[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 168 (Friday, November 4, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7337-H7340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2838, COAST GUARD AND MARITIME 
                       TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 455

       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. 2838) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Coast Guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, 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. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order 
     to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee 
     Print dated October 28, 2011. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived.
       (b) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described 
     in section 3 of this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered 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.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or his 
     designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their 
     designees, 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. The original 
     proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc 
     may insert a statement in the Congressional Record 
     immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. 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. 5.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of November 4, 2011, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating 
     to a measure addressing the applicability of the coastwise 
     trade laws.

                              {time}  0920

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
my colleague, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  House Resolution 455 provides for a structured rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Act of 2011. The rule makes 18 amendments submitted to the Rules 
Committee in order for robust debate here in the House of 
Representatives: 10 of those 18 amendments made in order are Democrat-
sponsored amendments; 7 are Republican amendments; and one is a 
bipartisan amendment.
  Five information-gathering subcommittee hearings were held prior to 
this bill being reported out of committee. Further, this legislation 
passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with 
bipartisan support by a voice vote.
  The Coast Guard is comprised of nearly 100,000 military personnel, 
reservists, civilian employees, and auxiliary volunteers. It is one of 
the five branches of the armed services that constitutes our Armed 
Forces. The Coast Guard or its predecessors has defended this Nation in 
every war since 1790. Charged primarily with enforcing the laws of the 
United States in, under, and over the high seas and waters under 
American jurisdiction, the Coast Guard is asked to serve many functions 
simultaneously. This is important in my own State of Florida, which has 
the largest coastline of any of the 48 contiguous States. From drug 
interdiction to port security to border enforcement, the Coast Guard's 
reach is wide and its mission critical.
  This bipartisan legislation authorizes appropriations through fiscal 
year 2015 for the Coast Guard to carry out all of its many 
responsibilities. It also authorizes appropriations for the Federal 
Maritime Commission, including grants for certain short-distance 
shipping activities. Finally, the bill makes some changes to current 
law, affecting maritime safety, transportation and the authorities of 
the Coast Guard.
  The rule also allows for the consideration of H.R. 2840, the 
Commercial Vessel Discharges Reform Act. Ballast water and the 
subsequent discharge of ballast water are essential to the safe 
operation and stability of our seafaring vessels. This bill will simply 
set a single uniform, nationwide standard for ballast water discharge 
from commercial vessels.
  Currently, the Coast Guard and the EPA have developed separate 
regulations under two different laws to govern ballast water discharge. 
The EPA's

[[Page H7338]]

regulations are particularly burdensome as they allow each State to 
impose different requirements on top of the Federal regulations. The 
result: 29 differing and often contradicting standards. A uniform 
national standard, as set by this legislation, will assure the free 
flow of ships in and out of United States ports while protecting both 
the jobs, dependent on their efficient operation, and U.S. waters.
  It should be stressed that the standard is meant to protect commerce 
and the environment. It conforms with the standards set by the 
International Maritime Organization and the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board. They have found that the standard set in the bill is the best 
currently achievable standard. Should a higher standard become 
achievable due to technological improvements, this legislation allows 
States to petition for an improved nationwide standard. Further, the 
bill allows for a review of the performance standard no later than 
January 1, 2016, and a new review can be ordered upon petition from the 
States after that.
  So, once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
has worked to provide us with a very good bipartisan bill, which 
provides for the ongoing needs of the Coast Guard and the important 
missions that they carry out on a daily basis.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  The Republican majority has placed the House in a terrible bind this 
morning. They've taken a worthy bill to authorize the Coast Guard, 
which enjoys broad bipartisan support, and has tied it together with an 
unwise, unrelated, misguided bill that will severely limit the ability 
of States to fight the harmful invasive species that are destroying 
local ecosystems and disrupting local economies.
  In the majority's Pledge to America, leaders of the House promised 
``we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.'' This pledge 
is broken yet again today by this bill we are debating.
  Ship-borne ballast discharge has introduced approximately 180 
nonindigenous invasive species to the Great Lakes, lakes which comprise 
20 percent of the freshwater on this planet. As long as I have been 
privileged to serve in Congress, Members on both sides of the aisle 
have vigorously protected these waters. In fact, during the debate on 
NAFTA, we discovered, along with our Canadian friends, that the Great 
Lakes water was to be sold in other trade agreements to other parts of 
the country that had shortages of water. We all banded together and had 
that part removed. We do have an obligation to save 20 percent of the 
planet's freshwater, which is becoming more and more scarce every day.
  Nationally, more than 4,500 invasive species have been introduced to 
the Nation's waters. In total, they cost us billions of dollars on an 
annual basis. $5 billion alone has been spent to try to deal with the 
European zebra mussel, which we've barely made any inroads against. It 
has been introduced into the Great Lakes and can be found by the 
thousands throughout the lakes. They attach to the hard surfaces so 
thickly that they clog municipal water systems and electric generation 
plants, costing over $1 billion a year to control.
  States know all too well of the dangerous threat of invasive species 
and are taking commonsense action; but today's bill destroys the 
effective work by taking away the right of the States to have control. 
We must allow States to have an equal voice in protecting their 
ecosystems and economies if we are truly to solve the threat of 
invasive species in our waters.
  Despite the unique challenges facing each State, the majority is 
demanding that all States follow one set of Federal requirements. This 
approach is completely different from the one taken by the 
congressional Republicans when debating regulations that would affect 
mountaintop mining corporations, which is taking off the top of a 
mountain and throwing it down into a valley, oftentimes clogging up the 
water supply.
  Earlier this year, the Republican majority passed H.R. 2018, which 
gave power to the States to decide whether or not they should follow 
the guidelines set forth by the EPA to regulate pollution from 
mountaintop mining; but when it comes to ballast water, suddenly we 
think that the Federal Government and not the States must have the 
final say.
  This inconsistency and, obviously, this war against the EPA is 
causing great consternation in the country. The only consistent logic 
in their approach is that, in both instances, they are advocating the 
interests of the respective industries, not the interests of the 
American people.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose today's rule and the underlying bill, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, pardon my immodesty, but as the only Member of the 
United States Congress who is also a Coast Guardsman, I can speak with 
some credibility regarding the Coast Guard. It is my belief that the 
American taxpayer has more bang for his buck from the United States 
Coast Guard than from, probably, any other Federal agency.
  It continues to do more with less: be it the search and rescue 
program, which is endless; be it the drug interdiction that appears to 
be endless as well; be it the Aids to Navigation program with which the 
Coast Guard continues to stay on top of the play; be it the ice patrols 
in the Arctic, the Antarctic, the Great Lakes, and others. The Coast 
Guard stands always ready.
  I am thankful of the comments surrounding this dialogue, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the bill 
authorizing the Coast Guard during this time.

                              {time}  0930

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the rule which provides 
for consideration of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Act of 2011. The bill will reauthorize the activities of 
the Coast Guard through fiscal year 2014. It includes critical 
provisions that will give the Coast Guard, its servicemembers, and 
dependents greater parity--something that is extremely important--with 
their counterparts in the Department of Defense.
  It includes language which will reform and improve Coast Guard 
administration and, very importantly, will save taxpayer dollars 
without impacting the service's critical missions. The bill also amends 
shipping laws to improve safety and foster job growth throughout the 
maritime sector.
  The bill also establishes a uniform national standard for the 
discharge of ballast water that is based on the most recent effective 
technology that is currently available. The standard also must be 
updated on a regular basis as technology improves. Under current law, 
the Coast Guard and EPA regulate ballast water, while every State and 
tribe is allowed to add their own requirements to these regulations. As 
a result, ships engaged in interstate and international commerce must 
comply with two Federal standards and 29 different State and tribal 
standards for water ballast release, many of which are contradictory 
and technologically unachievable. It's an impossible regulatory 
nightmare that threatens jobs and the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a letter of 
support signed by 28 organizations representing the U.S. flag industry, 
our ports, farmers, steel manufacturers, the largest maritime unions in 
the country, and others.
  I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.


[[Page H7339]]


                                               September 22, 2011.
     Hon. John Mica,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank LoBiondo,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
         Transportation, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bob Gibbs,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nick Rahall,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Rick Larsen,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
         Transportation, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tim Bishop,
     Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Messrs. Chairmen and Ranking Members: The undersigned 
     organizations represent U.S. and international vessel owners 
     and operators, industries that rely on marine vessels to 
     transport essential cargoes in domestic and international 
     commerce, and labor unions representing the men and women 
     whose work keeps this vital segment of our economy moving. We 
     write to express our strong support for H.R. 2840, the 
     Commercial Vessel Discharges Reform Act of 2011, which will 
     provide a uniform federal framework for the regulation of 
     ballast water and other vessel discharges.
       Legislation to establish a consistent, practical, and 
     science-based national program for the management of vessel 
     discharges is urgently needed. The current statutory system 
     is a confusing, duplicative, and inconsistent patchwork in 
     which two federal agencies (the Coast Guard and EPA) and more 
     than two dozen states regulate the same vessel discharges in 
     overlapping and sometimes contradictory ways. The absence of 
     a clear and effective federal framework for regulating vessel 
     discharges constrains the movement of essential maritime 
     commerce, jeopardizes American jobs, multiplies regulatory 
     burdens on businesses and workers, puts the environment at 
     risk and forces American taxpayers to foot the bill for 
     duplicative and contradictory government programs.
       H.R. 2840 will fix this untenable situation and establish a 
     clear and consistent framework for the regulation of vessel 
     discharges that protects the economy and the environment. We 
     respectfully urge its prompt passage. Thank you again for 
     your leadership on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
       Thomas A. Allegretti, President & CEO, The American 
     Waterways Operators; Captain Lee A. Kincaid, President, 
     American Maritime Congress; Brenda Otterson, Legislative 
     Consultant, American Maritime Officers Service; Joseph J. 
     Cox, President & CEO, Chamber of Shipping of America; Barry 
     Holliday, Executive Director, Dredging Contractors of 
     America; Harold Daggett, President, International 
     Longshoremen's Association; R. Andrew Riester, Executive Vice 
     President, International Propeller Club of the United States.
       Kurt Nagle, President & CEO, American Association of Port 
     Authorities; Thomas Bethel, National President, American 
     Maritime Officers; Robin Rorick, Director of Marine and 
     Security Operations, American Petroleum Institute; Christine 
     Duffy, President & CEO, Cruise Lines International 
     Association; Brian T. Petty, Executive Vice President-
     Government Affairs, International Association of Drilling 
     Contractors; Captain Timothy A. Brown, President, 
     International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots; Joseph 
     J. Angelo, Managing Director, INTERTANKO.
       James H.I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers' Association; 
     C. James Patti, President, Maritime Institute for Research 
     and Industrial Development (MIRAID); Joseph C. Curto, 
     President, New York Shipping Association; John R. 
     Groundwater, Executive Director, Passenger Vessel 
     Association; Thomas Danjczek, President, Steel Manufacturers 
     Association; Richard H. Hobbie III, President & CEO, Water 
     Quality Insurance Syndicate.
       Christopher L. Koch, President & CEO, World Shipping 
     Council; Mike Jewell, President, Marine Engineers' Beneficial 
     Association; Kendell W. Keith, President, National Grain and 
     Feed Association; Jim Adams, President/CEO, Offshore Marine 
     Services Association; Mike Sacco, President, Seafarers 
     International Union; James L. Henry, Chairman and President, 
     Transportation Institute; and Catherine Reheis-Boyd, 
     President, Western States Petroleum Association.

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentlelady from New York that 
I am prepared to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. As am I; so I will close.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment by Mr. Kissell of 
North Carolina which would prohibit the Coast Guard from procuring 
items classified as textiles and apparel that are not grown, 
reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States. Republicans 
blocked this germane amendment last night in the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so we can help the American workers, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for ample and open 
debate, allowing our colleagues from across the aisle the opportunity 
to offer their legislative proposals to this bill.
  This bill provides a single uniform, nationwide standard for how 
commercial vessels discharge ballast water, a standard that protects 
American jobs by encouraging the efficient flow of goods in and out of 
our ports while also protecting our unique water bodies. More 
importantly, the bill provides the service men and women of the United 
States Coast Guard the funding they need to fulfill their critical 
missions: keeping our borders secure, preventing drugs from 
infiltrating our communities, and safeguarding our men and women.
  Service men and women in the Coast Guard deserve our gratitude and 
support. This includes Coast Guard veterans, such as Garrett Bess, a 
member of my own staff here in Washington, D.C. Partisanship has no 
place in providing the resources necessary for those brave men and 
women in uniform to do what they do best, keep us safe. Therefore, I 
ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and passage 
of the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:


    an amendment to h. res. 455 offered by ms. slaughter of new york

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 7 shall be in 
     order as though printed after the amendment numbered 18 in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by 
     Representative Kissell of North Carolina or his designee. 
     That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 7. The amendment referred to in section 6 is as 
     follows:
       Page 56, after line 3, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 612. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 15 of title 14, 
     United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 569c. Buy American requirement

       ``(a) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsections (c), 
     (d), (e), and (i), the Secretary may not procure for the 
     Coast Guard an item described in subsection (b) if the item 
     is not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United 
     States.
       ``(b) Covered Items.--
       ``(1) In general.--An item referred to in subsection (a) is 
     any item described in paragraph (2), if the item is directly 
     related to the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Items described.--An item described in this paragraph 
     is any article or item of--
       ``(A) clothing and the materials and components thereof, 
     other than sensors, electronics, or other items added to, and 
     not normally associated with, clothing (and the materials and 
     components thereof);
       ``(B) tents, tarpaulins, or covers;
       ``(C) cotton and other natural fiber products, woven silk 
     or woven silk blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, 
     synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric (including all 
     textile fibers and yarns that are for use in such fabrics), 
     canvas products, or wool (whether in the form of fiber or 
     yarn or contained in fabrics, materials, or manufactured 
     articles); or
       ``(D) any item of individual equipment manufactured from or 
     containing such fibers, yarns, fabrics, or materials.
       ``(c) Availability Exception.--Subsection (a) does not 
     apply to the extent that the Secretary determines that 
     satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of any such 
     article or item described in subsection (b) grown, 
     reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States cannot 
     be procured as and when needed.
       ``(d) Exception for Certain Procurements Outside the United 
     States.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the following:
       ``(1) Procurements by vessels in foreign waters.
       ``(2) Emergency procurements.
       ``(e) Exception for Small Purchases.--Subsection (a) does 
     not apply to purchases for amounts not greater than the 
     simplified acquisition threshold (as defined in section 2302 
     of title 10, United States Code).

[[Page H7340]]

       ``(f) Geographic Coverage.--In this section, the term 
     `United States' includes each of the several States, the 
     District of Columbia, and each territory or possession of the 
     United States.
       ``(g) Notification Required Within 7 Days After Contract 
     Award if Certain Exceptions Applied.--In the case of any 
     contract for the procurement of an item described in 
     subsection (b), if the Secretary applies an exception set 
     forth in subsection (c) with respect to that contract, the 
     Secretary shall, not later than 7 days after the award of the 
     contract, post a notification that the exception has been 
     applied.
       ``(h) Training.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
     member of the acquisition workforce of the Coast Guard who 
     participates personally and substantially in the acquisition 
     of textiles on a regular basis receives training on the 
     requirements of this section and the regulations implementing 
     this section.
       ``(2) Inclusion of information in new training programs.--
     The Secretary shall ensure that any training program for the 
     acquisition workforce of the Coast Guard developed or 
     implemented after the date of enactment of this section 
     includes comprehensive information on the requirements 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(i) Consistency With International Agreements.--This 
     section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United 
     States obligations under international agreements.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of 
     such chapter is further amended by adding at the end of the 
     items relating to such subchapter the following:

``569c. Buy American requirement.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--Section 569c of title 14, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with 
     respect to contracts entered into on and after the date that 
     is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        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 Republican 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 Republican 
     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 Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In 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 Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WEBSTER. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

                          ____________________