[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 27, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1082-H1089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5351, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND 
                  ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT OF 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded for consideration of the rule is for debate 
only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to insert extraneous material on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1001 provides for consideration of H.R. 5351, 
the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 under a 
structured rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of debate on the bill, 
equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed 
in the Congressional Record if offered by Representative McCrery or his 
designee. The substitute amendment is debatable for 1 hour. The rule 
also provides for one motion to recommit the bill, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, today's debate is quite simple: It is about taking 
action on an important priority of the American people. It is about 
investing in renewable energy, which will chart a new direction for our 
country's energy policy. This bill will ensure that hardworking 
Americans can buy affordable energy that is environmentally sound. It 
restores balance to our energy policy after years of favoring Big Oil.
  Mr. Speaker, hardworking American families are struggling to pay 
their bills in an uncertain economy. They face the growing cost of 
basic necessities, such as gasoline and heating oil. This is a direct 
result of rising oil prices.
  As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to protect our 
constituents from big oil companies and countries that are taking 
advantage of working families. The Renewable Energy and Energy Tax 
Conservation Act restores balance to our energy policy. For years, we 
have had a tax structure that favors huge oil companies over the 
American family.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts speak for themselves. Oil costs 
today rose to $102 a barrel for the first time in history. It is more 
expensive for Americans to drive their kids to school, to go to the 
grocery store, to heat their homes, and to vacation with their 
families. Americans are paying more than ever to fill up their cars, 
and big oil companies are reaping the profits.
  In my home State of California, the price of gasoline is more than 
double what it was when this administration came into office. Last 
year, ExxonMobil posted the largest profit in American history, nearly 
$40 billion to one company. This equation is simple: Americans pay 
more; oil companies make more. This is unacceptable for the families we 
represent.
  Unfortunately, it is perfectly acceptable for our President. This is 
a President who said that we don't need incentives for oil and gas 
companies to explore. That was back when the price of oil was $55 per 
barrel. It is now almost double that. It is obvious that any system 
that rewards the top earning oil companies and neglects our 
constituents and the environment ignores the priorities of the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, today's legislation will correct this inequity. It will 
transfer some of the massive profits enjoyed by these oil companies and 
invest them in renewable resources that will power our economy in the 
future.
  Our scientists have been hard at work researching ways to harness the 
powerful assets of our planet. We can have a healthy economy even as we 
preserve our natural resources and our skies. Solar, wind, and 
geothermal technologies are ready for the mainstream. Our legislation 
will help get them there.
  In the case of solar, we are not just creating new incentives. We are 
extending successful tax breaks that have helped these industries get 
off the ground. Our legislation will allow public agencies to issue 
bonds to pay for clean energy projects. Some of the most effective 
public energy agencies in the country have put this provision at the 
top of their priority list.
  This bill envisions a future where our country is no longer beholden 
to the oil market. It will dramatically pump up our domestic production 
of renewable fuels, such as biodiesel and cellulosic alcohol. The bill 
also contains a tax break to increase the number of alternative 
refueling stations so that Americans have options to fill up on the 
next generation of fuels.

                              {time}  1115

  This legislation recognizes that we can and must create the 
technologies today that we will use in the future. It harnesses our 
inventive American spirit to tackle our energy problems. It creates a 
sliding-scale tax incentive for consumers to purchase plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles. It encourages investment in solar fuel cells and 
harnesses the power of cutting-edge technologies that produce energy 
from landfill gas and marine sources.
  It builds on the desire of the American people for a more balanced 
and progressive energy policy. Making our homes and buildings more 
energy efficient is one of the most cost-effective ways to save money 
and power.
  Our legislation contains significant incentives for efficiency 
programs. These changes will save money for constituents in the short 
and long run. They will also help preserve jobs. If tax incentives for 
wind and solar production are not extended, 116,000 American jobs will 
be lost. The legislation before us is critical to the health of our 
economy.
  Most important, though, is that this legislation builds on the desire 
of the American people for a more balanced and progressive energy 
policy. The American people want us to take action to modernize our 
energy supply, and that is what we are doing. This bill will also help 
to lessen our dangerous dependence on oil from unstable parts of the 
world.
  Earlier this month, our energy markets were disturbed by rumors that 
Venezuela was cutting off oil shipments. Events like these are a stark 
reminder that even though we are the strongest country in the world, we 
are also very vulnerable.
  The short-sighted energy policy of the past is undermining our 
national security. We will only get weaker unless we change course now 
and invest in renewable fuels that are produced here at home, not in 
countries that wish us harm.
  This House has heard the message that the American people have been 
sending us for a long time. We must overhaul our energy policy, and 
this bill is the second step toward this goal. We took the first step 
late last year when Democrats reached across the aisle. We worked in a 
bipartisan manner to pass the first increase in fuel economy standards 
in decades.
  We could have done even more to restore balance to our energy policy.

[[Page H1083]]

Many of the provisions in today's bill were a part of last year's 
energy legislation passed by this House. But we were stymied by 
Republican obstructionism in the Senate.
  I am one of the millions of Americans who want to see us do even 
more. People like Luquita Hutchinson from my hometown of Sacramento. 
She and her family are the reasons we must chart a new course forward 
here today.
  Because of trying to balance her household budget, Luquita has 
stopped buying meat at the grocery store because she has to pay so much 
for gas at the pump. Today, in Sacramento, it's $3.35 a gallon. She has 
to make a choice between buying food for her family or filling up her 
gas tank.
  It is for the sake of people like Luquita that I encourage my 
colleagues to support the legislation on the floor today. This bill 
makes us safer by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It protects 
the pocketbooks of hardworking Americans like Luquita Hutchinson, and 
it transforms our energy policy to maximize the benefits of clean, 
affordable, and renewable energy. If we pass today's bill, this kind of 
clean energy future is within our grasp.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. I know the 
majority calls this a structured rule, but it's a closed rule. 
Technically the majority gave the minority the ability to offer a 
substitute amendment if the substitute amendment was printed in the 
Congressional Record before the end of the legislative day. The rule 
giving the minority the opportunity to draft a substitute was passed 
out of the Rules Committee at about 5:20 yesterday evening. The House 
finished its legislative day at 5:57, giving the minority 37 minutes in 
which to draft a substitute to a very complex tax issue while meeting 
PAYGO and germaneness requirements. I understand that at the time the 
House went out of session last night, minority staff from the Ways and 
Means Committee were talking to the Office of Legislative Counsel and 
the Joint Committee on Taxation in hopes of drafting a substitute 
amendment. But since they couldn't get all their work done in 37 
minutes, the minority, in fact, was closed out and prohibited from 
offering any amendments under this closed rule.
  What is even more disturbing is that I am informed that during 
consideration of the rule yesterday, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. 
Slaughter, informed Ranking Member Dreier that the majority would keep 
the House in session so that the minority would have ample time to 
complete work on a substitute amendment. But the question must be asked 
of the majority at this time: How is 37 minutes enough time to draft 
legislation, especially on something as complicated as an energy tax 
bill?
  Mr. Speaker, it is not enough time. It is most unfortunate that the 
majority did not give the minority time to complete its work and that 
we are now proceeding under this closed process.
  Everyone in this body seeks to leave our children and grandchildren a 
better world in which to live. This great Nation has made great strides 
in protecting human health and the environment, but, clearly, we can do 
more.
  From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12 
billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable domestic 
renewable energy sources. This included sources such as cellulosic 
ethanol, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell 
technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear 
technologies.
  I am pleased by the inclusion of the production tax credit, the PTC, 
in the underlying legislation being brought to the floor today. The PTC 
provides a tax credit for electricity produced from renewable energy 
facilities. Sources such as wind, solar and biomass are included under 
the tax credit. Since its enactment in 1992, the credit has encouraged 
the development of thousands of megawatts of clean, renewable electric 
generation facilities.
  But we must keep in mind that alternative fuels will not eliminate 
the need for traditional energy resources. Without additional supply, 
the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going 
to persist, and this bill, the legislation being brought to the floor 
today under this rule, will do nothing to lower gas prices.
  Unfortunately, the majority has included in H.R. 5351, the underlying 
legislation, more than $17 billion in tax increases, including a repeal 
of the section 199 manufacturing deduction. This tax incentive in 
current law is aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 
encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. 
By removing this incentive for the domestic production of oil and 
natural gas, we would increase the incentive to look overseas for those 
energy resources. How would that be in our national interest? How does 
increasing the cost of doing business in the United States decrease the 
cost of gasoline for Americans? Why would we want to deincentivize 
investment in a sector of our economy with 1.8 million well-paying jobs 
in the United States of America?
  Removal of these incentives will drive up prices to the American 
consumer even further and increase our dependence on foreign suppliers 
such as the buffoon Hugo Chavez, who earlier this month cut off oil 
sales to ExxonMobil and threatened once again to cut off all oil sales 
to the United States.
  And while the buffoon Chavez makes those threats to our energy 
supplies, the majority has decided that his company, Citgo, would 
continue to receive a tax break that the majority in the underlying 
legislation seeks to take away from American companies.
  Yes, under this legislation, three American oil and gas companies, 
ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, will lose their current 
deduction while Citgo will continue to get theirs. That's unbelievable.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I would 
like to say to the gentleman that this is a very fair rule. It allows 
extra debate time so that all Members have a chance to speak.
  As is usual for a tax bill, we allowed a Republican substitute 
amendment to be made in order. Unfortunately, the Republican substitute 
amendment offered during the Rules Committee did not meet PAYGO 
requirements. The minority had the opportunity to submit the substitute 
if they wanted, but they did not.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the landmark Renewable Energy and 
Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, and this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we are fighting for fundamental change in our Nation's 
energy policy. For too long, the big oil companies have had a 
stranglehold over politicians in Washington, DC and over our country's 
energy policy.
  All we have to do is examine the headlines these days: ``Pain at the 
Pump Grows.'' Another headline: ``Cost of Gas Hits All-Time High.''
  But there is a very interesting juxtaposition of headlines, because 
the other headlines in our Nation's newspapers read something like 
this: ``ExxonMobil Profit Sets Record Again.'' That's right, almost $41 
billion last year, breaking the record that they had set only last 
year.
  This sales figure alone exceeds the gross domestic product of 120 
countries. To put this in perspective, ExxonMobil earned more than 
$1,287 of profit for every second in the year 2007.
  So here is the question: Do the American people continue to subsidize 
big oil companies while they are making record profits? Or do we shift 
our investment to cleaner, renewable fuels?
  Mr. Speaker, I know the White House does not like this. President 
Bush said he would veto this, but we are not going to give up. This new 
Congress, led by Democrats, is responding to folks in every State in 
America demanding change in our country's energy policy.
  They understand that this is vital to our national security, and it's 
vital to

[[Page H1084]]

their pocketbooks. The contrast between the politics of the past, 
represented by the White House, and our forward-looking bill could not 
be clearer.
  Remember just 7 years ago, the administration's energy task force met 
behind closed doors. It consisted of oil company executives, and the 
administration fought to keep everything secret. Renewable sources of 
energy were not a priority. The Earth's climate change was not a 
priority. And the recommendations involved more drilling, more mining 
and more of the same, which led only to record gas prices for families, 
record profits for oil companies and disastrous national security 
consequences. I mean, after all, under the current administration, gas 
prices have doubled.
  In contrast, our groundbreaking efforts to date are setting our 
country on a path towards energy independence. Despite the fact that 
the White House continues to side with Big Oil and threaten a veto of 
this bill, we are not going to give up.
  We already have a great record. We have strengthened national 
security by increasing fuel efficiency standards. We have raised the 
fuel economy standards. We have lowered energy costs by focusing on 
conservation and efficiency. We have tackled global climate change, but 
we are only just beginning to set the new course on the Nation's energy 
policy.
  By repealing subsidies to the big oil companies and investing in the 
renewable energy technologies, we will continue to march towards new 
energy solutions. The status quo in Washington is not acceptable 
anymore. The White House might threaten veto, but we are not going to 
give up.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) 4 minutes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Today is day 11, day 11 since the Protect America Act 
expired.
  The Director of National Intelligence has clearly stated that each 
and every day that we move past the expiration of the Protect America 
Act our ability to monitor, to track radical jihadist groups and 
others, people who want to attack America, would erode. Those comments 
were reinforced by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the 
other body.
  The other body did the appropriate thing and passed a long-term FISA, 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, bill, enabling our intelligence 
community to have the tools that they need to keep America safe. It has 
been 2 weeks since the other body passed their bill. It has been more 
than 2 weeks of inaction by this House.
  I guess this House did have action. We went home for 12 days on an 
extended vacation. I guess this House did have action, we left late in 
the afternoon yesterday. We worked until almost 6:00 making sure we did 
not address this FISA issue, this key component of national security.
  Each and every day we become more vulnerable. How vulnerable does the 
other side want us to become? Each and every day the other side fights 
to give more rights to people who might do America harm. Each and every 
day we undercut the activities of the men and women in the intelligence 
community who are doing everything that they can to keep America safe, 
but who find each and every day the other side tying their hands behind 
their backs and limiting their capabilities to keep America safe.
  At a time when we are in a very dangerous world, the efforts by 
radical jihadists to attack us and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
they do continue. There is an urgency, as far as our troops are 
concerned, that this issue needs to be dealt with, even though 
individuals on the other side repeatedly say there is no urgency to 
deal with this issue. The other side says there is no urgency. Tell 
that to our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tell that to our 
allies in the Middle East, our allies in Israel who the leader of al 
Qaeda in Iraq has recently said, Let's use Iraq to be a launching pad 
to attack Jerusalem. Tell that to our allies, the Israelis, who are 
under threat from Hezbollah. Tell that to our allies throughout the 
Middle East where the second goal and objective of radical jihadists is 
to undermine their regimes and overthrow them and establish the 
caliphate and impose shariah law.
  It seems that much of the world believes that there is an urgency, as 
do the President and the other body. The President and the other body 
negotiated and reached an agreement. We agree with that direction. 
House Republicans and many Democrats would vote for it, but Democratic 
leadership continues to stand in the way and prevent this bill from 
coming up and being considered by this House. There is an urgency, as 
much as the other side would like to believe there is not. Vote against 
the previous question and allow the Senate bill to come up for a vote 
today.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I would 
just like to say, unfortunately, it is ironic that the minority is 
coming to the floor with this issue yet again, especially since the 
minority has refused to come to the table as we are trying to work out 
the differences between the House and Senate versions. Yes, we have 
been trying to move forward with the negotiations, but the minority has 
not been willing to participate.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that one of the most 
destabilizing forces in the world is the competition for declining oil 
resources in the world. When we break our dependence on foreign oil 
with this bill today, we will be safer and our country will be better 
positioned to respond to the threats we face.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a 
member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, and 
I would just like to say we are hearing about everything except this 
energy bill. And, Mr. Speaker, I would point out this is a good bill, 
and so the people on the other side of the aisle want to talk about 
everything but this rule and this bill.
  I rise today in strong support of this rule and this bill, H.R. 5351, 
the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, which will not only 
bring this country into a new alternative energy future, but strengthen 
our economy, create jobs, and boost small businesses in the very towns 
and rural communities where we need it most.
  During these uncertain economic times, it is absolutely critical that 
we pass legislation to invest in jobs for today and long-term 
development for tomorrow.
  The best way to encourage growth and development of new technology is 
to let businesses invest their own money in ways that expand our 
economic horizons. Tax credits for alternative energy production have 
the power to truly jump-start our economy and create good-paying, 
highly skilled jobs that can't be sent overseas.
  In my upstate New York district, our location with natural resources 
and first-class scientific and technological community makes us 
perfectly poised to seize the opportunity to create a new green 
economy, complete with green jobs.
  I recently had the opportunity to see firsthand what investments in 
alternative energy production can do. I attended a groundbreaking at 
Mascoma's $30 million cellulosic ethanol facility in Rome, New York, 
and went to the grand opening of the Schuyler Wood Pellet plant in 
Herkimer County, which will create 18 full-time green jobs on-site, 
enough wood pellets to heat 33,000 homes, and provide a $10.5 million 
investment in upstate New York's future. That is the kind of future and 
the kind of bill we are here to support today.
  This is why I am especially glad to support the over- $8 billion in 
long-term renewable energy tax incentives included in the Renewable 
Energy and Energy Conservation Act, tax incentives that will help 
companies like Mascoma and Schuyler Wood Pellet continue to grow and 
spur additional economic activity.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California 
has said that we are trying to work

[[Page H1085]]

something out on FISA, and the majority has been trying to engage the 
minority on FISA and it is really too bad we won't participate.
  I have to tell my colleague from California that I am the ranking 
member on the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee, and I 
have been invited to no meetings. The ranking member of the entire 
House Committee on Intelligence has been invited to no meetings. And 
the reason is that there has been no motion to go to conference on the 
FISA bill, and there is a difference within the Democratic Caucus. You 
can't even come talk to us until you resolve your own problems 
internally, because the reality is that a majority of this body, 
Democrats and Republicans, want to immediately take up this bill that 
will close the gap in our intelligence collection that has existed now 
for 11 days.
  The rule that we are being asked to consider today actually tables 
the FISA legislation. And if the rule is defeated, we will immediately 
bring up the Senate bill that closes this critical intelligence gap.
  You don't have to believe me. Senator Rockefeller, on the floor of 
the United States Senate 12 days ago, said, ``People have to understand 
around here that the quality of intelligence we are going to be 
receiving is going to be degraded. Is going to be degraded. It's 
already going to be degraded.''
  The Senate bill will reestablish the procedures that we set up in 
August to listen to foreigners in foreign countries without a warrant, 
to require warrants for Americans, and put in place stronger civil 
liberty protections than we had in the base bill that has been in 
existence since 1978, and will provide liability protection for our 
partners in this effort and tools to compel assistance similar to those 
that are under the criminal wiretap procedures.
  Americans need to understand that the Senate has passed a bill to 
close this intelligence gap. That bill could be passed on the floor of 
this House today and the President would sign it. We are operating 
today under outdated procedures that are delaying our ability to listen 
rapidly to new tips that come in today.
  I have been out to our intelligence agencies, and sometimes they 
start out by saying, Congresswoman, I know you are here to look at a 
particular program, but I want you to look at what we are tracking 
today. This is what we are trying to find out today. Here are the five 
people we are worried about most today. Here are the terrorists that we 
think are transiting Madrid. They have just come from Pakistan. We 
don't know where they are going and what they are planning.
  We are trying to disrupt and stop terrorist attacks every single day 
in this country, and the minority, the Democrat liberal leadership of 
this House, refuses to bring to the floor of this House a bill that 
will close that gap, and you are compromising the security of this 
country by doing so. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to our next speaker, 
first I would like to say that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act continues to give the intelligence community the tools it needs to 
monitor terrorists. The government always has the option of tapping 
targets immediately and returning to the FISA Court within 72 hours to 
obtain an order.
  Additionally, any surveillance gathered before the expiration of the 
Protect America Act is in place for 1 year. The FISA Court backlog has 
been cleared, and the intelligence community can and was always able to 
do its job.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that we are considering the rule 
for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mahoney).
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. I want to thank the gentlelady for giving me 
the opportunity to speak on such an important issue. Before I go with 
my remarks, I would just like to point out that the issue of FISA has 
to do with making sure that the President gets immunity, not the 
telecom companies, and the rush to try to do something is really 
disappointing when we are a Nation of rule of law, and it is important 
for the American people to understand exactly what happened here after 
9/11 with the telecommunications companies giving information to the 
President illegally.
  Having said that, I represent the 16th Congressional District of 
Florida. My district is home to a subtropical climate and rich soil. It 
is the largest and most varied producer of the biomass needed to 
produce cellulosic ethanol.
  Unfortunately, some of my rural areas are also the poorest in 
Florida, where we have high unemployment and an almost 40 percent 
dropout rate in our high schools. Many of our rural youth don't see 
that getting their high school diploma will make a difference in their 
lives.
  Thanks to Congress, the day is coming when America can turn its back 
on foreign oil because we had the courage to create a biofuels industry 
here in America, a business that will transform rural America.
  Thanks to Chairman Rangel, H.R. 5351 helps to make this vision a 
reality by giving gasoline companies a tax credit for blending 
cellulosic ethanol. This credit, in addition to the energy and farm 
bills we passed last year, will get Wall Street to open their wallets 
and invest in cellulosic ethanol businesses throughout rural America. 
It will give our rural youth hope and the opportunity to have a job 
with a future.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today is day 11 without the Protect 
America Act and so our Nation continues to be at greater risk of attack 
from terrorists.
  Yesterday I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee to attach 
the Senate-passed FISA bill to H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and 
Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. House Democrats once again refused 
to bring this commonsense, bipartisan bill to the floor for a straight 
up-or-down vote.
  Last year, Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, 
warned Congress that the intelligence community was missing two-thirds 
of all overseas terrorist communications, further endangering American 
lives. Congress enacted the Protect America Act to close this loophole 
for terrorists.
  The Senate, working with the administration, drafted legislation to 
modernize FISA and give our intelligence agencies a long-term law under 
which they could operate. It has been 2 weeks since the Senate 
overwhelmingly approved their bill by a vote of 68-29. We should vote 
on it immediately to better protect American lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I also oppose H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy 
Conservation Tax Act of 2008. H.R. 5351 contains some beneficial 
provisions, such as creating incentives to make energy efficiency 
improvements to new and existing homes and extending tax credits to 
encourage the production of alternative forms of energy. But while it 
is well and good to encourage alternative energy development, Congress 
should not do so by damaging our domestic oil and gas industry.

                              {time}  1145

  According to the Department of Energy, in 2006 all renewable energy 
sources provided only 6 percent of the U.S. domestic energy supply. In 
contrast, oil and natural gas provided 58 percent of our domestic 
energy supply. The numbers don't lie. Oil and natural gas fuel our 
economy and sustain our way of life.
  Furthermore, almost 2 million Americans are directly employed in the 
oil and natural gas industry. Punishing one of our Nation's most 
important industries does not constitute a national energy policy.
  The answer to lowering gas prices and reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil is not to remove $17.6 billion in tax incentives from the 
oil and gas industry. The answer is to utilize our domestic resources, 
including ANWR.
  According to former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, ``ANWR would 
supply every drop of petroleum for Florida for 29 years, New York for 
34 years, California for 16 years, or New Hampshire for 315 years.'' It 
could also supply Washington, D.C. for 1,710 years.
  The answer is also to build new refineries and to develop more 
nuclear energy, as most European and Asian countries have already done. 
But no

[[Page H1086]]

new major refinery has been built in the United States in the past 15 
years. And no new nuclear facility has received a construction license 
in the United States for 30 years, even though safe technology is now 
available.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of penalizing the oil and gas industry, Congress 
should pass real energy reform, expand domestic exploration of oil and 
gas, build more refineries, and construct more nuclear facilities.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady very much.
  For nearly 8 years, this administration's backwards energy policy has 
lined the pockets of oil company executives, while hurting American 
consumers, the economy, and the planet.
  Since President Bush took office, the price of oil has gone from $30 
a barrel to a new record high price of $101 a barrel yesterday. As a 
result of this administration's failed energy policies, our dependence 
on foreign oil is now over 60 percent, and we are hemorrhaging funds to 
pay for our oil addiction at the rate of over $500,000 a minute, $30 
million an hour, $5 billion a week sent overseas. And consumers are the 
ones paying the price for our oil addiction. Gas prices are now at a 
nationwide average of $3.14, up nearly $1 from a year ago.
  This administration's oil-centric energy policy has proven itself to 
be completely bankrupt for everyone except Big Oil. While American 
consumers are being tipped upside down at the pump and having money 
shaken out of their pockets, Big Oil is recording the greatest 
corporate profits we have ever seen in the history of the world.
  Today, we debate whether we will repeal unnecessary tax breaks for 
the biggest oil companies and use those funds to spur investment in 
renewable energies, biofuels and energy efficiency. The future of 
renewable energy is in America's hands. But the money to fund the 
renewable revolution is stuck in Big Oil's pockets.
  Renewable energy is ready to take off, but it needs us to build the 
runway. That is what we are going to be debating here today. Thirty 
percent of all new electricity in the United States last year was wind. 
There was an 80 percent increase in photovoltaic installations in the 
United States last year.
  The future is clear. It is in front of our eyes. We must give it the 
boost we need.
  Vote ``aye'' on this very important legislation today.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how 
disappointed I am in the majority today because in this bill you 
effectively kill our opportunity to talk about FISA and the renewal of 
our opportunity to listen to foreign terrorists talking to foreign 
terrorists overseas. And it's intellectually not honest with the 
American people if you don't tell them what you're doing, because it's 
dangerous. It's really dangerous.
  This is day 11, day 11 that you're starting to slowly turn off our 
ability to listen to bad guys plotting to kill Americans and to kill 
our allies overseas, men, women, children, Christians, Jews and 
Muslims. The danger of this is very real and very palpable.
  They passed a bipartisan bill in the Senate and said this is urgent; 
let's do it. Two weeks ago, the Director of the ODNI came out and said, 
this is important.
  We've often said here we should listen to our commanders in the 
field. They are screaming at the top of their lungs, give us this 
authority so we can continue to keep America safe.
  I heard some argument that, gee, we can just listen if we want and we 
can come to the FISA Court if we want.
  I used to be an FBI agent. It took me 9 months to develop the 
probable cause on my first case to get a criminal title III, which is 
the same as a FISA, to listen to somebody's conversations. And it 
should be that hard. It should be that hard for United States citizens. 
They deserve that protection under our Constitution.
  But what you're saying is you think that those overseas criminals, a 
criminal in Pakistan, a terrorist plotting to kill Americans, making a 
phone call from Pakistan that ends up in Saudi Arabia, we ought to say, 
well, wait a minute; we need to come all the way back to the court, we 
need to work up probable cause and try to figure out if we ought to be 
listening to that conversation.
  No American out there, including the majority of the Senate and I 
think the majority in this Chamber, believes that's the right standard 
to keep America safe. This is dangerous.
  Now I know you're down here with the jangly keys theory and thinking, 
if we just distract them long enough they'll think this is about big 
oil companies and all of that mess. This is about the majority killing 
our opportunity to give this tool, this authority which they have used 
responsibly to make sure that we don't have attacks against Americans 
here.
  What does a majority of the Senate and a majority of this House see 
that the majority leadership does not? What won't they see, and why 
won't they tell the American people what they're doing?
  It's day 11. Every day that goes by we are in jeopardy of attack.
  I will guarantee you this today. There is somebody picking up some 
electronic instrument to communicate what plan they may have to kill 
Americans or, as I said before, our allies, or Christians or Jews or 
Muslims.
  What will it take for the majority to stand up and stop politicking 
on the lives of Americans, our allies and every global person, to stand 
up and say we will stand for the defense of the United States and its 
allies and we will stop terrorists in their tracks?
  I would urge the strong rejection of this rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I want to just say, as I said before, this 
is just to remind my colleagues that we are considering the rule for 
the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act today.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it is not day 11 of FISA. We have passed 
FISA. It is day 2,593 of the Bush administration that has allowed us to 
remain addicted to oil, has allowed the price of gas to be doubled 
during his administration, and has allowed us to continue on a course 
of being insecure because we are wrapped around the axle of oil because 
of these tax subsidies. It is time to turn course.
  This side of the aisle believes the status quo in energy is 
acceptable. We don't think that's good enough. We believe that 
Americans are smart enough, creative enough, and innovative enough to 
launch a new Apollo Project in energy so that we can do for energy what 
Kennedy did for space, and this bill is step one in that regard.
  All over this country Americans are inventing a new energy future for 
us: the OSPRA solar energy company in Florida with clean solar thermal 
power; the Nanosolar Company that made the first commercial sale of 
thin cell photovoltaics last month; the Imperium Company in my State of 
Washington with biodiesel that powered the first jet airliner flight 
with biodiesel with Virgin Air last weekend; the Altarock Company, the 
first enhanced geothermal company now growing in the State of 
Washington; the Janicki Company, which is opening up a new wind turbine 
blade construction project.
  We essentially are ready to launch a rocket of clean energy 
innovation in this country. But this side of the aisle and my friends, 
unfortunately, have put a hold on the countdown, and we're about 2 
seconds away to really having a burst of economic growth in this 
country. But they are allowing these tax breaks to expire, which are 
strangling the birth of these new industries.
  In the last several weeks I've got scores of phone calls from people 
all over the country ready for these new companies to start. But 
they're strangling them. We've got to keep this growth going. Launch a 
clean energy revolution.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

[[Page H1087]]

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from California pointed out 
rightly that a barrel of oil has come up to $100. But what if I told 
you of an industry or a group that wanted the consumer to have to pay 
$330 for a comparable barrel of oil?
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is protecting an industry and a plot to pick 
the pockets of the American consumer, while polluting our air. And what 
I am talking about is the fact that in California today, the Federal 
Government is mandating that we put an additive into our gasoline. 
We're being required to have corn ethanol put into our gasoline, what 
is costing a comparable $6 a gallon.
  So when someone stands on the floor and says they're outraged at the 
price of gasoline, let me just ask you, you either have to confront the 
fact that this rule is protecting a bill that is protecting the picking 
of our pockets and the polluting of our air with corn ethanol. And 
everyone knows that it's a sham. They know that it's out there costing 
more.
  And those of us that have worked on the air pollution issue, as 
myself, the California Air Resources Board is telling you, not only 
don't mandate this stuff, outlaw this stuff. It is polluting our air 
and costing a comparable $6 a gallon.
  So I hope the American people remember, when someone stands up here 
and says, this is a green bill, this bill stinks to high heaven. It's 
polluting our air and picking our pockets under the guise of protecting 
the environment and protecting the consumer.
  The group that is working together to cause this rip-off and this 
pollution is the United States Congress. The blame goes on both sides. 
But the majority has the chance now to address this issue.
  Now I understand those who may have corn producers in their district 
justifying this kind of action. But what about all of us that don't 
have that?
  I ask you today, stand up for the environment, stand up for the 
consumer, vote against this rule and bring it back without corn 
subsidies.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
  Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, when I joined the Navy during the Vietnam 
War, we had one destroyer in the Persian Gulf. And a few years later in 
the early 1970s, we had our very first embargo of oil, blockade of oil 
of the United States when OPEC, which today controls 42 percent of the 
oil resources, shut off the spigot. Shortly thereafter, in the Navy, we 
moved an aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf where it 
has remained ever since.
  Including during the war, the tanker war in the 1980s where we 
convoyed oil tankers back and forth, and as we did so and I did so, I 
just questioned all the time, Why are we doing this? Can't we act? I 
watched from the mid-1980s as the amount of oil imports from overseas 
increased from 27 percent to 60 percent today. We are en route to 70 
percent by 2025. And $7 trillion we have lost due to these price 
disruptions and these price manipulations by those overseas.
  Do we expect the price to go down like it did after the 1970s? I'm 
not so sure, unless we take action. Because now we have China that just 
this past year passed us as the number one emitter of bad air emissions 
at 22 percent of all bad greenhouse emissions. This is a China that in 
the next decade wants an Ozzie and Harriet home for everyone in its 
populace. In one decade that will take as much energy that we have used 
as a world in the last two centuries.
  As I sit back, I believe that this bill is late. It should have been 
done before. It should have had these incentives for us to manufacture 
energy-efficient appliances; to have working families then be 
incentivized to purchase them; to have production tax credits in order 
to have affordable energy, solar power, and geothermal energy.
  I speak here from the experience of being out there. This is a 
military security issue. This is an energy security issue but also a 
military security issue, a national security issue.
  And on FISA, if I might speak, I headed the Navy's antiterrorism 
unit. I was in the White House working terrorism issues. This bill is 
about efficiency, not effectiveness. We are as safe today as when 
President Reagan operated under FISA as the first President Bush, as 
this President. I know. I was on the ground in Afghanistan. I wanted 
that intelligence. There is no way I would even vote in order to do 
what we are doing on FISA if I didn't know the men and women who wear 
the cloth of this Nation are not as safe today as they were a year ago.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished 
friend from New York pointed out earlier that this rule that we are 
debating is on the energy bill. She pointed that out because we have 
been stressing the need to debate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act. And I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues that the 
rule that we are debating today, this rule lays on the table, it tables 
H. Res. 983, authority to address legislation concerning foreign 
intelligence surveillance. So it's quite germane and relevant in 
discussing and debating this rule to be insisting upon a debate on 
FISA.
  And with that in mind and having said that, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I have heard several Members come down to the 
floor and talk about FISA and talk about this is not part of the bill; 
we are supposed to be here to debate energy. In fact, what the 
gentleman from Florida is talking about is that we have a 
responsibility here in the Congress to protect the American people, and 
our military commanders say we need this, this FISA extended, a 
permanent extension, so that we can continue to watch over terrorists 
that are trying to call in and out of our country. This is imperative 
that we get this done.
  And so when you start to look at what are we doing here today talking 
about this energy bill, well, this is once again one of these energy 
bills where we are just going to tax the American consumer. We are 
going to tax domestic oil producers. And this bill has no chance to 
make it through the Senate. This bill has no chance to become law. So 
why would we be here today when we are on day 11, as Mr. Hoekstra said 
earlier, we are day 11 where we have not been able to surveil 
terrorists that are trying to call in and out of this country, but 
instead we are debating an energy bill that taxes domestic oil 
producers, taxes big oil companies, and leaves a glaring loophole so 
that Hugo Chavez's CITGO still continues to get tax breaks.
  So I can understand if some of the Democrats want to tax Exxon and 
the big oil companies. They don't like oil. They don't want to use oil. 
They want to raise the oil prices of the American consumer. But why, 
why would you give tax breaks to Hugo Chavez? That I cannot understand. 
We need to get off of this bogus debate on taxing oil companies, and we 
need to get back on to protecting the American people and bring up this 
FISA bill today.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, just before I yield to my next speaker, I 
just want to remind everyone that the Protect America Act expiration 
has not reduced our ability to conduct surveillance.
  With that, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are trying desperately to change the subject. 
There could be a FISA extension in a heartbeat. They turned that down. 
If they cared truly about national security, they would be embarrassed 
about the bankrupt energy policy that puts our Nation at risk. We 
wouldn't have a third of a million American soldiers and civilian 
contractors in Iraq today spending 1 trillion American tax dollars if 
Iraq didn't have the second largest oil reserves and that we have an 
energy policy that doesn't meet the needs of America today, much less 
for the future.
  The bill that we have before you that this rule enables us to 
consider will be passed. It will be passed through the House today. It 
will pass the Senate, it is only a question of when. It may take an 
election for the American people to be clear that they're tired of 
investing in energy policies from the past, for the past.
  This isn't a tax increase. Our bill has exactly the same amount of 
money

[[Page H1088]]

coming in as going out. But instead of subsidizing the purchase of the 
largest gas guzzling SUVs, we are going to subsidize hybrid plug-ins. 
Instead of giving $14 billion of unneeded subsidies to the five largest 
oil companies who made over half a trillion dollars in profit, we are 
going to help avoid the starving of the wind energy business.
  Approve the rule. Vote for the bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ BALART of Florida. I would inquire of my friend if 
she has any additional speakers.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I will reserve then.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, the basic question that we face in 
America is the basic question we face in Congress, and that is, are we 
going to turn the page on a fossil fuel-based energy policy that needs 
to change? Are we going to embrace an alternative energy policy that is 
going to allow us: A, to protect our environment; B, to create jobs; 
and C, to give us much more flexibility and independence in foreign 
policy?
  This legislation is a step along the road of a new energy policy and 
a new future for this country. This is not just something that is going 
to do the things other speakers have spoken about, but it is a 
partnership with our States.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Vermont Senate approved a very wide-
ranging energy bill that's going to promote renewable energy and energy 
efficiency. The bill that we pass today will partner with that bill and 
work its way through the Vermont legislature by providing tax 
incentives that will stimulate a growing market all around the State 
and the country. This legislation is going to provide up to $3.6 
billion in interest-free financing to help our State and our local 
governments finance environmental conservation and efficiency programs.
  We all have our positions on how this affects oil. Oil is doing 
pretty well, $100 a gallon. Consumers aren't. We are looking for ways 
to provide relief, but we are looking for ways to protect our 
environment at the same time.
  What this legislation embodies is a confidence that we have the 
technology and the intellectual strength in this country to forge a new 
energy policy that is renewable, that in the process can create jobs 
and work well with our States who are often ahead of us here on 
providing that leadership.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, it's disappointing that the majority has decided really 
to waste the time of this Congress with legislation that three times 
has failed to make it through the Senate and that observers covering 
Congress have called a rerun. Instead of wasting time on legislation 
that will never make it into law, we should be considering bipartisan 
legislation that will protect Americans from international terrorism.
  On February 14, the majority decided to leave Washington to take a 
Presidents Day recess and allow the Protect America Act to expire 2 
days later, rendering U.S. intelligence officials unable to begin new 
terrorist surveillance without cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles. Because 
of the deliberate inaction of the majority, the United States today is 
more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. And this did not have to happen.
  Earlier this month, the Senate passed by a bipartisan vote of 68-29 a 
bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a bill that 
the chairman of the Intelligence Committee said, `` . . . it's the 
right way to go in terms of the security of the Nation.''
  Mr. Speaker, we would have easily considered that legislation, but 
the majority decided instead to head home. The House should vote on the 
Senate measure and we should do it now, instead of debating this 
legislation which will not become law and is really nothing more than a 
rerun.
  We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish harm on 
Americans. Now is not the time to, in any way, in any way tie the hands 
of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign 
intelligence surveillance into this century is a critical national 
security priority.
  I'm pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle also agree. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition 
sent a letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate legislation. The 
letter states, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains 
satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully 
support that measure should it reach the House floor without 
substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong 
national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe 
and save American lives in the United States.''
  Today I will give all Members of this House an opportunity to vote on 
the bipartisan long-term modernization of FISA. I call on all of my 
colleagues, including members of the Blue Dog Coalition that signed the 
letter to the Speaker, to join with me in defeating the previous 
question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate 
amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent 
solution that will help protect American lives from international 
terrorism.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is really about the future of 
our country. Those of us who think that American leadership can create 
new sources of clean energy will vote for this bill. Those of us who 
think that high oil prices, economic uncertainty, and dependence on 
foreign oil are good energy policy will vote against it.
  I know where my loyalties lie in this debate. They lie with Americans 
who are struggling to find the money to drive their children to school. 
They lie with people in my State of California who are concerned about 
global warming. They lie with my constituents who want a new direction 
for energy policy. It is for them that I support this legislation 
today. It is for them that I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Voting for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act is a 
way to show our constituents that the energy policies of the past are 
no longer acceptable. The American people are challenging us to create 
a new strategy focused on renewable and affordable energy. Those of us 
who support today's bill are meeting that challenge.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

                       Amendment to H. Res. 1001

             Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before 
     consideration of any order of business other than one motion 
     that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a 
     procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign 
     intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment 
     thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the 
     Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without 
     intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.

[[Page H1089]]

       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 Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. 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.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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.

                          ____________________