[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7226-H7228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 847, JAMES ZADROGA 9/11 HEALTH AND
COMPENSATION ACT OF 2010; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2378,
CURRENCY REFORM FOR FAIR TRADE ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2701, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 7 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
[[Page H7227]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I would reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. 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 the balance of my time to
the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, in a few minutes we're
going to have a series of votes. One of those votes is going to be on
the adjournment resolution that will allow the House to adjourn
sometime over the next few days until November 15. The American people
are asking the question, Where are the jobs? And this Congress has an
obligation to help get our economy moving again and get the American
people back to work. We've had time all year to move a lot of job-
killing policies; yet we've had no time to do a budget, no time to move
any appropriation bills, which means no opportunity to cut spending.
Earlier this year 100 economists, 100 economists, sent a letter to
the President saying, Mr. President, if you cut spending now, it will
help our economy. But I do believe that we have an obligation to help
end the uncertainty that is affecting American families and small
businesses all across the country. We ought to be cutting spending,
and, yes, we ought to end the uncertainty about what the tax rates are
going to be at the beginning of the year.
The idea that we're going to leave here and not extend all of the
current tax rates to end the uncertainty is an irresponsibility on the
part of this Congress. And how any Member can vote to adjourn and pump
this into a lame-duck session, I think, is putting your election above
the needs of your constituents. The American people sent us here to do
their work. We're not here to do our work to get reelected.
I am going to ask all of my colleagues, vote ``no'' on this
adjournment resolution. Give the House an opportunity in a fair and
open debate to extend all of the current tax rates.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would like to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, Mr. Diaz-
Balart, for his able management of this rule and also to wish him well.
This will be the last time that we will be managing a rule together,
and I would like to wish him well in the future.
I would like to thank my friends from the other side of the aisle for
their impassioned remarks during our debate. But when all is said and
done, this rule is about three things, and three things only.
{time} 1220
It's about security. It's about the intelligence reauthorization bill
of 2010. It's about the economy and the currency manipulation bill.
Most of all, it's about doing the right thing. It's about the 9/11 bill
and doing the right thing for the people who have been injured.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the
rule and to allow us to do just that.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln-Diaz Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1674 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker shall, 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. 6225) to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008 to terminate authority under the Troubled Asset
Relief Program. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or
their respective designees. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. 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. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not
apply to the consideration of H.R. 6225.
____
(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. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. 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.
[[Page H7228]]
____________________