[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 30, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7949-H7957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3463, TERMINATING PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND AND ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 527, REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT
OF 2011; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3010, REGULATORY
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2011
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 477 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 477
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3463) to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by
terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election
campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the
Election Assistance Commission. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. 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 equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. 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. 527) to amend chapter
[[Page H7950]]
6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis of
potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Small Business. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. In lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary and Small
Business now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee
Print dated November 18, 2011. 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. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A
of 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. 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. 3. 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. 3010) to reform the process by which Federal agencies
analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance documents.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. 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 the
Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee
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 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. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of December 2, 2011, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1(c) of rule XV, relating to a measure
addressing railway labor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 477 is a structured rule
for the consideration of three bills: H.R. 527, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act; and H.R.
3463, a measure to terminate the Election Assistance Commission and end
taxpayer financing of presidential elections and campaigns.
{time} 1330
Not only do these bills show this House's commitment to small
businesses, but they also demand that agency rulemaking be held
accountable, reclaiming that authority that is vested here in this
House.
H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, requires
agencies to analyze the impact that a new regulation would have on
small businesses before the regulation is adopted. By requiring all
Federal agencies to obtain input and develop and conduct regular
regulatory reviews of existing regulations, this bill, I believe,
complements and codifies President Barack Obama's commitment in
Executive Order 13563 that directs agencies to review their regulations
and solicit public input.
H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, makes further positive
changes. It reforms and modernizes the Administrative Procedure Act. It
makes agencies more accountable and regulations more cost effective. In
a recent study, Madam Speaker, that the Small Business Administration
commissioned, they estimated the cost of the U.S. Federal regulatory
burden at $1.75 trillion. Now, that's not to say there aren't benefits
that outweigh that burden; but when the burden is that substantial,
Madam Speaker, we have to have a process in place that balances those
benefits and those burdens, and that's all H.R. 3010 asks to do.
Madam Speaker, time and time again the American people have demanded
more accountability from their Congress, more accountability from their
government. This collection of bills today not only provides that
accountability of Congress, but requires that accountability of our
executive branch agencies.
As we talk about accountability, Madam Speaker, it's important to
note that these bills are paid for by terminating the Election
Assistance Commission. You will remember, Madam Speaker, that was a
commission created in 2002 that was supposed to sunset by 2005 and yet
has continued even until today. That commission was set up in the
aftermath of the hanging chads of the 2000 Presidential election to
help States implement election reforms, to help States make sure the
integrity of their electoral process was preserved. And yet today, 6
years after the expected sunset of that commission, we hear from our
Secretaries of State that they no longer need that commission, that
that commission is not providing useful benefits to them. By
terminating that, we're going to save the American taxpayer more than
$600 million over the next decade.
Madam Speaker, taken together, these three measures, H.R. 527, H.R.
3010, and H.R. 3463, help small businesses, increase agency
transparency, and increase public participation in the entire
regulatory process. They save money for hardworking American taxpayers
and are positive reforms that this Congress can pass in a bipartisan
way.
I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support
these underlying measures, and I hope they will support this rule so
that we may consider them today.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I rise in very strong opposition to this restrictive
rule--and
[[Page H7951]]
not only restrictive, but a very convoluted rule--and I rise in
opposition to the three bills that would be made in order by this rule.
Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that
allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda
supported by the Big Business community year in and year out. In other
words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious
effort to deal with high unemployment. Those aren't my words, Madam
Speaker. Those are the words of Bruce Bartlett, a Republican who worked
for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Ron Paul.
Think about what Mr. Bartlett is saying in his last sentence:
``Republicans would rather play political games instead of putting
people back to work. They would rather fiddle while Rome burns instead
of putting out the fire.'' And look at the Republican track record
since the start of the 112th Congress: no jobs bills, not one. But
we've found time to debate bills defunding Planned Parenthood and
National Public Radio. There's no extension of the payroll tax cut or
unemployment insurance, but we can spend hours debating the need to
allow unsafe people the right to carry concealed weapons from State to
State. No effort to take away tax breaks for oil companies who continue
to make billions of dollars in profits each month, but we can find time
to make our air dirtier and our water less safe by dismantling the
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
Seriously, Madam Speaker, the agenda of the far right continues to
dominate this House leadership, and that agenda is out of touch with
the needs of the American people. We have a jobs crisis in this
country. The rich are getting richer and everyone else is struggling.
Yet the Republicans continue to side with the people who don't need any
help. They killed the supercommittee because they would rather protect
tax cuts for millionaires instead of dealing with the deficit. They are
refusing to take up the extension of the payroll tax cut that expires
at the end of the year because they don't want their millionaire
friends to pay just a little bit more.
Just look at what we're doing this week. We're going to consider
anti-regulatory bills that will make our country less safe and our
citizens less healthy. We're going to consider a bill that actually
promotes putting more corporate money into the political system. And
we're going to debate a bill that makes it harder for workers to
organize. Not one of these bills will put people back to work. Not one
of these bills will help struggling families keep their heat on during
the winter. Not one of these bills will help repair our aging
infrastructure.
To quote Mr. Bartlett again: ``People are increasingly concerned
about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.'' And
that's the truth, Madam Speaker. Republicans have absolutely nothing to
offer.
The President proposed--and I have cosponsored--the American Jobs
Act. It's a proposal that would help put Americans back to work, would
extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, would help
repair our aging infrastructure, and would provide aid to cities and
States so they don't have to lay off more teachers and more police
officers and more firefighters.
It's a bill that is paid for. It doesn't add one cent to the deficit.
And it's made up of measures that Republicans and Democrats have
supported in the past. Let me repeat that: what the President has
proposed is a series of measures that Republicans and Democrats have
supported in the past. The idea that a program was good under President
Bush but not under President Obama doesn't make much sense to me, but
that seems to be the thought process that passes for governing under
this Republican leadership.
So where's the Republican plan? They don't have one. It's not enough
to cross our fingers and hope that our economy improves. It's not
enough to close our eyes and wish that more people would find a job.
Actions speak louder than words, and it is clear by the Republican
leadership's actions that they don't care about the economy. Either
that, or they are making a conscious decision not to act simply for
political gain. Either way, Americans are hurting because of their
inaction.
Madam Speaker, our economy is not where it needs to be. There are
still too many unemployed people in this country. There are still too
many people struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay their bills
and to put food on the table. But this notion that red tape is what's
keeping our economy from getting off the ground and that thoughtful
regulations are preventing people from getting jobs is just untrue.
We don't need to waste time debating bills that make our air and
water dirtier and less safe. We don't need to waste our time with bills
defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. We don't need to waste our time
debating bills to reaffirm our national motto. What we need to do is to
get this economy moving. What we need to do is create jobs.
Republicans have been in charge now for 330 days. That's 330 days
without a jobs bill. It's not enough to call something a ``jobs'' bill
if it doesn't put someone back to work. No, Madam Speaker, we need a
real jobs bill. We need definitive action that shows the American
people that we care about their well-being, that we understand what
they're going through, and that we're here to help--in short, that
we're on their side. The bills we will be considering this week just
don't get the job done.
It's been 330 days, and Republicans still don't get it. I can't say
that I'm surprised. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1340
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I look at the clock above your head. I think it's been about 11
minutes since my colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz called for a toning
down of the rhetoric and focusing more on policy. I don't think we were
able to make it to minute 15.
I will quote my friend as he referred to Republicans: Either they
don't care about the economy, or they are just acting for political
gain.
Is that all there is? Either folks don't care, or they're just acting
for political gain. It could be that their principles are different. It
could be that their principles are different, but I don't actually
believe that. I believe our principles are the same, because what these
bills do is one thing and one thing only. Let's balance the regulatory
burden with the benefits that it provides.
Madam Speaker, who is it in America that does not believe that
balance is important in what we do here in Congress? I hear it back
home all the time: Rob, balance. I want you to get things done, but I
don't want you to get things done that are the wrong thing for the
wrong reasons. I want you to come together and work on these issues.
Who is it, Madam Speaker, that does not believe that regulation to
protect health and safety is important? I do. I come from one of the
farthest right districts in the country. I believe health and safety
are important things to regulate, but I believe we should balance those
regulations.
When we doubled the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency
between 2008 and 2009, where do you think that money went, Madam
Speaker? The environment that I live in in Georgia was clean and
thriving in 2008. But when you double the amount of money that you give
to regulators, they have only one thing that they can do with it, and
that's regulate more, regulate more.
We need balance, and that's all these bills are asking for. I have
all the committee reports here, Madam Speaker, if any of my colleagues
would like to come and look at them. There is not a line in any of
these pages that says: Thou shalt not regulate. Not one. What they say
is: Thou shalt regulate with balance--with balance.
A friend of mine was walking through the Occupy Atlanta protest the
other day, Madam Speaker. A fellow came up and shook his fist at him.
One of the protesters shook his fist at my friend and said, It's all
about jobs. And my friend looked him in the eye and said, You know,
you're exactly right. You should go out and hire somebody. You should
go out and hire somebody. The fellow said, I'm not talking about
providing jobs. I'm talking about I want a job myself.
[[Page H7952]]
Well, that's right. Every single bill that this Congress considers
that helps job creators helps jobs.
We've got to end the rhetoric of loving jobs and hating job creators,
Madam Speaker. There's only one opportunity that we, as Americans, have
for employment, and that is finding an employer. And line after line
after line of these bills say, before you punish American industry,
make sure the balance is there, because, let's be clear, Madam Speaker,
it's not that these jobs don't have to be performed.
Time and time again I hear my colleagues bemoaning the fact that
we're not creating jobs. I, too, bemoan the fact that this
administration has not created jobs. But that's not our only problem.
Our problem is jobs that are leaving this country, Madam Speaker. Our
problem is destroying even more jobs.
Industry is going to continue to operate around this planet. We can
either embrace it here in this country in a balanced way or we can run
them all overseas.
There's something that I believe we sometimes do disagree about here
in this Congress, and that is that government cannot create jobs.
Government can create an environment in which job creators can create
jobs.
I cannot pass a bill in this Congress, no matter how hard I try,
Madam Speaker, no matter how hard I work, that will make everybody in
this country rich. I cannot do it. But this Congress has succeeded all
too often at passing bills that can make everybody poor.
Balance, Madam Speaker, is what these bills contain. What this rule
does--and it's important because it's a new operation that we're doing
here in this House; and I'm very proud of it, and I hope my friends on
the other side of the aisle are proud.
This is not an open rule today. I don't want to claim that it is.
It's not on open rule. What we did, though, as the Rules Committee, is
we asked all of our colleagues, anyone who has a proposal that they
believe will make these bills better, send those amendments to the
Rules Committee for consideration. Anybody--Democrat, Republican--send
those amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration. This is what
we did in the Rules Committee.
We received six Democratic amendments for H.R. 527, six ideas from
the 435 Members in this House, six ideas for making these bills better.
They all came from the Democratic side of the aisle, and we made every
single one of those ideas available for debate here on the House floor
today. You didn't used to see that. You didn't used to see it under
Republican administrations. You didn't used to see it under Democrat
administrations. That's what we're doing here today in a bipartisan
way.
H.R. 3010, sent out a notice to the entire Congress, Send your ideas
for making H.R. 3010 better. Send them to the Rules Committee so that
we can consider them for consideration on the House floor. There were
12 ideas that were submitted, Madam Speaker--one Republican idea, 11
Democrat ideas. Three of those Democrat ideas were later withdrawn,
said, We don't want to bring those ideas to the floor. So that leaves
us with eight, and we brought all but one.
My colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), his amendment was not made
in order because my colleague from Texas (Mr. Olson) had an amendment
that was substantially similar, and knowing that time is valuable on
the House floor, we wanted to consider all ideas, but not all ideas
from everybody, each idea only once.
Seven Democratic amendments, one Republican amendment made in order
because we invited the entire United States House into this process.
This is the time on the rule, Madam Speaker. I'm not here to debate
the underlying provisions. We've provided time to do that. But I do
want to defend this rule as an example of what we ought to do.
Is it a little more convoluted than I would have liked? Yes, it is.
Is it a little outside of my issue areas? Yes, it is.
But does it make in order all of the amendments that our colleagues
want to submit? It provides for time for debate on every single idea
submitted.
That's an important change in this House, Madam Speaker. I'm grateful
that we've been able to do it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want my colleagues to understand that one of the amendments they
didn't make in order was the amendment offered by our colleague,
Congressman Johnson, which basically stated that if the experts
conclude that a rule would result in a net job creation, the rule
shouldn't be delayed and blocked by all the stuff that's in this bill
because we need jobs right now. It's interesting that that's the one
that my Republican friends chose to block because it has to do with
jobs.
Another amendment that they blocked was one that I had offered. I've
offered it many, many times in the Rules Committee, and that is to
basically bring to the floor an amendment that would allow us to vote
to strip big oil companies of taxpayer-funded giveaways--subsidies is
what I call them. And I've tried to bring it up on the floor a
gazillion different times in a gazillion different ways, and I'm always
told that there's a germaneness issue. But yet what does the Rules
Committee do? Oftentimes, it waives all the rules so that sometimes
nongermane amendments can come to the floor.
I mean, when you talk about balance, the fact that taxpayers are
subsidizing big oil companies that made over $100 billion in profit
last year, that we're going to somehow continue taxpayer subsidies to
these big oil companies, yet, when you look at the Republican budget
that they passed, they find ways to balance the budget on every single
program that impacts middle-income and low-income people in this
country.
What they do is they choose to balance the budget by lowering the
quality of life and the standard of living for everyday people and for
those struggling to get in the middle. There's no balance here. There's
no balance here.
And in terms of bipartisanship, the President of the United States
came to this Chamber and he gave a speech in which he outlined his jobs
bill, which included a number of initiatives, all of which had in the
past enjoyed bipartisan support. But I guess because he's the
President, he's a Democrat, Republican leadership doesn't want to have
those debates here on the floor, give him any victories, because that
might not be politically advantageous to them.
Let's be frank about what's going on here. In my opinion, this is
about political opportunism. This is about the leadership of this House
blocking important legislation to put people back to work just because
they can, just because it's been proposed by the President of the
United States.
We need to focus on jobs in this Congress. We need to be focused on
helping people get back to work. I don't care what part of the country
you're from, people are hurting, people are struggling, and they're
looking for us to do something, something meaningful, not to bring
bills to the floor like this that, in the scheme of things, mean
nothing or to have these great debates over reaffirming our national
motto or on bills that make it easier for unsafe people to carry
concealed weapons from State to State.
{time} 1350
That we're debating those things when there are millions of people
that are out of work, I think, is outrageous.
Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, as we stand here today, I would like us
to pause for a moment and think about an American family who is not
here. The husband works in a Home Depot, the wife works as an
administrative assistant in a hospital, and they make together about
$50,000 a year. And they're among the fortunate Americans who have
jobs, but they're frankly very worried because it seems like the harder
they work, the less ground they gain. They're going backwards the
harder they work.
The House needs to understand that a month from tomorrow, unless this
House acts, that family's taxes will rise by $1,000. A month from
tomorrow,
[[Page H7953]]
unless the House and the other body and the President act, that
family's taxes will go up by $1,000 a year.
President Obama has said he will sign legislation that prevents that
tax increase from happening. The Democratic leader of the other body,
Senator Reid, has said he will move and support legislation that
prevents that from happening.
Last night the minority leader, the Republican leader of the other
body, indicated that he was now moving to a position in favor of
legislation preventing that from happening. House Democrats are
prepared at this moment on this bill, on this day, to support
legislation that will postpone that tax increase on middle class
families.
The American people want us to work together, and I would trust that
the vast majority of American people would say that in these economic
times working together to suspend a thousand-dollar tax increase on a
$50,000-a-year family is something we ought to work together on.
President Obama agrees. Senator Reid agrees. It looks like Senator
McConnell agrees. Leader Pelosi and the House Democrats agree. But we
don't have that bill on the floor this afternoon.
This is our opportunity, colleagues, to move away from the daily
back-and-forth of Republican versus Democrat politics and do something
for which there is broad agreement and, I think, urgent need.
Now, we have 30 days to get this done, and our track record is not
very promising on meeting deadlines around here. My suggestion is let's
move this agenda on this day at this time and put before the House a
bill that would suspend this thousand-dollar tax increase on middle
class families, all wage earners, across the country. Certainly this is
something on which we ought to agree, certainly this is something the
House should be able to devote its time to, and certainly we should act
on it here today.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Even though I'm a freshman in this body, I have been working hard to
try to find metrics by which I can judge what's happening here because
this body is not like so much that happens back home. The metric that I
have found while we're debating a rule is that the less folks are
talking about the rule, I think the better job we did crafting it. I
think that's right. Because if it was an awful rule, we'd spend our
time talking about what an awful rule it is. When it's a pretty good
rule, we spend our time talking about other issues on the floor.
I happen to agree with my friend from New Jersey. A thousand dollars
for a family earning $50,000, that's real money. Now, I would say,
though, to my friend from Massachusetts that if you take that $1.75
trillion burden that the Small Business Administration tells us is upon
the American people because of regulations, that's actually $5,000 per
person. That's $15,000 per a three-member family. And so yes, I agree
with my friend from New Jersey that we should absolutely cooperate on
focusing on those burdens. The burden we're focusing on today? Even
larger, by orders of magnitude.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. ANDREWS. I would just ask the gentleman, then, if he is prepared
to tell us whether the majority will put on this floor before the 31st
of December a bill that suspends this tax increase on middle class
Americans.
Mr. WOODALL. My friend flatters me by thinking I have the answer to
that information as a young freshman on the House floor, but I'll tell
you this. I'll tell you that two things are true, and it is a puzzler
for me on the payroll tax holiday that's gone on this year.
On the one hand I will tell you that Republicans are absolutely the
party of lower taxes and not higher taxes and that actually speaks to
this issue. We're also the party of making sure that we're paying for
those commitments that we're making. Social Security is different from
any other tax, and when I go and talk to my grandfather, he'll say,
``Rob, I want that Social Security. I paid into it all my life.''
Well, we're not paying into it right now. The proposal is not to pay
into it next year, the proposal was not to pay into it last year. I'd
be interested to ask my friend if he's prepared to support lowering
those Social Security benefits because, again, this is something we're
paying into.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. ANDREWS. I am most certainly not in favor of that. I would
frankly make up for the lost revenue with a surtax on people making
more than a million dollars a year to cover it.
Let me ask the gentleman another question.
I understand that there are differing views in his party, and frankly
ours, as to whether an extension of the cut for middle class families
should continue. And I'm not asking him to say it would pass. That's
beyond the reach of any Member, even the Speaker.
But is the majority prepared to make a commitment to the American
people to at least get to vote on it, that it will let the majority
work its will and either vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on avoiding this tax
increase on middle class Americans?
Mr. WOODALL. I would say to my friend that the majority, again
speaking out of school as a young freshman here on the House floor, but
I know enough about my leadership to know the majority is absolutely
committed to protecting and preserving Social Security not just for
this generation but the next generation and beyond. And the question is
going to be can we find a proposal, because the one that was passed
last year was not a proposal that both lowered tax burdens and
protected the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.
We must be sure not to further bankrupt a program that we all agree
is already going bankrupt. I look forward to that debate, Madam
Speaker, between now and the end of the year.
And it's not just that tax that's expiring. I know my friend is also
concerned about the Bush-Obama tax cuts that were extended in December
of 2010 and wants to be sure that those will be extended in 2011 on
into 2013.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I'll be happy to yield.
Mr. ANDREWS. Those income tax reductions, of course, were extended to
December 31 of 2012. So there's not an urgent imminence to addressing
that issue the way there is with this.
I would just again put the question this way. I fully understand
there are different views as to whether or not we should avoid this
middle class tax increase. I'm simply asking whether the gentleman
supports giving us a clear up-down vote on having that happen.
Mr. WOODALL. I would say to my friend that I happen to support up-
down votes on all sorts of things. I'm an open rules guy, and I'm very
proud of our Speaker who believes that the House works best when the
House works its will. That's really one of the changes that I
understand we've seen in this year that we haven't seen in years past.
I think that's important, Madam Speaker, for us to be able to bring
those votes to the floor.
But it's also important to make sure that folks have all of the
information in the same way that folks might be tempted to
mischaracterize these balancing provisions that we're bringing forth
today as some sort of Republican chicanery.
Folks might also be tempted to characterize something that is going
to hasten the bankruptcy of Social Security as being something that has
no consequence at all. There really are consequences to this decision.
And to say to my friend I look forward to a robust debate on that
because it's an important issue for American families.
With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate that on H.R. 527,
six Democratic amendments offered, six Democrat amendments made in
order. The House works best when the House works its will. The rule
today is providing that opportunity.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from Georgia for engaging in good
spirit in this dialogue.
I would simply want to make it clear: I think it's the position of
our party very clearly the House should vote on whether to avoid this
thousand-dollar
[[Page H7954]]
tax increase on the middle class. That's our position.
I think you can hear that the majority position is a little more
nuanced than that. It is a yes-or-no question. We think there ought to
be a vote on avoiding a thousand-dollar tax increase on the middle
class. And we're ready to put our cards in the machine and do that.
{time} 1400
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My friend, the gentleman from Georgia, said that his party likes to
pay for things. That statement startled me a little bit because they
didn't think it was important to pay for the Bush tax cuts, mostly for
the rich, which have now bankrupted us. They didn't think it was
important to pay for the Medicare prescription drug bill, which was a
lot more expensive than they had promised and was not paid for. They
don't think about paying for the two wars that we're fighting in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
We had balanced budgets when Bill Clinton left office. It was after
that that everything got out of whack, and it was because of these tax
cuts, which were mostly for the wealthy, and it was because of a
prescription drug bill and two wars, all of which were not paid for. So
I hope my friends on the other side have finally gotten religion on
this issue in that it is important to try to pay for things as you go
along and to embrace PAYGO as Democrats have done.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Hahn).
Ms. HAHN. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I just don't think Americans can wait, but here we are
again today debating legislation that will do nothing to create jobs or
to help families during these tough economic times.
I agree with my colleague from New Jersey that we think that there
just needs to be a vote on the House floor on this payroll tax cut,
which, so far, my friends on the other side are not agreeing to. There
were 120 million American families that had $1,000 more in their
pockets this past year because of the payroll tax holiday that we
passed. I believe we need to pass a new middle class tax cut, one that
will save the typical family $1,500.
Now, I do agree with my friend from Georgia about job creators. I
love job creators, but I think I have a different point of view on what
helps our job creators and what helps our small businesses. I spent
Saturday, November 26, Small Business Saturday, shopping in small
businesses.
I went into every one of them, and I talked to them about what would
help them: What can we do in Congress to help you as a small business?
Almost every single one of them said, Do you know what we need? We need
customers. We need Americans to have jobs, and we need them to have
money in their pockets that they will spend in our small businesses.
That will help us. I guarantee, if we were to get more customers, we
would expand and we would hire more people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
Ms. HAHN. We know that it's our small businesses that have hired
almost 60 percent of the new jobs that we've had in this country. We
know that $1,500 would go back into the economy, and we know that that
$1,500, through this middle class tax cut, would help businesses in
this country.
I know we've been called the do-nothing Congress; but in this
instance, if we do nothing, Americans who can least afford it will see
a tax increase come right after the holidays. I dare say, Americans who
will see that kind of a tax increase in January might worry about how
they're spending their money this December, and it may just affect
their generosity, not only to their own families, but to those who are
in need in this country.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker,
to say I'm always happy to find things that I agree on with those
across the aisle.
I'll say to my friend from California that we're both new in this
House and that I spent my Saturday doing those very same things. My
small business owners told me that very same thing, though they told me
one more thing.
They said, Do get the foot of government off the throat of my small
business. They did say, Rob, you cannot help me by doing more, but you
can help me by doing less. You can help me by getting out of the way
and by letting me do what I do.
The question then becomes how we get those customers in that store,
and there are absolutely two visions for making that happen. We can
either try to dispense more favors from Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker. We
can try to pump more money that we don't have out of Washington, DC,
money that we're borrowing from our children and grandchildren; or we
can try to get folks higher- and better-paying jobs--more jobs--which
is what this rule is about today.
We are running jobs out of this country. We are forcing jobs out of
this country. The new report came out of over 150 nations, Mr. Speaker.
We are number 69 in how easy it is for businesses to comply with their
tax burdens, for example. Number 69. We should be the best place on
Earth to do business.
What is it that raises salaries?
Sometimes my friend on the left suggests that we could just raise the
minimum wage and just guarantee everybody money, but I don't believe we
can. What we can do is give folks an opportunity to increase their
productivity. No worker on the planet works harder than the American
worker. No worker on the planet has more productivity than the American
worker, and regulation after regulation after regulation slows the
American worker down. If you want to put more money in the American
worker's pocket, you let the American worker be more productive by
providing some balance.
Again, nothing we're talking about today, Mr. Speaker, says thou
shalt not regulate. We know we're going to regulate. What we're saying
is, let's regulate with balance. Then my friend's small businesses and
my small businesses will have those customers that they need to get
this economy moving again.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want my colleagues to understand that, if we were to extend
the payroll tax cut, according to Mark Zandi, who is a Republican
economist who advised John McCain in his Presidential campaign, it
would create 750,000 jobs. He also says that we're likely to go into a
recession if the payroll tax cut expires, if my Republican friends
don't allow us to have a vote up or down on it. I am going to ask
people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an
up-or-down vote on this and so that people will have an opportunity to
make their views on this issue known.
The other thing is we've heard all this talk about what the cost of
regulation is. Again, some of the numbers that have been touted here I
question very seriously. OMB's calculations demonstrate that regulation
has a positive net effect on the economy and not by a little. In 2008,
the Bush administration's OMB estimated that regulatory costs for major
rules were between $46 billion and $54 billion and that the benefits of
those regulations were between $122 billion and $656 billion.
So it goes back to the point I was making earlier, which is what we
should be doing on this floor today--debating a bill to put people back
to work. We should be extending the payroll tax cut. We should also be
talking about initiatives that the President put forward, these
bipartisan initiatives. We should be doing things that will make a real
difference in people's lives.
My friend talks about the American worker. There is no Congress, no
Republican leadership in my lifetime that has been more hostile to the
American worker than the leadership that runs this House right now,
bringing bill after bill after bill to this floor to take away the
rights of workers at every single level.
Do you want to know what one of the problems is with jobs moving
overseas? It's that some of the incentives in our
[[Page H7955]]
tax laws have made it easier and even attractive for companies to pack
up and go overseas and hire cheaper labor.
One of the problems with these series of bills that we're dealing
with here today is that it will result in a rush to the bottom in terms
of regulation--the lowest common denominator in terms of clean water
and clean air standards--because, among other things, this legislation
says that we should take into consideration the standards in other
countries.
So China is going to now set our clean water and our clean air
standards? Give me a break. Let's get real. Let's bring something to
the floor that will make a difference in the lives of the American
people, especially those who are unemployed. Let's bring a real jobs
bill to the floor. Let's do something meaningful.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I could likely go back and forth all day long with my friend from
Massachusetts believing that he loves workers more, with my believing
that I love workers more and with his believing that to define ``loving
of workers'' means we have to regulate them differently from
Washington, D.C. For me, ``loving workers'' means we're going to free
them to do those things that they do best, which is to produce.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee whose amendment was not
made in order by the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson).
{time} 1410
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
rule and the underlying bills. Instead of creating jobs, the Grover
Norquist/Tea Party Republicans are assaulting the very regulations that
ensure we have clean air, safe water and food, along with safe
prescription drugs and other products that Americans consume. They want
us to create so many barriers and obstacles that it would essentially
make it impossible for Federal agencies to do their jobs, all in the
name of simply increasing the profits of big business.
The Regulatory Accountability Act would require agencies to perform
60 additional analyses and other procedural actions within the
rulemaking process, further slowing down an already burdensome process.
I am talking about bureaucratic red tape. They want to take it to the
next level. They want to duct tape and blindfold and put a straitjacket
on Federal agencies issuing regulations that help Americans. This would
also make it much easier for large corporations to evade their
obligations to protect the public by giving special interests multiple
points in the process to tie up the process in knots.
The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act is no better. It's a wolf
in sheep's clothing. Don't be fooled. This is not about helping small
businesses. It's about halting regulations and increasing the profits
of big business. Under the guise of small business protection, it would
subject any regulation that could conceivably have any direct impact on
small businesses to a more lengthy process, thereby delaying the
implementation of virtually any action any agency proposes and wasting
agency time while doing so.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills.
Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would like to insert in the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy, which is opposed to this legislation.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3010--Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011
(Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 36 cosponsors, Nov. 29, 2011)
The Administration is committed to ensuring that
regulations are smart and effective, that they are tailored
to advance statutory goals in the most cost-effective and
efficient manner, and that they minimize uncertainty.
Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House
passage of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act. The
Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unprecedented
procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them
from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would
also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and
increase costs for businesses, as well as state, tribal, and
local governments, and further impede the implementation of
commonsense protections for the American public.
The Regulatory Accountability Act would impose unnecessary
new procedures on agencies and invite frivolous litigation.
When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, it must
already adhere to the requirements of the statute that it is
implementing. In many cases, the Congress has mandated that
the agency issue the particular rule or regulation, and it
often prescribes the process the agency must follow. Agencies
must also adhere to the robust and well understood procedural
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and major
rules are subject to the requirements of other Federal
statutes such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. In
addition, for decades, agency rulemaking has been governed by
Executive Orders issued and followed by administrations of
both political parties. These require regulatory agencies to
promulgate regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the regulations justify the costs, to
consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote regulatory
flexibility. Lastly, final regulations are subject to review
by the Federal courts to ensure that agencies satisfy the
substantive and procedural requirements of all applicable
statutes and consider input from the relevant stakeholders.
Passage of H.R. 3010 would replace this time-honored
framework with layers of additional procedural requirements
that would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to
execute their statutory mandates. It would require cumbersome
``formal'' rulemaking for a new category of rules, for which
agencies would have to conduct quasi-adjudicatory
proceedings. It would impose unnecessary new evidentiary
standards as a condition of rulemaking. It would subject the
regulatory process to unneeded rounds of litigation. Finally,
the Regulatory Accountability Act would undermine the
Executive Branch's ability to adapt regulatory review to
changing circumstances.
In these ways and others, the Regulatory Accountability Act
would impede the ability of agencies to provide the public
with basic protections, and create needless confusion and
delay that would prove disruptive for businesses, as well as
for state, tribal and local governments.
If the President were presented with the Regulatory
Accountability Act, his senior advisors would recommend that
he veto the bill.
Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what we should be focusing on
today--not guns, not abortion, not reaffirming our national motto--
jobs. We need to put people back to work. But that doesn't seem to be
part of the Republican agenda, and it's hurting our country.
At the end of this year, as you have already heard during this
debate, the payroll tax cuts signed into law by President Obama will
expire. Without action, middle class Americans will see their taxes go
up by a thousand dollars next year. Without action, GDP growth will
fall by half a percent and will cost the economy 400,000 jobs according
to the economic forecasting group Macroeconomic Advisers. Extending
this tax cut is not just good for American families, it's good for the
American economy. According to Ameriprise Financial, extending the
payroll tax cut could add more than 1 million jobs to the economy.
Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of legislation that we need to be
debating, not right-wing, hot-button social issues or bills that, when
you add it all up, don't mean anything to anybody in this country.
But where is this extension of the payroll tax? It's not in this
rule? It's not in the majority leader's schedule. In fact, the
Republicans seem to be ignoring this issue.
It's sad. It's sad that the Republican leadership would rather raise
taxes on middle class Americans basically to protect tax breaks of
millionaires. If there was a vote right now on a bill that was going to
cut one penny, it was going to cost Donald Trump one penny more in
taxes, the other side would be overfilled with speakers. But we're
talking about middle-income Americans, struggling Americans, that if we
don't act by the end of this year they will see a $1,000 increase in
their taxes.
Now, we can change all that here today. We can change that here today
and actually bring to the floor something that is meaningful. If we
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to
require that we vote on a payroll tax holiday extension for next year.
If we don't pass an extension, all working Americans will get a little
less in their paychecks beginning in January.
[[Page H7956]]
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
and defeat the previous question so we can make sure that working
families do not see their payroll taxes go up while we're still
struggling to recover from a recession. This is exactly the type of
action that people all over the country are hoping this Congress will
move on.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I'm proud to be here with you today, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about
jobs, jobs, jobs, that's why I came to Congress, and that is exactly
what we're talking about in this rule today. And I hope, Mr. Speaker,
you have seen with great concern what I have seen here today, and that
is a complete disconnect, it appears, with my colleagues on the other
side with the understanding that increasing regulation, needlessly
increasing regulation, burdens the American worker, undermines the
American economy, thwarts jobs. And I say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of
those things on which if we disagree we're just going to have to agree
to disagree, because it is as clear to me as it is that the sky is blue
that when you increase the regulatory burden you make the American
family poorer for it.
I know I can't ask for a show of hands here, Mr. Speaker, but if I
did and said, Who is it, who wants dirtier drinking water back home in
their district? Who is it that doesn't drink from the same spigot as
the rest of us? Who is it that doesn't shop at the same grocery stores
as the rest of us? Who is it who doesn't drive on the same roads as the
rest of us? We're all in this boat together. We're all this boat
together, Mr. Speaker.
I come from the Deep South, and whenever we start talking about
environmental issues, it always gets me so pumped up, because, dad gum
it, nobody spends more time outside than I do. Nobody cares more about
the environment than I do. And yet time and time again you hear that
characterization that somehow asking for a balanced regulatory
environment, a balanced regulatory environment, is somehow anti-
environment or anti-American.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, these bills before us today, the
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, the Regulatory Accountability
Act, that's why I came to Congress. That is why I came to Congress.
We cannot make everybody rich, but we can make everybody poor. And
when we regulate without regard to the benefits of that regulation,
without regard to the burdens of that regulation, that's exactly what
we do.
My friend quoted the OMB, talking about the values of regulations. I
don't dispute that at all. I'm absolutely certain there are some
regulatory initiatives that do, in fact, produce a benefit. All I'm
asking for is that we balance that benefit with whatever burden it
causes, because--and this is a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker, but do
folks honestly believe that the regulatory burden should exist
irrespective of the benefits that it provides. That's what we do. In
these two pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, we ask regulatory
agencies to examine those benefits and burdens.
Now, as my friend from Massachusetts talks about partisan politics, I
come from a district that was a proud ``no'' vote on both the
ridiculous stimulus bill from the Bush administration and the
ridiculous stimulus bill from the Obama administration.
{time} 1420
We are equal opportunity ``no'' votes on ridiculousness. And that is
what we have here as we try to reclaim some regulatory authority from
the executive branch agencies.
I'll be the first to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Congress went
a little light on President Bush. And I certainly believe the last 2
years of the Democratic Congress went a little light on President
Obama. I think we have a constitutional duty to defend our legislative
prerogative to make the rules that this Nation abides by, not an
unelected bureaucrat downtown, but elected officials right here in
Washington, D.C., here in the people's House, those of us who have to
go home and subject ourselves to voters every 2 years. This is where
that authority belongs. And we should have those votes. Yes and no, we
should have those votes on whether or not that's our shared vision of
America.
Now I'm going to get a little off topic, Mr. Speaker. It's clear to
me that we're going to be talking about the payroll tax over the next
week or 10 days. I want to encourage all of my colleagues to understand
that's not a free discussion. Every penny that you choose not to
deposit in the Social Security trust fund is a penny closer to
bankruptcy the Social Security trust fund comes.
It's easy to say you're going to get something for nothing, but we're
not. $15 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker; $15 trillion. We've already
been giving away something for nothing for far too long. The question
is how can we both help the middle class taxpayer with their tax burden
and preserve Social Security for generations to come. It's not a
freebie, Mr. Speaker. These are tough questions that require serious
answers, not on a motion to recommit, not on a motion to instruct, but
in thoughtful committee consideration.
I'll get back to the rule now because this has had thoughtful
committee consideration. Both the underlying provision and the rule
itself have gone through regular order. Mr. Speaker, there's no need to
rush these bills to the floor. We can take them through the process to
make sure that they are thoughtfully examined line by line by line. And
these bills have been.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, that's all these bills are asking
of our administrative branch agencies--that the regulations that
they're promulgating be examined line by line by line to make certain
that the benefits outweigh the burdens.
It's a surprise to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's even something that
we're arguing about today. I would have thought that this is common
sense. Certainly in my district it's common sense. Perhaps other
constituencies feel differently--balancing the benefits with the
burdens. Don't let folks tell you, Mr. Speaker, that regulations come
without a burden. I'll give you an example. I have a cardboard box
manufacturer in my district, manufactures cardboard boxes. It may not
be glamorous work, but it's important work. I was visiting the plant
the other day. They said: Rob, when they were talking about the ethanol
regulations, did they ever talk about the impact the ethanol
regulations would have on cardboard box manufacturers?
I said I wasn't in Congress then, but I never heard about it.
They said when you decided that you were going to insert ethanol in
every gallon of gasoline, you also decided you were going to raise the
price of corn. And we use corn starch in the glue that holds our boxes
together, and we use corn starch with our fiber to make our boxes
stronger. And every time you pass a regulation that increases the use
of ethanol and decreases the availability of corn to other sources, you
raise the price of our boxes. You can produce boxes anywhere in the
world; and if we can't stay competitive, we're going to lose this
business overseas.
Mr. Speaker, there are unintended consequences to the work of this
body every single day, and the arrogance to believe we can foresee them
all astonishes me. We must understand our fallibility. We must
understand that we cannot foresee all of those consequences.
So every time we have an opportunity to measure, Mr. Speaker, every
time we have an opportunity to look at the pros and the cons to ensure
that we're getting it right, Mr. Speaker, every time we pass a
regulation, we steal freedom from someone somewhere. Understand that.
Every time we pass a regulation, we steal freedom from somebody
somewhere.
Our government is a social contract where we agree to give up
individual liberty so we can exist collectively. We have public
services for safety and fire, on and on and on. But every single one of
those comes at the expense of personal liberty. But we have decided
that the expense is worth it.
[[Page H7957]]
Mr. Speaker, these bills do that today: balance benefits and burdens,
provide that information to the American voter, and let's make sure
that what we're doing is worth it.
Mr. Speaker, this is an example of how one ought to do a rule, how
one ought to open up the process, how one ought to encourage debate on
all of the ideas that are brought to this House floor. I encourage
strong support for this rule. I encourage strong support for the
underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 477 offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 5. Not later than December 16, 2011, the House of
Representatives shall vote on passage of a bill to extend the
payroll tax holiday beyond 2011, the title of which is as
follows: `Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011.'.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
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 Republican 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 Republican
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 Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In 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 Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WOODALL. 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.
____________________