[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.
____________________