, Madam Speaker, where is that openness and fairness my 
colleague spoke about? Where is the openness on the energy bill rule, 
where over 90 amendments were closed out, including a Republican 
substitute? Where was that openness when we considered SCHIP 
reauthorization under two closed rules, shutting out all amendments? 
Where is that openness today when we are asked to consider a 3,000-page 
omnibus appropriations bill with less than 24 hours to review the 
legislation?

                              {time}  1800

  I know where it is, Madam Speaker. They left it on the campaign 
trail. It was an empty promise, and it became evident that it was a 
false, hollow promise on the opening day of their new majority, when 
the Democrats wrote into the rules of the House closed rules for the 
consideration of the first six bills that they were to take up, in 
effect discharging the Rules Committee from its duties for the first 
six bills they were to bring to the floor.
  So their remedy for examples of unfairness they had criticized in the 
Rules Committee was: no Rules Committee. And that trend, started, 
sadly, that day, continues to this day.
  As my colleague has said, yes, and I quote, ``There is a better way 
to run this body. The truth is that the American people expect and 
deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I 
believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We 
must insist on full and fair debates on the issues that come before 
this body.'' How right my colleague was.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond to the 
gentleman.
  He talks about process. Let's compare where we are this year compared 
to where we were last year, when the Republicans had the majority in 
this Congress. What they did is they avoided doing their work and, 
instead, they passed a continuing resolution that took us into the 
following year, and they ran out of town. They left Washington before 
they had finished their job for the year. That is the process that they 
had.
  What we are doing right now is trying to bring up the omnibus bill 
today, and we would have liked to have done it differently, but 
unfortunately there are Republicans in the House and there are 
Republicans especially in the Senate who chose to be obstructionists 
rather than to be partners in trying to get something done. And so here 
we are.
  And so I would say that we're not leaving here until we get our job 
done. And that's very, very different from the way they conducted 
business.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I 
yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking 
member of the Rules Committee.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
And I want to begin by complimenting my friend from Miami for very 
cogently pointing to the December 6, 2006, words of our friend from 
Worcester who has, once again, stood before us and tried to make an 
argument for completely rebuffing all of the promises that were made in 
2006 and the years before that.
  Now, my friend has just referred to the fact that we had a continuing 
resolution a year ago right now when we were considering this. The fact 
is, in the last Congress, while it wasn't a model by any means, there 
were more appropriations bills passed through both Houses of Congress 
than has been the case in this year, the first year of the Democratic 
majority's control of this place.
  Now, when we think back to those promises that were outlined so well 
when my friend from Miami was carrying forth the arguments propounded 
by Mr. McGovern, I think about what we've gotten this year compared to 
last year. In fact, this year, there have been more bills rewritten in 
the Rules Committee than in any other Congress we've had before. Eleven 
of the appropriations bills last year were passed, and only one this 
year, the Defense appropriations bill. And so as I listen to my friend 
malign the record of the last Congress, we have to remember the fact 
that 11 of the bills were passed last year.
  But let me further add that in this calendar year there have been 
more bills rewritten by the Rules Committee than ever before in any 
Congress. Madam Speaker, in this Congress there have been more closed 
rules preventing any Member, Democratic or Republican, from having the 
opportunity to offer an amendment than in any Congress in our history.
  And one of the other things that I remember, as we consider this 
bill, Madam Speaker, is the fact that we were promised a 24-hour period 
to look at measures. In fact, I remember the Speaker, in ``A New 
Direction for America,'' said that we would do this. And my friend, in 
his December 6, 2006, statement, talked about a new sense of fairness 
and openness. He said that twice in his statement, Madam Speaker. And 
yet it was 12:55 this morning when the Rules Committee received this 
3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill. And here we are, at now 5 
minutes past 6 in the evening, having gone through the Rules Committee 
and brought it to the floor. It is, again, 180 degrees from what was 
promised by this new majority.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I will say that my friend and I are the two 
Members of the minority who are here on the floor, we have consistently 
stood, as have all of our colleagues, prepared to work in a bipartisan 
way to deal with these issues.
  And I was really somewhat surprised when I heard my friend mention 
the issue of veterans benefits, making sure that we have the resources 
needed for our Nation's veterans. Well, Madam Speaker, last summer, we 
could have gotten a bill to the President's desk with bipartisan 
support, Democrats and Republicans, again, coming together, which is 
what we want to do, we want to work together. And that's what the 
American people regularly say is, yes, you've got different visions, 
but can't you deal with areas of agreement and, in fact, pass Public 
Law on that.
  Well, Madam Speaker, I will tell you that I believe the Democrats and 
Republicans in this House, at least from everything I've heard, want to 
provide much-needed assistance to our Nation's veterans. Democrats and 
Republicans want to provide assistance to our Nation's veterans. And, 
Madam Speaker, last summer we had an opportunity to do that. Our 
colleagues in the Senate, the other body, they appointed the conferees 
so that we could report, it was a bipartisan agreement, to report out 
and get the much-needed veterans relief to the President's desk for a 
signature. We could have done that last summer. And yet, Madam Speaker, 
unfortunately, there was never, by the Speaker of the House, an 
appointment of those conferees. So we've gone for half a year at a cost 
of, it's been as high as 13 or $18 million a day, if I remember the 
numbers, that it has cost with this constant delay.
  And so I was really shocked that my friend from Worcester would raise 
the issue of veterans benefits when we could have, again, with 
Democrats and Republicans alike agreeing, we could have gotten that 
bill to the President's desk and signed last summer; 6 months ago it 
could have been done.
  So I've got to say again, Madam Speaker, that we were promised this 
great new sense of openness. I was encouraged by that. And I will 
admit, in

[[Page H15510]]

the position that I held in the last Congress as chairman of the Rules 
Committee, I didn't do it perfectly. I made mistakes. I know my friend 
from Miami would acknowledge the same thing. We never held ourselves up 
as a perfect model, but we were constantly criticized. And I know that 
regularly our friends on the other side of the aisle will say, well, 
you did this, so that means we should do this. No, Madam Speaker, it 
wasn't about what we did. It was about what this new majority promised 
they were going to do.
  Twenty-four hours to look at legislation, and yet this 3,000-page 
omnibus appropriations bill was made available at 12:55 this morning. A 
new sense of openness and fairness. More closed rules in the first 
session of the 110th Congress than in any Congress in our Nation's 
history, and more bills rewritten in the Committee on Rules than we've 
ever seen happen before.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that those of us in the minority have a 
responsibility to hold this new majority accountable to those promises 
that were made, not to us, I mean, I'm not complaining about us, it's 
the American people. It's our constituents, Democrats and Republicans, 
who have been denied this opportunity.
  And so it is sad that we are beginning to wind down the first session 
of the 110th Congress in the way that we are when, again, we would very 
much like to work in a bipartisan way. We're going through this measure 
now, Madam Speaker, that the President has said he would veto in its 
current form. We know that the Senate is going to end up doing the 
right thing, ensuring that we have the necessary funds to support our 
troops as they seek to prosecute this war against radical extremism, 
and yet we deny it in this measure.
  So I, of course, will be voting against this bill as it now is. And I 
guess it gives some Members cover. They get an opportunity to say that 
they're voting against the war in Iraq, which some people want to do. I 
mean, we all want this war to come to an end. As I just said upstairs 
in the Rules Committee a few minutes ago, the President of the United 
States stood here last January, nearly a year ago, and he said, I wish 
this war were over and that we had won. This is not an endless war. 
We've been getting positive reports from a wide range of sources, even 
some of the harshest critics, including one particularly prominent 
Member of this institution, who was a very harsh critic, has 
acknowledged that the surge has worked and that we are seeing signs of 
improvement.
  Now, I don't know if that's going to bring the war to an end. No one 
knows. I don't know if it's just a lull. It may be. But I do know this, 
these are positive signs that need to be recognized. And it would be a 
horrible mistake for us to pass this omnibus appropriations bill which 
would deny the needed resources.

  Whether you supported our going into Iraq or not, we are where we 
are, and I think Members of this body need to recognize that. 
Unfortunately, this omnibus appropriations bill fails to do that.
  And I know I've offered this quote on numerous occasions here on the 
House floor, Madam Speaker, but my constituent, Ed Blecksmith, a very 
proud former marine, lost his son, his son that was in the battle of 
Fallujah in November of 2004. And his father said to me, Ed Blecksmith 
said to me, ``If you don't complete our mission in Iraq, my son, J.P., 
will have died in vain.'' And that's why I believe that it is 
critically important, as unpopular as this is, for us to make sure that 
we complete our mission, which means ensuring that the Iraqi security 
forces can defend the country and that the government can govern. It 
took us 13 years, from July 4, 1776 until April of 1789, nearly 13 
years for us to put our government into place.
  We have challenging and difficult days ahead in both Iraq and 
Afghanistan, but this measure would be an absolutely horrible, horrible 
signal to send to our troops and to those who are so courageously, 
Iraqis, people of Afghanistan, who are fighting on behalf of this cause 
for freedom.
  And so, Madam Speaker, I will say again, it's a process that is not 
what was promised to the American people, and it is a product which is 
clearly flawed. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and 
against the underlying resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts spoke earlier about the fact that my previous comments 
were focused upon process; and that is correct, they were, because 
process is a fundamental aspect of a representative democracy.
  The legislation that the majority made available early this morning, 
this bill, Madam Speaker, I was in the district today and I had the 
opportunity and privilege of having various meetings with constituents, 
and I have arrived here this evening, and I must admit, Madam Speaker, 
that I have not had the time to absorb this bill.

                              {time}  1815

  Now, process is important because it is our responsibility, Madam 
Speaker, to represent the American people in a responsible way. Now, 
the rules of the House call for, and it is true, and the former 
chairman mentioned it, and I admit, I have made mistakes, as well, the 
rules of the House call for 3 days for Members to be able to review 
bills.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I simply would like to 
congratulate my friend from Miami for having the ability to, as he has 
just shown, on three occasions lift up all 3,000 pages of this bill 
which we are expected to vote on which obviously virtually no one has 
reviewed.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I may have been able to lift it 
up, but I have not had the opportunity to absorb the legislation, as I 
think as important a bit of legislation needs to be reviewed.
  Now, as I was saying, Madam Speaker, that rule, the requirement of 3 
days for Members of this House to review legislation, is often waived 
by the Rules Committee. That is why the new majority made a promise 
during the campaign to at least provide 24 hours so that Members could 
review, study, attempt to absorb legislation at least with 24 hours. So 
that is why it is most sad, most unfortunate that the new majority is 
not living up to its own promises. Because I think there is a 
legitimate, it is a legitimate point of concern when the 3-day rule is 
waived. And that is why the promise was made.
  So I think it is most unfortunate that the promise of the new 
majority to at least allow the House 24 hours to review legislation, 
especially as important a piece of legislation as this omnibus 
appropriations legislation is, that promise is not kept.
  Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider 
a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and 
enforceability to the earmark rule while closing loopholes that we have 
found over the last few months, that under the current rule, so long as 
the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of 
earmarks contained in the bill or report or a statement that there are 
no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same 
as the rule in the last Congress. However, under the rule as is it 
functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if 
the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always 
available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the 
Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the 
waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to 
raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.
  The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a 
procedure to accept amendments between Houses, such as they plan to do 
with this omnibus appropriations bill. Because the omnibus 
appropriations bill is not a conference report, it will fall squarely 
within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule, and the rules of the 
House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that are contained in 
this legislation.
  I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House 
Parliamentarian John Sullivan recently sent to Rules Chairwoman 
Slaughter which confirms what we have been saying since

[[Page H15511]]

January that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his 
letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the 
Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all 
legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

                                         House of Representatives,


                                Office of the Parliamentarian,

                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.
     Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
     Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of 
     October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on 
     how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have 
     advised the committee that language waiving all points of 
     order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI'' 
     should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules, 
     notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to 
     recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure 
     requirements of clause 9.
       In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order 
     against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause 
     9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that 
     waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the 
     rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI 
     does not comprehensively apply to all legislative 
     propositions at all stages of the legislative process.
       Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill 
     or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or 
     joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment'' 
     to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--
     whether they be floor amendments during initial House 
     consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not 
     covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule 
     felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to 
     immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations 
     about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one 
     offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a 
     member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of 
     a special rule.)
       The question of order on September 25 involved a special 
     rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment 
     between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It 
     had no application to the motion in the first instance. 
     Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special 
     rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). 
     The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule 
     providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered 
     as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same 
     rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no 
     application to the amendment in the first instance, the 
     special rule had no tendency to waive any application of 
     clause 9(a).
       The same would be true in the more common case of a 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text for the purpose of further amendment. 
     Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.
       In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding 
     officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a 
     particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule 
     XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability 
     of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure 
     requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object 
     of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the 
     question whether a special rule waives the application of 
     clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any 
     application.
       In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no 
     application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all 
     points of order except those arising under that rule--when 
     none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its 
     negative implication would be that such a point of order 
     might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all 
     points of order against provisions of an authorization bill 
     except those that can only arise in the case of a general 
     appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this 
     area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use 
     language that yields a misleading implication.
       I appreciate your consideration and trust that this 
     response is to be shared among all members of the committee. 
     Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John V. Sullivan.

  This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of 
the earmark rule. And so, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to close 
this loophole in the earmark rule by opposing the previous question.
  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. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida has a flair 
for the dramatic and held up the omnibus appropriations bill that is 
before us and says he doesn't know what is in it. Let me just highlight 
a few of the things that are in it that I think people need to know. In 
that bill there is more money than the President and the Republicans 
wanted for medical research and for rural health care. And I am 
grateful for that. And the American people are grateful for that.
  In that bill, there is more money than the President and the 
Republicans wanted for K-12 education. All throughout this country, we 
hear from teachers, principals and superintendents about how No Child 
Left Behind is not funded. We hear about the need for more funding for 
special education. There is more money in this bill for K-12 education 
than the Republicans and the President of the United States wanted, and 
I am grateful for that.
  There is more money than the President and Republicans wanted for 
renewable energy and energy efficiency. We need to get serious about 
dealing with global warming. We need to get serious about energy 
independence, but to do so requires that we fund it. For years, we have 
heard the Republicans talk the talk but not walk the walk. There is 
more money in this bill than the Republicans and the President wanted.
  There is more money in this bill than the Republicans and the 
President wanted for homeland security, for local law enforcement. I 
mean, if the Republicans had their way, they would be cutting the COPS 
programs. The fact of the matter is, homeland security also means 
homeland security, and it means making sure that our cities and our 
towns have the law enforcement necessary to protect the people who live 
there.
  There is more money in this bill than the President wanted and the 
Republicans wanted for our crumbling infrastructure. Our roads and our 
bridges are falling apart all across the country. I come from 
Massachusetts. We have bridges that are older than some of the other 
States in this country. Our aging infrastructure is in deep need of 
repair, and it requires funding to repair that infrastructure. There is 
more money than the Republicans and the President wanted for our 
infrastructure.
  There is more money than the President wanted for our veterans. In 
fact, there is the largest increase in veterans health benefits in the 
history of the Veterans Administration in this bill. My friends say, 
Whoa, that's a bipartisan issue, the Republicans wanted it too. Where 
have you been for 12 years when you were in the majority? It has taken 
a Democratic majority to pass a bill that provides the largest single-
year increase in veterans health benefits in the 77-year history of the 
VA.
  There is more money here to help deal with the fact that so many of 
our people in our country are food insecure, are hungry. Higher food 
costs mean we need to help those who need help. There is more money for 
the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children, the 
WIC program. More money than the Republicans and the President wanted. 
There is more money for the commodities supplemental food program which 
is important to improving nutrition, more money than the President and 
the Republicans wanted.
  Madam Speaker, let me also say, let me remind people why we are where 
we are at. This House did all of what was required of it to do. We 
passed all of our appropriations bills.
  The problem is that we had to fight tooth and nail to pass them in 
the House here because of Republican obstructionism in the House. But 
Republican obstructionism in the Senate reached a new level where they 
actually blocked not only bringing appropriations bills to the floor, 
but actually moving to conference on a number of occasions. So here we 
are not content to do what the Republicans did last year, which is to 
do nothing, to kick the ball down the court, dump all their problems on 
another Congress and go home. We are going to finish this year's 
business. And we are going to do so in a way that maybe is not 
everything that I would have liked to have seen done, but nonetheless 
represents a dramatic departure from the priorities of the previous 
Congress.

[[Page H15512]]

  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  The material referred to previously by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 873

             Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. 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 and any amendment thereto 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; (2) the amendment printed in section 3, 
     if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order or demand for division of the question, shall be 
     considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 
     forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:
       (1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or'' 
     at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the 
     end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding 
     the following at the end:
       ``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between 
     the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to 
     an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his 
     designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited 
     tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and 
     amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective 
     item in such list) or a statement that the proposition 
     contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
     limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional 
     Record prior to its consideration.''.
       (2) Clause 9(c) of rule XXI is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph 
     (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the proposition. The question of consideration 
     shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiation 
     the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but 
     shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except 
     one that the House adjourn.''.
                                  ____

       (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 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.

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________