[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H39-H44]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2768, SUPPLEMENTAL MINE IMPROVEMENT
AND NEW EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT OF 2007
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 918
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2768) to establish improved mandatory
standards to protect miners during emergencies, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. General debate shall be confined to
[[Page H40]]
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except
those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding
clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2768
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
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 Washington (Mr.
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
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 918.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H. Res. 918 provides for consideration of H.R. 2768, the Supplemental
Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, under a structured
rule.
As the Clerk just read, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate
controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and
10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order all four amendments that were
submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill, including a full
substitute. The amendments are debatable for 10 minutes each, except
for the substitute which is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also
provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, like most Americans, I vividly remember the terrible
mine tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah last August as we waited
day after day, praying for the safety of the miners. We watched with
great trepidation and sadness as three rescue workers were also killed
attempting to save six miners who were trapped in a horrific mine
collapse, all of whom, I am sad to say, did not survive.
As a native Kentuckian and one who remembers vividly the mines and
particularly the whistles in the middle of the night indicating
something had gone wrong at the mine, I was touched by that tragedy on
a very personal level. It reminded me not only of the dangers of the
profession but also the important role of Congress to do all that we
can to ensure their safety.
I was simply shocked by some of the disturbing facts that were
revealed after just a brief review of the evidence. The Crandall Canyon
tragedy appears to have been preventable, and the rescue effort handled
by the Mine Safety and Health Administration was tragically mismanaged.
Following the tragedy, the New York Times and other publications
reported that the Mine Safety and Health Administration ``failed to
conduct the required inspections . . . at 107 of the Nation's 731
underground coal mines,'' and ``that the agency had misstated the
number of inspections it had conducted, apparently to inflate its rate
of completed inspections.''
{time} 1130
How tragic that is when lives are at stake. Sadly, on the day of the
accident, we saw it was not NIOSH that was in charge of safety for the
miners, but the owner, concerned only with his bottom line.
Madam Speaker, the evidence shows that, despite significant progress
over the last several decades, mining remains one of the most dangerous
jobs in America. Mining fatalities occur at a rate more than seven
times the average for all private industries, far exceeding other
dangerous occupations. Last year alone, 56 miners died on the job in
the United States.
Unfortunately, the tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine was only the
latest in a series of mine disasters, including three others last year
which combined claimed 19 lives, the Sago Mine explosion, the fire at
Aracoma Alma Mine, and the Kentucky Darmy Mine.
Madam Speaker, Congress owes it to the victims and to their families
to perform a vigorous investigation to uncover what went wrong during
these tragedies and how we can ensure that it never happens again. I am
proud to say that we stand here today resolute in our promise to
enhance the safety of our mine workers, bringing forth a bill that will
aim to fulfill that pledge.
The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, or H.R. 2768,
will help to prevent future disasters as well as improve our emergency
response should another tragedy occur. We took an important step last
Congress enacting into law the MINER Act, the bill intended to prevent
disasters such as Crandall Canyon. However, the administration made it
crystal clear that it did not intend to go any further or move more
quickly than required under the MINER Act, despite new evidence that
quicker action is necessary to ensure the safety of miners.
This bill empowers the Mine Safety and Health Administration to
protect miners, providing them with the much-needed authority to
investigate mine operators and punish those that ignore or break the
law. Unfortunately, too many persons on the Oversight Committee are
mine owners themselves. By providing the agency with subpoena
authority, it will be permitted to stop production in mines that do not
pay off delinquent accounts, and to shut down mines that do not abate
violations. That is certainly long overdue and should have been done at
least a century ago.
The bill also requires oversight and accountability by the agency,
demanding that MSHA take a more active role in protecting the safety of
the workers. For example, MSHA will be required to carefully review
every plan for the notoriously dangerous practice known as ``retreat
mining'' and to physically observe the process when it begins. In
addition, they will be required to issue emergency response plans.
Remember that the Crandall Canyon Mine had already been retreat-mined
before these miners started work.
Furthermore, the bill is an important tool to enhance the safety and
security of miners. It creates a miner ombudsman office to process
incoming complaints and to assist whistleblowers while establishing
solid ground rules for independent investigation of multiple fatality
mine accidents. In addition, it requires improved communications and
tracking systems, and it cuts the coal dust exposure limit in half,
which is so important because I learned yesterday from Chairman Miller
that black lung disease, one of the most awful ways to live and die, is
on the upsurge.
While this legislation takes groundbreaking steps to protect miners,
we still have a long way to go to ensure that mining no longer carries
the ominous description of ``one of America's most deadly
professions.'' More must be done to reduce long-term health risks
facing miners, such as
[[Page H41]]
black lung disease, which can be just as deadly as on-the-job
tragedies. We must expand on the MINER Act until tragedies like
Crandall Canyon are a thing of the past and the death toll ceases to
rise. Many oversight hearings conducted by the Committee on Education
and Labor concluded that not only were the recent mining disasters
preventable, but that the risk of a repeat incident is still very real.
I would like to take a moment to commend the House Education and
Labor Committee under the wonderful leadership of Chairman George
Miller. It was Mr. Miller who leapt into action to take on this immense
responsibility.
This represents a marked change in the way the Congress has been
operating following last year's election. Since Democrats regained
control of the House and Senate last November, we have once again begun
to use two of the most basic tools in our legislative tool box, they
are oversight and investigation, and today's bill is no exception.
The bill shows our commitment to proactively advocate for working men
and women, especially the victims and families of disasters like that
that occurred at Crandall Canyon last August. We must do everything we
can to ensure that every single miner is able to return home at the end
of the day to their family. I am proud to say this is, at its heart,
the true intention of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of
the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, it is imperative that the
over 200,000 miners in the United States work in a safe environment.
Tragedies in recent years have highlighted the need to improve mine
safety. In an effort to improve mine safety and prevent future
tragedies, I was pleased that in 2006 the Senate unanimously, and the
House overwhelmingly, passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency
Response (MINER) Act, which was signed into law. This comprehensive,
overwhelmingly bipartisan law represented a significant step, the first
in some 30 years, forward in improving mine safety. But, Madam Speaker,
it's unfortunate that today Democrat leaders have put bipartisanship
aside and brought forth a rule to allow the House to consider
legislation that threatens to jeopardize, not improve, meaningful
achievements and efforts currently under way.
The MINER law of 2006 is still being implemented, and to date, the
Mine Safety and Health Administration has met all of its statutory
deadlines in implementing the new law. However, Democratic leaders have
chosen to bring forth the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New
Emergency Response Act, which ignores the progress that has been made,
and further, provides no opportunity for stakeholder participation in
the regulatory process and imposes unrealistic time requirements on
employers.
In addition, it is concerning that this bill would allow technology
to be placed in mines that has not been deemed ``intrinsically safe''
by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. This has the potential,
Madam Speaker, to result in serious safety issues, such as maybe an
explosion.
Another major safety concern is that this bill creates a two-tiered
notification system in the event of an accident, with one set of
reportable incidents being subject to be reported within 15 minutes and
another set within an hour. Madam Speaker, current law requires a mine
operator to call the Mine Safety and Health Administration within 15
minutes of a reportable incident or face a fine. This new confusing
tiered system could potentially lessen protection to miners.
Lastly, this bill does not empower all miners to participate in the
development of safety policies and procedures through the formation of
safety teams. Currently, miners who are not part of a union can be
prohibited from working with management to promote safety.
Representatives Kline of Minnesota and Wilson of South Carolina will be
offering a substitute amendment later to end this discrimination
between union and nonunion employees. All miners should be able to have
a say when it comes to their safety, and this bill fails to do that.
Before enacting additional legislation that could be
counterproductive, Congress should allow current law to be fully
implemented. Congress should also review the law first before dictating
mine safety regulations that fail to advance safety, potentially
threatens jobs, and impose over $1 billion in unfunded mandates on the
mining industry.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and
the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire if the
gentleman from Washington has any remaining speakers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I do have another speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. At this time, I would like to recognize
the ranking member of the Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Since the 110th Congress was gaveled into session, not a single bill
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor has
been considered under an open rule. Sadly, today's bill is no
exception. Nonetheless, I do want to thank the majority for making the
Republican substitute in order. I believe the S-MINER Act is
fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed with discrete amendments. As
such, anything short of the Republican substitute will only result in
cosmetic changes to a bill whose flaws run much deeper.
Each of us recognizes the importance of mine safety. The individuals
who work in mines supply the energy that powers this Nation. Their job
is dangerous, yet vital, and keeping them safe is critical.
Our commitment to mine safety is nothing new. In fact, it was nearly
2 years ago that we first took up the MINER Act in an effort to
implement the most comprehensive reforms to mine safety in a
generation. That bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support as well as the
backing of both labor and industry.
The MINER Act was signed into law just a year and a half ago, and
already it is producing major changes in the operation of our Nation's
mines. The law included an aggressive implementation timetable, and the
mining community has acted quickly to embrace the law and make its
required changes. Our committee has monitored implementation of the
MINER Act in order to ensure it is quickly and effectively put into
place. There should be no question about our commitment to mine safety.
Yet, here we are today to consider a bill that in many ways ignores the
progress that has been made.
At best, the S-MINER Act is premature. The 2006 MINER Act has not yet
been given the chance to take root, with many of its reforms still
being developed by MSHA and those in the field. At worst, the S-MINER
Act could actually derail ongoing progress by sending regulators and
the mining community back to square one on many critical safety issues.
I would like to quote from an article published by the Lexington,
Kentucky Herald-Leader by Rick Honaker, Mining Foundation distinguished
professor and chairman of the University of Kentucky department of
mining engineering:
``But now it seems very strange, almost incomprehensible, that a move
is afoot in Congress to impose an entirely new set of requirements on
coal mine operators and mine inspectors even before there has been an
opportunity to comply with the far-reaching provisions of the MINER
Act. It threatens to disrupt the all-important emergency rescue
provisions of the law. Simply put, additional legislation now serves no
useful purpose.''
Madam Speaker, Republicans have developed an alternative to the S-
MINER Act that we believe strikes the appropriate balance between
strengthening mine safety and maintaining the
[[Page H42]]
widely supported reforms enacted less than 2 years ago. First and
foremost, our substitute underscores the importance of the MINER Act
reforms and restates our commitment to seeing them implemented fully
and forcefully. In addition to supporting these strong reforms, our
substitute goes further to protect miners by allowing them to be full
participants in the safety process.
During the Education and Labor Committee's consideration of this
bill, Representative Kline offered an amendment that would have taken
meaningful steps to enhance mine safety, without jeopardizing work
already under way. That amendment, like our substitute, would empower
miners by directly engaging them in the development of safety policies
and procedures through the formation of safety teams. Currently,
nonunionized miners may be prohibited from working with management to
promote safety through teams.
To further protect miners, our substitute would enhance the MINER Act
reforms by fostering communication between MSHA and the Bureau of Land
Management; studying the conditions the next generation of miners will
face with deep mine conditions, as well as fostering a better
understanding of retreat mining using pillar removal; and clarifying
information dissemination in the event of a tragedy.
Lastly, we would implement a testing program for illegal substances.
This would not only protect those in the mines, but also identify
miners who are struggling with addiction and in need of help. The
States of Virginia and Kentucky have already implemented this safety
measure, and miners have been protected because of it.
Madam Speaker, I cannot help but notice that the amendment offered by
the distinguished chairman of the committee also includes a provision
to address the issue of drug abuse among miners. I also cannot help but
notice that this provision was inserted at the very last possible
minute, several hours after the deadline for amendments to the Rules
Committee. I hope this 11th-hour acknowledgement of the crippling
problem of drug abuse among miners is a signal of genuine interest in
addressing the issue. Unfortunately, by providing only a study rather
than a strong testing program like that called for by Republicans, this
gesture rings hollow.
Madam Speaker, although the rule makes in order a strong Republican
alternative, it remains flawed because it allows consideration of a
bill that should not pass.
{time} 1145
The S-MINER Act abandons bipartisan mine safety reforms and replaces
stakeholder expertise with bureaucratic Washington mandates that
threaten mine workers' jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Madam Speaker, for the last several months, Republicans have
highlighted the need to change the House rules in order to restore
accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.
Clearly, the rules are flawed when it comes to enforceability of
earmarks. House Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable
on the House floor, but time after time Members have been denied the
opportunity to challenge earmarks during consideration of the rule and
the bill.
Over the last several months, we have learned that the earmark rule
does not apply when considering amendments between the Houses. This
loophole has prevented numerous earmarks from being challenged in the
energy bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion
legislation, and the omnibus bill, which contained nearly 9,000
earmarks, including at least 150 earmarks that were air-dropped in the
bill at the last minute.
Madam Speaker, in October Parliamentarian John Sullivan sent a letter
to Chairwoman Slaughter confirming that the current rules are flawed as
they relate to earmarks. In his letter, he states the earmark rule
``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all
stages of the legislative process.''
Madam Speaker, I will insert this letter from House Parliamentarian
John Sullivan into the Record.
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,
Parliamentarian.
.Madam Speaker, today I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the previous question so that I can amend the rule in order to close
the loopholes and restore accountability and enforceability to the
House earmark rules.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
and extraneous material be 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. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the previous question, oppose the rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous
question so that we can give more safety to the miners who work day
after day in
[[Page H43]]
sometimes unsafe and unspeakable conditions. I also urge a ``yes'' vote
on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 918
Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. 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 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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 noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 the resolution, if ordered;
suspending the rules and agreeing to House Resolution 912; and
suspending the rules and agreeing to House Resolution 921.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 191, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 2]
YEAS--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
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
Engel
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
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
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)
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
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
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--191
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
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
Cubin
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
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
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)
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
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
[[Page H44]]
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Baca
Baker
Berkley
Berry
Culberson
Forbes
Fossella
Honda
Hunter
Jefferson
Lantos
Meeks (NY)
Miller, Gary
Paul
Shimkus
Tanner
Westmoreland
{time} 1212
Messrs. SESSIONS and MILLER of Florida changed their 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.
____________________