[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 113 (Thursday, July 10, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6349-H6355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1286, WASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU 
      REVOLUTIONARY ROUTE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL DESIGNATION ACT

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1317 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1317

       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. 1286) to amend the National Trails System Act 
     to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route 
     National Historic Trail. 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 equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Natural Resources. 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 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that 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 that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. 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 amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. 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.1286 
     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.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. 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 the consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 1317.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1317 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 1286, the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National 
Historic Trail Designation Act, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Natural Resources.
  The rule makes in order two germane Republican amendments that were 
submitted for consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee 
report.
  The rule also provides for the adoption of a germane Rules Committee 
amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report to clarify 
that the bill does not in any way limit access for hunting, fishing, 
trapping, or recreational shooting along the trail.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
  And, finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1286, amends the 
National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau 
Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.
  The trail extends approximately 600 miles, spanning nine States and 
the District of Columbia, tracing the routes taken by the armies under 
the command of General George Washington and French Count Rochambeau on 
their march from Newport, Rhode Island, to face the British forces 
under General Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia.
  After meeting in Philipsburg, New York, the combined armies traveled 
through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the future 
District of Columbia before arriving in Virginia.
  With a French fleet blocking the Chesapeake, barring British 
reinforcements from New York or a sea escape for Cornwallis' troops, 
the combined Continental and French armies' 3-week siege at Yorktown 
ended with General Cornwallis' surrender to General Washington on 
October 19, 1781.
  Historians regard the Battle of Yorktown as one of the most decisive 
events in bringing an end to the American Revolution and the beginning 
of a new and independent Nation known as America.
  H.R. 1286 is the carefully considered result of years of study by the 
National Park Service, which found that the trail is suitable and 
feasible for designation as a national historic trail.
  I would add that H.R. 1286 includes specific language protecting 
private property rights, prohibiting the Federal Government from 
acquiring any land or interest in land without the consent of the 
owner.
  In fact, the Park Service study found that ``no Federal acquisition 
of lands or interests in lands is proposed or anticipated.''
  H.R. 1286 also states that nothing shall prohibit or hinder the 
development, conveyance, or transmission of energy along the trail.
  Finally, there is a Rules Committee amendment to the bill that would 
clarify that Federal designation of the trail has no impact on State 
and local laws governing hunting, fishing, or trapping, or recreational 
shooting. This language is nearly identical to language that has 
already overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives.
  I would like to commend Chairman Rahall and Mr. Hinchey for bringing 
this widely supported legislation to the floor today so we can ensure 
that America's history is protected for future generations.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good 
friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and 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, last week on July 4, our 
country celebrated its 232nd birthday, and this week the liberal 
majority in the House of Representatives marks the worst record in our 
country's entire history when it comes to allowing open debate, 
following the rules, treating each Member with respect, and acting in 
an honest way.
  When control of the U.S. House changed a year ago last January, 
Democrat leaders promised, they promised, Madam Speaker, the American 
people that they would run the most open and honest House in history. 
They've not

[[Page H6350]]

kept that promise. In fact, they've done the exact opposite of what 
they promised the American people.
  Democrats have passed, to date, 59 closed rules, rules that prevent 
every single Representative from even being allowed to offer an 
amendment on the House floor. There are no amendments, Madam Speaker, 
allowed under a closed rule, as you know. That means open deliberation 
is nonexistent, and the bill is just forced through the House.
  These 59 closed rules are more than any Congress in the history of 
the United States, and every time we have a closed rule in the future, 
and we will, this liberal Congress will be setting a new record.
  The rule that the House is currently debating allows only two 
amendments to be offered by just two Members of the House. It closes 
off any opportunity for the other 433 Representatives to come to the 
floor and offer an amendment to modify or improve this legislation.
  Even more egregious is the fact that the Rules Committee set a 
deadline of 10 a.m. last Tuesday for Members to file amendments they 
may wish to offer on this bill. Yet, it wasn't until 4 hours later, 2 
p.m. on Tuesday, that the actual bill and report were filed in the 
House.
  But this pales in comparison to the Rules Committee action regarding 
an amendment that Mr. Bishop of Utah filed actually before the 10 a.m. 
Tuesday deadline.
  Mr. Bishop's amendment was aimed at protecting the second amendment 
rights of Americans along the new 600-mile trail that this bill would 
create. Instead of allowing Mr. Bishop to offer his amendment on the 
House floor, the Democrat Rules Committee took Mr. Bishop's amendment, 
altered it, then automatically added it to the bill without ever, ever 
consulting Mr. Bishop. This is not only an offense to Mr. Bishop, it is 
a threat to every Member in the House.
  Because Democrat leaders refuse to allow open debate under an open 
rule on the House floor, Members have only one way to get an amendment 
looked at, and that is for them to offer and submit an amendment to the 
Rules Committee for advance review.
  But now, Madam Speaker, it appears that all Members must be aware 
that the Rules Committee may take, co-opt, edit or otherwise pilfer and 
steal their amendments and ideas. Sadly, Representatives of this House 
may need to get a copyright on their amendments before submitting them 
to the Rules Committee.
  Now, Madam Speaker, to many across America this may seem like 
legislative inside baseball or petty parliamentary quarrels. But what 
this is really about is that the Democrat leaders are breaking their 
promise to the American people to run the most open and honest House in 
history. Instead, they are running the most closed and unfair House in 
our Nation's history.
  Yet, Madam Speaker, these broken promises should not distract us from 
the even more pressing matter on which Democrat leaders have also 
broken their promise. It was on April 24, 2006, that then-Minority 
Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a press release claiming that the House 
Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas 
prices.''
  Two weeks later, in May 2006, Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats 
have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.''
  Nancy Pelosi has now been Speaker of the House for over 18 months, 
and this plan, this promised plan, is nowhere to be seen. Gas prices 
continue to set record highs, and this House has been and continues to 
be blocked from voting on legislation that would lower gas prices by 
producing more American-made energy.
  Today, instead of voting on legislation to lower gas prices, the 
House is debating the bill to create a new 600-mile long scenic trail 
recognizing the Revolutionary War.
  Speaker Pelosi and other liberal leaders who control this House may 
oppose drilling in Alaska or offshore, they may oppose more nuclear 
power, they may oppose hydropower dams, and they may oppose other ways 
of making more American-made energy--and holding these positions, of 
course, is their right as Members of this House--but they should not, 
Madam Speaker, have the right to block the House from even having a 
debate and a vote on this important issue.
  Record gas prices are hurting Americans. It's hurting families. It's 
hurting seniors on fixed incomes. It's hurting college students. It's 
hurting small business owners and their enterprises. It's hurting 
schools who have to figure out how and what services to reduce to 
afford gasoline for their school buses. Yet these liberal leaders of 
this House refuse to allow an open debate on ideas to lower gas prices. 
They continue to block votes on drilling for oil in America that will 
increase supply and lower prices at the pump.
  Madam Speaker, our Nation needs to invest in more nuclear power. We 
need to invest in more clean and renewable hydropower, as well as wind 
and solar energy, and we need to foster development of biofuels, 
hydrogen fuel cell technology, and the invention of other potential 
clean energy products.
  Yet, Madam Speaker, we must recognize the fact that gasoline and 
diesel cannot be replaced overnight. New technologies and energy 
sources take time, sometimes years or decades to fully develop. Our 
economy is dependent on oil for Americans to get to work, for food to 
go from the farmer's field to the grocery store, to get kids to school 
safely and back home, to deliver the mail, to fly airplanes, to operate 
construction equipment, for police to patrol neighborhoods, and 
ambulances to transport patients.
  The price of gas has an enormous impact on the lives of Americans and 
families in every town, in every county, in every State in this 
country.
  Madam Speaker, I spent last week visiting school districts and small 
businesses throughout my central Washington district.

                              {time}  1045

  I listened to the heavy impacts that gas prices are having on my 
constituents in Yakima, Wenatchee, Cashmere, Moses Lake, Orondo, 
Richland, Union Gap and Pasco. Madam Speaker, the message I heard was 
loud and clear, that Americans are hurting because of high gas prices 
and this Congress needs to act. Americans can't afford a Congress that 
does nothing to increase the supply of American-made energy. If there 
is price gouging, Madam Speaker, it must be fully prosecuted. If 
speculators are trying to unfairly profit, we must stop them, also. And 
yet we must also tap into America's enormous oil and gas reserves.
  We have the resources right here in this country that can increase 
the supply of oil and reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, but our 
Nation's deep reserves have been put off-limits. With the national 
price of gas well over $4 a gallon--and it's over $4.29 a gallon in my 
district--Americans can't afford this off-limits policy any longer.
  Madam Speaker, consider this: Alaska's ANWR region contains an 
estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil; that's more than twice the 
proven reserves in the State of Texas. The oceans off America's 
coastline contain 240 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion 
barrels of oil. Federal lands contain an estimated 31 billion barrels 
of oil. Simple economics tells us that the way to combat rising prices 
due to high demand is to increase the supply, and obviously it is to 
tap into these known resources. Yet proposals to increase American oil 
and gas production have faced years of opposition. Drilling in a tiny 
portion of ANWR in Alaska, for example, has been blocked since 
President Bill Clinton vetoed a like proposal back in 1995, and we are 
now paying the price.
  It's time to stop saying no to solutions and start saying yes, not 
only to drilling for gas and oil, but to all parts of the answer, as I 
mentioned this previously, so let me repeat what I said earlier.
  We need to license and build more American refineries. We need to 
expand wind, solar, hydrogen fuel cells and other new energy sources, 
reduce fuel blend mandates that increase costs, and invest more in 
nuclear and hydropower.
  Now, Madam Speaker, it's interesting, some say we shouldn't bother 
because all of this will take years to produce results. Yet these same 
people claim that the answer is new Federal mandates, government 
control of the kind of car you want to drive and how far you can drive 
it, and pinning everything on the hope that a new technology 
breakthrough will eliminate

[[Page H6351]]

our dependence on oil. But Madam Speaker, that, too, takes time. But 
more importantly, such a course of action is not the American way, and 
it's a dangerous gamble that puts our economy at serious risk. We need 
to increase the supply of oil to decrease the price of gasoline, it's 
as simple as that. And we need to do it here in America. The longer we 
postpone producing more oil here, the longer we will pay higher gas 
prices.
  Americans are hurting, and yet there is not a single solitary piece 
of legislation that this House will consider this entire week that even 
remotely relates to producing more American-made energy and lowering 
gas prices.
  Americans are feeling the pain, and the liberal leaders of the House 
simply are not listening. They not only do nothing to help, but they 
block every attempt made to bring legislation to the floor that would 
help lower gas prices.
  So, Madam Speaker, once again, I will attempt this morning to bring 
energy legislation to the House floor for debate and vote. If my 
colleagues will join me in defeating the previous question, I will move 
to amend the rule to allow a debate and vote on legislation that will 
help produce more American-made energy. The House apparently has time 
to debate the creation of the 600-mile trail about the Revolutionary 
War, so let's make time for the House to vote on solutions to lower gas 
prices.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, my good friend, my colleague from 
Washington State, has once again leveled a litany of accusations and, 
as usual, the rhetoric does not equate with the reality that we see.
  Let's take the attacks one by one. There were a total of five 
amendments submitted to this rule, all by Republicans. Three amendments 
were submitted by Mr. Bishop of Utah, one by Mr. Flake of Arizona, and 
one by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico. Two amendments were made in order, 
Bishop No. 1 and Pearce No. 4. Two amendments were not germane to the 
bill and ruled out of order by the Parliamentarian, Bishop No. 3 and 
Flake No. 5. The subject matter contained in amendment No. 2 by 
Representative Bishop was already being addressed by a self-executing 
provision in the rule which was based on language previously adopted in 
this House by a vote of 416-5, rollcall vote 171, with all Republicans, 
including my good friend from Washington, voting in favor of the 
amendment.
  Let me take this opportunity to clear up what must be a further 
misunderstanding on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle.
  Contrary to what my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, would 
have us believe, the amendment was not the modified Bishop amendment. 
And I can assure you that the Rules Committee did not hijack any 
portion of the amendment submitted by our good friend and former member 
of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop). The 
provision in the rule was based on language passed on April 9, 2008 
during consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation 
System Act, and it was done to address a concern that a number of 
Members had about the bill. The amendment was offered by Mr. Altmire of 
Pennsylvania, was adopted with an overwhelming rollcall vote, as I said 
before, with every Republican voting in favor of the amendment. If you 
don't take my word for it, I would be happy to share the Rules 
Committee report from that bill, which contains the text of the 
amendment. And I have copies of the section of the Congressional Record 
that contain the debate and the vote on the Altmire amendment.
  I also want to point out that the self-executing language in the rule 
is not an unusual or unprecedented procedure. It was done numerous 
times when the other side was in the majority, as my good friend from 
California (Mr. Dreier) alluded to in committee testimony on Tuesday. 
It's a legitimate tool available to address concerns in a bill.
  The amendment that we are self-executing is nearly identical to the 
Altmire language. The Rules Committee believes that this language 
improves the bill. And it is entirely reasonable to self-execute 
language with a track record of overwhelming bipartisan support in the 
House. Those Members who don't like the language are perfectly able to 
vote against the rule.
  Now the question of gas prices. Certainly this is an important issue 
that has been addressed by this House a number of times. We have seen 
oil climb to record $145 a barrel, and we have also seen big oil 
companies continue to post record profits. Let's go over a few of the 
points that have happened in the past years.
  The President signed into law legislation including landmark 
provisions to make cars and trucks more fuel efficient and to promote 
more affordable American biofuels. That all happened because we passed 
it in this House and provided leadership on this. The new fuel 
standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels a day 
in 2020, one-half of the current U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf, 
and will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump.
  The House also passed legislation to suspend the filling of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And just this week, the Speaker called on 
the President to unilaterally start releasing oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve in order to try and bring down the cost of oil on the 
world market, a very responsible proposal.
  We have also voted to invest in home-grown American biofuels in the 
farm bill. We voted to provide tax incentives for renewable energies 
and energy efficiency and plug-in vehicles, and creating hundreds and 
thousands of green jobs. We further voted to reduce public transit 
fares for commuters pinched by the pump. We voted to crack down on oil 
price gouging, and in fact we're looking into more of that. We've 
directed the CFTC to use its full authority to curtail excessive 
speculation in the markets and other practices which may be distorting 
the energy market. In fact, the Ag Committee, as we speak, is meeting 
to look into this matter and plans another hearing tomorrow. We have 
voted to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and we have called 
on the repeal of subsidies to profit-rich Big Oil so we can invest in 
renewable energy futures.
  Further, I think it's important for us, as Members, to look at who, 
in fact, is moving to block the lowering of our prices at the pump. A 
general blanket statement that we can make, that I have observed, is 
you put oil people in the White House and you can expect oil prices to 
go up. President Bush and Republicans have blocked virtually every step 
that we have tried to make to lower gas prices for the American people. 
Some of these steps have been:
  Cracking down on oil price gouging, which was opposed by 140 
Republicans the first time and 145 Republicans the second time, 
including all the Republican leadership.
  The Democrats in the House proposed ``use it or lose it'' for oil 
companies holding permits and not drilling. There are 68 million acres 
that are available for lease right now and to be drilled upon. That 
use-it-or-lose-it provision that was sponsored by House Democrats was 
opposed by 176 Republicans.
  The motion to hold OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans the 
first time and by 82 Republicans the second time, including most of the 
Republican leadership.
  The proposal repealing subsidies to profit-rich oil companies and 
investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency was opposed by 174 
Republicans, including every member of the Republican leadership.
  Increasing Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight authority 
to prevent manipulation of energy prices, which was in the farm bill, 
was opposed by 94 Republicans.
  The Bush administration has vetoed or threatened to veto each and 
every one of these price control bills.
  In addition, the Republicans have initially opposed suspending the 
Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve. And while the President signed it into 
law, it was only after issuing veto threats.
  The President vetoed the farm bill twice, which included the CFTC 
provisions and the historic investment in American biofuels.
  I mention all these in the context of my good friend from Washington 
bringing up that Mr. Clinton vetoed in 1995 a bill that was put forward 
on energy. The Republican Party in this House is

[[Page H6352]]

still blaming President Clinton for problems 13 years after the fact 
when they have been in control of this House and the Presidency for the 
last 7\1/2\ years for the Presidency and almost 14 for this House 
before we took over in 2006. I think it's time for us to understand who 
truly has culpability with this energy crisis that is at hand today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, my good friend from 
California mentioned CAFE standards as one solution to the problem. 
CAFE standards, by a law that was passed here, would not take place 
until 2020. We can drill and produce in ANWR before 2020.
  My friend also said that I made a litany of accusations and that the 
facts don't match the rhetoric. Well, the fact is--and he didn't refute 
the fact--that we've had 59 closed rules, and that is unrefutable. And 
I also mentioned that there was not an energy bill on the floor of the 
House this week; that is also irrefutable.
  Madam Speaker, I want to yield 4 minutes to a good friend from Utah, 
a former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding.
  Bill Veeck was an old baseball owner and entrepreneur who used to 
say, ``I don't ever break the rules, I just test their elasticity.'' 
Apparently the Democrats on the Rules Committee are doing that same 
standard of testing the elasticity. When the time for amendments to the 
Rules Committee was closed, I did have one that was filed that dealt 
with second amendment issues, the only one that dealt with second 
amendment issues. After the filing was closed, apparently Democrat 
staff then took that amendment, without public hearing, without any 
Member input, they amended that to leave the most important part of 
second amendment protection on the floor, and then introduced it as a 
self-executing rule.
  Self-executing rules were originally intended for technical 
amendments only to help the process along, but more and more we see the 
Democrat Rules Committee using substantive amendments now under self-
executing processes.
  Now, in the good old days, I tried to get Chairman Dreier to do that 
for me, but he always said I had to give him my first born son, and it 
still had to be technical. I am willing to give the gentleman from 
California my first born son--actually, he's out of college now, it 
won't help me at all, but I'm still willing to do it if that's what it 
takes now to meet the process. But I realize, you're not breaking the 
rules, you're just testing the elasticity.

                              {time}  1100

  There are groups out there that rank Congressmen. There's even a 
fantasy congressional league that's out there. They give us all points 
for how many bills we introduce, committee assignments, amendments that 
are passed. I've known the pain of having a fantasy baseball team where 
half of the members were on the DL.
  So I'm asking the gentleman from California if he would have the 
courtesy of calling these groups and letting them know that this self-
executing rule that is now part of the bill was actually mine so I 
could get those points. Not because of me, mind you. I'm just worried 
about my friends who have me as part of their fantasy congressional 
team because I know you're just testing the elasticity of it. In fact, 
it was suggested that sometime in the future we should start 
copyrighting our amendments before we actually give them to the Rules 
Committee staff.
  This is not necessarily the first time this has ever happened, as the 
gentleman from California mentioned. There was another lands bill where 
I introduced an amendment with the same topic that once again was 
redrafted, this time refiled with a Democrat as the sponsor of it and 
it did pass this House and I was happy to vote for that because it was 
a good idea. It was my idea, but it was still a good idea. But I 
realize you're just testing the elasticity of it.
  I'm not saying you're stealing, mind you. I am not saying anyone is 
stealing. But John Stockton has called and wondered if his NBA steal 
record still exists. The Patriot coaches are wondering why they're in 
trouble. The 1919 Black Sox want their title back. And Henderson has 
actually discussed it because he could have beat Ty Cobb's record years 
earlier had he had these same techniques in line. In fact, to be honest 
with you, I had a softball game last night that we won and we are now 
9-1. And I'm wondering if the gentleman would actually do another self-
executing rule to make us 10-0. That would actually do something for 
me. And since we're pulling stuff out of thin air without committee 
assignments, without floor discussion, I think it would fit within the 
concept.
  Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we're doing all the work 
and someone else is taking the credit. Because we're used to that. We 
work with the Senate all the time. We understand how that works. But if 
indeed we are becoming the Puff Daddy of legislative efforts in here, I 
would suggest that if the Rules Committee really wants to do something 
to further discussion and actually do something positive to make it 
worth the 4-hour flight we had to come back here for this particular 
bill, why don't you take my Americans for American Energy Act and do a 
self-executing rule to put that in. At least that would be a meaningful 
discussion that we would have on the floor of a meaningful bill and 
would make it worthwhile for us to come back here and finally start 
talking about something that is meaningful and useful for the American 
people.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would love to point out to the 
gentleman that there were a number of self-executing provisions put 
into bills while the current minority was in the majority in the 109th 
Congress. There were a total of 44 rules with self-executing 
provisions.
  Let me read just a few examples of the self-executing rules that the 
Republicans did when they were in the majority just to show that this 
is not a unique practice:
  H. Res. 75, the rule on H.R. 418, the REAL ID bill, self-executed 
major changes in the bill to gain votes on the bill and the rule.
  H. Res. 151, the rule for an Iraq/Afghanistan/tsunami relief bill, 
self-executed the totally unrelated REAL ID bill to the supplemental 
after final passage.
  H. Res. 248, a rule on the budget resolution conference report, self-
executed a new budget point of order against appropriations bills in 
order to get the conservative Republicans to vote for the conference 
report.
  H. Res. 258, a rule on the conference report on the Iraq/Afghanistan/
tsunami emergency supplemental, contained a self-executing provision 
that authorized the Judiciary Committee to file a supplemental report 
on an extremely controversial report that had grossly mischaracterized 
votes taking place in the Judiciary Committee markup.
  H. Res. 351, one rule, provided for separate consideration of four 
OSHA bills, each under a closed rule, and then self-executed language 
for two of the bills adopting the committee-reported substitutes. The 
rule also had a self-executing provision that combined all four bills 
into one text after passage of each bill separately.
  H. Res. 365, a State Department authorization rule, self-executed an 
amendment that struck a section of the bill.
  H. Res. 369, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization rule, made in order an 
entirely new substitute as base text.
  H. Res. 387, a China trade rights enforcement rule, self-executed a 
new text that was considered under a closed rule.
  Madam Speaker, I would suggest that my colleagues doth protest too 
much.
  I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, we acknowledge that there 
is a practice of self-executing rules. That's been done. Principally 
they are done, however, on technical grounds but admittedly they are 
done on substantive pieces of legislation. But the fact is already in 
this Congress there have been more self-executed amendments by this 
Democrat Rules Committee than there was in the entire last Congress. 
Already. And we still have 6 months to go before this session is over.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my 
friend from California, the gentleman from

[[Page H6353]]

the Sacramento area, the former attorney general, Mr. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I appreciate the gentleman 
allowing me to get in the midst of this intramural squabble here on the 
Rules Committee.
  It seems like it was just the night before last that we came back to 
work this--well, it was just the night before last that we came back to 
work this week. And it seems like we just--well, we are just leaving. 
We came in the night before last to do business, we were here 
yesterday, we're here today, we're going to get out by, I guess, about 
3 in the afternoon. Meanwhile, the people of the United States are 
suffering because we have no energy policy.
  Now this political cartoon graphically states what it is. It says:
  We demand you energy companies do something about high energy prices.
  We can drill in ANWR.
  Forget it.
  How about offshore.
  Are you crazy?
  Clean coal.
  Out of the question.
  Nuclear power.
  You're joking, right?
  Don't just sit there, do something.
  Well, that's what I'm asking this Congress to do. Don't just sit 
there, do something.
  I thought that maybe what I believe is now called the Natural 
Resources Committee--it used to be called the Resources Committee--the 
Natural Resources Committee, I thought it had jurisdiction over ANWR. 
And I looked it up and it does. And I thought it had jurisdiction over 
offshore drilling. And I looked it up and it does. And I thought it had 
jurisdiction over coal on Federal lands. And I looked it up and it 
does. And I thought it had jurisdiction over tar sands and other kinds 
of resources, natural gas, offshore. And it does.
  So what does it bring today? A bill that talks about a historic 
trail. We've waited 227 years to designate it as an historical trail. 
You would think we could wait a couple of more months and do something 
on energy.
  Madam Speaker, I will not violate the rules of the House by asking 
for a show of hands in the galleries, because that would be out of 
order, but I suppose that if the people in the galleries were like the 
people in my two town halls last week, they would answer the same. When 
I asked them do you think we should drill in ANWR, about 75 to 80 
percent said yes. When I asked them do you think we should start 
drilling offshore, about 75 to 80 percent said yes. When I asked them 
do you think we should lock up the greatest natural resource we have 
for energy in this country, coal--we're the Saudi Arabia of coal--they 
answered 75 to 80 percent no. Nuclear power. Over 50 percent are for it 
now. But this Congress does nothing about that. In fact, they have 
created self-fulfilling prophecies. They say, look, if we allow 
offshore drilling, it will take 10 years. Do you know why it would take 
10 years?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. They set up the formula for 
failure. They make it a reality that it will take 10 years because of 
all of the extensive environmental requirements, the continued legal 
challenges, and if you know how the system works, you can actually make 
a decision by not making a decision. If you can in court ensure that no 
decision is finally made, no one is going to make the capital 
investment.
  Our friends on the other side say, well, wait a second, we've got the 
answer. All we're going to do is make them drill with the leases they 
already have.
  Now let's think about this. The oil companies pay millions, billions 
of dollars for leases and they're not looking for it? The fact of the 
matter is just because you have a lease which is a tract of land on a 
map, a line on a map, doesn't mean there's oil there. Actually some of 
the Democrats on the other side of the aisle have said this. They've 
said, our leadership doesn't understand the reality of drilling oil. 
And so what do they leave us with? They leave us with a policy which 
says drive small cars and wait for the wind. The gentleman from 
California says look at all we've done. We've forced Americans to drive 
smaller cars. That's the solution. We're waiting for wind. We can wait 
for a long time.
  I'm for solar energy. I'm for wind. I'm for all of the above. But the 
fact of the matter is we have to do something on the supply side. And 
here we have a bill out of the committee that has jurisdiction on this 
very matter, the one that would get us started, and it doesn't bring 
forth this. It has brought forth a mouse in comparison to what we need 
in terms of our energy. All the American people are asking for is some 
sense of reality. We cannot suspend the laws of economics.
  The gentleman from California says look at all the price controls 
that we have adopted. I have to say, it was a Republican President, 
President Nixon, who tried to use price controls in the seventies. It 
didn't work. It didn't work. At some point in time we have to 
understand that what we have to do is increase supply.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. And if we come to the floor with 
the committee of jurisdiction bringing us bills that have nothing to do 
with energy, what are the American people to say except that, Don't 
just sit there, do something. We are absolutely just sitting here and 
doing nothing. People back home are not waiting for 20 and 30 years. 
They're talking about what's happening now. It's not just the gas in 
their car. It is the cost of transportation embedded in everything. And 
it's going to get worse before it gets better.
  This Congress should do something. It should act now. Act now. Maybe 
we could stay here longer than 2\1/2\ days to do something about energy 
for the American people who sent us here to do their work. Where's the 
5-day workweek? Gone. Gone along with the opportunity to drill for oil 
and produce energy for the American people. Maybe they ought to pay 
attention to what's happening here on the floor of the House and insist 
that we do something. Drill here in the United States, not overseas. 
Produce here in the United States. Save America.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to not refer to or 
address occupants in the gallery.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would just like to observe once again 
that this Congress has approved and authorized 66 million acres for 
exploration and leasing throughout this country. Now, that may be hard 
for some folks to visualize that amount of property, so let's talk 
about it in something that people understand, the size of States.
  Sixty-six million acres is virtually the size of New England, 
including New Jersey and Maryland and Delaware. That is the size of 
land that we have opened up to exploration. Can we do more? Possibly. 
Are there other alternatives? Absolutely. The Speaker this week 
proposed trying to bring down prices by opening up the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. That might actually bring down the cost of oil, and 
all we've gotten from the White House is a blanket ``absolutely not.''
  Madam Speaker, there are a number of measures that this House has 
moved to try and bring down oil prices and bring relief to the American 
people. We started in our 6 for '06 with H.R. 6 that tried to bring 
down oil prices before it was ever even a crisis because we anticipated 
that this might be a problem. I would also suggest that it has been 
said that over 90 percent of the Bush-Cheney oil energy policy has been 
implemented by the prior 109th Congress and the Republican Congresses 
before that. Mr. Bush got 90 percent of what he wanted for American 
energy and we have this crisis. I submit to you what we need is a 
change at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to try and regain energy 
independence and with a change there we may just do that.
  I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page H6354]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. TERRY. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity.
  My friend from California, I'd like to clarify a little bit. The 66 
million acres are land that hasn't been authorized by Congress. In 
fact, the efforts by my friends on that side of the aisle was to take 
away that 66 million acres of already leased land. So I think the 
public needs to be clear on that aspect.
  Yes, some of the Bush plan on energy has been implemented. The part, 
conveniently, that has been left out of presenting to the President for 
signature is the part that increases supply. It's the lack of supply 
that is causing problems for American families today, with the price at 
the pumps.
  I have had several meetings with constituents who have told me their 
stories about how the high price of gasoline is literally taking food 
off of their tables and making them to make decisions about what they 
are taking away from their family in order to be able to get to work 
and back.
  Our reliance on foreign energy is destroying this country, and we 
have to become independent, folks. We use 20 million barrels a day. 
Twenty million barrels of oil per day, most of which is refined into 
fuel that we use in travels. Over 14 million of those 20 are imported 
today.
  Let's look at what is on the foreign scene today with Iran sending 
missiles as a message to the United States and Israel about their 
might. Make no bones about it, my friends; the only reason they have 
missiles is because they get to sell oil. If we weren't reliant on 
foreign oil and we could get away from it with a comprehensive plan 
and, Mr. Cardoza, I'd love to work with anyone on your side of the 
aisle to come up with conservation alternative fuels and to be able to 
open up our offshore drilling in the gulf coast, Alaska, and use oil 
shale. If we put all of that together, we can be energy independent.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, can I inquire of my friend 
from California if he has any more speakers, or he is prepared to 
close?
  Mr. CARDOZA. We have no more speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman is prepared to close if I 
close?
  Mr. CARDOZA. I am, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering 
gas prices. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend 
the rule to allow the House to consider a bill that will help produce 
more American-made energy, H.R. 2208, introduced by Mr. Boucher of 
Virginia and Mr. Shimkus of Illinois, the cosponsors of that bill.
  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, this House is on a course 
to complete its work by early this afternoon. The only legislation the 
House is even considering is this bill to consider a 600-mile scenic 
trail about the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow, the House won't even be in 
session. The House was originally scheduled to be in session, working 
tomorrow, but that was canceled yesterday.
  The Democrat leaders of this House are choosing to do nothing for a 
day and a half, today and tomorrow, that was scheduled, and of course, 
do nothing about gas prices. They decided to just stop working and go 
home early rather than vote on legislation to lower gas prices by 
producing more American-made energy.
  The House needs to confront the skyrocketing price of gasoline. It 
shouldn't be clocking out early and calling it a week. It's time right 
now for Congress to act on gas prices.
  So, once again, Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to 
take up serious legislation, bipartisan legislation, to bring down gas 
prices at the pump.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I would just like to clarify for my colleague from 
Washington. Once again, he sort of mischaracterized what is happening 
in the House of Representatives with regard to the work that we are 
doing to lower gas prices.
  I would invite the gentleman to join me in the Ag Committee as I 
leave this chamber today and go to hearings that will be going on all 
afternoon in the Ag Committee to get to the bottom of the trading 
issues that might be leading to increased speculatory problems that are 
possibly causing increased gas prices and the hearings that we are 
going to have in the Ag Committee all day tomorrow with regard to the 
same subject. There are a number of us that will be working very hard 
the next 2 days to try and resolve to get to the bottom of this crisis.
  Madam Speaker, I want to refer back to the bill at hand. We have 
gotten way far afield of what the topic was of discussion for this 
rule, and that is the National Trail System Act. That act was put in 
place 40 years ago to provide for the conservation of historic and 
culturally significant areas.
  I think there is no more deserving historic designation than the one 
commemorating our Nation's struggle for independence. The bill that we 
are talking about deserves strong support by all Members of the floor. 
It's a good bill done by the Natural Resources Committee and chairman, 
Mr. Rahall, bringing it to the floor. I would urge that we support it 
heartily.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1317 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2208) to provide for a 
     standby loan program for certain coal-to-liquid projects. All 
     points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce, and the chairman and ranking member of the 
     Committee on Science and Technology; and (2) an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute if offered by Representative 
     Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which shall be 
     considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page H6355]]

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

  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

                          ____________________