[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.
____________________