POLITICS: House Passes Bill to Build Refineries

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Is it a common practice for the House to hold open five minute votes for forty minutes? Somebody please clue me in on House voting rules.

That's really what I'd like to know as well. Because if this is a violation of procedure, then there's a story.

Among the many hats I wear at our union, one is that of Parlementarian. The House uses modifed Roberts Rules (heavily modified) So I am speaking about basic procedure and have to do some digging for the house's rules.
But:

Once a body is asked "Are you ready for the question?" and no further people wish to debate the question/motion/bill et al., it is put to a vote. I am unaware of any procedural motions other than a pehaps a point of privilege but even then most can wait till after the vote has taken place, nor would I even entertain them in the middle of a vote defering it to after.

However:

If this was a tied vote and was voted upon, the follwoign procedure could be used Reconsider

This motion is peculiar in that the making of the motion has a higher rank than its consideration, and for a certain time prevents anything being done as the result of the vote it is proposed to reconsider. It can be made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day, a legal holiday or a recess not being counted as a day. It must be made by one who voted with the prevailing side. Any member may second it. It can be made while any other question is pending, even if another member has the floor, or after it has been voted to adjourn, provided the chair has not declared the assembly adjourned. It may be made after the previous question has been ordered, in which case it and the motion to be reconsidered are undebatable.

While the making of the motion to reconsider has such high privilege, its consideration has only the rank of the motion to be reconsidered, though it has the right of way in preference to any new motion of equal rank, as illustrated further on; and the reconsideration of a vote disposing of a main question either temporarily or permanently may be called up, when no question is pending, even though the general orders are being carried out. The motion to reconsider cannot be amended, postponed indefinitely, or committed. If the reconsideration is laid on the table or postponed definitely, the question to be reconsidered and all adhering questions go with it.2 The previous question and the motions limiting or extending the limits of debate may be applied to it when it is debatable. It is undebatable only when the motion to be reconsidered is undebatable. When debatable it opens to debate the merits of the question to be reconsidered. It cannot be withdrawn after it is too late to renew the motion. If the motion to reconsider is lost it cannot be repeated except by general consent. No question can be twice reconsidered unless it was materially amended after its first reconsideration. A reconsideration requires only a majority vote, regardless of the vote necessary to adopt the motion reconsidered.
www.constitution.org...

Now Im not saying this is what happened, but the Parlemtarians on the house floor will go thorugh everything with a fined tooth comb and are far more learned than I am on the topic. Also the loosing side could easily protest if a gross violation or even a minor one occured.

Heard the debate on TV and actually this bill is just more power to oil barons and we still will have to pay for the building with tax payer money at the end and in the prices of the gas.

It will do nothing to alleviate the monopoly that they have over the people and control of prices.

I hope that communities will boycott what they are planning to do to the environment with their nasty business.

Bases are build in and around cities, I wonder how many of the empty bases in PR will be turned into refineries PR holds large reserves of oil from the big refinery that we have already in the Island.

Most the bases in the Island have coastal property.




[edit on 7-10-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by RANT
I mean just sit there until the vote reverses? That's what you think. That's how you think it should be in a two party system?

No all I am stating is a well known fact it often takes longer then normal to vote, it happens all the time, just watch CSpan and you can see for yourself. What happened today is no different then any other with one exception at the end the democrats cried. Had they won you can bet your biffy they would not have said a word.

In response, Pelosi is introducing a Minorty Bill of Rights, fresh on the heels of her Anti-Cronyism Bill.

Really, the Republicans should grab at this and thank their lucky stars. 2006 is coming. They turn this down now. Fuggem.

Originally posted by shots
Had they won you can bet your biffy they would not have said a word.

Had "they" won, which includes Republicans (what dont' you get here) you're right. 5 minutes. One vote. Nobody complains or says a word.

Originally posted by shots
No all I am stating is a well known fact it often takes longer then normal to vote, it happens all the time, just watch CSpan and you can see for yourself.

You have no idea what happened in your news story.

EVERYONE VOTED ALREADY!

The bill was defeated. The leader kept it open while Delay changed votes.

Is that illegal?

That would be my question. For several posts now.

If it is, I'm all into giving another "harumph"...if not, well, that's a different story.

Originally posted by RANT
Had "they" won, which includes Republicans (what dont' you get here) you're right. 5 minutes. One vote. Nobody complains or says a word.

That is not the point I was trying to make it was just an after comment. I watch CSpan all the time and frankly most if not all votes never end on time, that and that alone is the point I was trying to make. Don't believe me watch CSpan.

Originally posted by Valhall
Is that illegal?

No, I don't believe common courtesy or fair play is required by law, thus Pelosi's bill in response.

People are just literally in shock at the abuse of power is all. It's never been like this.

It was all over the news about the time that it took to pass the bill and it was some serious questions about what happen.

No, it is not common to have something like that going on.

It makes you wonder of how much power is exercise by outside forces in our congress in this time and age.

[edit on 7-10-2005 by marg6043]

AH Pelosi, shes a nasty one IMHO, I know her secondhand mind you as her district is not to far from where I live, and I have no doubt she can get in the mud with the best of them. That being said if people really want to see if what was done was kosher then by all means look it up.

www.rules.house.gov...

I will try but my 3 year old is making unreasonable demands like food and water so i will be a bit busy

Okay: here are a few rules tidbits from the house page on procedure. i would like to point out that the vote had not been gaveled closed before the votes were changed thus the bill was never actually defeated but...

D. Motion to Reconsider: Under clause 3 of Rule XIX, the motion to reconsider is available to any Member who votes on the prevailing side of a question and who wishes to move reconsideration on the same or succeeding legislative day. This often occurs when Members (usually Minority Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process. It is the common practice in the House for the Speaker to follow final passage of most bills or resolutions with the statement: "Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table." If no objection is raised, this has the parliamentary effect of ending any possibility that another vote on the bill can take place.
www.rules.house.gov...

Im trying to find information on voting times in the floor manual for the house, but I find nothing that states the standard time for voting is 5 minutes: However, the time can be reduced to five minutes as seen here

F. Clustering of Votes: Under clause 9 of rule XX, the Speaker may reduce to five minutes the voting time for electronic voting on any question after a record vote on: a motion for the previous question, an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole, and a motion to recommit a bill, resolution or conference report, or the question of passage or adoption of a bill, resolution, or conference report. Votes can only be clustered by the Chair when there has not been intervening business between the votes in question.
www.rules.house.gov...

etc etc, So Pilosi whinning about a vote going on for 5 minutes seems at best an exaderation. Perhaps the speaker did not reduce the time lenght. But I have as of yet been unable to find anything that says 5 minutes or else.

Everyone's done a fine job of pointing out the problems (thats the easy part)

But nobody has tackled the solution.

Fact: No refinery has been built in the U.S. for over 30 years due to enviromental extremism and a NIMBY attitude.

Complying with enviromental regulation already on the books is entirely feasible, whats not feasible is an endless cycle of new interpretation forced though the legal system with the sole aim of preventing new refineries from being built.

Reform of the regulatory process is in order so that the process can be streamlined but not circumvented.

The endless lawsuits need to go away, loser pays would help accomplish this goal as well as an arbitration through boards staffed with professionals having the proper knowledge to make informed decisions instead of the current system that ties things up for years if not forever.

Some may say why build them, technology can wean us off oil. Thats true but it will take at least a decade probably two to accomplish - what are we to do in the meantime ruin our economy?

Others say its a ploy by big business to rake in more profit - OK, if joint ventures can be done on the exploratory and oil lease end - why not at the refinery level?

State and local government could JV with a refinery company and generate revenue that ultimately helps the taxpayer.

Finally - the vote,

At least the republican house actually took some action, maybe not to the pleasure of enviromentalists nor those wanting direct targeted subsidies nor did they please the plethora of special interest groups on the opposition side.

But they did do something which is one hell of a lot more than I can say for the opposition.

Now what was their plan? - oh thats right they didn't have one other than to complain as usual. (thats that easy thing I mentioned at the beginning)

It is common knowledge that the existing refineries are holding back production to keep prices inflated.

This is a large scale corporate hand out to those who need it the least.

Another energy corporation bill, rather than an energy policy enforcement bill.

Weez gettin hosed again!

Encourage construction of oil refineries but oppose forcing automakers to churn out vehicles that get better gas mileage, which tells me the priority is not towards the consumer.

Why can't big oil with its record levels in net profits subsidize it's own refineries?

I think the key for refineries is where to put them. Land is not cheap and how would you feel if they wanted to locate on in your backyard? NIMBY'ism for lac of a better word is one of the problems getting more of these plants in operation. The smell, they pollute, and have risks assosiated with them. However, as I said before why not place a few in the Nevada test site? Lots of land, could supply the Western states etc???

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

It is common knowledge that the existing refineries are holding back production to keep prices inflated.

This is a large scale corporate hand out to those who need it the least.

Another energy corporation bill, rather than an energy policy enforcement bill.

Weez gettin hosed again!

I think Nixon tried the policy enforcment with wage and price controls - it was a disaster for the economy.

Carter tried it with windfall profit tax - that led to the 79' fuel crisis and economic malaise.

Direct government intervention in the market doesn't work well.

An extreme example was the centrally controlled Soviet economy and its very rapid collapse after decades of direct intervention.

A partnership rather than an adversarial stance would go much further in solving the issue you bring forth.



[edit on 7-10-2005 by Phoenix]

Free enterprise is one thing, but handing over taxpayer dollars to corporations with money to burn
is an outright insult to every one of us trying barely to make ends meet.

This is just one more example of how this administration could care less
about the average American citizen or their families.

Originally posted by FredT
Im trying to find information on voting times in the floor manual for the house, but I find nothing that states the standard time for voting is 5 minutes: However, the time can be reduced to five minutes as seen here

Here is some info I found that may be relevant to the time element in question

Record votes in the House normally take place by electronic device. Members vote with electronic voting cards and their votes are displayed on an electronic board in the chamber. While a vote is taking place, Members preparing to vote often look at the electronic board to see how other Members voted. The majority and minority party floor whips also use their board to carry out their vote-counting responsibilities.
House rules (Rule XX, clauses 2(a), 9) require a minimum 15-minute voting period for record votes, except that in specified situations (e.g., when a record vote immediately follows a quorum call in the Committee of the Whole) the presiding officer may reduce the time to not less than five minutes. The voting period may also be extended at the discretion of the chair. The chair also has the authority to postpone and cluster certain votes, such as those ordered on motions to suspend the
rules

(Rule XX, clause 10).
The Senate does not use an electronic voting system to conduct rollcall votes. Under Rule XII, the Clerk calls the names of all Senators in alphabetical order (formally, “calls the roll”). Senators come to “the well” of the Senate to vote, and the CRS-12 11 Under a standing order (rarely enforced), any Senator may demand that Senators vote from their desks. Clerk announces how each Senator voted.

11 Senators can track how colleagues have voted by checking the tallies kept by majority and minority floor staff. A Senator’s demand for a rollcall vote must be supported by a minimum of 11 senators, which is one-fifth of the minimal quorum for doing business (51). In general, this requirement is casually enforced. A 15-minute period for rollcall votes is usually established in a unanimous consent agreement adopted on the opening day of a new session of Congress. The party floor leaders can extend this voting time period at their
discretion.

www.senate.gov...

As you can see normal voting time is approximately 15 minutes although there are allowances to reduce it to 5 via electronic voting. In addition the voting period may also be extended at the discretion of the chair. Also allow me to point out; "a voice vote would be impossible to do in five minutes."

[edit on 10/8/2005 by shots]

[edit on 10/8/2005 by shots]