[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 129 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7656-H7658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1300

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until my 
colleague from Washington has made his closing statement.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, and if I infer by what 
he said, this may be the end of open rules in this House. There have 
been many people that have said on the floor today that this rule is in 
fact an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an open rule. It does not permit an open 
process that allows Members to come to the floor and offer amendments 
to this veterans funding bill. Instead, it restricts and closes down 
the ability, by limiting amendments to only those who preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record. I didn't, Mr. Speaker, so I am 
prohibited later on today from offering an amendment if I chose to do 
so. This clearly violates the open process by which appropriations 
bills have long been considered in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. I would like to quote several 
statements from my Democrat colleagues in the past Congress and in this 
Congress.
  On September 15, 2005, this is in the last Congress, Mr. Hastings of 
Florida made the following statement on the House floor about a 
preprinting requirement for a Coast Guard authorization bill.
  Mr. Hastings from Florida said, and I am quoting: ``I am nevertheless 
disappointed that the preprinting of amendments was even required. 
Despite the majority's claims, this legislative process which they call 
'open' is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because every 
Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.'' Mr. Hastings 
of Florida said that in the last Congress.
  In a report prepared by Ms. Slaughter before becoming chairman of the 
Rules Committee, in this report, which is entitled ``Broken Promises: 
The Death of Deliberative Democracy,'' Ms. Slaughter and her Democrat 
colleagues stated, and I quote from page 26 of this report, ``Rules 
with preprinting requirements are not open rules.''
  Quoting further from the same page: ``Further, there is a significant 
difference between an open rule and a rule with a preprinting 
requirement. A preprinting requirement forces Members to reveal their 
amendments in advance of floor consideration, something that may assist 
the floor managers, but can disadvantage the Member offering it. In 
addition, a preprinting requirement blocks any amendment proposal that 
might emerge during the course of debate.'' That comes from a Democrat 
publication.
  The rule before the House today is not an open rule, by their own 
definition. The long-standing tradition has been deliberately violated. 
But don't take my word about the past.
  Quoting again from the Congressional Record, this is Ms. Matsui from 
last year, and she is a member of the Rules Committee, last year in the 
110th Congress she states regarding the Energy and Water appropriations 
bill: ``As I mentioned at the outset of this debate, this bill is made 
in order under an open rule, which is our tradition. I hope that all 
Members will give that tradition the respect it deserves.''
  Where is the respect, Mr. Speaker? Where is the respect?
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record excerpts from 
``Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy,'' printed by 
the then-minority party of the Rules Committee.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this House has been blocked repeatedly for many 
months from being allowed to vote on lifting the ban on drilling. 
Congress needs to act now to produce more American-made energy. 
Congress needs to vote now on lifting the offshore drilling ban. By 
defeating the previous question on this rule, the House can vote on 
drilling offshore. When the previous question is defeated, I will move 
to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6108, the Deep Ocean Energy 
Resources Act of 2008.
  Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my 
colleagues this will not slow down the

[[Page H7657]]

process of working on the MILCON bill. This is just an addition to it, 
an addition that I think is very, very important, since Congress is 
contemplating and probably will go on a 5-week break without taking up 
any energy legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can 
consider this vitally important issue for America.

          Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy


 A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic 
                     Process in the 108th Congress

(Compiled by the House Rules Committee Minority Office--Hon. Louise M. 
                       Slaughter, Ranking Member)

       4. Rules with Pre-Printing Requirements are not ``Open 
     Rules''
       During the 108th Congress, the Rules Committee reported out 
     four rules with a so-called ``pre-printing'' requirement. 
     This provision requires Members to submit their amendments 
     for publication in the Congressional Record, in accordance 
     with clause 8 of Rule XVIII, on the day preceding floor 
     debate of the legislation. While the majority optimistically 
     calls such rules ``modified open rules,'' we consider them 
     ``restrictive'' rules and have scored them as such in the 
     appendices attached to this report.
       While we concede that considering a bill with a pre-
     printing requirement is less restrictive than the more common 
     tactic of limiting amendments to those printed in the Rules 
     Committee report, there is a significant difference between 
     an open rule and a rule with a pre-printing requirement. A 
     pre-printing requirement forces Members to reveal their 
     amendments in advance of floor consideration, something that 
     may assist the floor managers, but can disadvantage the 
     Member offering it. In addition, a pre-printing requirement 
     blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the 
     course of the debate. When Chairman Dreier was in the 
     minority, he made the following statement about the 
     preprinting requirement during debate on a rule on national 
     service legislation:
       ``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in the 
     Congressional Record. That might not sound like much, but it 
     is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of House 
     debate. If amendments must be preprinted, then it is 
     impossible to listen to the debate on the floor, come up with 
     a new idea to improve the bill, and then offer an amendment 
     to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this burdensome pre-
     printing process? Shouldn't the committees that report these 
     bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the legislation 
     under their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we can 
     do better.''
       We agree with Chairman Dreier's statement that the purpose 
     of the amendment process on the floor is to give duly elected 
     Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a 
     manner that they believe is in the best interest of their 
     constituents and the Nation as a whole. It is not to help the 
     floor manager with his or her job. A majority interested in 
     allowing ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions'' 
     would allow at least some House business to occur in an open 
     format--in a procedural framework that allows Members to 
     bring their amendments directly to the floor for discussion 
     and debate under the five-minute rule.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, the American people will be pleased today 
that the House of Representatives will move and pass, hopefully on a 
bipartisan basis, like it was in the Appropriations Committee, a 
bipartisan bill that provides so much for the servicemen and -women and 
their families who are being asked to sacrifice so much after many 
years of war.
  This bill is a fitting salute and tribute to the men and women who 
are on the front lines, who are on the battlefield and those in the 
military and VA hospitals across this country and the outpatient 
clinics fighting a different kind of war, to help those who return 
maintain a dignified quality of life for them and their families.
  We will also assist veterans of wars past and demonstrate our 
appreciation for their service by ensuring that their claims will be 
processed in a timely fashion and that they have access to the range of 
health care options available to them and every American.
  Mr. Speaker, this ``New Direction'' Congress has pledged to put our 
troops and veterans first. By restoring GI veterans education benefits, 
improving veterans health care, rebuilding our military and 
strengthening other benefits for our troops and military families, we 
are working to keep our promises to our courageous and faithful men and 
women in uniform. For too long, officials in Washington have neglected 
our troops and veterans in a time of war. On the battlefield, the 
military pledges to leave no soldier behind, and, as a nation, let it 
be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
disgraceful rule. To illustrate just how bad this rule is, and to 
provide some context, I'd like to discuss a few telling numbers. I'm 
just going to throw these numbers out there for consideration: 12, 7, 4 
and 9. That's 12, 7, 4 and 9.
  These numbers are significant, and let me tell you why. The first 
number is 12. The House has 12 appropriations bills that it must 
consider in order to fund the Federal budget; 12 bills to consider in 
order to responsibly exercise our constitutional power of the purse; 12 
appropriations bills that cover the priorities that are first and 
foremost in Americans' minds.
  We've now reached the final week of July and the Democratic majority 
has brought up its adjournment resolution. Traditionally, this is the 
week when the House wraps up its versions of these 12 appropriations 
bills, or at least a majority of them. The idea is to finalize or make 
significant progress in our most important duty as legislators before 
adjourning for a month of recess in August.
  So now that we have arrived at the end of July, how many 
appropriations bills remain for the House to consider? Twelve. Every 
last one of them. Today we are considering our very first one of 12. 
The Democratic Majority thought, what the heck, why not squeeze one in 
before heading out of town. So, we're starting our job right about the 
time we've traditionally tried to finish it.
  And speaking of tradition, one of the longest-held traditions in this 
body is the practice of considering all regular appropriations bills 
under a completely open process. This is one of the few opportunities 
in the House where all Members, majority and minority, have the 
unfettered ability to offer any amendments they see fit. These 
amendments are of course subject to points of order, and ultimately a 
vote. But Members have had the opportunity to offer them and make their 
case.
  Which brings me to the second number on my list: the number 7. We 
would have to go back 7 years to find any example of restrictions on a 
general appropriations bill.
  In 2001, the Rule providing for consideration of the Foreign 
Operations bill had a pre-printing requirement. This restriction was 
entirely unopposed. Not one voice of opposition was raised, and the 
Rule passed by voice vote.
  And what was the reason for this restriction? We had a very busy 
week, in a very busy month, and we all agreed--Democrats and 
Republicans--agreed to expedite the procedures. Considering we passed 9 
of 13 appropriations bills prior to departing for August recess that 
year, I suppose you could say the unopposed restrictions were 
justified. Seven years passed before any restrictions were again 
imposed.
  Until today. Today the Democratic majority is apparently exhausted by 
their efforts to name post office buildings and avoid meaningful action 
to bring down energy costs. They are in such a rush to get out the door 
for a 5-week recess that they insist on bringing up their very first 
appropriations bill under a restricted Rule. They are denying Members 
the ability to freely bring their amendments to the floor and have 
their voices heard.
  And to add an element of the absurd, they are actually calling this 
an open rule. With straight faces, no less.
  What's the reason for this closed process? I don't doubt expediency 
plays a part. When you're rushing out the door, you prefer not to get 
bogged down by open, substantive debate. But the full explanation lies 
in what the Democratic majority hopes to avoid--any possibility that 
Republicans will seek to offer energy-related amendments to the 
underlying bill.
  Which brings us to the third number on my list: the number 4. 
Americans are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gas. The mutually 
reinforcing trends of high gas prices and high food prices have 
strained working Americans enormously. They know Government policies 
bear much of the blame, and they rightly expect this Congress to do 
something about it.
  Republicans have tried every means possible to force this Democratic 
majority to consider real solutions to our energy crisis. But we have 
faced nothing but roadblocks.
  And now, the Democratic majority is using every trick in the book to 
get out of town without ever scheduling a meaningful vote. And on their 
way out the door, they are trampling on the rights of Members to an 
open and fair appropriations process.
  And this brings us to the fourth and final number: the number 9. The 
latest polls show Congress' approval rating at an abysmal 9 percent. 
All but 9 percent of the American population thinks we are failing at 
our job. Frankly, I'd like to know who this 9 percent is who supports 
what we're doing. Under the

[[Page H7658]]

Democratic majority, we are failing in our duty to address Federal 
spending. We are failing in our duty to find a workable and effective 
solution to the energy crisis we face. We are failing in our duty to 
have open and honest debate on the challenges we face. And just this 
afternoon, we had a vote on a resolution to adjourn, despite all of 
these failures. Mr. Speaker, the numbers don't lie. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1384 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. 6108) to provide for 
     exploration, development, and production activities for 
     mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf, and for 
     other purposes. 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 majority and minority leader, and (2) 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by Mr. 
     Rahall of West Virginia 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 vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution ... [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

                          ____________________