[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25729-25730]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3121, FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND 
                       MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire from my colleague from 
California if she has finished with her speakers.
  Ms. MATSUI. Yes, I have.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield the balance of my 
time to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, the minority leader, Mr. 
Boehner.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, posted on the Speaker of the House's Web site at this 
moment is a document entitled ``A New Direction for America.'' In this 
document, the following statement is highlighted: Bills should 
generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, 
and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the 
minority the right to offer its alternatives.
  Last November when Democrats were preparing to take control of this 
Chamber, I appreciated something that Speaker Pelosi said. And I quote, 
``The issue of civility, the principle of civility and respect for 
minority participation in this House is something that we promised the 
American people. It is the right thing to do. And I set forth, over a 
number of years now, principles and respect for minority rights. And we 
intend to implement them.''
  This statement was made almost a year ago at a press conference on 
November 20, 2006. Now, let's contrast those statements that were made 
and with what took place last night in the Rules Committee.
  Seven Republican amendments were offered to the bill that we are 
about to debate, none made in order, including a bipartisan amendment 
offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey; 13 Democrat amendments were made 
in order.
  Now, the last time the flood insurance bill was on the floor of the 
House, which was in the 109th Congress, six Democrat amendments were 
made in order, one bipartisan amendment was made in order, and nine 
Republican amendments were made in order.
  And if this isn't bad enough that the Republicans were denied any 
amendments in the bill that we have before us today, the majority also, 
in its rule, has waived the earmark reform rule again.
  Now, yesterday when we had the SCHIP bill on the floor, there were 
earmarks in the bill. They weren't disclosed, they weren't outlined, 
and there was no way for Members to get at a debate or an amendment on 
those earmarks that were in this bill.
  What assurances do American taxpayers have that there isn't some 
earmark in this bill that we have today? Because there is no list. But 
yet, the Rules Committee felt obliged to waive the earmark reform bill 
that was put in place earlier this year.
  Now, the problem we have with the underlying rule is really part of 
the bigger problem. Last night, our Rules Committee Republicans put 
together a report outlining the number of closed rules that we have had 
in this House.
  I was here in the early 1990s demanding that the minority ought to be 
treated more fairly. And clearly, when Republicans took majority 
control of this House, it may not have been everything everybody 
wanted, but there was more democracy in the House than what we have 
seen this year. And I just want to implore all of my colleagues that 
the American people sent us here to work together to solve the problems 
of this country. And yet, all year, as I have put my hand out to try to 
find a way to work in a bipartisan manner, it gets slapped away. That 
is not what the American people want of us. It is not what they 
deserve. And I would ask my colleagues to understand, many of you were 
here in the minority; you know exactly what I am talking about. It is 
time to be treating the minority the way you asked to be treated when 
you were in the minority.
  I would ask my colleagues to defeat this rule, send it back to the 
committee, and let's do this in the fair, bipartisan way that the 
American people expect.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, the earmark rule is not waived in 
this rule despite the claims of my colleagues. I urge them to read page 
2, lines 6 and 7, that the earmark rule specifically excludes the 
earmark rule from the waiver. Any suggestion otherwise is simply 
untrue.
  Additionally, the Rules Committee took testimony yesterday on this 
bill. Unfortunately, some of the Members who spoke today didn't even 
come to testify on their amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill takes the National Flood Insurance Program in 
a positive direction. This bill takes important steps to modernize the 
flood insurance program. This bill has bipartisan support. It raises 
maximum coverage limits to keep up with inflation; it provides new 
coverage for living expenses if you have to vacate your home; and, 
moving forward, Congress is making the flood insurance program 
sustainable in the long run.
  Mr. Speaker, these are all positive steps that allow the program to 
continue to provide peace of mind to those impacted when a flood event 
occurs.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 683 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       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).

[[Page 25730]]

     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. MATSUI. 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 noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________