[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 23, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2577-H2586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5819, SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1125 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1125
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5819) to amend the Small Business Act to
improve the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program
and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Small Business and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Small Business now
printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 5819
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during
the consideration of this rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Vermont?
There was no objection.
{time} 1245
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1125 provides for
the consideration of H.R. 5819, the Small Business Innovation Research
Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program
Reauthorization Act, under a structured rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes
controlled by the Committee on Small Business and 20 minutes controlled
by the Committee on Science and Technology. The rule makes in order 17
amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are
each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Since its inception in 1982, SBIR has assisted small businesses to
compete for Federal research and development awards. It does that by
reserving a percentage of the Federal R&D funds for qualifying small
firms which would not otherwise be able to compete in the Nation's R&D
arena with larger companies.
SBIR is a unique collaboration that allows Federal agencies to fund
projects to meet specific agency needs while expanding opportunities
for small businesses, including women and minority-owned businesses.
SBIR has enhanced the role of innovative small businesses and higher
education research institutions in federally funded research and
development while fostering competition and productivity in economic
growth.
SBIR, Mr. Speaker, targets the entrepreneurial sector because that's
where the innovators thrive. The risk and expense of conducting serious
R&D efforts are often beyond the means of small businesses, so SBIR
funds are a critical start-up in development stages, encourage the
commercialization of technology, product or service, which
[[Page H2578]]
in turn obviously helps the United States economy.
And the results, by the way, speak for themselves. Not only are 85
percent of the businesses competing in SBIR small firms employing 20 or
fewer persons, but the program has generated 50,000 patents over 25
years. SBIR has helped thousands of small businesses drive enhancements
in our Nation's defense, new protections for our environment, and
advances in health care.
The National Research Council and the National Academies' report, in
assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, states,
``The SBIR program is sound in concept and effective in practice. The
SBIR program has created a competitive entrepreneurial environment upon
which small, independently owned businesses can compete to strengthen
America's high technology economy. Many consider SBIR to be one of our
most successful technology development programs.''
This rule allows for consideration of a welcomed reauthorization of
the SBIR and STTR programs. Just very briefly, what it's going to do is
increase the existing set-aside for SBIR to 3 percent, and for STTR to
six-tenths of a percent, increase SBIR and STTR grant award levels,
increase congressional oversight and evaluation of programs, make
changes to shorten the application review periods, and create an
outreach development program for underrepresented States, regions,
types of businesses, and numbers in the workforce.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend,
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for yielding me the customary
30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the small business programs
covered by this bill are almost totally without their critics; they
enjoy widespread bipartisan support. But, Mr. Speaker, there is
controversy and opposition to this legislation because of the manner in
which Democrats have chosen to conduct the business of this House.
First, there are concerns expressed about the increased set-aside for
these two programs, which will come at the cost of other important
research. Concern and opposition of this bill has come from the head of
the Small Business Administration, from the White House, and from the
Association of American Universities, among others, which represents 60
leading research universities across the country.
Typically, there would be an opportunity to address these types of
concerns through committee action before any bill comes to the House
floor. But the Democrats have chosen to skip past a hearing of the full
House Science Committee on this scientific research legislation.
They're just bypassing that step and sending it here to the House
floor, where the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee decided to further
restrict action on the legislation by limiting the number of House
Members who can offer amendments, and they just limited it, Mr.
Speaker, to just 17 out of 432 Members in the House.
Now it is true that my Democrat friends on the Rules Committee have
allowed some amendments to be offered on this bill, but they have
certainly treated themselves very well. Under this rule, Democrat
members of the Rules Committee get to offer one-third of the amendments
allowed to the entire House. Out of the 17 amendments that would be
made in order under this rule, the Rules Committee Democrats get six of
them. But under the rules that the Rules Committee wrote, 415 Members
will not be allowed to offer even one amendment.
Restricting debate on the House floor is really becoming an old habit
for the new Democrat majority, the new Democrat majority that pledged
to run a more open, bipartisan House when they won the election in
2006. The Democrat majority has not kept their promise to the American
people and have instead passed more closed rules denying all amendments
on the House floor than any Congress in history, and they did it in
record time.
Despite this record of shutting down debate in the House, the new
majority has failed to complete its work and address matters critical
to American families, small businesses and the economy. They failed to
meet last week's April 5 deadline to write a budget for the next fiscal
year, for example. The current farm bill ended last September, and our
farmers are still waiting for that bill to be finished.
House Democrats have refused to pass the Senate's bipartisan bill to
modernize FISA and to protect our country. Vital tax relief is set to
expire while Democrats propose the largest tax increase in American
history. Families, workers and small businesses don't need a record tax
increase, Mr. Speaker, and they can't afford the plans to cut the child
tax credit in half, reinstate the marriage penalty, and raise rates on
every single taxpayer.
While Democrats plot these record-breaking tax increases, they sit by
while the price of gasoline rises to record levels. Since Democrats
took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon
of unleaded gas has gone up by 50 percent. According to the AAA, the
national average for regular unleaded gasoline has gone up $1.18. The
cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months, Mr. Speaker, than it had
gone up in the prior 6 years.
Two years ago tomorrow, on April 24, 2006, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release
claiming that House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to bring down
skyrocketing gas prices.'' This was 2 years ago tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
Two weeks after that press release, then minority leader Pelosi said
that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at
the pump.'' That was 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, just less than 2 years
ago. But now they've controlled the House for over a year, yet the
``real solutions'' and the ``commonsense plan'' promised by Democrats
are nowhere to be seen. They pledged to lower gas prices, and they've
done nothing; gas prices keep climbing.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for Speaker Pelosi to reveal the
Democrat plan and for this House to be allowed to consider ways to
address the rising price of gasoline. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be
asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I can
amend the rule to make in order any amendment to the underlying bill
that would ``have the effect of lowering national average gas price per
gallon of regular unleaded gas.'' This House can then debate the rising
cost of gas and we can have that debate, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the
previous question.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I will insert into the Record both Speaker
Pelosi's 2006 press release and a letter sent yesterday from Republican
leaders to Speaker Pelosi asking for the Democrats to put forward the
commonsense plan that they had promised.
Pelosi: `With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford
Rubber Stamp Congress'
Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
released the following statement today on President Bush's,
Speaker Hastert's, and the Republican Congress' empty
rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure
to address gas prices follows Pelosi's statement.
With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American
people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp
Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil
and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91
a gallon on average for regular gasoline--33 cents higher
than last month, and double the price than when President
Bush first came to office.
``With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and
record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority
Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric
rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas
prices now.
``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down
skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging,
rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies,
tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas
companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.''
Key Facts on the Majority's Failure to Address Gas Prices:
President Bush, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress
wrote and passed a Republican energy bill that President
Bush's own Energy Department said would raise gas prices on
American consumers. Big oil and gas companies wrote the
Republican energy bill, and the American people paid the
price.
The Majority rejected imposing tough penalties on price
gouging companies three times in the past year, since that
time, gas prices increased by another 11 cents a gallon.
[[Page H2579]]
Speaker Hastert and the Majority have been blocking action
on Congressman Stupak's Federal Response to Energy
Emergencies Act (H.R. 3936) since last September, which would
protect American consumers from high gas prices by empowering
the FTC and the DOJ to investigate and prosecute oil
companies engaged in price gouging at each stage of the
energy production and distribution chain and outlaws market
manipulation.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, April 22, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: Two years ago this week, you stated
that House Democrats had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower
gas prices.'' In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices
affecting working families and every sector of our struggling
economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that
you reveal this ``commonsense plan'' so we can begin work on
responsible solutions to help ease this strain.
Today, the national average for regular unleaded now stands
at $3.51 per gallon, according to AAA, which is $1.18 higher
than it was at the start of the 110th Congress--a more than
50 percent increase. In fact, gas prices rose more in the
last 15 months than they did in the six years prior to
Democrats taking control of both Houses of Congress in
January 2007.
In the midst of a slowing economy, falling home values and
soaring costs of living, this is a heavy premium for working
families to bear.
Americans, particularly those in suburban and rural
communities, are paying more simply to commute to work each
day. America's truckers, faced with the prospect of paying
$1,200 to fill up a tank that just a few years ago cost $600,
must now consider taking less work or going out of business
altogether. We have seen reports of school districts where
filling up buses is already costing as much as $70,000 more
than originally budgeted.
Once a nightmare scenario, $4 gasoline is now a very real
possibility of becoming a summer staple. In some cities,
including San Francisco and Chicago, it is already a
startling reality.
We noted with great interest, then, that on several
occasions you have announced the existence of a Democratic
plan to lower gas prices. In fact, it was two years ago this
week, on April 24, 2006, when you pledged that ``Democrats
have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas
prices.'' Just two weeks after that, you stated that
Democrats had ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price
at the pump.''
Yet 15 months into the 110th Congress, you have yet to
reveal this ``commonsense plan.''
House Republicans stand ready to work with you and our
Democratic colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to address
America's energy crisis. As part of that effort, we
respectfully request that you reveal the ``commonsense plan''
to lower gas prices you promised two years ago. The ability
to fully consider its provisions, details and costs--
including any proposed new taxes on gasoline or energy as we
have seen in the past--is critical if we are to effectively
serve our constituents facing ever-increasing prices at the
pump.
We appreciate your timely reply to this request.
Sincerely,
John Boehner, Republican Leader; Roy Blunt, Republican
Whip; Adam Putnam, Conference Chairman; Thaddeus
McCotter, Policy Committee Chairman; Kay Granger,
Conference Vice-Chair; John Carter, Conference
Secretary; Tom Cole, Chairman, National Republican
Congressional Committee; Eric Cantor, Chief Deputy
Whip; David Dreier, Rules Committee Ranking Republican.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous
question at the appropriate time so we can consider ideas for lowering
prices at the pump.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Let me simply say this bill is intended to increase the small
business set-aside for these research programs. That does no harm for a
large agency whose budget has been rising, such as the Department of
Defense, but it can do immeasurable harm to the crown jewel of our
research agencies in this country, the National Institutes of Health.
If we were to do what this bill does to NIH, it would result in $187
million less being available for traditional medical research grants at
medical research centers and universities. I think that that is not a
good idea. The President's budget has already reduced the number of
grants that NIH will be able to provide by almost 500 grants. This will
add about another 500 grant reduction to the President's budget. That
would mean that we would be supporting a grant level for the
traditional NIH grants at about 1,100 grants fewer than was the case in
2007. I think that is a very bad idea. Therefore, when the bill comes
before us, I would urge support of the Ehlers amendment, which will
correct the problem with respect to the National Institutes of Health.
I know that some people will say, ``Well, we're not reducing the
number of grants, we're simply shifting the nature of grants from
traditional grants to small business grants.'' But the fact is that the
success rate for small business grants under this bill is expected to
rise to 52 percent whereas the success rate for applications for
traditional NIH grants is expected to decline to 18 percent. That is a
disparity that the scientific community and the country at large simply
cannot afford.
NIH believes that there will not be sufficient high-quality grants
under the small business set-aside to pass peer review over time, and
that means they would simply have to lapse back precious research money
that could be used for heart disease, for Parkinson's, for cancer,
things like that.
So I would strongly urge, when this bill comes before us, to vote for
the Ehlers amendment as a way to address that balance.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr.
Dreier of California.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
``A commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gasoline prices.''
That's what my friend from Pasco just quoted my California colleague,
our distinguished Speaker, as having said 2 years ago tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at what has taken place over that 2-year
period of time, we know, and I will tell you that as a driver and a
representative of people who drive the freeways of southern California,
we've seen gas prices skyrocket over the past 2 years.
{time} 1300
There's no plan put forward.
We're very proud of the fact that we have a plan. I just had the
privilege of talking to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) about
some of the challenges that we face. Obviously, I believe that
environmentally sound exploration in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife
Reserve, is the responsible thing for us to do. The Outer Continental
Shelf is what we need to pursue. There's this potential of a great new
shale find in North Dakota.
And then one of the interesting things that Mr. Shimkus and I were
just discussing is the fact that it, of course, has been three decades,
three decades, since we have seen the construction of any new refinery
in this country and, of course, three decades since we have seen the
construction of any nuclear power facility. We all know that nuclear
power is the cleanest, safest, most cost-effective energy source
around.
These are the kinds of responsible things that we are proposing, Mr.
Speaker. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have consistently stood in the way of every single one of those very
responsible measures.
And pursuing alternative sources is something else that we strongly
support. Coal to liquid, those are the kinds of things that we need to
be doing.
Now, what is it that we are doing here with this rule? We are, of
course, talking about small business issues, but we know the
overwhelming concern of our constituents today is this problem of
skyrocketing gasoline prices.
So when we move to defeat the previous question, Mr. Hastings, my
friend from Pasco, is going to seek to offer an amendment to this rule.
The amendment will simply say that any Member, any Member, who has a
proposal that will deal with providing a commonsense plan to address
the problem of skyrocketing gas prices will be able to offer that
amendment here on the House floor. So all we're asking our colleagues
to do is to amend this rule by defeating the previous question so that
we will be able to deal with one of the most pressing concerns that our
constituents are asking us to address.
[[Page H2580]]
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that
we will allow our Members to step up to the plate and offer these very,
very thoughtful solutions or anything that our friends on the other
side of the aisle might seek to offer as an amendment that would, in
fact, allow this to happen.
I thank, again, my friend for yielding.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the Chair of the
Subcommittee on Research.
Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know how we got on the subject of gasoline
prices because we're here to talk about SBIR and STTR. But if we want
to talk about the price of gasoline, I think that the reason why we
have $4-a-gallon gasoline is because this administration got us into an
unnecessary war in Iraq and that drove up the price of gasoline at
least $2 a gallon. So if you want to talk about gasoline, let's talk
about the war in Iraq.
Now let's return to the subject of SBIR and STTR. The last time that
we authorized either one of these problems, the SBIR program, was in
the 106th Congress. The bill was marked up by the Small Business
Committee and discharged by the Science Committee. I would note that
the bill was not even referred to a subcommittee of the Science
Committee. The bill then proceeded to the floor under a suspension of
the rules. And we all know that as a suspension bill, there was
absolutely no opportunity to offer an amendment to the underlying
legislation.
Again, the last time that we authorized STTR, which was in the 107th
Congress, the bill was marked up by the full Small Business Committee
and discharged by both the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards and by the full Science Committee without any Science
Committee markup. The bill then proceeded to the floor under a
suspension of the rules, and again there was absolutely no opportunity
to amend the bill.
What do we have today? We have 17 amendments on the floor. We have 17
amendments made in order by the Rules Committee here on the floor.
Who's running an open process?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WU. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Two points: 415 Members of this House are denied an opportunity to
offer an amendment because this is a structured rule, number one.
Number two, I would hope that my friend from Oregon would join me in
voting to defeat the previous question because he has a view on why gas
prices are high. If we have an open debate on that, he'll have his
opportunity to make that argument and perhaps offer legislation that
would lower the price of gasoline. That is precisely what I'm going to
be asking my colleagues to do in defeating the previous question so
they'll have that opportunity. I hope the gentleman will join with me
in that regard.
Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, with 17 amendments made in
order under this structured rule, which I support, I think the
gentleman and I will have plenty of time to share on the floor today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WU. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
But my point is that when the gentleman was talking about the rising
price of gas, he has an opinion as to why gasoline prices have risen.
We haven't had a debate on this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional
minute on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say that we haven't had a debate,
and this is an opportunity to debate this issue. And I hope the
gentleman will join with me in voting to defeat the previous question
so we can have his ideas on what would lower the price of gasoline,
along with other ideas being debated.
That would not take away, would not take away at all, the ability to
debate only those 17 amendments that you said were made in order. But
the fact still remains 415 Members of this body do not have a chance to
perfect this bill as they see fit.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. WU. Seventeen amendments is obviously 17 times any one amendment
to the SBIR bill. Now last time there were zero amendments; so it's
infinitely better than what happened last time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, under
suspension of the rules, there is generally agreement between both the
minority and the majority. If the gentleman was upset then, he could
have very easily have defeated the bill and brought it up under a
special rule.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Seventeen amendments were ruled in order. But I can tell you one that
wasn't: It was one that I offered. It would have been simple to do it.
If we are going to make seventeen amendments in order, why not make
this one?
I offered an amendment that would simply have prevented any funds
appropriated to the Federal agencies that must participate in these
grant programs from being used for earmarks.
Now last week we had a bill called the Beach bill. It came under an
open rule; so I couldn't be blocked from offering a similar amendment
saying no funds authorized in this bill could be used for earmarks. I
offered that amendment and it received overwhelming support. It passed
by a 2-1 margin. I believe more than half of the Democrats voted for it
and an overwhelming number of Republicans. Why wouldn't we allow that
amendment to be offered here?
We have programs here, grant programs, and it's conceivable there
could be 5,000 or 6,000 grants offered under this program. The
temptation is going to be, as it is with all of the other accounts that
we have earmarked in this place, to earmark it, for Members to simply
set it aside and say I want this grant to go to one of my constituents
or somebody else. And for those who say we haven't traditionally done
that with this program, well, we didn't traditionally do it with the
Homeland Security bill either. For the first 3 years that it came to
the floor, some $32 billion, none of it was earmarked. But last year
about $750 million was earmarked, more than 600 earmarks, nearly all of
them air-dropped in at the last moment. So we have a habit around here
of discovering a pot of money that can be earmarked for our own
political purposes.
I know that the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file Members in
this body don't want this to happen because it's typically those
Members in a leadership position or a committee Chair position or some
Member of seniority that typically benefits more than other Members.
But I was denied that ability to bring that amendment to the floor
today, and I would submit that the more we allow bills like this to
come to the floor without amendments being offered like this, the more
we're going to suffer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, as we allow authorization bills to come to the floor and
we don't have a prohibition about the money being appropriated later
from being earmarked, we are going to see them earmarked. That has been
the trend around this place in recent years. That trend is not just
continuing; it is accelerating, with the Homeland Security bill, as I
mentioned.
So I would appeal to everyone to vote down this rule. Let's bring
back a rule that allows a broader scope of amendments, ones that will
actually preclude all of the grants authorized in this bill from being
earmarked for political purposes.
And with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
[[Page H2581]]
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is a small business bill. Let me tell
you why this is relevant. The biggest challenge to small businesses in
America today is the high cost of energy. Let me say that again. The
biggest challenge to America's small businesses today is the high cost
of energy.
Here's an article from a paper: ``Independent Truckers,'' they're
small businessmen, ``Join Strike.'' Why? Over $4 a barrel for diesel,
$4 a gallon for diesel fuel. They can't operate. You wonder why food
prices are going up? Gas prices are too high.
What has the Democrat majority done? Nothing.
This is a great opportunity to bring all our collective ideas, put
legislation in front of the American people, and say let's vote on
bills that will affect and lower the cost of gasoline.
Now, the Democrats should be happy about this because Speaker Pelosi
promised in April of 2006 that the Democrats have a commonsense plan to
help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. In 2006. We're still waiting
for the plan.
In fact, there is a plan. The plan is this: The plan is for the
barrel of crude oil to go up. When the Democrats took the majority, it
was $58 a barrel. What is it today? It's $117.36. When you have no
plan, you plan to fail.
You want to help small businesses? Bring an energy bill to the floor
that brings on more supply.
Look at what it has done at the gas pump. You've heard the
terminology: ``Pelosi premium.'' The price of a gallon of gasoline when
the Democrats took over: $2.33. What is it today? It's $3.53. Add to
that climate change legislation, Chairman Dingell wants to bring to the
floor 50 cents in additional cost to a gallon of gas. Right now that
would be $4 a gallon. And we know when we get to the summer driving
season, it's going to be $4. Add 50 cents: $4.50 a gallon. What do the
Democrats bring to the floor? They bring nothing to the floor. Nothing.
Do we have plans? Actually, we have a bipartisan majority if the
leadership would bring a bill to the floor. We have a bipartisan
majority, most of the Republicans would vote for it, we'd get 40 or 50
Democrats, to move more supply, more supply like opening up the Outer
Continental Shelf, more supply like coal-to-liquid technology, more
supply like expanding nuclear power, more supply by going after the oil
shale, more supply by going after our marginal oil wells. We can bring
more supply.
We're the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't use
its resources. That's why we import all this crude oil. We don't use
our resources. Coal to liquid, in Illinois alone, 250 years worth of
fossil fuel. We could turn that into liquid fuel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional
minute.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I know the liberal left and the environmentalists don't
like coal. I know that. And they tout Kyoto. I know that. They tout our
European friends.
The New York Times today: ``Europe Turns to Coal Again.'' Europe
turns to coal.
When is this body going to turn to coal to solve our energy prices?
{time} 1315
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
certainly come to the floor today in support of the Small Business
Innovative Research Act, and if some of the amendments, particularly
the one offered by my friend on the other side, Mr. Welch, is approved,
and maybe a couple of other amendments, I definitely plan to support
this bill.
But in regard to this rule, Mr. Speaker, I am fully supportive of my
colleague from Pasco, my former colleague on the Rules Committee, that
says we want to defeat this previous question to give Members an
opportunity to come to this floor and talk about something that indeed
is more of a crisis than what we do with our Small Business Innovative
Research Grants, although that is important. So that is the reason why
I will vote in favor of defeating the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, the promises that were made, and I just want to show, if
my colleagues will look at this chart, the day George Bush was sworn
into office as President, the price of regular gasoline was $1.49. Two
years ago, about 2 years ago, the day that Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as
Speaker, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $2.33, and
today, 15 months into her leadership, gas prices have spiked at $3.50 a
gallon for regular, a $1.30 increase in my home State of Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, this is really unacceptable, it's downright deplorable,
especially when the new Democratic majority and the new Speaker of the
House campaigned and made a pledge that they would bring down the price
of gasoline. Instead of bringing it down, Mr. Speaker, look what has
happened. This is not a linear growth, this is an unbelievable
exponential growth.
So as part of this changing of the rule if we defeat the previous
question, it would require, Madam Speaker, within 5 days, she's had 15
months, but it would require her within 5 days to bring a bill to
provide a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.
The previous gentleman from Illinois had some great ideas; the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) had some great ideas. There
are so many Members that could come to this floor on both sides of the
aisle and give some amendments and some ideas that would truly bring
down our dependence on foreign oil. Right now, 60 percent of our usage
comes from either the Middle East or from Venezuela.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My good friend, my
subcommittee Chair on the Science Committee, made a comment. He said,
the reason for the skyrocketing price of gasoline is because of what is
going on in the Middle East; this war that we are waging in Iraq.
Well, I would like to point out to him that the production of oil
from Iraq today is exactly what it was prior to the war 5 years ago
commencing. And that is about 2.5 million gallons a day from Iraq. So
the price of oil has nothing to do with that. It absolutely has nothing
to do with it. We are going to control this with some of the ideas, the
coal-to-liquid idea that Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois, just
talked about. We are going to help solve this problem by licensing some
new nuclear power plants.
As the former chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, the
gentleman from California, talked about, yes, we are going to look at
solar, we are going to look at wind. We certainly, as our minority
party, now former majority party, have tried so hard to get us to
explore for more oil and gas in this country. ANWR could produce
another 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, and drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf, why are those things blocked?
It's time for us to do something about it, and I am glad that the
gentleman from Washington is going to ask all Members to vote against
the previous question and let's give an opportunity for Members to come
down and give their ideas.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9 minutes. The gentleman
from Vermont has 22 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H2582]]
I rise to raise an issue about Small Business Innovation Research
funding and also Small Business Technology Transfer Research funding.
This bill which is coming up before us increases SBIR by 20 percent and
increases STTR by 100 percent. These increases seem totally out of line
to me, particularly since that money comes out of the research budgets
of the other agencies of the Federal Government. I have offered an
amendment, which I am very grateful to the Rules Committee for making
in order, which would remove those increases.
Let me explain why it is important to remove those increases. It is
because the money for those is taken away from the current fundamental
research programs of the Federal Government. In fact, these increases
will remove $650 million from the other research funds at various
agencies. Just to give an example that we are talking about real money
here, note that just for NIH alone, at a time when agency funding
increases are below inflation level and we are simply not putting
enough money into health research, this particular change in SBIR and
STTR will reduce the NIH budget by $185 million.
Now we would not think if a proposal came to the floor to directly
reduce NIH and NSF funding, we would not even think about bringing it
to the floor or even bringing it up for a vote. Yet this particular
provision was put in the Small Business bill without the full consent
of the Science Committee. It was presented to us in such a short time
span, we couldn't even have a meeting of or mark-up by the full Science
Committee, which happens to have jurisdiction over this particular
payment. We managed to have a hearing before a subcommittee, and that
was the extent of the Science Committee's involvement.
I think this was done without full thought and I don't believe any of
my colleagues are interested in reducing the funding for the National
Science Foundation, or the Department of Defense, or the NIH at a time
like this.
So I thank the Rules Committee again for putting this motion in
order. I also wanted to say my amendment is supported by the
Association of American Universities, the American Association of
Medical Colleges, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology, the National Association of State Land-Grant Colleges, and
also the National Academy of Sciences. I urge my colleagues to support
my amendment.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I believe it's April Fools Day here on the floor of the
House. To hear the members of the GOP, the Grand Old Oil Party, talking
about how they are there for the consumers, they want to do something
to help American consumers, the same party that benefits
disproportionately from massive campaign contributions from the oil and
gas and coal industries, the same party that holds the White House,
with two oil men in the White House, the same party that on the Senate
side defeated our energy provisions because they would have, God
forbid, made the oil and gas companies pay taxes like other members of
the corporate community. It would have taken away subsidies.
They are crying crocodile tears about the massive profits their
buddies are making. They are campaign contributors, they are sponsors,
and the President, the oil man, the Vice-President, the oil man supply
services company.
Now there's a few things we could do. The President is a big free
trader. He is trying to push us into more free trade agreements. He
says they work great. He wants rules-based trade. Well, we are in the
WTO. They have rules. The rules say you cannot restrict the supply of a
commodity simply to drive up the price. That is what OPEC is doing. Now
five members of OPEC are in the WTO.
Will this President, the oil man, the friend of the Saudis and the
others, will he file a complaint with the World Trade Organization
against OPEC? No. I wrote to him 3 years ago asking him to do that. The
answer was no. The Saudis and the OPEC countries want to get together
to collude and drive up the price of oil. That is just fine with George
Bush. He is all for free trade and rules-based trade, except when the
rules might hurt some of his buddies, and then the oil industry just
piggybacks on top of that.
Now there is another thing they could do. They could help us with the
provision we put in the farm bill, which is stalled in the Senate,
which would close the Enron loophole. Remember Enron? Ken boy, the
President's favorite guy. He just died before he went to jail. Well,
the Enron boys convinced the Republican Congress to give them a special
loophole, to deregulate energy commodities to allow for massive
speculation. And there is widespread agreement in the financial
community that about 50 cents of the price that is being paid at the
pump today is being paid purely because of speculation brought about by
the Enron loophole.
You really want to do something about the high price of oil? Help us
close the Enron loophole. Get your President to file a complaint
against OPEC for colluding to drive up the price of oil. Help strip out
the taxpayer subsidies to the oil, coal, and gas industry. You're
taking it out of their wallets while you take it out of their pockets
at the pump.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee,
Mr. Sessions.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard an argument. That is okay. I
can understand that people want to blame President Bush for things. But
the fact of the matter is that the pressure on this issue comes
directly to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party that absolutely
cuts America off from being energy independent. They are the people,
not OPEC, that have caused America to have to go to OPEC to get our
oil. And in the time when there is competition for this oil because we
don't produce our own here in the United States, of course you're going
to pay more money.
To blame this on George Bush, when in fact it is the Democratic Party
that has shut off America from energy independence, from the ability
that it has to go, just one case, to the Arctic Wildlife Reserve to be
able to get millions and millions of barrels of oil that reside within
our own United States. We are the ones, as a result of the Democratic
Party, that have to go to OPEC to buy the fuel we need.
It is an absolutely ridiculous argument to blame George Bush when in
fact it was Bill Clinton as President who vetoed the bill which would
have given us millions of barrels of oil back in 1995, available to
consumers today. It is the Democratic Party and the ability from the
Speaker, the current Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, to follow what
we have with their public policy to make sure that Americans are paying
more at the pump today. But you can't blame George Bush.
Let's put the blame where it really is, and that is America is not
energy independent. We have to go to other places, we have to get oil,
and the world wants the same thing from that marketplace. So rather
than throwing insults at each other, why don't we do something about
it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
What we need to do is have a real live debate on this floor where we
figure out that America should become energy independent. That means we
would be able to not only produce the oil and the energy from this
country, but we would be able to have the jobs that come from that.
I believe the charge that is equally fair today is to say that it is
Ms. Pelosi's public policy that built Dubai. We should quit building
Dubai.
{time} 1330
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 3 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Vermont very much.
We welcome this debate. We welcome a debate on the Bush-Republican
energy policy. Let's begin with a brief review of where the price of
oil was back when President Bush was sworn in as President. It was $27
a barrel. That is what President Clinton, that is what
[[Page H2583]]
Vice President Gore, handed over to President Bush, $27 a barrel oil.
Now let's look at what the price of a barrel of oil was yesterday: $119
a barrel for oil. So President Bush and Vice President Cheney, they
might not know a lot about other issues, but you would think oil policy
they would understand.
Well, this is what you get after 8 years of a Bush-Cheney Presidency,
abetted and aided for 6 of those years by a Republican Congress.
Let's even take it further. Let's take it to the next step. Let's
look at oil company profits. Let's just take the big five oil companies
in the United States, led by ExxonMobil. Well, the cumulative profits
of all five companies in 2001 was $37 billion. All five of the big oil
companies cumulatively made $37 billion.
Now let's look at last year. Last year, those five oil companies made
$123 billion in profits. And ExxonMobil alone made $42 billion, the
largest profit of any corporation in American history, exceeding the
total amount of all of those oil companies' profits in 2001.
So what has happened after 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration
is that they have allowed Big Oil and OPEC to take the American
consumer and tip him upside down at the gasoline pump every single day,
shaking money out of their pockets.
And looking over at this strategic asset that was built by the
American people, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now has 700
million barrels of oil in it, as the American people say to the
President, please deploy this weapon which the American people have to
protect the American economy and the American consumer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
The Bush administration continues to purchase 70,000 barrels of oil a
day from Big Oil and OPEC. They are doing it today, buying it at $119 a
barrel, buying it today, even though it makes no economic sense. We
shouldn't be contributing to this speculation, which is driving up the
price of oil. Instead, what the Bush administration should be doing is
taking some of that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 700 million barrel
asset, and beginning to deploy it as a weapon against the speculators
who are driving the price of oil up and driving our economy into the
ground.
The Bush administration won't do either. They won't stop buying oil
at $119 a barrel and they won't at the same time use this asset now
that is supposed to be there to protect the health of the American
economy and deploying it in a way which, I will tell you, it will prick
the speculative bubble almost immediately and begin to drive down the
price of oil. That is only something that the President can do, if he
determines that there is an economic emergency in our country, if he
believes that our country is being adversely affected by high energy
prices. That is a decision that can only be made in the Oval Office.
Obviously, the Bush administration, having seen the price rise from
$27 a barrel to $119 a barrel, still does not believe that we are
absent any energy policy, still believes that it is a free market and
that OPEC and big oil are operating in a free market and that is just
the natural price of oil.
But here is the interesting testimony before the Select Committee on
Energy Independence last week.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. When I asked the number two executive at ExxonMobil what
he was doing with his $42 billion worth of profits last year in terms
of investing in renewable energy resources, the CEO said that he was
going to invest $10 million in renewable energy resources. $42 billion
worth of profit, $10 million going into renewable energy resources.
When I said to him, you know, the Bush administration and the
Republican Congress gave you $18 billion worth of additional tax breaks
3 years ago and now at $119 a barrel you don't need them anymore, can
we take those and give them as tax breaks for renewable energy
resources, all of the oil executives said, no, we want the tax breaks.
We don't want that to go over to renewables. And, secondly, we love our
profits, and we are not going to invest them in renewables.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. That is a recipe for continued abject subservience to
this oil industry and to OPEC. The President has to get aggressive on
deploying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, stopping his policy of
buying $119 barrel oil, 70,000 barrels a day from OPEC and Big Oil.
Secondly, we need a new policy on getting aggressive on renewable
energy, which the Republican majority for 12 years and the Bush White
House has turned a blind eye to. And that is why we are in the mess
that we are in today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from
Washington has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Vermont
has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Vermont.
I am here as a new Member of Congress because my constituents, like
millions of others around the country, figured out what was happening
here in the United States Congress for the last 12 years, that the
priority was to pad the pockets of the oil companies at the detriment
of American consumers.
They have also figured out what has been happening here on the floor
of the House of Representatives for the last year-and-a-half. As this
Democratic majority has passed legislation cracking down on price
gougers, as this Democratic majority has passed legislation going after
the multinational oil cartels, as this Democratic Congress has passed
legislation repealing the billions of dollars in subsidies for the oil
companies and turning them around into ordinary subsidies for ordinary
Americans to try to put renewable resources and energy in their home,
we have done it all without help from the President, we have done it
all without almost any help from the Republicans.
That is why there are so many new Members of Congress ready to set a
new direction on energy policy, and that is why it is time for the
Republican minority to join the Democrat in setting a new energy policy
for this country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I find this debate of the last three Members absolutely
incredible. All we have heard from the last three speakers is the
problems, but we have heard no solutions.
So I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question,
we can debate solutions on the floor of this House. I would hope that
all of those, especially the last three speakers on the other side,
would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question so they can
offer their solutions so we can debate them on the floor of the House.
That is the sum and total of defeating the previous question.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am proud to come to the floor to talk about solutions that the
Democratic Party has put forth and this House has tackled in the last
year. But let's not try to rewrite history, as we see being done on the
other side.
Let's remember when President Bush came to office in 2001, crude oil
sold at $25.88 a barrel. When the Iraq war began, that terrible,
misguided war, crude oil was $35 a barrel. Gas was approximately $1.56.
In my district today, gas is $3.56. Crude oil is over $119. That is
what the Republican policies have brought us, a bad war and gas and oil
that we cannot afford.
The Energy Information Agency says gas will be $4 this summer. Diesel
is already $4. So what have the GOP and this President said they are
going to
[[Page H2584]]
do? Remember? He is going to jawbone his friends the Saudis to produce
more oil so we would have it here in this country.
Oh, he jawboned all right. He jawboned all the way up to record
prices, record profits, where ExxonMobil can pay its CEO a $400 million
pension with $44 billion in profits last year. Oh, boy, they jawboned
all right. Their jawbone is chewing on our pocketbook and is hurting
the middle class in this country.
What have we done? The energy price gouging bill, H.R. 1252, which we
passed last May 284-141. One hundred forty-one on the other side
wouldn't even vote for us to stop the gouging of prices that we see day
in and day out. This legislation would have provided the Federal Trade
Commission with the authority to investigate and prosecute those who
engage in price gouging, predatory pricing and other unfair practices.
I don't know about you, but I am tired of seeing gas go up 30 cents
like it did earlier this month in my district. One day, 30 cents. Now,
if that is not excessive pricing, predatory price gouging, I don't know
what it is.
Let's take a look at the PUMP Act, a piece of legislation we have
been working on since April of 2006, and we have plenty of cosponsors.
We had a hearing last December, December 12. What did they say? Pass
the PUMP Act to prevent the unfair manipulation of prices. Professor
Greenberg said we could save $30 a barrel. For every barrel of oil that
comes into this country, we can save $30 by getting the speculators out
of the market.
Why do we continue to allow speculators to run this country? They
sure did a good job with mortgages, didn't they, with the subprime
mortgages. That is why the values of our properties have gone down. Now
the speculators are in the oil field, in the energy field. And why is
that? Because of a little thing when the Republicans were in charge
called the Enron loophole. The Enron loophole in 2005 allowed the
speculators to come into the energy field, and therefore they have run
up the price. What did the hearings show?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Ninety-five to 98 percent of those playing in this market
have no intentions of taking possession of oil or providing a product.
They are there for one reason, to rake all the profits off the American
people that they can through their excessive speculations.
This Democratic Congress has also passed a Renewable Energy Tax Act
to help lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources.
Look. Since this war started in Iraq, everything has doubled and
tripled. We have heard nothing from the other side. This Democratic
Congress continues to do things to try to curb the abuses we find in
the energy field, that we find in manipulation of prices and
speculation. We will continue to work towards that.
To come down here and somehow try to rewrite history, it is just not
going to work. It is important to note that tax breaks that are
eliminated in the Renewable Energy Tax Act are equivalent to less than
1 percent of the oil companies' net income, but yet they complain.
{time} 1345
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan just made the case for me one
more time to defeat the previous question so that the gentleman could
offer some solutions.
I just want to remind everybody, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago tomorrow,
then Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi said: We have a commonsense
plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. We have real solutions
to lower the price at the pump.
When the Democrats took over, the price at the pump was $2.33. Now,
it is $3.51.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself another 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question we can discuss and
debate those solutions. That is all I am asking Members to do. I am not
taking sides, I am not saying their ideas are bad. I am just saying we
have an opportunity to debate those solutions.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I just had a meeting I think is relevant to
this conversation. I just met with the leaders of the Phoenix Motor Car
Company of Ontario, California. They hope to bring out an all-electric
car that will go 120 miles on one charge. You can charge your car for
$3 and not use a drop of gasoline.
Now they could use a little assistance from Uncle Sam to bring these
products to market as quickly as possible, and we on this side of the
aisle proposed some bills to do that because we wanted to take the 21
billions of dollars that this side of the aisle wants to give to the
oil and gas companies in tax breaks and give those tax breaks to
consumers and companies so that we can get all-electric cars, so we can
break our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. That is a solution. You want
solutions? You can't handle solutions. We gave you a solution: Let's
get electric cars on the road. We have a bill to do that. And if we can
get some help there from the other side of the aisle, then the
President will make this happen.
I will give you another company, the Astro Solar Energy Company. They
can produce electricity just by solar thermal power. We wanted to give
them some help to do that, this side of the aisle blocked it because
they wanted to help some friends in the oil and gas industry.
So those are the long-term solutions. But I wanted to mention a
short-term solution. Tell me why on this green earth we do not have the
oil and gas industry futures market protected and governed by the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission? We want them to put them under
the regulation of that, have transparency. We regulate the orange,
wheat, and soybean futures market; this market ought to be regulated as
well. This side of the aisle stands to do that; 36 Democrats are on the
bill to do that, Mr. Stupak's bill. We have only got two Republicans.
We welcome Republicans to get in the solutions business. Help us pass
this bill.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate my friend for yielding. I
just simply want to say, and you make my case. If you have these
solutions, defeat the previous question and we can have a debate on
that.
Mr. INSLEE. We have solutions. What we don't have is a President in
the White House who will sign these bills or the Republicans who will
break a filibuster in the Senate. You have got a Presidential candidate
running this year who didn't vote to break the filibuster to give these
tax breaks to these all-electric and solar thermal companies. That is
what we need and we will get this job done.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I don't have any more time. I will yield on your time if
you like, Mr. Hastings. I will be happy to yield on your time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I took all of my time
because I was advised there were no speakers on the other side, so I
can't yield time right now.
Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I inquire once again of my
friend from Vermont if he has any more speakers.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am the last speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont has 5 minutes.
The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you for being so precise, Mr.
Speaker. I do appreciate that.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate, we have had a debate on the
problems. We haven't had a debate on the solutions. My motion then
would allow that to happen. So let me repeat, Mr. Speaker.
Two years ago, Speaker Pelosi promised Americans a Democrat plan to
lower gas prices at the pump. They
[[Page H2585]]
have controlled Congress for 15 months, but we still have not seen this
plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gas is setting record highs.
Under their leadership, the national average price of gas has
increased by $1.18. It is time for the House to debate ideas for
lowering gas prices. It is time for the Democrats to reveal their
plans.
Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend
the rule to allow any amendment be made in order on the underlying bill
that would, quote, have the effect of lowering the national average
price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.
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. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate, so that
we can consider these vitally important issues that America's families,
workers, truckers, small businesses, and our entire economy face with
these rising prices of gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I have mainly listened as this
debate has unfolded, and I have an observation. This is a sad
spectacle. The Congress of the United States has before it now a bill
that is intended to address an urgent need to provide research funding
for our small businesses.
Small business is the backbone of our economy, it is where most jobs
are created, it is where some of the best innovations occur, and where
our small businesses need some assistance to put together the financing
package required to explore innovative research and development ideas.
Our small businesses don't have the funds that are available oftentimes
through big venture capital operations. And what we are hearing in this
debate is a complete and utter disregard for the content of this bill
and, instead, turning it into a political debate that veers wildly away
from any truth about what the history of this whole gas crisis is.
Number one, the basic question before us is, are we going to help the
research and development needs of our small businesses? We believe it
is urgent that we do so, and we won't be deterred by what is now a
political argument.
Second, since our friends on the other side have made an accusation
that there has been Democratic culpability, almost a conspiracy, in
raising gas prices, I want to respond to the absurdity of that.
We have heard from our speakers how the price of a barrel of oil when
President Bush took over was $25, it is now $119. We know that the war
in Iraq, when it started, that catastrophic war, the price was $35, it
is now $119. But what we also know is that under the leadership of the
Republican Congress, we turned a blind eye on the Government's
responsibility to look out for the middle class. Why? We destroyed
regulatory oversight that is necessary to help folks pulling up with
their pickup truck to fill up their gas tank.
This Enron loophole, snuck in, in the middle of the night with the
complicity of a Republican Congress is, Mr. Speaker, and I say this
intentionally, unconscionable, unconscionable to meeting the needs of
average Americans who are trying to work hard and pay their bills.
Fifty cents at least in the price of a gallon of gasoline is because
the speculators, the hedge fund managers, are singing every day as they
make wire transfers to their bank accounts at the expense of everyday
Americans.
And my question is, why will not those who are expressing concern
about the cost of gasoline and how that impacts small business and
impacts our families, why will they not get behind Congressman Stupak
and support The PUMP Act, get rid of the Enron loophole? Why will they
not join with many of us who have sent letters to the President
imploring him to release the strategic petroleum reserve or at least
stop buying. One action would reduce, according to Goldman Sachs, the
cost of a gallon of gasoline by 25 cents. And then there is the
legislation that we passed that the Republicans voted against.
So what we have is an accusation made by people who every time they
have had an opportunity to take a concrete specific action that would
help, have said no, have said no to the Enron loophole reform, have
said no to The PUMP Act, have said no to stop buying in the strategic
petroleum reserves.
So it leaves me with a question. Is what we are hearing about
politics, or is it about policy? I have come to my own conclusion. But
we are here on a bill that is going to help small business. That is our
job. And our job in this rule should be to make that bill a better
bill, not to hijack what is a good bill and turn it into a political
food fight.
We have got two issues here that have been injected. One is, are we
going to help small business or not? There is broad bipartisan support.
The two committees of jurisdiction have done an excellent job.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1125 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution or the option of the previous question, it shall
be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the
proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of
lowering the national average price per gallon of regular
unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as
read, shall he debatable for thirty minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For
purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a
statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record
by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration
shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.
Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall
introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill
to provide a common sense plan to help bring down
skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the
appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1
of rule X.
____
(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.
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
[[Page H2586]]
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.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, 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. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
____________________