[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 61-65]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2768, SUPPLEMENTAL MINE IMPROVEMENT 
                 AND NEW EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT OF 2007

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 918

       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. 2768) to establish improved mandatory 
     standards to protect miners during emergencies, 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 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
     rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered 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. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. 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 committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. 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. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 2768 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 918.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H. Res. 918 provides for consideration of H.R. 2768, the Supplemental 
Mine

[[Page 62]]

Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, under a structured rule.
  As the Clerk just read, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate 
controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 
10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order all four amendments that were 
submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill, including a full 
substitute. The amendments are debatable for 10 minutes each, except 
for the substitute which is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also 
provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, like most Americans, I vividly remember the terrible 
mine tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah last August as we waited 
day after day, praying for the safety of the miners. We watched with 
great trepidation and sadness as three rescue workers were also killed 
attempting to save six miners who were trapped in a horrific mine 
collapse, all of whom, I am sad to say, did not survive.
  As a native Kentuckian and one who remembers vividly the mines and 
particularly the whistles in the middle of the night indicating 
something had gone wrong at the mine, I was touched by that tragedy on 
a very personal level. It reminded me not only of the dangers of the 
profession but also the important role of Congress to do all that we 
can to ensure their safety.
  I was simply shocked by some of the disturbing facts that were 
revealed after just a brief review of the evidence. The Crandall Canyon 
tragedy appears to have been preventable, and the rescue effort handled 
by the Mine Safety and Health Administration was tragically mismanaged.
  Following the tragedy, the New York Times and other publications 
reported that the Mine Safety and Health Administration ``failed to 
conduct the required inspections . . . at 107 of the Nation's 731 
underground coal mines,'' and ``that the agency had misstated the 
number of inspections it had conducted, apparently to inflate its rate 
of completed inspections.''

                              {time}  1130

  How tragic that is when lives are at stake. Sadly, on the day of the 
accident, we saw it was not NIOSH that was in charge of safety for the 
miners, but the owner, concerned only with his bottom line.
  Madam Speaker, the evidence shows that, despite significant progress 
over the last several decades, mining remains one of the most dangerous 
jobs in America. Mining fatalities occur at a rate more than seven 
times the average for all private industries, far exceeding other 
dangerous occupations. Last year alone, 56 miners died on the job in 
the United States.
  Unfortunately, the tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine was only the 
latest in a series of mine disasters, including three others last year 
which combined claimed 19 lives, the Sago Mine explosion, the fire at 
Aracoma Alma Mine, and the Kentucky Darmy Mine.
  Madam Speaker, Congress owes it to the victims and to their families 
to perform a vigorous investigation to uncover what went wrong during 
these tragedies and how we can ensure that it never happens again. I am 
proud to say that we stand here today resolute in our promise to 
enhance the safety of our mine workers, bringing forth a bill that will 
aim to fulfill that pledge.
  The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, or H.R. 2768, 
will help to prevent future disasters as well as improve our emergency 
response should another tragedy occur. We took an important step last 
Congress enacting into law the MINER Act, the bill intended to prevent 
disasters such as Crandall Canyon. However, the administration made it 
crystal clear that it did not intend to go any further or move more 
quickly than required under the MINER Act, despite new evidence that 
quicker action is necessary to ensure the safety of miners.
  This bill empowers the Mine Safety and Health Administration to 
protect miners, providing them with the much-needed authority to 
investigate mine operators and punish those that ignore or break the 
law. Unfortunately, too many persons on the Oversight Committee are 
mine owners themselves. By providing the agency with subpoena 
authority, it will be permitted to stop production in mines that do not 
pay off delinquent accounts, and to shut down mines that do not abate 
violations. That is certainly long overdue and should have been done at 
least a century ago.
  The bill also requires oversight and accountability by the agency, 
demanding that MSHA take a more active role in protecting the safety of 
the workers. For example, MSHA will be required to carefully review 
every plan for the notoriously dangerous practice known as ``retreat 
mining'' and to physically observe the process when it begins. In 
addition, they will be required to issue emergency response plans. 
Remember that the Crandall Canyon Mine had already been retreat-mined 
before these miners started work.
  Furthermore, the bill is an important tool to enhance the safety and 
security of miners. It creates a miner ombudsman office to process 
incoming complaints and to assist whistleblowers while establishing 
solid ground rules for independent investigation of multiple fatality 
mine accidents. In addition, it requires improved communications and 
tracking systems, and it cuts the coal dust exposure limit in half, 
which is so important because I learned yesterday from Chairman Miller 
that black lung disease, one of the most awful ways to live and die, is 
on the upsurge.
  While this legislation takes groundbreaking steps to protect miners, 
we still have a long way to go to ensure that mining no longer carries 
the ominous description of ``one of America's most deadly 
professions.'' More must be done to reduce long-term health risks 
facing miners, such as black lung disease, which can be just as deadly 
as on-the-job tragedies. We must expand on the MINER Act until 
tragedies like Crandall Canyon are a thing of the past and the death 
toll ceases to rise. Many oversight hearings conducted by the Committee 
on Education and Labor concluded that not only were the recent mining 
disasters preventable, but that the risk of a repeat incident is still 
very real.
  I would like to take a moment to commend the House Education and 
Labor Committee under the wonderful leadership of Chairman George 
Miller. It was Mr. Miller who leapt into action to take on this immense 
responsibility.
  This represents a marked change in the way the Congress has been 
operating following last year's election. Since Democrats regained 
control of the House and Senate last November, we have once again begun 
to use two of the most basic tools in our legislative tool box, they 
are oversight and investigation, and today's bill is no exception.
  The bill shows our commitment to proactively advocate for working men 
and women, especially the victims and families of disasters like that 
that occurred at Crandall Canyon last August. We must do everything we 
can to ensure that every single miner is able to return home at the end 
of the day to their family. I am proud to say this is, at its heart, 
the true intention of this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of 
the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, it is imperative that the over 200,000 miners in the 
United States work in a safe environment. Tragedies in recent years 
have highlighted the need to improve mine safety. In an effort to 
improve mine safety and prevent future tragedies, I was pleased that in 
2006 the Senate unanimously, and the House overwhelmingly, passed the 
Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act, which was 
signed into law. This comprehensive, overwhelmingly bipartisan law 
represented a significant step, the first in some 30 years, forward in 
improving mine safety. But,

[[Page 63]]

Madam Speaker, it's unfortunate that today Democrat leaders have put 
bipartisanship aside and brought forth a rule to allow the House to 
consider legislation that threatens to jeopardize, not improve, 
meaningful achievements and efforts currently under way.
  The MINER law of 2006 is still being implemented, and to date, the 
Mine Safety and Health Administration has met all of its statutory 
deadlines in implementing the new law. However, Democratic leaders have 
chosen to bring forth the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New 
Emergency Response Act, which ignores the progress that has been made, 
and further, provides no opportunity for stakeholder participation in 
the regulatory process and imposes unrealistic time requirements on 
employers.
  In addition, it is concerning that this bill would allow technology 
to be placed in mines that has not been deemed ``intrinsically safe'' 
by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. This has the potential, 
Madam Speaker, to result in serious safety issues, such as maybe an 
explosion.
  Another major safety concern is that this bill creates a two-tiered 
notification system in the event of an accident, with one set of 
reportable incidents being subject to be reported within 15 minutes and 
another set within an hour. Madam Speaker, current law requires a mine 
operator to call the Mine Safety and Health Administration within 15 
minutes of a reportable incident or face a fine. This new confusing 
tiered system could potentially lessen protection to miners.
  Lastly, this bill does not empower all miners to participate in the 
development of safety policies and procedures through the formation of 
safety teams. Currently, miners who are not part of a union can be 
prohibited from working with management to promote safety. 
Representatives Kline of Minnesota and Wilson of South Carolina will be 
offering a substitute amendment later to end this discrimination 
between union and nonunion employees. All miners should be able to have 
a say when it comes to their safety, and this bill fails to do that.
  Before enacting additional legislation that could be 
counterproductive, Congress should allow current law to be fully 
implemented. Congress should also review the law first before dictating 
mine safety regulations that fail to advance safety, potentially 
threatens jobs, and impose over $1 billion in unfunded mandates on the 
mining industry.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire if the 
gentleman from Washington has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I do have another speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. At this time, I would like to recognize 
the ranking member of the Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon, for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Since the 110th Congress was gaveled into session, not a single bill 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor has 
been considered under an open rule. Sadly, today's bill is no 
exception. Nonetheless, I do want to thank the majority for making the 
Republican substitute in order. I believe the S-MINER Act is 
fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed with discrete amendments. As 
such, anything short of the Republican substitute will only result in 
cosmetic changes to a bill whose flaws run much deeper.
  Each of us recognizes the importance of mine safety. The individuals 
who work in mines supply the energy that powers this Nation. Their job 
is dangerous, yet vital, and keeping them safe is critical.
  Our commitment to mine safety is nothing new. In fact, it was nearly 
2 years ago that we first took up the MINER Act in an effort to 
implement the most comprehensive reforms to mine safety in a 
generation. That bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support as well as the 
backing of both labor and industry.
  The MINER Act was signed into law just a year and a half ago, and 
already it is producing major changes in the operation of our Nation's 
mines. The law included an aggressive implementation timetable, and the 
mining community has acted quickly to embrace the law and make its 
required changes. Our committee has monitored implementation of the 
MINER Act in order to ensure it is quickly and effectively put into 
place. There should be no question about our commitment to mine safety. 
Yet, here we are today to consider a bill that in many ways ignores the 
progress that has been made.
  At best, the S-MINER Act is premature. The 2006 MINER Act has not yet 
been given the chance to take root, with many of its reforms still 
being developed by MSHA and those in the field. At worst, the S-MINER 
Act could actually derail ongoing progress by sending regulators and 
the mining community back to square one on many critical safety issues.
  I would like to quote from an article published by the Lexington, 
Kentucky Herald-Leader by Rick Honaker, Mining Foundation distinguished 
professor and chairman of the University of Kentucky department of 
mining engineering:
  ``But now it seems very strange, almost incomprehensible, that a move 
is afoot in Congress to impose an entirely new set of requirements on 
coal mine operators and mine inspectors even before there has been an 
opportunity to comply with the far-reaching provisions of the MINER 
Act. It threatens to disrupt the all-important emergency rescue 
provisions of the law. Simply put, additional legislation now serves no 
useful purpose.''
  Madam Speaker, Republicans have developed an alternative to the S-
MINER Act that we believe strikes the appropriate balance between 
strengthening mine safety and maintaining the widely supported reforms 
enacted less than 2 years ago. First and foremost, our substitute 
underscores the importance of the MINER Act reforms and restates our 
commitment to seeing them implemented fully and forcefully. In addition 
to supporting these strong reforms, our substitute goes further to 
protect miners by allowing them to be full participants in the safety 
process.
  During the Education and Labor Committee's consideration of this 
bill, Representative Kline offered an amendment that would have taken 
meaningful steps to enhance mine safety, without jeopardizing work 
already under way. That amendment, like our substitute, would empower 
miners by directly engaging them in the development of safety policies 
and procedures through the formation of safety teams. Currently, 
nonunionized miners may be prohibited from working with management to 
promote safety through teams.
  To further protect miners, our substitute would enhance the MINER Act 
reforms by fostering communication between MSHA and the Bureau of Land 
Management; studying the conditions the next generation of miners will 
face with deep mine conditions, as well as fostering a better 
understanding of retreat mining using pillar removal; and clarifying 
information dissemination in the event of a tragedy.
  Lastly, we would implement a testing program for illegal substances. 
This would not only protect those in the mines, but also identify 
miners who are struggling with addiction and in need of help. The 
States of Virginia and Kentucky have already implemented this safety 
measure, and miners have been protected because of it.
  Madam Speaker, I cannot help but notice that the amendment offered by 
the distinguished chairman of the committee also includes a provision 
to address the issue of drug abuse among miners. I also cannot help but 
notice that this provision was inserted at the very last possible 
minute, several hours after the deadline for amendments to the Rules 
Committee. I hope this 11th-hour acknowledgement of the crippling 
problem of drug abuse among miners is a signal of genuine interest in 
addressing the issue. Unfortunately, by providing only a study rather 
than a strong testing program like that called

[[Page 64]]

for by Republicans, this gesture rings hollow.
  Madam Speaker, although the rule makes in order a strong Republican 
alternative, it remains flawed because it allows consideration of a 
bill that should not pass.

                              {time}  1145

  The S-MINER Act abandons bipartisan mine safety reforms and replaces 
stakeholder expertise with bureaucratic Washington mandates that 
threaten mine workers' jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Madam Speaker, for the last several months, Republicans have 
highlighted the need to change the House rules in order to restore 
accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.
  Clearly, the rules are flawed when it comes to enforceability of 
earmarks. House Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable 
on the House floor, but time after time Members have been denied the 
opportunity to challenge earmarks during consideration of the rule and 
the bill.
  Over the last several months, we have learned that the earmark rule 
does not apply when considering amendments between the Houses. This 
loophole has prevented numerous earmarks from being challenged in the 
energy bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion 
legislation, and the omnibus bill, which contained nearly 9,000 
earmarks, including at least 150 earmarks that were air-dropped in the 
bill at the last minute.
  Madam Speaker, in October Parliamentarian John Sullivan sent a letter 
to Chairwoman Slaughter confirming that the current rules are flawed as 
they relate to earmarks. In his letter, he states the earmark rule 
``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all 
stages of the legislative process.''
  Madam Speaker, I will insert this letter from House Parliamentarian 
John Sullivan into the Record.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                Office of the Parliamentarian,

                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.
     Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
     Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of 
     October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on 
     how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have 
     advised the committee that language waiving all points of 
     order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI'' 
     should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules, 
     notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to 
     recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure 
     requirements of clause 9.
       In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order 
     against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause 
     9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that 
     waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the 
     rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI 
     does not comprehensively apply to all legislative 
     propositions at all stages of the legislative process.
       Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill 
     or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or 
     joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment'' 
     to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--
     whether they be floor amendments during initial House 
     consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not 
     covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule 
     felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to 
     immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations 
     about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one 
     offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a 
     member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of 
     a special rule.)
       The question of order on September 25 involved a special 
     rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment 
     between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It 
     had no application to the motion in the first instance. 
     Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special 
     rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). 
     The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule 
     providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered 
     as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same 
     rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no 
     application to the amendment in the first instance, the 
     special rule had no tendency to waive any application of 
     clause 9(a).
       The same would be true in the more common case of a 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text for the purpose of further amendment. 
     Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.
       In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding 
     officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a 
     particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule 
     XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability 
     of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure 
     requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object 
     of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the 
     question whether a special rule waives the application of 
     clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any 
     application.
       In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no 
     application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all 
     points of order except those arising under that rule--when 
     none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its 
     negative implication would be that such a point of order 
     might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all 
     points of order against provisions of an authorization bill 
     except those that can only arise in the case of a general 
     appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this 
     area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use 
     language that yields a misleading implication.
       I appreciate your consideration and trust that this 
     response is to be shared among all members of the committee. 
     Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John V. Sullivan,
                                                  Parliamentarian.

  .Madam Speaker, today I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question so that I can amend the rule in order to close 
the loopholes and restore accountability and enforceability to the 
House earmark rules.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and extraneous material be inserted into the Record prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question, oppose the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can give more safety to the miners who work day 
after day in sometimes unsafe and unspeakable conditions. I also urge a 
``yes'' vote on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 918

                 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington

       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

[[Page 65]]

     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.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered; 
suspending the rules and agreeing to House Resolution 912; and 
suspending the rules and agreeing to House Resolution 921.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 191, not voting 17, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 2]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baca
     Baker
     Berkley
     Berry
     Culberson
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Honda
     Hunter
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Shimkus
     Tanner
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1212

  Messrs. SESSIONS and MILLER of Florida changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________