[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7963-H7967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3667, MISSISQUOI AND TROUT RIVERS 
                WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY ACT OF 2008

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1419 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1419

       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. 3667) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
     to designate a segment of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in 
     the State of Vermont for study for potential addition to the 
     National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 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 pursuant to Part II of House Report 110-668. That 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived 
     except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute 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. 3667 
     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.
       Sec. 3.  House Resolution 1399 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my 
friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
remarks on House Resolution 1419.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H. Res. 1419 provides for the consideration of H.R. 3667, the 
Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Act of 2008, under a 
structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled 
by the Committee on Natural Resources, makes in order three amendments 
printed in the Rules Committee report, and provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Representative 
Grijalva, Ranking Members Young and Bishop for helping to bring this 
bill to the floor today. And I would like to thank the staff of the 
Natural Resources Committee for their very hard work on a bill that is 
of great importance to my State of Vermont.
  The Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are two of the most beautiful rivers 
in the most beautiful State in the Nation, and that, with all due 
respect to the man from Washington, I claim to be the State of Vermont. 
These rivers are bordered by the largest and perhaps the highest 
quality silver maple floodplain forest remaining in our State of 
Vermont. They are also home to diverse animal life, including brook 
trout, rare freshwater mussels, and spiny soft shell turtles. It's a 
favorite walking, hiking, fishing area for many people in northern 
Vermont and, indeed, from Upstate New York and all around Vermont.
  Additionally, the Missisquoi River is part of this extraordinary 740-
mile northern forest canoe trail, which is home to some of the best 
flat-water canoeing in Vermont and in the Northeast. Both of these 
rivers are highly valued by the surrounding towns and the communities. 
It has great recreational areas, swimming pools, and boating. Vermont 
parents that grew up swimming in these rivers take their kids back 
there, and it's a place in Vermont of just extraordinary scenic and 
natural beauty.
  The bill, as these study bills all do, provides for a study of the 
two rivers, and it represents a first step toward protecting Abenaki 
Indian archeological sites along the flood plains, protecting scenic 
waterfalls and gorges, and a way of life that has been in these 
communities surrounding the two rivers for generations.
  Passage of the rule will allow the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild 
and Scenic River Study Act to be considered on the floor by the full 
body, and I urge support of this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, my colleague has spoken at 
length about the reasons--though not as long as I thought he would, 
let's put it that way--why he believes these stretches of the river in 
Vermont to be studied for the designation as Wild and Scenic, and it's 
very clear that he strongly believes in this bill to enact this study. 
He obviously has a great deal of love for his State when he challenges 
all of the other 49 States as not being as beautiful, at least 
indirectly, as Vermont. And I would just point out to him that in my 
State we have so much geographic diversity as far as beauty is 
concerned, from one area of the State where we have more rainfall than 
anyplace in a country--I'm not talking about Seattle; I'm talking about 
the Olympic Peninsula--to the area where I live, which is a desert area 
that has in some areas where I live less than 7 inches of rain. So I 
invite my friend any time he wants to come out to see what real beauty 
is in a short period of time, and he may want to ask me up there and I 
might respond to that.
  But having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it's fair to say 
that the American people, frankly, are far less concerned about the 
rivers in Vermont and are far more concerned about the high price of 
gasoline and the fact that Congress is not acting right now on real 
solutions to lower energy costs.
  The House of Representatives will spend over 2\1/2\ hours today 
discussing rivers in Vermont but not 1 minute,

[[Page H7964]]

Mr. Speaker, not 1 minute, on actual legislation to lower the price of 
gasoline. I really believe that the priorities of this Congress since 
we have come back from the 5-week August vacation are wrong. High gas 
and energy prices are hurting American workers and it's hurting our 
Nation's economy.

                              {time}  1230

  With jobs at stake, Mr. Speaker, this Congress twiddles its thumbs 
and busies itself once again, as we did earlier in the year, naming 
post offices and, today, studying the value of rivers in Vermont, in 
all deference to my friend from Vermont.
  Mr. Speaker, this House should be permitted to have a ``yes'' or 
``no'' vote on legislation to expand alternative energy sources and to 
lift the ban on drilling offshore, both coasts, Mr. Speaker, and in 
ANWR and other Alaskan lands in Alaska. But, unfortunately, the liberal 
leaders in this Congress have blocked, up to this point have blocked, a 
fair ``yes'' or ``no'' vote for months because I believe, Mr. Speaker, 
and I believe the majority of Members of this body knows that if we 
were to put the all-of-the-above energy plan up for a vote, that a 
majority of this House would vote for it. But we have been denied that 
opportunity time after time after time. Instead, they voted to go on a 
5-week vacation in August to avoid working to lower gas prices, to 
protect American jobs, to make our Nation more energy independent.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that during that time since the 
adjournment for the 5-week vacation, a number of my Republican 
colleagues, 136 of my Republican colleagues, were here every day for 
several hours a day, trying to attempt to call the ask the Speaker to 
call Congress back in session. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. So 
now we are back here again on a regularly scheduled basis, and we will 
certainly have an opportunity to have a vote on the all-of-the-above, 
and I will talk about that more later.
  But, Mr. Speaker, in the past, in the past, Senator Barack Obama, 
Senator Joe Biden, Senator Harry Reid, and Speaker  Nancy Pelosi, they 
are the leaders of the Democrat Party here in the U.S. Congress. Yet 
the one thing, other than being Democrat leaders, the one thing they 
all have in common, Mr. Speaker, is that they have in the past always 
opposed offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska. I think the majority 
of the Americans feel contrary to that view. And they fight and block 
any action on that at every turn. They refuse to act and to allow a 
vote on a drilling and alternative energy plan that would ultimately 
lower gas prices.
  To me, Mr. Speaker, I just simply have to say in this election year 
that it's clear that liberalism has been put ahead of the need to help 
American workers and families struggling with high gas prices. We need 
to end the stranglehold that they have on America's ability to produce 
more of its own energy and on American jobs and the economy. And we can 
do that, Mr. Speaker, very simply by opening the resources that we have 
in this country. We need to change their no, no, no stance on producing 
more American energy.
  This Congress, Mr. Speaker, and we all know this, needs to vote on 
the all-of-the-above energy plan. In that plan it includes promoting 
alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power. I might add 
parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that we have a nuclear plant in my 
district, we have hydro plants in my district, and we have wind 
machines in my district. I am all in favor of all of the above, and our 
all-of-the-above energy plan includes precisely that.
  This plan recognizes the need for more nuclear power. As I mentioned, 
I have a nuclear power plant in my district. Of course, it protects the 
value of hydropower, and that is the most abundant energy source for us 
in the Northwest. But it also allows, while we transition to a new 
energy source in the future, it allows drilling offshore and in Alaska 
and on other Federal lands.
  Mr. Speaker, it really is time for the liberal leaders of this 
Congress to stop blocking a vote on producing more American-made 
energy. It's time for Members of Congress to stop hiding and to start 
voting.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that we are not elected to avoid taking 
positions on tough issues. We are elected to stand up and resolve those 
tough issues for the American people. So it's time for Congress to set 
aside naming post offices; in deference, again, to my friend from 
Vermont, studying rivers. It's time to get serious about addressing the 
high cost of gasoline and voting yes or no on real solutions, including 
drilling offshore and in Alaska.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am the last speaker on our side, so I will 
reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is the last 
speaker, and he is prepared to close. I know I have several Members 
that have asked for time. So, Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself such 
time as I may consume until other Members come to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned just briefly in my remarks that after the 
adjournment prior to the 5-week vacation and, by the way, that 
adjournment resolution was passed on a straight partisan vote. Every 
Republican voted against it because we felt we needed to stay here to 
help resolve the energy problem rather than go on a 5-week vacation. 
But there were a number of Members, I can mention 136 Members, that 
came down here and talked about the need for energy.
  During that time, Mr. Speaker, the lights were off here, the 
microphones were off, and the cameras were off. Yet there were a number 
of tourists, as we always have coming through the U.S. Capitol, their 
Capitol, and they were invited to sit on the floor and talk with us, 
interact with Members that came down and spoke.
  The 2 days that I was here, and I admit I was only here 2 of those 
days, the last 2 days, and I had private conversations with a number of 
tourists that came through here. I have to say they were not from the 
Northwest, although there were some from the Northwest, but there were 
some from the South, and they were all kind of perplexed as to why the 
people's House, the House of Representatives, probably the genius part 
of our Founding Fathers in making a representative body, of which all 
Members that have served there, and there are slightly over 11,000 
Members that have served in this body and, Mr. Speaker, every one, 
every one of those Members have been elected to this House. There has 
never been a Member that was appointed to the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  Now why do I say this in the context of energy prices? The genius of 
our Founding Fathers was that the House of Representatives and the fact 
that every one was elected is probably more in tune to what the 
people's wishes are across the country.
  And so they were, frankly, the people I talked to, perplexed. Well, 
if this is the people's House, why haven't you had the opportunity to 
have a vote, just a vote up or down, recognizing, listen, we know that 
a majority rules, and I am prepared to take the consequences of that if 
my position on any issue fails to get a majority vote. I recognize 
that. I think every Member of Congress understands that. But to not 
have the opportunity, not have the opportunity to even vote, even vote 
on a proposal, really perplexes the tourists that came through here the 
2 days I was on the floor.
  In talking to my other colleagues, some of whom were down here as 
many as 13 days, and more, they had what I would say were similar 
experiences with their conversations with people that came through 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that my district is the district that in 
central Washington that is a center of virtually--I won't say all, but 
a great deal--of electricity that is produced in the Pacific Northwest. 
Within my district, for example, probably the hydroelectric facility 
that most Americans can associate with is Grand Coulee Dam. Half of 
that dam is in my district and the other half is in my colleague's from 
the Fifth District, Cathy McMorris Rodgers' district.
  But, in addition to that, I have up to 10 dams that are wholly within 
my district or I share with other Members of Congress, including my 
friend and colleague from across the river in Oregon, Greg Walden. 
There are three dams there where we share half of those dams.

[[Page H7965]]

  That produces about 70 percent of the electricity in the northwest. 
It is renewable, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely renewable, and we need 
to expand that, and a portion of expanding hydropower is in the all-of-
the-above energy plan I talked about earlier that we have been denied a 
vote on. We have been denied a vote on.
  Furthermore, I mentioned that I have wind plants in my district. 
Because generally in areas that I mentioned earlier on, that there was 
not a whole lot of rainfall in certain parts of my district, but the 
wind does blow. Now the wind, of course, is only good if the wind 
blows. But if the wind blows, it adds to the other facilities, like 
hydro, like hydro, or like nuclear. And I have a nuclear plant in my 
district.
  What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that my constituents are well aware 
that we need to have a diverse energy portfolio. Without having an 
opportunity in the people's House to at least address the issue of all 
of the above, seems to me to be contrary, seems to me to be contrary to 
what this Congress is all about, and indeed what the House of 
Representatives is all about as it was envisioned by the Founders.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I have talked about what we did in August, 
and I have talked about the fact that up until August, and now we have 
a new session coming in after the break, that the Democrats have 
blocked and blocked any vote on lifting the ban.
  But I have heard during the break that there are a number of brave 
Democrats who I think went home, talked to their constituents, and find 
out that their constituents were saying we need to become more energy 
independent. As a result, they proclaim that they support now offshore 
drilling to increase the supply of gasoline and oil and to make America 
more energy independent.
  Well, listen. To all of my colleagues that maybe during the August 
break and having listened to their colleagues or to their constituents 
at home, I have a very positive message for you, and I have an 
opportunity for you, because by voting against the previous question, 
Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues can prove that you are supporters of 
drilling and producing American-made energy. Of course, if you do not, 
that means that you side, of course, with Speaker Pelosi and you oppose 
drilling.
  By defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, I will move to amend 
the rule to make in order H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, and I 
have talked at length about what it is. This bill will reduce the price 
at the pump by enacting an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Once 
again, what it does, it increases the supply of American-made energy by 
using environmentally sound technology and innovations. It does so by 
improving conservation and efficiency and, Mr. Speaker, it promotes a 
diversity by renewing alternative energy sources, like wind that I had 
talked about, and solar.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I again ask my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Congress, as they return 
from the 5-week recess--vacation, in some people's terms--and begin the 
work here in the fall before the election, so that we can finally vote, 
Mr. Speaker, on real solutions to the real and painful problem of high 
gas and energy prices.
  American workers and families are hurting. Congress can help, can 
help today by voting on and passing this legislation, the American 
Energy Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's time to show whether you're really for 
lowering gas prices or whether you will continue to vote in lockstep 
with those against lifting the ban on offshore drilling and promoting 
alternative energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  With that, I yield back my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that my friend from Washington would 
question my assertions about the beauty of Vermont, and I will invite 
the Member from Washington to come to Vermont so I can let you 
firsthand experience the evidence that I have had so much opportunity 
to observe myself.
  By the way, I have been to Washington. I climbed Mt. Rainier three 
times and was out on the San Juan Islands.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. For bragging about Washington, yes, I will.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Well, of course I am going to do that. 
And, listen: Mt. Rainier I can see from my district on a clear day, 
because it is 14,410 feet high. But it is quite a view when you view it 
from a desert setting. So I invite you the next time you come back to 
come over to my district for all the great wines, where the wine grapes 
are grown, by the way. And I understand my friend likes to have a cold 
beer once in a while. The taste of that beer comes from the hops that 
are grown in my district.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding on that basis, and I 
look forward to his visit. I appreciate it and yield back to him.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, my friend from Washington. We better 
get back to the focus at hand, because now Vermont quality beer has 
been challenged as well as the beauty of Vermont rivers. So we will 
just call this part of the debate a draw and proceed.
  Two things in response to comments made by my friend from Washington. 
Number one, it appears that there are no reservations or no stated 
objections to the study itself that is, frankly, quite important to 
Vermont. This is a very special part of our State that has the 
opportunity with the benefit of this study to be preserved for 
generations ahead, just as it has been cared for and enjoyed by 
generations in the past. So it is a very, very serious issue to the 
folks in Vermont. It is just a very special place.
  The gentleman has not raised any specific objections. His objections 
are more in the nature of spending time on this instead of spending 
time on something else. So I would urge the Members to take that into 
account when they are voting on the previous question.
  Second, I will address the energy arguments. This has been the 
refrain on the part of our friends on the other side as a response to 
every piece of business that we are doing on behalf of the American 
people. I think it has become apparent that this has become much more 
of a political debate than it has been an effort substantively to solve 
a very, very serious problem. Let me give a little commentary about 
that.
  Number one, my friends on the other side have been in control of this 
institution and had the Presidency and the control of Congress for the 
past 12 years, until this Congress, and had an opportunity to enact 
comprehensive energy legislation when it was quite apparent to the 
American people that the problem of our excessive dependence on oil was 
a real and urgent problem.
  They did nothing. In fact, the energy act they passed quite 
astonishingly provided taxpayer incentives, tax deductions, tax 
credits, to oil companies that were enjoying record profits. It is a 
mature industry, it is a profitable industry, yet the energy policy 
that was pursued and failed by our friends on the other side during the 
12 years they were in charge basically was to give oil companies more 
taxpayer money.
  It made no sense. There was no effort to use the power they had of 
the majority to bring to the floor legislation that would promote 
alternative energy. There was no effort to take the power that they had 
and provide tax incentives for the alternative energy industries that 
we know we must support if we are going to reduce and ultimately 
eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I won't yield. My intention, my friend from 
Washington, is to respond and bring this to a close, thank you.
  So, number one, we are hearing objections from people who when they 
had the power to do the things they

[[Page H7966]]

claim they want to do, didn't use the power they had to accomplish 
those objectives.
  Number two, when we have brought forward legislation and passed it, 
it has been with their objection. And what they claim they want to do 
are many things that we did over their objection. I will give a few 
examples.
  To deal with the short-term price pressure at the pump and with home 
heating oil, this House of Representatives passed legislation that I 
sponsored to stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and take 
off some of the demand on oil. That has contributed to helping bring 
down the price of gas at the pump by 5 to 25 cents a gallon.
  Secondly, this House of Representatives has gotten tough on 
speculators. The evidence is overwhelming that part of the runup in the 
price of gasoline when it was heading up to $150 a barrel was because 
of the speculative control and influence of hedge funds in foreign 
trading operations. We brought to this floor legislation, and just the 
fact that we did it finally, when it was ignored and accepted and 
mollified by our friends who were in control for 12 years, has helped 
bring down that speculative premium.
  There is no justification for any one of our constituents when they 
pay for a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of home heating oil or a cubic 
gallon of natural gas to have included in their price a speculation 
premium for profiteers, and this Congress passed legislation to 
challenge that, against the opposition of our friends on the other 
side. So we have taken very specific actions to try to do what we 
reasonably can do to bring down the price pressure that is ripping off 
the American consuming public.
  Second, we have passed energy legislation that is comprehensive, 
again over the opposition of our friends on the other side. One of the 
things we did was provided for tax credits for the alternative energy 
industry. We have to do that. That is of urgent, vital economic and 
environmental concern to this country.
  We passed legislation that took away the tax breaks that are going to 
oil companies. There is no basis whatsoever to ask the taxpayer to pad 
the profits of a mature and profitable industry. They don't need it. 
They are doing quite well without additional taxpayer money to their 
bottom line.
  But the new industries, the alternative energies that my friend from 
Washington mentioned, wind and solar, geothermal and biomass, they do 
need a boost, and historically when we have been at our best is when we 
have had the wisdom to use tax policy in a targeted and focused way to 
give a boost to these emerging industries and technologies that are 
good for the American economy and good for our environment, and that is 
what we need to do.
  We have passed this in the House several times. Our friends on the 
other side opposed it. Our friends in the Senate won't move on it. We 
are prepared to do it again. But the suggestion that has been made 
repetitively, over and over again, that the leadership of the 
Democratic Party in the House of Representatives is standing in the way 
of energy policy is flat out wrong. It is flat out false. Why is it 
being offered? It is being offered for political purposes, I would 
suggest.
  Now, let me tell you this: That although we have passed comprehensive 
energy legislation several times in this House, although each time we 
have done it we have had to overcome the opposition of our friends on 
the other side, and although every time we bring up a legitimate piece 
of legislation that is part of the public business that this Congress 
must conduct, whether it is a study on the Missisquoi River, an energy 
bill or any other bill, every time we do our friends try to cease the 
debate and distort what has happened, we are prepared, as the gentleman 
from Washington knows, we in the Democratic Party, our leadership is 
prepared to bring up yet another comprehensive energy bill that does 
include all of the above.
  The fact is, on our side we have passed all of the above time and 
time again, against the opposition of our friends on the other side, 
and then it has run into a brick wall in the other body or the 
steadfast opposition of the President of the United States. But the 
gentleman from Washington is aware that the leadership is prepared to 
bring up yet another bill to give us another opportunity to do the 
right thing.
  Let me say this: I actually think it would be great to work together 
with the other side. I come from a State where we shift majorities back 
and forth. Sometimes the Democrats were in control, sometimes the 
Republican were in control. I was the senate president and I was the 
minority leader. I learned that in order for us ever to get anything 
done, we had to ultimately work together. I also came to understand 
that neither side had an absolute claim that they were the only people 
who had a good point of view, who had an iron grip on truth.
  I believe that it would be best for all of us if there was some 
willingness to try to work on the substance, rather than just use this 
as a political football, and my observation is that for whatever 
reason, it is tough to get to that point here in the House of 
Representatives in Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I wouldn't yield, my friend, because I will be 
bringing this to a close.
  I want to take the opportunity, as I must, when the assertions are 
made, falsely in my view, that the Democratic leadership is standing in 
the way of energy policy change, that is just flat-out wrong. The 
energy for energy reform has come from the leadership on the Democratic 
side. Frankly, it has come from the American people, who are tired of a 
Congress that passed off as an energy policy giving more money to the 
oil companies.
  We have to make a fundamental decision in this hyper-political 
atmosphere of a presidential election whether we want to continue 
politics as usual, which in my view is a dead end, or we want to work 
together to achieve what we know is important for the American people, 
that is, short-term relief for prices at the pump, and it is a long-
term energy policy that frees us from the dependence on oil from 
foreign countries.
  So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, let me just close by coming back 
to this very important bill. It is a study. It is not necessarily 
important for many other parts of the country. But one of the things 
that makes this Congress and this country great is mutual respect. When 
there is a disaster in the Gulf Coast, all States pull together to help 
out. When there is flooding in the Midwest, all States pull together. 
When there is an opportunity for a small State like Vermont to take a 
step with Wild and Scenic River study that will help us and help our 
citizens enjoy the beauty of our land, I seek the help of my colleagues 
to let us accomplish that goal.
  It is my request and my urging that all Members vote ``yes'' 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. 1419 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. 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. 6566) to bring down 
     energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production, 
     encouraging the development of alternative and renewable 
     energy, and promoting conservation. 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 the majority leader 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.

[[Page H7967]]

       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.

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is it is my 
opportunity now to yield back the balance of my time and move the 
previous question.
  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.

                          ____________________