[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 124 (Thursday, September 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7685-H7693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1046 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1046

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of September 28, 2006, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of any of the following 
     measures:
       (1) A bill to authorize trial by military commission for 
     violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
       (2) A bill to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Act of 1978.
       (3) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5441) 
     making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other 
     purposes.
       Sec. 2. House Resolutions 654 and 767 are laid upon the 
     table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui), 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. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1046 is a same-day rule 
that allows the consideration today of certain legislation that may be 
reported from the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1115

  Specifically, it allows for the consideration or disposition of a 
bill to authorize the trial by military commission for violations of 
the laws of war, a bill to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act of 1978, and the Homeland Security appropriations conference report 
for fiscal year 2007: Three very significant pieces of legislation that 
need to move through this body before we break for the October District 
Work Period.
  It is imperative that we pass this same-day rule. This resolution 
lays the foundation so that the House can complete its business and 
send outstanding legislation to the Senate and to the President's desk. 
We are working to move this process along toward the adjournment of the 
109th Congress.
  The House Committee on Rules will meet later today to provide the 
rules for possible consideration of these items, such as the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill, the legislation to deal with these 
violations of the laws of war, modernizing our approach to dealing with 
terrorists and those who plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic, 
who fly planes into the symbols of our military power, the symbols of 
our economic power, those who would blow up our embassies, those who 
would target innocent civilians in a

[[Page H7686]]

way that is unprecedented in the history of modern warfare, as well as 
legislation to update and modernize the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978.
  Obviously, you can tell by the title of the act, the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, that it is badly in need of 
reauthorization. Clearly, technology changes, the sophistication of 
communications, and the diversity of the threats that face this Nation 
all beg for us to act and modernize that legislation so that law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to 
prevent future attacks on American soil and to protect our forces and 
our civilians abroad.
  I am pleased this same-day rule will facilitate the timely 
deliberation, discussion, debate of these important issues. I urge my 
colleagues to support this. This is a procedural motion that allows us 
to move forward with the meat and potatoes that are important for the 
safety and security of this country, those legislative items that will 
be considered later in the day.
  So this is an important procedural obstacle that we need to clear out 
of the way to allow for consideration of these items so that we can 
move forward to the remaining agenda items for this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans agree in the 
primacy of national security issues. But Democrats also recognize that 
middle-class Americans are worried about several other things as well, 
all of which affect a different type of security: Their economic 
security. And Democrats are prepared to remain here until the full 
scope of problems facing our constituents is addressed.
  H. Res. 1046 is a martial law rule suspending the rules of the House. 
It would allow the majority to bring several bills to the floor the 
same day the Rules Committee meets to report those bills. Two of the 
three items allowed to come immediately to the floor were made public 
late last night. The third bill may be passed by the Senate today.
  What this means is that, yet again, it will be almost impossible for 
Members to read the bills before being asked to vote on them. This 
abbreviated approach to legislating is not new. However, the 109th 
Congress seems likely to have taken this to a new level. We are on 
track to set a record for the fewest days spent voting in our 
lifetimes.
  This is beyond being unreasonable to the American people. They sent 
us all here to do a job, to vote, and to do our part to fix the 
problems they face each and every day. They pay the price for our 
inaction at the pharmacy, at school, and in their paychecks. So it is 
worth taking a look at what remains undone when Congress works so 
little.
  We still need to fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations 
here. We have not passed a comprehensive national energy policy that 
puts us on the path to energy independence by focusing on alternative 
and renewable sources of energy. We should allow the Federal Government 
to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors and people with 
disabilities. We should restore the massive cuts to Federal student 
financial aid that Congress made earlier this year. And we have not had 
a clean vote to raise the minimum wage.
  Democrats want to address each of these issues before we go home for 
the elections, but the majority has made it clear, through this rule, 
that the House leadership will not consider these priorities before 
leaving town.
  This martial law rule would allow us to consider a conference report 
for homeland security funding. But even after this agreement passes, 
massive holes will remain in our homeland. The majority has not taken 
action to make sure that first responders can talk to each other, a key 
problem on September 11, 2001. According to legislation passed by this 
majority, the issue will not be fixed until 2009. That is unacceptable.
  According to the 9/11 Commission, the Federal Government still does 
not have a consolidated terror watch list at our airports, and without 
proper funding, TSA cannot implement the full range of security 
measures necessary to protect us.
  Finally, we do not have 100 percent screening of cargo coming into 
our ports. These holes are the reason that the 9/11 Commission gave 
Congress failing grades late last year.
  The majority has defeated multiple Democratic attempts at fixing 
these problems. Democrats want to fix these holes before we leave town.
  Let us consider another of the issues that I mentioned. The need to 
create a forward-thinking energy policy that places us on the path to 
energy independence. Energy touches the core of our national security 
during a time of global upheaval, so it affects the economic security 
of every person across this country and it affects the ability of 
businesses to compete. We cannot afford to be dependent on volatile 
regions of the world, and it is impractical and unwise to believe we 
can drill our way out of this problem.
  It is long past due for the Federal Government to make an 
unprecedented commitment towards energy independence. We need to drive 
the development and deployment of renewable and alternative sources of 
energy. We also need to encourage the use of energy efficient 
technologies to help our families and businesses reduce their energy 
consumption.
  Achieving energy independence will not happen overnight. It will 
require a long-term sustained effort of government, businesses, and 
families. But America has always been up to challenges like this, and 
Democrats want that effort to start now, before we go home for the 
elections.
  Another issue we failed to address is the need for the Federal 
Government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors. 
Almost eight out of every 10 seniors who signed up for the new Medicare 
prescription drug benefit in California have a plan with a so-called 
donut hole. This means that almost 300,000 seniors and disabled workers 
will see a gap in coverage. Even though these individuals will receive 
no help with their prescriptions, they are required to keep paying 
premiums to the Federal Government.
  And those drug prices are higher than they need to be. Congress 
already allows the Veterans Administration to negotiate prices directly 
with the drug companies. As a result, veterans get the prescriptions 
they need for less. It is a great program. But when Congress passed the 
Medicare prescription drug bill, it specifically prohibited the Federal 
Government from doing the same price negotiation for seniors. That is 
wrong, and Democrats will fight to fix this problem before we leave 
town.
  Madam Speaker, also as a result of working only 88 days thus far, we 
have also neglected to fix the misguided cuts in student aid that 
Congress approved earlier this year. In February of this year, the 
majority voted for the largest cut in student aid in history: $12 
billion. Congress took this vote despite the fact that parents and 
students all across the country are struggling to access this doorway 
to opportunity.
  With the cost of college skyrocketing, the average college student is 
now more than $17,000 in debt. Many are paying above-market interest 
rates in order to finance their education. Madam Speaker, a college 
education should be an opportunity, not a burden. Democrats are 
committed to reversing these terrible cuts before we leave town so that 
every student has the opportunity to succeed.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, Democrats are interested in addressing the 
full range of problems that worry the American people. As I have 
mentioned, we should start by allowing the Federal Government to 
negotiate prescription drug prices, we should also reverse the cuts to 
student aid, and we are prepared to stay at work until we do so.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments on the 
prescription drug debate, the energy debate, and the student loan 
debate. I would remind my friend that we are here to facilitate action 
on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act modernization, and the military tribunals bill, and 
with her help we can move this procedure along and continue to act on 
behalf of the American people to make them safer.

[[Page H7687]]

  Madam Speaker, we need to get the boots on the ground to secure our 
borders, the money for 1,200 new Border Patrol agents, new Customs 
officials, and the modernization and authorization for our intelligence 
and law enforcement officials to utilize the best technology and the 
best communications to prevent and disrupt any potential plans to 
attack our homeland. Those are the items that are embodied in this bill 
that we are considering at this time, and, as I said, with her 
assistance we can move forward and then be able to again address the 
other issues that she mentioned, on top of the work that we have 
already done in passing three major energy bills in the past 18 months 
that deal not only with fossil fuels and the need to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, that deal with the expansion of refining 
capacity in this country, which was largely blocked by the other side 
of the aisle, an energy policy that provides prizes in the form of 
monetary grants to those innovative individuals around America who find 
the next big thing, who can innovate on a hydrogen type of fuel cell or 
the hybrid and continuing to build on that, building on the tax 
incentives that we passed through this body that encourage people to 
purchase hybrid vehicles, looking at renewables, solar, and wind.
  All of those things, Madam Speaker, are part of the energy bills that 
we have passed in this House, and now we need to pass these items of 
important national security. That is what this bill does.
  Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), my good friend.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, here we are, close to adjournment, maybe 48 hours from 
now the Congress will go home for the elections, and we will leave 
millions of Americans who work at the minimum wage, who are stuck at a 
poverty wage, because of the failure of this Congress to address that 
issue.
  What that means is that for those millions of Americans who go to 
work every day, all year long, at the end of the year they will end up 
poor. They end up with the inability to provide for their families, to 
provide for their health care, to provide for their transportation and 
the education of their families.
  Why is that so? Because for 10 years, the Republicans in the Congress 
have successfully fought any increase in the minimum wage, and they 
have done it proudly. They believe that these people aren't entitled to 
any more money than the minimum wage that they are receiving today. 
Now, that minimum wage has less purchasing power than at any time in 
the 50 years we have had the minimum wage. These people are falling 
behind every day, every month.
  We just saw yesterday in the newspapers that health care costs went 
up 7 percent. We know what has happened to families with energy costs. 
We know what has happened with utility costs. We know what has happened 
with educational costs and with the price of groceries. All of these 
things have gone up in these people's lives, but what hasn't gone up is 
the wages they work at.

                              {time}  1130

  The Republican Party is apparently perfectly content, even though we 
have the votes to pass the minimum wage, we have the votes in the 
Senate to pass the minimum wage, they are completely content to go home 
without an increase in the minimum wage.
  It is shameful, it is sinful, the treatment of these people and the 
families in which they reside. The Republicans cannot see their way 
clear to put a clean vote on the minimum wage up or down on the floor 
of the Congress so that we can increase the financial capabilities of 
these families.
  When you have the testimony of people like the Wal-Mart Corporation, 
which prides itself in presenting to America everyday low prices, 
theoretically, the least expensive place you can shop for the goods 
that they carry, they are now asking for an increase in the minimum 
wage because they say that the people who are coming to their stores 
simply don't have sufficient moneys to provide for the necessities of 
life. They don't have the money to buy the necessities they need, even 
in their stores. That is an indication of how important an increase in 
the minimum wage is.
  The other terrible tragedy is that the Republicans refuse to roll 
back the raid on student aid that they engaged in earlier this year, 
when they took $12 billion out of the student aid accounts. They didn't 
recycle that money for the well-being of students to lessen the 
financial burden of families who are trying to put their children 
through school. They didn't do any of that. They took that $12 billion 
and they put it over here to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest 
people in this Nation.
  That is the investment they made. They took $12 billion that the 
Congress and the government has been using to finance student aid 
programs, and they moved it into tax cuts for the wealthiest people in 
the country. They do that at a time when the basic Pell Grant for the 
most needy students, it only covers 30 percent of college costs today. 
When it was enacted, it covered 70 percent, and it has fallen behind.
  The President had pledged to raise the Pell Grant to $5,100. Five 
years later, that hasn't been done. The President has broken his 
promise. We have been asking that we increase the Pell Grant to $5,100 
to make it easier for students, and to take that $12 billion they took 
out of the student aid account and recycle it into the loan programs 
for students so that we can continue to try to help students meet the 
cost of debt.
  Congresswoman Matsui talked about the average student today 
graduating with debt of some $17,500. We are now seeing a significant 
number of students who are perfectly qualified to go to college, to 
take advantage of college education, and they are not doing so, or they 
are postponing it because they are worried about whether or not they 
will be able to manage the debt when they graduate or whether they will 
be able to assemble the resources to go to college on a current basis.
  That is a tragedy for this country. At a time when we talk about the 
competitiveness of this Nation, at a time when we talk about the need 
to have an educated population, to deal with innovation, to deal with 
discovery, to deal with the future economy, we are foreclosing the 
higher educational opportunity for hundreds of thousands of students 
because of the debt, because of the cost.
  Because of the actions of the Republicans in this session of the 
Congress and the refusal to roll it back, students will now be paying 
6.8 percent on their loans instead of 3.4 percent. Parents will be 
paying 8.5 percent instead of 4.25 percent.
  This is a tragedy. This is the tragedy of the Republicans' failure to 
address the needs of middle-income Americans who are struggling to 
educate their kids, to pay their energy bills, and minimum wage 
families who are simply struggling to survive in America today. It is a 
tragedy and a blight on this session of the Republican leadership in 
this Congress.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman protests too much because he 
failed to acknowledge that he had an opportunity to vote on the minimum 
wage on this floor in this body. He had an opportunity to vote to 
extend tax credits for research and development, something that is 
certainly important to California, his home State, the birthplace of 
the silicone revolution and which allows us to keep on the cutting edge 
of the economy.
  The research and development tax credits allow us to compete in the 
global marketplace so that companies can be global headhunters and 
bring in the best talent from around the world, create jobs and build 
businesses here in this country. Not only did he vote against the 
minimum wage for the lowest end of the workforce spectrum, but he voted 
against extending those same incentives to invest in laboratories, to 
invest in innovation, to invest in intellectual capital in this country 
at the high end of the workforce spectrum as well.
  He also denied the opportunity for 10 States in this country to be 
able to extend the sales tax deductibility, the

[[Page H7688]]

same type of State and local deductibility that other states enjoy on a 
regular basis in this country. And he denied hundreds of thousands of 
small businesses around this country and family farms the opportunity 
to keep what they have built, to allow their business to pass from one 
generation to another.
  He has had the opportunity to vote on a minimum wage, and he chose to 
vote against it. I think he protests too much about the success of the 
agenda that this House has put forward.
  When it comes to education, we have increased student loan limits 
from $3,500 for first-year students to $3,500 and to $4,500 for second-
year students. There are now 1 million more students today receiving 
Pell grants than there were 5 years ago. That is substantial progress 
in higher education, investing in the future, investing in the 
intellectual capital of this country. That is the real story.
  And what is it that prevents him from talking about the actual issue 
at hand? Why can't we hear from the other side as much eloquence about 
the need to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Why 
don't we hear the same eloquence about the need to complete our work on 
the Homeland Security appropriations bill, which will continue the work 
of securing our border, add 1,200 new Border Patrol agents, add new 
Customs agents, continue to make our ports safer, continue to build on 
the good work that goes on throughout this country by hard-working men 
and women who are doing their best to prevent future terrorist attacks?
  Why can't he talk with the same eloquence, the same emotion, the same 
passion, about the need to pass meaningful legislation on tribunals to 
deal with those terrorists who have already been captured trying to do 
great harm to this country? Those are the issues before this House, and 
that is the debate that is missing from the other side.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, to correct the record, there has been no clean vote to 
raise the minimum wage, and it is that important.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. ``Whatever you do for the least of your brothers, you do 
unto me.'' That is what someone who was fairly important in the history 
of the world told us a long time ago.
  But what has the Congress done for the least of our brothers and 
sisters? It is an indication of the values of those on the majority 
side of the aisle when they brag about the fact that they held the 
minimum wage increase hostage to their determination to give away $289 
billion to the wealthiest 7,500 people in this country every year. 
Their deal was ``we ain't going to do nothing for the little people of 
this economy unless you first provide even more money in the pockets of 
the very wealthiest people in this country.''
  I defy you to show me two farms in any congressional district in the 
country that would pay the estate tax under the alternative that the 
Democrats proposed. You may not remember what the numbers were, but I 
do.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. No. You have plenty of time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. The gentleman asked me a question. I'm happy to answer. 
I'll provide him a list of farms in Central Florida.
  Mr. OBEY. Regular order. If you are going to manage a bill, you need 
to understand the rules of this House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Wisconsin controls the time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I would not. I told you I would not. You have got half-
an-hour. I have 3 minutes. Why should I yield to you?
  Mr. PUTNAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I will not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin controls the 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. You can answer on your time. I am answering you on my time. 
You answer on your time. Now, I would appreciate no further 
interference from the gentleman.
  The gentleman wants to brag about the prescription drug proposal in 
the homeland security bill. The majority party nailed into that 
prescription drug bill last year a prohibition against the Federal 
Government negotiating for lower prices. So where did the seniors have 
to go? Wal-Mart finally announced they are going to provide lower drug 
prices.
  I suggested in the conference in the Homeland Security bill that we 
add language to that bill which says notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
enter into a contract immediately with Wal-Mart to negotiate on behalf 
of the United States Government with drug manufacturers and suppliers 
regarding prices to be charged for prescription drugs under Medicare 
Part D.
  It is a sorry day when the majority party stands shoulder-to-shoulder 
with the pharmaceutical industry against the recipients under Medicare 
Part D, labeled ``part dumb'' by a lot of the seniors in my district. 
And it is a sorry day, it is a sorry day, when we have to rely on Wal-
Mart in order to do what the public representatives of this Congress 
ought to do, which is to allow our own government to negotiate for 
lower prices, rather than relying on this Rube Goldberg monument that 
makes people go to Canada in order to get some mercy in terms of drug 
prices.
  They want to freeze the minimum wage. They freeze the minimum wage. 
It doesn't surprise me. The minimum wage is frozen almost as cold as 
their hearts.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman has been on this floor a number of years 
longer than I have, and certainly he understands the rules. But he also 
understands it is normal procedure that when one Member asks a question 
of another Member, that surely it is appropriate for the other Member 
to rise and ask that that Member yield so they may be given the 
opportunity to answer.
  I regret the personal tone that this debate has taken, because these 
are important issues, these are important challenges our Nation faces. 
And the simple fact is, the gentleman doesn't want me to answer those 
questions, because he knows that we have acted in each and every one of 
those cases.
  Since the beginning of Medicare, the Democratic majority did not take 
advantage of the opportunity to modernize it so that it actually helped 
the people it was intended to serve by providing them a prescription 
drug benefit. It was this majority that provided that. Today, millions 
of Americans have access to prescription drugs who did not have that 
same access under the old regime.
  Why is there such a bitterness that Wal-Mart and Target and other 
chain drugstores who will undoubtedly follow have used the marketplace 
to lower drug costs? Are you so angry that the government didn't force 
them to do it? Are you so angry that they responded to market 
conditions, and today millions of people will be able to get $4 pills 
without the government having to have intervened?
  Does it require a fiat to make you feel fulfilled? The simple fact 
that they made a good business decision through competitive forces in 
the marketplace and they lowered prices and people will benefit and 
consumers will benefit, and they will be healthier and they will live 
longer lives, does it make you angry that that did not come out of this 
body, that it didn't come out of some law, some decree? Is that what 
the bitterness comes from, that the market worked?
  There are good things coming out of this body, but, more importantly, 
Madam Speaker, good things come from functioning markets. $4 pills by 
the largest retailer in the world that didn't come out of legislation, 
that didn't come by fiat, that didn't come by decree. It came because 
market forces worked, and consumers benefit and patients are healthier 
and patients have access to pills at a lower cost than they would have 
before.
  This is a same-day rule to deal with foreign intelligence 
surveillance, to

[[Page H7689]]

deal with Homeland Security appropriations and military tribunals. 
Let's move it forward.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I 
would like to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin to 
respond.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me say to the gentleman, I am not angry at all to Wal-
Mart for responding to a public need. I congratulate them for it. The 
shame is the fact that you and the majority folks in this House would 
not meet your responsibilities to have the government negotiate to save 
money for everybody.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think it is important to note that my 
good friend from Florida is a great debater and orator on this floor, 
but I think some of the debate has been skewed. The passion here is 
because we feel let down. We have let many American people down.
  My good friend from Wisconsin is simply saying that, in spite of the 
procedural responsibility of moving to the end of this session, what 
has not been done is we have not done what the American people need: 
The minimum wage, responding to the crisis of Medicare part D. And let 
me give a personal story and I will answer the gentleman's question 
about security.
  My mother is now paying more than she has ever paid before under 
Medicare part D. And all of my seniors are now crying because they are 
over the top in the donut hole. This is a personal story and a personal 
testimony.
  And I would suggest to the gentleman that he knows the rules of this 
body and he knows that many times we ask the other side to yield and 
they do not. So there is no commentary on your understanding of the 
rules by not yielding to someone who is interjecting in your 
statements. It is a question of passion and commitment.
  And I would simply say that I am prepared to discuss, as a member of 
the Homeland Security Committee, the failures of this body regarding 
security. The 9/11 Commission Report issued some 2 years ago rendered 
to this body Ds and Fs for every aspect of homeland security you could 
ever imagine. And Abraham Lincoln said: We cannot escape history, right 
after the Civil War, 1862, his mission during the Civil War. We of this 
Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of 
ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or 
another of us.
  We will be doing the electronic surveillance. But as we speak, the 
leaders of Hewlett-Packard are in our committee rooms in the Rayburn 
room discussing why they abused technology. There is nothing on the 
record that suggests that we cannot use the FISA proceedings to deal 
with securing America. We know that there have been 19,000 FISA 
requests and less than five refused by the tribunal. The only necessity 
is to restate the authorization of FISA and to ensure that it is 
utilized. But this body will come and try to take away the very rights 
and protection from privacy for the American people. That is not 
homeland security. There is no basis for abusing America's military.
  When I say that, let me qualify it. By jeopardizing their status as 
an MIA and a POW, in this instance, a POW, in any conflict around the 
world by what we are doing with the military tribunal system here, 
which is, ignoring the Geneva Convention.
  And might I just show to my colleagues the faces and faces of the 
fallen, pages and pages in the Nation's newspapers of those who have 
lost their lives on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is well 
documented in recent intelligence reports that have been declassified 
that we have created a pool for insurgency and terrorists, a breeding 
ground, in Iraq. So now my friends want to abuse the habeas corpus 
system of America. We want to ignore the Geneva Convention, which 
simply provides for no torture provisions and a respect for that 
incarcerated person.
  Now, we have called these people enemy combatants, but we are now 
prepared to suspend the habeas corpus for an indefinite period of time. 
We are prepared now to ensure that there is not any real protection 
against torture. And, of course, this bill will be an amended bill that 
will come here to the floor that we will be debating, but the question 
is the reasonableness in protecting those who are offering their lives. 
The Military Tribunal Commission bill will still put U.S. soldiers in 
harm's way.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would simply say, we know about homeland 
security. They don't, they failed. That is what we are doing today. 
Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. * * *
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. * * *
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I was wondering whether the gentleman from 
Wisconsin might want to share some parliamentary lessons with the 
gentlewoman from Texas as he did with me.
  I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. OBEY. I don't even understand what the gentleman is talking 
about.
  Mr. PUTNAM. The gentleman took great umbrage at me asking to yield to 
answer his question.
  Mr. OBEY. No, I did not. I took great umbrage at you interrupting me.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I told you I would not yield.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Florida has the floor.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. OBEY. You don't like the answer.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I am reclaiming my time. I offered you the time. I 
reclaimed it. That is my understanding of how the situation works. And 
we heed the gavel.
  Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to a member of the 
Appropriations and Select Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, there has been some discussion about 
prescription drugs and the difference in philosophy between allowing 
the free market to work to bring drug prices down versus having the 
Federal Government negotiate the prices. And I have spent some time in 
the private sector dealing with the Federal Government, and I have 
observed two different types of contracts. And I think they very well 
represent the two concepts in providing for prescription drugs for our 
seniors.
  If you look at a Federal negotiations for drug prices, essentially 
you are looking at sole source contracts. This is where the Federal 
Government goes out and says, okay, you are going to be the provider 
for this prescription drug, and we want to know what your costs are and 
then we are going to give you a fair and reasonable profit margin on 
top of that.
  Well, that philosophy has been used in Federal procurement for a very 
long time. In fact, during the 1980s, there was a lot of controversy 
during the expansion of our defense capabilities using sole source 
contracts. And when they reviewed these sole source contracts, the 
government found that in some cases, a pair of pliers was being sold 
for $750. In other cases, a hammer was sold for $1,200 under, again, a 
sole source contract. They even had coffee pots that were costing 
$4,200, again, a sole source contract.
  And there was a big shift in philosophy in the procurement side of 
the Department of Defense to competition, competitive contracts, having 
two companies bid against each other to provide the same service or 
object so that they could get a lower fee.
  What we have done in Medicare part D is provide a market-based 
strategy where individual companies are competing for the lowest price 
out there for the consumer, the person who is receiving the 
pharmaceuticals. And what we have seen is a significant reduction in 
price. And the competition has gotten so strong now that the bigger 
companies in our economy are starting to weigh in, like Wal-Mart. Wal-
Mart now has gone to these prescription manufacturers and they have 
gone to generic manufacturers, and they have come up with a new method 
of being more competitive than everyone else.

[[Page H7690]]

  Now, some people say Wal-Mart is an evil company, it is exactly what 
is wrong with America. I don't. I think Wal-Mart has been significant 
in contributing to productivity. In fact, they contributed about 20 
percent of the productivity in the 1990s. They have raised the standard 
of living across America. They have 1.3 million employees. They have 
done an excellent job. And, today, they are moving into the 
pharmaceutical market where they are bringing lower cost prescriptions 
to seniors by negotiating rates and prices, and by competing in the 
free market at the highest level.
  So I think that we should be very thankful that we are not doing a 
sole source contract for pharmaceuticals, because the philosophy of 
having it cost plus profit says to the pharmaceutical companies: Bury 
stuff in your costs. Put more research and development, put your 
overhead in there, expand your buildings, hire additional people that 
you may or may not need, but inflate those costs. Because when you do 
inflate those costs, then your profit, which is a percentage of cost, 
is actually greater.
  So to have the Federal Government go out and negotiate these sole 
source contracts with pharmaceuticals encourages higher costs. It 
encourages companies to bury costs into the bottom line there so that 
they can show a higher profit; the profit which is a percentage would 
be higher because it is applied to a larger base or the cost of the 
pharmaceuticals.
  Competitive forces in pharmaceuticals are bringing the price down. We 
saw projections when we were looking at Medicare part D legislation 
about how high the costs were going to be. Today, in a comparison, the 
costs for the same pharmaceutical drugs that are most common have 
significantly been reduced.
  And now we've heard some concerns now about people hitting the so 
called donut hole and they have to pay now more for their prescription 
drugs than ever before. Well, that is not true. The price is lower. 
And, if you go back a couple of years, they were getting no help from 
Medicare part D. Today there is a donut hole; it does get some people, 
but there have been thousands and thousands of dollars per individual 
applied, including for my own family, where they have had help getting 
pharmaceuticals. And that has been an important contribution to our 
culture and to the health of seniors.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to make a comment that the 
Department of Veteran Affairs has been very successful lowering 
prescription drug prices by negotiating directly with the drug 
companies.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to defeat the previous 
question on the rule so that the House can finally consider the real 
issues facing American families.
  You know, many conservative writers have called the Congress the 
less-than-do-nothing-congress, particularly at a time when there is 
concern on all parts of the political spectrum about the growth of the 
power of the Executive Branch of the government. Our forefathers warned 
us about this. No oversight, no oversight as to what is happening.
  Look at what happened in the Interior Department in just the last 10 
days and the HUD Department by Inspector Generals. That is a disgrace. 
And you can try to get us off track all you want, we are going to stay 
on track. This is not so much a question of less days, which we will be 
here, this is a question of less progress more than anything else.
  You tell me if it is not irresponsible 5 years after September 11, 
2001, that this Republican Congress is set to adjourn without fully 
implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations to make our country 
safer. I am listening.
  You tell me if it is not irresponsible that this Republican Congress 
pays lip service to the importance of higher education, and yet they 
are set to adjourn after making it harder to pay for college by cutting 
$12 billion over the next several years to student aid.
  You tell me if it is not irresponsible that the Republican Congress 
has been a rubber stamp for the White House's Big Oil policies, and is 
set to adjourn without passing an energy plan that decreases dependence 
on foreign oil.
  What is our answer? We are addicted to oil, Mr. President, you said 
in the State of the Union, and that is why we are going to drill off 
five States in this union. We lost our addiction, I guess, on the way.
  It is irresponsible that this Congress is set to adjourn without 
increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 for up to 15 million hardworking 
Americans and their families. That is irresponsible. You attached it to 
another bill. You are good at it. You look back over the last several 
Congresses, you are good at attaching these things.
  It is indeed irresponsible that millions of Americans are suffering 
the economic injustice of working a full-time job and earning a wage 
that leaves them below the poverty line. You tell me if it is not 
irresponsible that wages are stagnant, and that we are $1,700 below the 
median income of 6 years ago. You tell me if that is responsible. The 
fact is that it takes a minimum wage earner more than 1 day of work 
just to earn a full tank of gasoline.
  The minimum wage is no longer a livable wage. Get it? As health care, 
grocery, energy and housing costs skyrocket for average Americans, 
house Republicans would rather help their CEO friends.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the defeat of the previous question.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I remind the gentleman again that the 
House had an opportunity to pass a minimum wage bill, and we passed it 
over the objections of the other side of the aisle. We passed it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I want to interject myself in the 
spirit of debate that we are having here, and want to thank both sides 
for making this a bit more fun than normal. But we heard a couple of 
words here today, one of them was ``bitterness,'' one of them was 
``market forces,'' and one was ``business.''
  If you look at the Republican-controlled Congress and you look at 
running the government like a business, I think you fail on all 
accounts. I think when you talk about losing $9 billion in Iraq, and no 
one knows where it is, that is not running government like a business. 
When you look at all of the waste, this government is being run like it 
is 1950 with misleading information. Now we are moving into a new 
economy, knowledged-based and information-based, and the government has 
not changed at all.
  All of the guys who came in here with Newt Gingrich in 1994, you may 
remember the big Republican revolution, we are going to balance the 
budget, we are going to run this thing like a business, we are going to 
have a smaller government, you are talking about a trillion dollar 
Medicare drug program, and you have to go back to your conservative 
base and you have to tell them that you passed it without any ability 
to negotiate down the drug prices. Good luck in the next 5 weeks.
  You have to go back to them and say we are for free markets. But when 
we ask to get reimportation into this country from Canada and some of 
the G-7 countries to drive the prices down, you all were against it. 
That is not worshiping the free market like you normally do.
  There are a lot of contradictions going on here, and I think we need 
to point this out to the American people.
  Another thing that I think is even more important, as you guys move 
away from what your rhetoric is, is that this President and this 
Congress has borrowed more money from foreign interests than every 
single President in Congress before you. That is not conservative 
Republicanism. That is not running your government like a business.
  If we don't get past all this rhetoric and doing something else, we 
are not going to be able to move the country forward. All of these 
games, we are now competing with 1.3 billion citizens in China and 1 
billion citizens in India; hard-core brutal competition, and we are not 
investing back into the American people. We cannot even give them a 
slight pay raise. When you guys have given this Congress $30,000 in pay 
raises, you can't even raise the minimum wage.

[[Page H7691]]

  We have to invest in these people. You can't compete with 300 million 
people against the whole globe and say just a small fraction of our 
society is going to be able to compete. If you can afford to go to a 
good private university, if you can afford the tuition, then you are 
going to be just fine. If you are a trust fund baby, you are going to 
be just fine.
  Let us invest in the American people. We need everybody on the field 
playing for us. And I think Mr. Obey's frustrations is that day in and 
day out you guys go to great lengths to walk the planks for your 
political donors. That's the bottom line. You can't argue away from 
negotiating down drug prices.
  And thank God in your case for Wal-Mart. They saved you with Katrina 
bringing water down and making sure it got in. Thank God for Wal-Mart. 
If it was not for them, we would really be in a trick. Their $4 
prescriptions are going to be helpful, and down in Katrina they were 
the ones getting the water in when FEMA was like a three-ring circus.
  That is not running government like a business. So get your actions 
to match your rhetoric, and we will all be able to get along a lot 
better.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all 
Members to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I am 
glad he does not represent the collectivist view of some on the other 
side of the aisle in that he appreciates that market forces, not 
government decree or government fiat, are driving down prices. I am 
glad that he recognizes the role that free enterprise plays in 
delivering better, faster, cheaper health care to patients in need.
  This bill before us, though, Mr. Speaker, is about updating the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, moving forward on homeland 
security appropriations, and moving forward on a tribunal issue so that 
we deal with the terrorists who have already waged war on American soil 
and those who have been collected in the battlefield in the subsequent 
conflicts. This is the issue before us.
  While there has been a great deal of passion and bitterness thrown 
around this Chamber, this is a same-day rule to move forward on those 
three items.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more with one of the 
statements from a colleague on the other side of the aisle when he said 
a lot of contradictions are going on here.
  Here we are talking about a bill to bring to the floor now for 
national security purposes, that is what it is about, but we are 
hearing all of these other things. We ought to do this and we ought to 
do that.
  I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is this 
body that passed the minimum wage raise and it was the body down the 
hall that did not. I would encourage them if they could go make these 
same speeches down at the other end in the offices of the Democrats, 
then we might could get four out of all of those Democrats who would go 
along with the Republicans and get that minimum wage bill passed, and 
we would be in good shape then, if that is what they feel.
  The contradiction, though, when we talk about a lot of contradiction 
going on here, as my friend, Mr. Ryan, spoke of, all I could think of 
was the contradiction in complaining about gas prices, what they are 
doing to people. Yes, they are hurtful. They hurt our country badly. 
But the contradiction was why they acted so bothered when prices of 
gasoline went up. That is what they fought vehemently for all of these 
last 2 years that I have been here. No, this is exactly what they 
fought for when they opposed drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. 
It is exactly what they fought for when they opposed drilling in ANWR. 
It is exactly what they fought for when they opposed an energy policy 
bill finally getting through that went basically much on party-line 
vote.
  And then after Katrina and Rita when we were so fearful about all of 
the refineries being in trouble, we knew we needed more refineries. We 
knew we needed alternative energy incentives. And what happened, we 
passed the energy bill in October, again basically on a party-line 
vote, that would create incentives for independent oil companies to 
build refineries, including away from the coast, would increase 
incentives for biofuels, alternative energy sources, and they were 
fighting over that.
  So the contradiction is how you could fight against all of the things 
that would give us energy independence and then seem upset that the gas 
prices went higher.
  Thank goodness the policies we set in place a year ago are starting 
to work because that is national security. The rest of national 
security are some of the things we are taking up for the good of our 
troops and this country, and I would urge the passing of this rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan) to respond.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just to clarify to the gentleman from Texas, our 
frustration is as the gas prices were high, you all were putting $12-15 
billion in corporate subsidies to the oil companies while they were 
having record profits. That's the frustration.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the 
Rules Committee for yielding me this time.
  As my colleague pointed out in his remarks, this is about a same-day 
rule. It is very simple and straightforward, as Mr. Putnam explained so 
clearly. We are asking this body to allow us to debate and pass 
legislation regarding military commissions so that we can try and bring 
to justice these terrorists. And by the way, 164 of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle yesterday voted against that.
  Also in this same-day rule is to allow us to address this issue of 
wiretapping necessary to listen to the conversations, international 
conversations between al Qaeda and people in this country who would do 
us harm, to modernize that 1978 law which needs modernization to 
protect our American people. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I was in my office and did not intend to speak on this 
rule, but I heard my colleagues talk about all of these issues and 
things that we haven't done, and then they got to the Medicare 
modernization and the all-important prescription drug part D plan for 
Medicare that we finally delivered to our American seniors back in 
November of 2003 when they have been asking for the 40 years that the 
Democrats controlled this body for relief and got now. And now they are 
railing against this issue saying it is a giveaway to the 
pharmaceutical industry and that we would not allow government price 
controls. No, we would not because we don't like price controls. We 
want the free market to determine the prices; and, indeed, they can't 
deny the fact that the prices are coming down. This is working, and 
they can't stand it.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out finally that in their version of the 
bill, and I will mention just one, back in 2000, Congressman Stark of 
the Ways and Means Committee had a bill that included the very same 
language in regard to no government price controls, let the free market 
work, and 204 Democrats voted in favor of that.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  You are talking about letting the free market work. You shut down. 
You have a closed market with pharmaceuticals. We wanted to allow 
reimportation in from Canada; you wouldn't allow that. And if the free 
market was working, just like Wal-Mart, I am sure they are buying in 
bulk and using the negotiating power of Wal-Mart, just like they do on 
everything else to keep the prices down. You are not allowing the free 
market to work.
  Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman knows that in 
the defense appropriations bill, that we have language in there right 
now that would allow it to be legal for our seniors that live at or 
close to the border to go across the border either into Canada or 
Mexico and buy those lower priced drugs.

[[Page H7692]]

  But the point is this bill, Medicare Modernization and Prescription 
Drug Act, is lower in prices to the point where all of that is not even 
necessary.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule 
so the House can immediately take up five important bills that actually 
do something to help Americans and make them safer.
  Mr. 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 California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides for immediate 
consideration of the following five bills.
  One, a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  Two, legislation to increase the minimum wage to $7.25.
  Three, a bill to give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior 
citizens and people with disabilities.
  Four, a bill to repeal the massive cuts in college tuition assistance 
imposed by the Congress and would expand the size and availability of 
Pell Grants.
  Five, a bill to roll back tax breaks for large oil companies and 
invest those savings in alternative fuels to achieve energy 
independence.
  Mr. Speaker, every one of these bills will make important changes to 
help hardworking Americans and their families. These bills should have 
been enacted a long time ago. But there is still time and opportunity 
to do something today. All it takes is a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. For once, let's do the right thing and help the people we 
were sent here to serve.
  Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in my short 6 years here, I don't think I have ever seen 
nerves so raw on a same-day rule. It is, I think, a function of the 
calendar, a function of the end of the session where temperatures run 
high and passions are certainly in overdrive as we all are watching the 
clock wind down and wanting to make our points to the American people.
  The points that are embodied in this legislation before us at this 
moment are keeping America secure. Most of the debate on this same-day 
rule has not been on the topic at hand.
  We have successfully passed Medicare modernization, something that 
was not accomplished in the previous 40 years. It was this majority 
that accomplished that and gave seniors the modern access to 
prescription drugs that they did not have previously.
  It was this Congress that delivered not one but three substantial 
energy independence bills.

                              {time}  1215

  Bills that would allow us to reduce our reliance on countries that 
often don't like us for the economic lifeblood that this Nation 
requires, by expanding our own capacity, expanding exploration, 
expanding refining capacity, expanding renewables, putting an emphasis 
on American agriculture so that we can grow our way to energy 
independence, investing in renewables like solar and wind and 
hydroelectric, investing in long-term technologies like hydrogen. That 
was this Congress that passed those items in three different vehicles, 
including a passage that would have fixed the Clinton administration's 
billion dollar giveaway to Big Oil in the Gulf. That was this Congress 
that passed that legislation, over the objections of the minority.
  The issue at hand is homeland security appropriations, the funds that 
are necessary to put boots on the ground on the border; to hire 1,200 
new Border Patrol agents; to expand the Customs capabilities; to use 
the technology and communications capacity that this great Nation 
brings to bear to break up, disrupt, and arrest terrorists who are 
plotting to do us harm. That is in this bill.
  To update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Surely, 
surely, there must be agreement that this Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 should be modernized to reflect things like 
the cell phone, multiple access to the Internet, all the tools the 
terrorists use to plot against innocent women and children and 
civilians and our military personnel at home and abroad. This is the 
vehicle to accomplish that. This is the vehicle that allows us to move 
those items that are so important to this agenda.
  We have already moved the energy items they were talking about. 
Passed. We have already passed out of this body a minimum wage that 
they were so eloquent and so passionate about. Many voted against it, 
but it passed this body under this majority. We have passed the 
prescription drug plan. We have increased the number of students 
benefiting from Pell Grants.
  But this piece of legislation that nobody wanted to talk about deals 
with national security, protecting our people, securing our borders, 
listening to the bad guys, locking them up and keeping them from doing 
future harm.
  Let us move this same-day resolution. Let us move this agenda to keep 
America safe, secure, and prosperous. Let us continue to have a free 
society that creates free enterprise, that creates capitalism so that 
companies can choose to do things like lower drug prices on their own, 
not by government decree. Let us foster that type of environment. Let 
us foster the type of research and development and the investments that 
are required for research and development that were opposed by the 
other side when we moved the minimum wage bill. Let us continue to 
press on with that agenda, the secure America agenda, the economic 
prosperity agenda, and embrace the free enterprise and entrepreneurs. 
That is the agenda that we are moving forward in this same day.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

  Previous Question for H. Res. 1046, Martial Law Rule-Waiving Clause 
                            6(a), Rule XIII

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     Sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     4:
       Sec. 4. The bills referred to in Sec. 3. 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-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate

[[Page H7693]]

     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. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). As we close this debate, 
the Chair would make a brief statement.
  Members should bear in mind that heeding the gavel that sounds at the 
expiration of their time is one of the most essential ingredients of 
the decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings of the House.
  In addition, proper courtesy in the process of yielding and 
reclaiming time in debate, and especially in asking another to yield, 
helps to foster the spirit of mutual comity that elevates the 
deliberations here above mere arguments.
  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. MATSUI. 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.

                          ____________________