[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 124 (Thursday, September 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7680-H7685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1045 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1045

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of September 29, 2006, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this resolution.


[[Page H7681]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman 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.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1045 
provides that suspensions will be in order at any time through the 
legislative day of September 29, 2006. Further, it provides that the 
Speaker or his designee will consult with the minority leader or her 
designee on any suspension considered under the rule.
  This is the last week before Congress will recess until November so 
that Members can return home and spend their time meeting and working 
with those that they represent. Currently, there are several necessary 
and noncontroversial bills that are waiting consideration by the House 
of Representatives. It is important that the House be able to consider 
these bills before adjourning.
  The suspension authority provided in this resolution will ensure that 
Congress can complete some additional key work by allowing for 
consideration of a number of important bills through the legislative 
day of September 29, 2006.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, at the end of the week, this Congress will adjourn so 
that its Members can go home to campaign for their seats. I like to 
think of a campaign as a long job interview. Everyone in the body will 
have to convince his or her constituents that they are the best person 
for the job, that they have spent their time here in Washington doing 
whatever they can to better the lives of the people back home in their 
districts.
  Madam Speaker, this Republican Congress has not made that task easy. 
It isn't just what the Congress has done with its time that is so 
disappointing, for example, yesterday's passage of a military detainee 
bill that undermines some of our most cherished and fundamental 
principles. It is also what the Congress has not done. All the 
challenges it has not addressed. The responsibilities it has not lived 
up to. It is all going to leave voters wondering what we have been 
doing these last 2 years.
  The American people do not need us to tell them why their country is 
headed in the wrong direction. Every day that Congress fails to 
implement the critical recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, they 
feel less safe. Every day they struggle to get by on real wages that 
continue to decline, they feel less secure. And every day that seniors 
and those with disabilities cannot afford their prescription drugs, 
that students and their families lie awake worrying about how they are 
going to be able to afford college tuition payments, and that tens of 
millions of commuters break the bank trying to afford their drive to 
work in the morning, every day these problems remain unresolved, and 
people ask themselves why this Congress doesn't seem to care about what 
really matters to them.
  They need it to take their troubles and concerns seriously and for us 
to spend our time passing meaningful bills that will actually help them 
live their lives and provide for their families.
  So today, my fellow Democrats and I are offering one last opportunity 
to our Republican colleagues to make the 109th Congress really mean 
something. This rule will give us the ability to consider numerous 
important suspension bills today and tomorrow. In that short amount of 
time, we can pass legislation that will go a long way towards giving 
our constituents and fellow citizens the help they need to live in 
safety and security, to achieve their goals and ensure a brighter 
future for their children.
  I want to briefly mention five goals that we should all pledge to 
reach before we adjourn. Since 9/11, this administration and Republican 
Congress have tried to convince us that we are in a war for 
civilization. They used the urgency of that supposed fight to justify 
reductions in our fundamental liberties and wars that have cost our 
citizens dearly.
  And yet they have largely failed to implement the overwhelming 
majority of the 41 security recommendations made by the 9/11 
Commission, recommendations designed to prevent another attack here at 
home. And as was made clear by the response to Hurricane Katrina, this 
government is not prepared to respond to disasters. Nor has it 
adequately addressed weaknesses in our security system that could be 
exploited at any time, weaknesses in our energy infrastructure, at our 
ports, and in our intelligence community.
  And that is why I call on this Congress to immediately pass 
legislation putting the commonsense recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission into law. We have no reason for inaction, and the American 
people won't accept any more excuses.
  Threats to the security of our citizens do not come from the outside 
alone, Madam Speaker. They are threats to that security right here at 
home. Working families cannot hope to feel secure if they are living 
paycheck to paycheck and deeply in debt. And if those paychecks are not 
enough to live on, they do not have much cause for hope left. The real 
wages of America's workers have fallen for years, squeezing the middle 
class and making it harder for our 7 million minimum wage workers to 
even get by. One way to alleviate that pressure would be to increase 
our minimum wage.
  The majority leader bragged a few weeks ago that he has spent his 
entire career in Congress voting against minimum wage increases. And he 
isn't alone. Under Republican control, Congress has refused to raise 
the minimum wage for 9 years, not even to adjust it for an increased 
cost of living. On the other hand, that cost-of-living adjustment has 
been made to the congressional salaries numerous times.
  Well, enough is enough. My Democrat colleagues and I pledge here and 
now we will not support another congressional pay raise until we give 
America's minimum wage workers a raise as well. There is an easy way to 
do it. We can immediately pass Representative George Miller's Fair 
Minimum Wage Act or a similar amendment that Representative Hoyer 
authored to the Labor, Health and Human Services bill. Doing so would 
have an immediate and profound effect on millions of lives.
  Madam Speaker, the deeply flawed Medicare part D legislation rammed 
through Congress last year has already come home to roost. Millions of 
Americans face prescription drug premiums they cannot afford, a reality 
that weighs especially heavy on the elderly and the disabled.
  This Congress should immediately give the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services the authority to negotiate for lower prescription drug 
prices. This would immediately help countless men and women get the 
lifesaving prescription drugs that they need.
  Nor should we focus only on the present. If we hope to secure a 
strong future for our country, we must make access to higher education 
a right instead of a privilege. In our increasingly competitive global 
economy, knowledge is power like never before, and a good education is 
more priceless than ever. And what a shame it is that so many of our 
soldiers serving us now have joined the Guard and Reserve simply to be 
able to get an education.
  During this Congress, Republicans responded to this challenge by 
cutting $12 billion in Federal student aid intended for our Nation's 
college students. It was a shortsighted and harmful decision, and it 
should be immediately reversed.
  I hope all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join the 
Democrats in restoring higher-education funding and expanding the size 
and availability of Pell Grants. We can do it by passing an improved 
Labor-HHS bill, and Democrats have the legislation to get it done.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, while energy costs have compounded the daily

[[Page H7682]]

troubles of so many ordinary people, Congress has handed out huge tax 
breaks to the Nation's largest oil companies and done it while they 
have made some of the greatest profits ever earned by American 
corporations. Since Republicans passed an energy bill in 2001, authored 
in secret by the administration and those same companies, it has been 
clear whom the Republicans stand with on this issue. But the Democrats 
always fault for an energy agenda that works for all Americans, not 
just for the oil industry. We should immediately begin rolling back tax 
breaks for big oil and using the savings to invest in alternative fuels 
that would give us true national energy independence and real relief at 
the pump and force them to pay the royalties they owe this government 
for their use of public lands.
  Madam Speaker, today and tomorrow we will be presenting bills that 
will accomplish all these goals. I ask my friends on the other side of 
the aisle to think about the questions they will be asked when they go 
home in October. I ask them to think about how they are going to 
respond to a constituent who asks what they have done to lower tuition 
prices, to make our ports and mass transit systems more safe, to get 
prescription drugs into the hands of those who need it, and to increase 
the quality of life for minimum wage earners. I ask them to no longer 
ignore these critical questions and these critical needs of our 
citizens.
  In 2 days, with just a few simple bills, this Congress can improve 
the lives of tens of millions of people. The only real question left to 
ask is, why would we let such a precious opportunity pass us by?
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first let me thank the gentlewoman from 
New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for 
yielding me time. Let me associate myself with her comments.
  Normally a rule that would allow us to consider suspension bills 
today would not be controversial. Suspension bills, after all, are 
usually bills that if they do not pass unanimously, they pass pretty 
much close to unanimously. They are naming of post offices, there are 
things that quite frankly are nice but they are not crucial for this 
Nation.
  And, you know, I come to the floor today, along with others, to 
object to this because this Congress is about to recess and it has not 
done the people's business. This Republican Congress has failed to make 
college education more affordable. This Republican Congress has failed 
on retirement security. This Republican Congress has failed on energy. 
It has failed on health care. It has failed on jobs and wages. And it 
has failed on Iraq and national security.
  I mean, we are about to recess, and this Congress has not increased 
the Federal minimum wage. It is stuck at $5.15 an hour. I mean, 
Congress has not raised the minimum wage in 9 years. During that same 
period of time, Congress voted themselves a $31,600 pay raise. We do 
not have the time to increase the Federal minimum wage, but we have 
time to increase our salaries by $31,600? Please, give me a break. 
Where are our priorities?
  We have the time right now to raise the Federal minimum wage. I think 
that is more important than naming a post office before we recess 
before the elections.
  On the issue of energy, I mean where is our energy policy? Where is 
our commitment to renewable and safe and clean alternative sources of 
energy?
  I mean, there is nothing. We have seen gas prices go way up. And, 
guess what? They are mysteriously coming down before the election. But 
I am going to make a bet with you that right after the election they 
will go back up again. You know, these oil executives, they are smart. 
They know where their bread is buttered. They do not want 
accountability. They do not want a Congress that is going to hold their 
feet to the fire when it comes to price gouging the American people.
  On the issue of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate tells us that 
this war in Iraq has created more terrorists rather than decreased the 
number of terrorists. And yet what do we have going on here in this 
Congress? Nothing. There is no accountability with regard to this 
administration's policy.
  President Bush tells us to stay the course, which is code for stay 
forever. This war began in 2003. And whether you supported it or 
opposed it, I think everybody can agree it has not unfolded as 
advertised. I mean, we are now a referee in a civil war.
  We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars not on schools, not on 
senior citizens and retirement security, not on economic development, 
not on infrastructure, not even on reducing our enormous debt, we have 
spent it in a mistaken war in Iraq that gets worse and worse every day, 
and yet this Congress, this Congress refuses to hold the administration 
accountable, refuses to do the oversight necessary to try to take this 
failed policy and bring it to an end.
  I mean, we have lots and lots to do before we recess. We have 
important matters that every single person in this country cares about, 
whether they are a Democrat or a Republican. Instead, we are told, no, 
we do not have the time, we are going to come here and we are going to 
spend more of our time doing suspension bills.
  I mean, there is a reason why this Congress only has a 25 percent 
approval rating by the American people. People get it. People know that 
this is a do-nothing Congress. People are frustrated that this Congress 
has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and 
important ones not at all.
  People understand that there is something wrong when Congress cannot 
find the time to increase the Federal minimum wage and when they try to 
do it they play politics with it by attaching it to a tax cut to 
wealthy people.
  There is something wrong when Congress cannot increase the national 
minimum wage, but we have time to vote ourselves a pay raise. There is 
a disconnect. I think the people are way ahead of us here in 
Washington. People understand that this Congress has failed them time 
and time and time again.
  It is time for a new direction. It is time for a change, and it is 
time to get this Congress to behave in a mature, responsible fashion. 
And that means dealing with issues like the affordability of a college 
education. It means dealing with issues that people care about.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, there have been several references today and in the 
past few days about the issue of the minimum wage. I think that we need 
to set the record straight as exactly what this House has done 
regarding that issue, because the issue has been around some time.
  Before we went on our district work period in August, the week before 
we left at the end of July, this House did pass, did pass and sent over 
to the Senate, an increase in the minimum wage.
  Yes, it was attached to other bills, or other issues. That is not 
anything that is unusual in this body. That goes on all of the time. 
But what were those other issues? Those other issues provided tax 
relief for certain Americans. One of that was sales tax deductibility, 
for example, for States that do not have an income tax. My State 
happens to be one of those. Broad support in both Houses of the 
Congress.
  The other was the, not the elimination, but capping of the death tax. 
That has support in both Houses. It unfortunately does not have the 
required filibuster-proof support in the other body. But that was part 
of that tax bill.
  There is also a provision for research and development tax credits to 
keep our economy moving. That has broad support in both Houses. That 
was part of that tax bill. And then there were some other provisions in 
that also.
  Attached to that, yes, was the minimum wage. I voted for that. I have 
to say, Madam Speaker, I am not one that is generally in favor of the 
minimum wage. But I felt coupling that together

[[Page H7683]]

with these other important measures to keep our economy going, to take 
care of those taxpayers in States that do not enjoy broad parity with 
other States, I thought it was important.
  So if the issue then is to pass a minimum wage, it seems to me the 
message ought to be sent to the other body, because that bill is still 
waiting over there. All they have to do in the final days of this 
session is to stop the filibuster and pass that bill over there, and we 
will have the minimum wage increase that we keep hearing over and over 
and over.
  So, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to set the record straight that this 
House has acted on that, and I think in a very responsible way.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, let me just point out that the minimum 
wage bill passed here was buried in a bill that gave billions in tax 
breaks to the Nation's wealthiest.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, homeland security is not 
a red or blue State issue. It is a red, white and blue issue. It is an 
American issue. When al Qaeda struck us 5 years ago, it did not 
distinguish its victims. The terrorists did not care if you were from a 
red or blue State.
  Party distinctions mattered little to terrorists. Mother nature, too, 
had little use for arbitrary partisan labels as we learned with 
Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Those terrible storms inflicted suffering 
on all the people of the gulf coast.
  The American people expect that homeland security is one of our top 
national priorities, and the 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan panel we 
created, said it must be a priority. Congress told that panel to get to 
the bottom of what happened on 9/11 and give us a road map to guard 
against future attacks.
  They did their part, Madam Speaker. This do-nothing, do-over 
Congress, squandered time and resources and is now trying to pass off 
do-little rhetoric as real action.
  Where has all of that gotten us? Where in the world has Congress been 
for 5 years? That is the question that the 9/11 Commission chair and 
vice-chair asked a few weeks ago on the fifth anniversary of the 
attacks, as this Congress chose to spend the week leading up to the 9/
11 anniversary on a horse slaughter bill, and little else.
  Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton lamented the lack of urgency across the 
board. Democrats agree with Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton, the adoption of 
the 9/11 Commission recommendations should be a no-brainer. And unless 
this Congress acts immediately, it will add do-not-care to its do-
nothing label.
  When we adjourn in a few days, Madam Speaker, this Congress will have 
failed, for example, to enact risk-based first responder funding. As a 
result, Washington and New York, areas we know the terrorists still 
want to attack, will still be vulnerable.
  Congress has done even worse on interoperable communications. Just 
this week the Republicans have refused to include funding and resources 
in FEMA provisions attached to the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill.
  The House leadership can spend a day talking about protecting the 
lives of horses on the floor, but can't find the time to debate 
legislation that will protect the lives of our first responders. I 
don't know about you, Madam Speaker, but as a former volunteer 
firefighter, I would trade a horse any day for interoperable 
communications.
  Madam Speaker, Democrats stand united in calling for the enactment of 
the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We insist, no, demand that 
Congress act immediately to provide first responders with the 
equipment, training and resources they need.
  We call for stronger transportation and critical infrastructure 
security planning and support. It saddens me that the House in 
discussing the port security bill with the Senate refuses to provide 
funding for protecting subways, trains and buses across our Nation.
  Did we not learn anything from the attacks in London, Madrid and 
Mumbai? Democrats want to secure our border, and we want to do it 
right.
  Five years ago the President announced that he was creating an Office 
of Homeland Security to provide a robust and effective border security 
program. Half a decade later, Southwest Governors were forced to 
declare border emergencies, and the National Guard was sent to the 
U.S.-Mexican border to assist with the growing border crisis.
  Yet despite the urgency of the situation, Madam Speaker, this 
Congress refuses to allow us to vote on a complete overhaul of our 
immigration system, adequate funding for border personnel, equipment 
and resources for border personnel, a system for addressing what to do 
with 12 million people without documentation in this country.
  Instead, Madam Speaker, the House leadership chose to vote and revote 
on a fence without setting aside enough money to build it. Democrats 
also believe we must strengthen the relationship between the 
intelligence community and State and local law enforcement.
  Today, as ranking member of Homeland Security, I am releasing a 
report entitled, ``LEAP'', Law Enforcement Assistance and Partnership 
strategy, that lays out a strategy for doing this.
  Democrats absolutely believe we need clear and robust Congressional 
oversight of homeland security efforts. Too much money has been wasted 
in our current efforts with few checks in place.
  Lastly, Democrats have and will continue to ensure that the war on 
terrorism does not cost us our privacy and civil liberties. As the 
Gilmore Commission told us a few years ago, counterterrorism 
initiatives must not undermine our unalienable rights. These rights are 
essential to the strength and security of our Nation, life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness.
  Madam Speaker, I agree with the Gilmore Commission that there is 
probably nothing more strategic that our Nation must do than ensure our 
civil liberties.
  Madam Speaker, it is time for this Congress to stand up and do 
something. This Congress cannot continue to be the Congress that left 
security behind.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding and I thank her for her leadership on the Rules Committee in 
one of probably the most frustrating jobs on this Hill, because we have 
not had open debate.
  Dana Milbank wrote about that this morning. Dana Milbank quoted David 
Dreier. David Dreier criticized Democrats yesterday for not having 
alternatives. David Dreier's Rules Committee prevented the Democrats 
from offering any amendments to yesterday's commission bill. How 
ironic.
  Mr. Speaker, I adopt the comments made by the distinguished gentleman 
from Mississippi who was right on point, in my opinion. I truly hope 
the American people are watching today because, if they do, they will 
see why this Republican Congress is the do-less-than-the-do-nothing 
Congress of 1948, which is failing to address the priorities of the 
American people. That is what the gentleman from Mississippi was 
talking about.
  Let us look at the facts. This do-less-than-the-do-nothing Republican 
Congress is projected to be in session just 93 days prior to leaving 
for the elections. The do-nothing Congress met 111 days. That is 17 
fewer days in session than the do-nothing Congress of 1948, which was 
famously derided by President Truman. Now, if we had done a lot of work 
in those 93 days one could say, well, we did not need to meet as much 
because we did a lot of substantive work. Let us look at the record.
  Today on this House floor, we have the time to consider a bill 
recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and French victory at 
Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War. That was a critical 
juncture in our history and deserves recognition. Yet, we have still 
failed to enact a budget. We do not have a budget. Now Mr. and Mrs. 
America probably know that the budget year begins just 4 days from 
today, but we have not enacted a budget for the American people.

[[Page H7684]]

  Today on this House floor, we have time to consider a bill 
congratulating the Columbus Northern Little League Baseball Team from 
Columbus, Georgia. I think they are world champions. They are deserving 
of recognition. I do not resent the fact that we are doing that. God 
bless them. Congratulations. Yet, this Republican-controlled Congress 
has failed to enact the recommendations, as was pointed out by the 
gentleman from Mississippi, of the 9/11 Commission.
  One of our most important responsibilities is keeping America and 
Americans safe. That is what the 9/11 Commission was about. Republicans 
and Democrats came together. Governor Kean, former Republican governor 
of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, distinguished former Member of this 
body, a Democrat, came together and made recommendations, said we can 
make America safer, but they have given us Fs and Ds on our 
performance.
  Today on this House floor, we have time to consider 12 post office 
renamings. I am sure that every American is concerned about the name of 
their post office. Me, too. Yet we have failed to enact a long overdue 
increase in the Federal minimum wage which has not been raised since 
1997. People in America, the richest Nation on the face of the earth, 
6.6 million working 40 hours a week and living in poverty, but we can 
rename 12 post offices.
  We failed to enact real immigration reform to keep our borders safe, 
failed to address the fact that 46 million Americans have no health 
insurance. Yet we rename 12 post offices. And we have failed to enact 
legislation that moves us toward energy independence, a security issue, 
an economic issue and an environmental issue.
  The truth is, Madam Speaker, this Republican Congress is failing the 
American people, and the fact that the Republican majority is here 
today asking us to consider noncontroversial bills while key priorities 
go unaddressed is the clearest evidence of that failure.
  I go around this country and Americans tell me they want a change. 
They want to move in a new direction.
  As Tom Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, 
and Norm Ornstein, one of the most respected congressional scholars in 
America who works at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote yesterday 
in the Los Angeles Times, ``This Congress hit the ground stumbling and 
has not lifted itself into an upright position. The output of the 109th 
Congress,'' they went on to say, ``is pathetic measured against its 
predecessors.'' Republican and Democrat.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican rule is nothing less than a mission of 
failure and ineffectiveness. Even our Republican colleagues have a hard 
time denying that. Let me quote Jack Kingston from Georgia, who has 
been such a prominent part of the Republican leadership, who said it 
best earlier this week. I quote Republican Jack Kingston, part of the 
Republican leadership, ``It is disappointing where we are, and I think 
Republicans need to be up front about this. We have not accomplished 
what we need to accomplish.'' If I were in church, the people would say 
``Amen.''
  It is time, Madam Speaker, for a new direction in America.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that I can amend the rule to provide that the 
House will immediately consider five important legislative initiatives 
that will actually do something to help American workers and their 
families.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment and extraneous materials 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. Madam Speaker, my amendment would provide for 
immediate consideration of five bills. The first one would implement 
the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, something the House should 
have done years ago.
  The next bill would provide for an increase in the minimum wage to 
$7.25 per hour. It has been more than 9 years since hardworking 
Americans have seen a change in the minimum wage, and this increase is 
long overdue.
  The amendment would also allow the House to immediately consider a 
bill to provide authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and 
persons with disabilities. Last week, megastores like Wal-Mart and 
Target announced that they were cutting prescription drug prices due in 
part to their ability to negotiate with drug companies. Why should the 
government not be allowed to negotiate as well?
  Under my amendment, we will also take up a bill to repeal the massive 
cuts in college tuition assistance imposed by the Congress and to 
expand the size and availability of Pell grants.
  And finally, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will provide for 
immediate consideration of the bill to roll back the massive tax breaks 
for large oil companies and to invest those savings in alternative 
fuels to achieve energy independence.
  Madam Speaker, these are all measures that will actually do something 
to help improve the quality of life for all Americans, and will make 
them safer as well. That is what we were sent here to do.
  So vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider these 
important bills today and show the people of this great Nation that 
they come first.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much 
time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to touch on a couple of issues that were 
brought up here, and hopefully set the record straight as to what has 
happened.
  There has been talk about Medicare. I just remind my colleagues that 
the Medicare legislation that had the prescription drug benefit was 
passed by a prior Congress. To be sure, it was put in place and 
implemented during this Congress, and that was done because we were 
really blazing new ground with that Medicare prescription drug reform 
and the Medicare reform in general. I might add, too, Madam Speaker, 
for 40 years when the other side controlled this body, there was no 
prescription drug benefits available at all for anybody on Medicare. So 
this was new ground, and we put into place, I think, some very 
innovative reforms that, frankly, have proven to have been very well 
accepted by people across the country.
  I think the most important part of this Medicare reform was that we 
made it voluntary. It was not a mandatory program. To suggest that 
people once they turned 65 cannot make decisions, I think, is wholly 
underestimating senior citizens. In my district, for example, when the 
Medicare plan was fully put in place there were 30 plans to choose from 
in my district. Seniors had a number of choices. I had a forum where a 
number of seniors came up, asked questions and then made their 
decisions before the sign-up time. They will have another opportunity 
to sign up, again, of course in November.
  While this program is only in place now for less than a year being 
implemented, by and large, across the country, it is being well 
accepted because it provides the coverage that was not available 
before, and I think that point needs to be emphasized.
  I might add that when we reformed this program there was a lot of 
criticism about the cost of this program. Sure, anytime you have a 
Federal program, it is going to cost some money, but their substitute 
plan cost infinitely more than what our plan was that we put into 
place.
  So I just wanted to set that record straight, and I think it is 
important.
  Secondly, I want to talk a bit about border security and the overall 
war on terror. I just remind ourselves, earlier this month, we passed 
the 5-year time period when we were brutally attacked by terrorists on 
9/11/2001, and let us remind ourselves, we have not been attacked in 
this country since that time. Other countries have faced international 
terrorism in London, in Spain, and in Indonesia comes to mind right off 
the top. Same people are behind this as international terrorist group.
  So what we have done is to try to secure our country, and since we 
are involved in this war on terror, I think it

[[Page H7685]]

is clearly in our best interests to try to engage them on their turf. 
We have been successful thus far, but as President Bush has said, this 
is going to be a long, long process, but keep in mind, there is no 
question that the ultimate target in this international war on 
terrorism is our way of life.
  In response to that, we have secured our border. There is absolutely 
no question about that. In some cases, it was passed with bipartisan 
support, and in some cases, it was not, but the record, Madam Speaker, 
I think needs to be said, and that is that we are doing things to 
secure our border and make America safe.
  The fact that we have not been attacked I think is credit to those 
that do that work to secure us on the homeland security, on the border, 
the first responders. They have all responded. Our intelligence 
community is much, much more robust than it was before and that has 
added to our security.
  So, Madam Speaker, there has been a lot that has been accomplished in 
this Congress, and I think that we can go into this break before the 
elections with a very high head.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 1045 Providing for Motions To Suspend the 
                                 Rules

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     Sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this 
     resolution and without intervention of any point of order it 
     shall be in order immediately upon adoption of this 
     resolution for the House to consider the bills listed in Sec. 
     3:
       Sec. 3. The bills referred to in Sec. 2. are as follows:
       (1) a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission.
       (2) a bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour.
       (3) a bill to provide authority to the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug 
     prices for senior citizens and people with disabilities.
       (4) a bill to repeal the massive cuts in college tuition 
     assistance imposed by the Congress and to expand the size and 
     availability of Pell Grants.
       (5) a bill to roll back tax breaks for large petroleum 
     companies and to invest those savings in alternative fuels to 
     achieve energy independence.
                                  ____


        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-IIIinois) 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.''
       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 to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, 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 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.

                          ____________________