[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 71 (Thursday, May 1, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2953-H2956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1167 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1167
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of Thursday, May 1, 2008, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating
to the following measures:
(1) The bill (H.R. 5715) to ensure continued availability
of access to the Federal student loan program for students
and families.
(2) The bill (H.R. 493) to prohibit discrimination on the
basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance
and employment.
(3) A bill to provide for a temporary extension of programs
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 1167.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, as the Clerk just described, H. Res.
1167 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend
the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, May 1, 2008,
on legislation relating to the following three measures:
(1) H.R. 5715, to protect the Federal student loan program.
(2) H.R. 493, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.
(3) a bill to provide for a temporary extension of the farm bill.
The rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the
Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday,
Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be
considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize
consideration of these motions.
This is not an unusual procedure. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my
friends on the other side of the aisle reported
[[Page H2954]]
a number of rules that provided for additional suspension days.
This rule limits the suspension of rules to only these three time-
sensitive measures. This will help us move these noncontroversial, yet
important, legislative initiatives that have widespread bipartisan
support.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the
chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on September 28, 2006, the
Republicans were in the majority and the Democrats were in the
minority. I was managing a rule on the floor similar to what we are
considering here today to allow specific bills to be considered under
suspensions under the rule on a day that suspensions are not permitted
under House rules like today.
During debate on that day in September 2006, the then-ranking member
of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, stated, ``It isn't just what the
Congress has done with its time that is so disappointing. It is also
what the Congress has not done, all of the challenges it has not
addressed.''
Madam Speaker, the same can be absolutely said today about the
Democrat control of the House of Representatives. Earlier this year,
House Democrats approved a budget that included a tax hike of $683
billion, the largest in American history. Americans cannot afford the
Democrat plans to cut the child tax credit in half, to reinstate the
marriage penalty, and raise taxes on every single taxpayer. Instead of
record-breaking tax increases, this Congress should work to make those
tax cuts permanent.
I'm also dismayed that the Democrat-controlled House of
Representatives has not acted to extend the State and local sales tax
deduction to States that don't have State income tax. That tax expired
on January 1 of this year. The State and local sales tax deduction is
important for those States that don't have a State income tax, such as
my home State of Washington. Extending this deduction is a matter of
fairness that Congress must act to renew as soon as possible.
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives have also failed to
act to give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect
our country from new terrorist threats by modernizing the seventies-era
FISA laws. For over 74 days now, America has been hobbled in the vital
work to monitor terrorist communications and detect new plots despite
the fact that the Senate has approved a bipartisan plan and sent it
over to the House. House Democrat leaders have refused to allow the
House to vote on the Senate plan and have refused to go to conference
with the Senate.
Madam Speaker, why, I ask, why is an issue of this magnitude being
placed on the back burner by Democrat leaders, despite repeated
attempts by Republicans to allow the House to vote on this bipartisan
plan?
Madam Speaker, the Democrat-controlled House has also failed to
address perhaps the most pressing issue on the minds of Americans
today, rising gas prices.
{time} 1030
Democrat leaders may not like to hear it, but since they took control
of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of a gallon of gas has gone up
by over 50 percent. In fact, the cost of gas has gone up by more in 16
months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.
Instead, they have spent hours giving speeches trying to blame the
President and anyone but themselves for the fact that Congress has done
nothing to address rising gas prices. But, Madam Speaker, facts are
stubborn things.
And the facts are that gas prices have gone up over a dollar a gallon
on the Democrat Congress' watch. The facts are that Democrat leaders
promised the American people in 2006 that if they were to control
Congress that they had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower the price at
the pump.''
It's been 16 months of this Democrat Congress, and the promise is
nowhere to be seen. This Congress has put forward no plan, has taken no
action, and passed no bills to lower gas prices. They promised relief
at the pump to lower gas prices, and they've done nothing.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to insert into the Record an
article by Investor's Business Daily posted April 29, 2008, and it
states, ``This Congress is possibly the most irresponsible in modern
history. This is especially true when it comes to America's
dysfunctional energy policy.''
[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]
Congress Vs. You
Energy: President Bush let the Democrat-led Congress have
it with both barrels Tuesday, lambasting lawmakers for
fiddling while the energy crisis burns. It was a well-
deserved takedown of do-nothing lawmakers.
We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress
is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is
especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional
energy policy.
The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its
failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an
ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from
understanding how free markets and supply and demand really
work. Sad, but true.
So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling
out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-
ranging press conference Tuesday.
``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues
affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to
mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to
their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,
on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''
Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just
generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of
congressional energy inaction, including:
Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,
estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from
this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and
diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of
the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so
your representative can raise campaign cash.
Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one
since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''
fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem
at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price
spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.
Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with
advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems
have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--
the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total
energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their
power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are
expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at
$1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural
gas.
Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic
understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and
needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.
So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy
companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy
situation worse.
These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all
while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add
more than a million barrels of new demand each and every
year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand
growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.
Americans who are worried about the direction of their
country, including runaway energy and food prices, should
keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing
a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.
The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker
who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two
years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and
irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.
Madam Speaker, we all know that we must work together, Democrats,
Republicans, the House, the Senate and the President, to solve
America's pain at the pump. Until this happens, however, we should not
deny good ideas from being considered.
Therefore, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so that I can amend the rule to make in order any bill that
would ``have the effect of lowering the national average price per
gallon of regular unleaded gas.'' Let's defeat the previous question
and show America that Congress is serious about addressing the rising
cost at the pump.
With that, I reserve my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, since I will be the last speaker on
this side, I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield
myself the balance of the time.
[[Page H2955]]
Madam Speaker, Americans don't want a debate on the problems causing
gas prices to dramatically increase. They want a debate on solutions.
Therefore, as I stated a moment ago, I will be asking my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Members can offer
solutions that have the effect of lowering the national average price
per gallon of regular unleaded gas.
As I mentioned, 2 years ago, then-minority leader, now-Speaker Pelosi
promised Americans a Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump.
They have controlled Congress for 16 months, but we still have not seen
this plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gasoline is setting record highs. The
time is now for the House to debate ideas and solutions for lowering
gas prices, and it is time for the Democrats to reveal their plan that
they promised 2 years ago.
So, Madam Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to
amend the rule to allow any bill to be offered and considered under
suspensions of the rule that would have the effect of lowering the
national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted in 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. Madam 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.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, while I had not planned to be here at
this point to debate gas prices, I feel compelled to put a few things
on the record.
Everybody knows that ExxonMobil announced first quarter profits
totaling $11 billion, up 17 percent from last year and just shy of
record profits last quarter. BP announced profits increased 63 percent;
Royal Dutch-Shell 25 percent, and this increases the 5-year trend of
record oil profits.
While my colleagues say we have done nothing, the fact is that we've
done a great deal and they've almost consistently voted against it. For
example, we have tried more than once to take away the Federal
subsidies to these oil companies, to the big five, because they are
awash in money, and we see no reason for them to get more from the
taxpayers than they're already getting at the pump. That has been
consistently fought by both the Republican Party and the President. The
President calls for the same policies that he has done all along and
sort of hopes for the best. For the last 7 years, congressional
Republicans and President Bush doled out billions of dollars in
subsidies to the big oil companies, instead of working for an energy
independence plan for America which was rarely discussed even during
their tenure.
We're committed to a new direction. Speaker Pelosi has called on
President Bush to suspend purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve temporarily. That would go a long way toward helping us with
this. We have done this before, but President Bush says he doesn't
think it would affect the price.
On Friday, the New Direction Congress called on the Federal Trade
Commission to enforce the law and to investigate record gas prices and
possible market manipulation. Under the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, the FTC has the authority, but will not take it,
to exercise the power to protect the consumer from skyrocketing energy
costs. That is the Republican administration.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also included
landmark provisions to make cars and trucks more efficient and to
promote the use of more affordable American biofuels. The new fuel
standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels per
day by 2020, and it will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year
at the pump. That is under the Democrats in Congress.
We've also passed legislation in this House to crack down on oil
price gouging, to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and then,
as I said, to repeal the subsidies for profit-rich Big Oil so we can
invest in a renewable energy future. However, President Bush and the
Republicans block these efforts every step of the way.
Cracking down on oil price gouging was opposed by 140 Republicans in
the House, including all of the Republican leadership except Mr.
McCotter. Holding OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans,
including most of the Republican leadership, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Blunt,
Mr. Cole, Mr. Dreier, and Ms. Granger. Repealing subsidies to the
profit-rich oil companies and investing in renewable energy and energy
efficiency was opposed by 174 Republicans, almost unanimously,
including all of the Republican leadership. And in every case, the Bush
administration threatened to veto the bills. Unfortunately, Republicans
in the Senate refused to even let them become bills to go to the
President.
We have a good and sufficient record here. We have planned to do
more. We have done more than was done in the last 7 years to try to do
that.
With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the
rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1167 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
paragraph:
(4) Any bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would
have the effect of lowering the national average price per
gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.
____
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 form 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
[[Page H2956]]
for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and
allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer
an alternative plan.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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.
____________________