[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]]



                          ____________________