[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1173-H1178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2842, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL
CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL JOBS ACT OF 2011
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 570 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 570
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. 2842) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation
conduit facilities for hydropower development under Federal
Reclamation law, 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 equally
divided and controlled by the chair 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. Each section of 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: (1) those received for printing in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII dated at least one day before the day of
consideration of the amendment; and (2) pro forma amendments
for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so received may be
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or a
designee and shall be considered as read if printed. 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
[[Page H1174]]
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. 2. The chair of the Committee on Financial Services
is authorized, on behalf of the committee, to file a
supplemental report to accompany H.R. 3606.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), 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. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This resolution provides for a modified open rule
for the consideration of H.R. 2842, succinctly titled the Bureau of
Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of
2011. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between
and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Natural Resources and makes in order all amendments which were
preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with
the rules of the House.
{time} 1310
So this modified open rule is a very fair and generous rule--a
continuation of the work of Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee--
and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of the
bill.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in
support of this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 2842.
I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, Mr. Tipton of
Colorado, as well as Mr. Gosar of Arizona, one of the cosponsors,
Representative McClintock of California, who is the chairman of the
subcommittee that held the hearings on this bill, and of course
Chairman Hastings of the Resource Committee, who brought this bill
forward as one of the companion pieces of the myriad of pieces of
legislation which, if enacted, would greatly improve our Nation's
energy policy and provide for a responsible and balanced approach to
further energy development.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, in my home State of New York, unemployment continues
to remain stubbornly high. Thousands of Americans have given up looking
for work altogether. For many, unemployment benefits have expired, and
there is little hope that a paycheck will soon be a regular part of
daily life.
Despite this dire economic reality, once again we are going through a
bill that has nothing to do with job creation. Instead, we have
piecemeal proposal after piecemeal proposal to do more to further
ideological goals than create jobs.
Instead of creating jobs, today's bill would clarify lines of
authority for two government agencies. Is this a worthy goal? Maybe.
Some say yes. But does it create thousands of American jobs? The answer
is clearly no.
As they have with so many other bills, the majority has also inserted
unnecessary partisan language into today's bill language that attacks
existing environmental law for no good reason. Specifically, it
provides a categorical exemption for all small hydropower projects from
National Environmental Policy Act compliance. There is no clear reason
for this exemption from environmental protection.
Currently, hydropower projects that don't raise substantive
environmental concerns have always been approved relatively quickly.
From 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions were completed in less than a year
each. In 2011, there were nine exemptions that were granted in an
average of 40 days. Yet, despite seeing a system that works relatively
well, the majority decided to once again put industry before the
environment and include this controversial provision. This approach may
fill a legislative calendar, but it fails to create jobs for the
American people.
We could be considering a 5-year surface transportation bill, which
everybody's waiting for, something we were supposed to consider weeks
ago. A well-written and bipartisan bill--and all the transportation
bills from the Eisenhower administration up to now were always
bipartisan bills--would have created thousands of American jobs; but,
once again, no such bill has come to the floor. Instead, they were
forced to pull a proposed surface transportation bill because they had
alienated Members of their own party with extreme provisions that would
decimate public transportation and fail to create jobs.
Now we continue to wait as the majority works to write a reasonable
transportation bill that will actually create jobs. In the meantime, we
consider bill after bill that does nothing to create the many thousands
of jobs that are so desperately needed.
Madam Speaker, the record is clear. When the majority pushes partisan
politics over good governance, the American people lose. Today is the
latest in a long line of such partisan bills, and yet one more day when
the American people will go without new American jobs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the chair of the
subcommittee that heard this particular bill.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this rule brings to the floor one of the most simple
and sensible bills on energy development that we have yet heard. It is
H.R. 2842, offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
What it promises is this: At precisely no cost to taxpayers, freeing
up absolutely clean electricity on a scale so vast that it would take
several hydroelectric dams to duplicate, simply by relaxing the
regulatory stranglehold, simply by getting government bureaucrats out
of the way, this bill has the potential of adding thousands of
megawatts of absolutely clean and renewable electricity to the Nation's
energy supply, reducing utility bills, reducing reliance on fossil
fuels, and, to answer the gentlelady from New York, adding thousands of
permanent high-paying jobs to the Nation's economy. All that is
necessary for this to happen is for government bureaucrats to get out
of the way and allow people to place small hydroelectric generators in
thousands of miles of existing pipelines, canals, and aqueducts.
This doesn't involve new construction. The facilities are already
there. It doesn't involve any adverse impact to the environment. These
are water pipes and canals in which there are no fish of any kind. And
yet this administration forces water users and developers to go through
a lengthy, costly, and pointless environmental review process that
literally doubles the cost of these projects and makes them cost
prohibitive.
The reason there are so few applications is because the requirements
of this absurd law simply make these projects cost prohibitive, and it
simply doesn't make sense to move forward with them. This bill simply
says this: You don't need to go through that nonsense anymore.
Now, why isn't this bill being taken up on suspension? It would be
one of the all-time no-brainers. It passed the Natural Resources
Committee on a bipartisan vote. The reason that this debate is required
is because this commonsense legislation is vigorously opposed by the
environmental left; that is the measure of extremism from which this
movement now suffers. Perhaps the best way to alert the American people
to this extremism is through debate that this rule makes possible.
A generation ago, in the 1960s, electricity was so cheap that some
communities didn't even bother with electricity meters, and there's a
reason for
[[Page H1175]]
that. In those days, we were building hydroelectric dams that not only
protected us from floods and droughts, but that delivered electricity
for as little as 3 cents per kilowatt hour. At that price, an average
household's electricity bill would come to about $30 a month. That
dream seems surreal today.
Today, government regulations are literally threatening the ability
of this Nation to generate sufficient electricity to keep people's air
conditioning and refrigerators running in the summer, just as similar
policies prevent Americans from prospering from our vast petroleum
reserves and nuclear power potential.
It's no coincidence that the States with the most stringent
regulations also have the highest electricity prices and the sickest
economies. People of my State of California, the land of vast
unrealized hydroelectric potential and a pioneer in nuclear power, now
use less electricity per capita than any other State in the Union, and
yet we pay among the highest electricity prices in the country. We also
suffer from one of the highest unemployment rates in the country,
despite ceaseless empty promises of green jobs.
Now along comes this bill by Mr. Tipton of Colorado that does
everything the environmental left claims it likes: It produces
absolutely clean and renewable electricity in vast quantities at
precisely no cost to taxpayers. It requires no new construction. All
that's necessary to achieve this is to put small generators in existing
pipelines and canals that have already passed environmental review and
pose no conceivable environmental impact. Yet, instead of embracing
this measure, these radical elements instead throw a conniption fit.
Well, let them do that in public. Let the American people see this
debate. Let them see for themselves the nihilistic ideology behind this
movement and how it is practiced by those in this Congress who share
and support it, and then let the American people judge. I think the
debate over this bill will offer our fellow citizens a real insight
into this movement, and I support the resolution that makes this debate
possible.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question--and
I hope we will--I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide
that immediately after the House adopts the rule, we will bring up H.R.
964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.
To talk about our proposal, I am pleased 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.)
{time} 1320
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Madam Speaker, 180 days ago, the President of the United States came
to this Chamber and laid out before the country and the Congress some
very specific proposals to help put Americans back to work. The
President proposed that we give a tax cut to small businesses who hire
people. The House has never voted on that proposal. The President
proposed that at a time when our bridges and roads and airports and
ports need construction and reconstruction, that we put Americans back
to work in the construction industry performing those vitally necessary
tasks. The House has never voted on that proposal. At a time when
police officers and firefighters and teachers are being laid off across
our country, the President proposed some short-term relief so we could
put our officers back on the beat, our firefighters back on the
apparatus, our teachers back in the classroom. The House has never
voted on that proposal.
Here we are 6 months later, doing what we're doing today. In that 6
months, another crisis has manifested itself, one that affects
Americans across our country more severely every day, and that is each
time they fill up their vehicle, it takes just a little bit more money
out of their grocery budget, the utility budget, what they use to pay
their mortgage payment, what they use to educate their children. The
rising price of gasoline is a serious threat to the prosperity and
stability of American families.
The president of Exxon has said that his conclusion is that about $30
of the cost of a barrel of crude oil is attributable to the speculation
of prices by people who never really buy, sell or use oil, but who bet
on its price: casino gamblers, not deliverers of oil. Goldman Sachs
estimates that anywhere from $22 to $28 a barrel is also due to
speculation, and they ought to know because they're no doubt
participating in it.
The bill that we would propose be put on the floor this afternoon
would crack down on that speculation. It would require that trades be
disclosed; it would empower regulatory agencies to identify illegal
price manipulation behavior; and reduce the price of crude oil to
American consumers.
There are other ways to do this. I, for one, favor increased domestic
production. I think there are ways that we can increase the natural gas
and coal and oil that we produce. I certainly think that we should
expand renewables as well. But there is one regulatory tool that we
have not given our regulators and we ought to give it to them here. The
underlying bill is certainly worthy of consideration, but we have an
immediate energy problem here in America, an immediate jobs problem.
And I would respectfully suggest that the right vote is to defeat the
previous question so we may move on and consider legislation that would
deal with the current price of gasoline prices.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this
particular bill, who will talk about how to create real power using
water resources that we have.
(Mr. TIPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIPTON. As a sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, I support
the rule on H.R. 2842, and I encourage an open debate because I believe
the merits of this bill will speak for themselves. H.R. 2842 is a
bipartisan plan to authorize new hydropower production and streamline
the regulatory process in order to create new American jobs.
Many rural water and irrigation districts and electric utilities in
western States seek to develop hydropower on Bureau of Reclamation
water canals and pipelines, but overburdensome and unnecessary
regulations stand in the way and discourage investment in these
projects. Most of these small projects are not currently authorized at
Bureau of Reclamation canals and, as a result, they never get off the
ground. Those that are currently authorized are subject to an
additional review process under the National Environmental Policy Act
even though the canals on which they are built have already gone
through a full environmental review when they were constructed or
rehabilitated.
H.R. 2842 authorizes the production of hydropower at all Bureau of
Reclamation conduits; and by doing so, it allows placement of small
hydropower generators on existing man-made canals and pipes that have
already gone through the NEPA process. This authorization does not
currently exist, and therefore hydropower development under current
reclamation law will not happen unless Congress acts. This bill also
eliminates duplicative red tape by exempting small hydropower projects
on previously disturbed ground from going through an additional NEPA
review. This bill does not apply to rivers, large dams, or natural-
flowing waters in any way, and it will not impact endangered fish or
wildlife.
In many cases, having to go through an additional unnecessary review
process determines whether or not a hydropower project is economically
feasible and, as a result, determines whether or not this country moves
forward with the development of green energy.
Chris Treese of the Colorado Water District in the Natural Resources
Committee testified on this bill and he stated:
Environmental reviews under NEPA are universally time
consuming and expensive. The River District's current
experience with an environmental assessment on a
nonconstruction action has taken over a year and nearly $1
million in outside expenses.
By eliminating this duplicative requirement, we can add power to the
grid, provide an environment for job growth in rural America and return
revenues to the Treasury. This commonsense piece of legislation has
bipartisan cosponsorship and passed out
[[Page H1176]]
of the committee with bipartisan support. It's also been endorsed by
the rural irrigators and electric utilities that operate the Bureau of
Reclamation canals and know the issue best. These organizations
include: the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources
Association, the American Public Power Association, and the Association
of California Water Agencies.
I'm proud to offer this contribution to the House Republicans of the
all-of-the-above energy strategy for America, and I look forward to a
spirited discussion on how we can produce more renewable energy and put
our people in this country back to work.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and in support of moving the
previous question. This motion would amend the bill with strong
provisions to stop price gouging at the gas pumps.
We really are long overdue for a serious debate about gas prices.
Scoring political points on this issue may make us all feel good, but
it serves no one, particularly our constituents; and it certainly
doesn't get us any closer to solving the problem.
Here are the facts: domestic production of oil in the United States
is at an 8-year high; imports of oil into the United States are at a
17-year low; more oil rigs drill in the United States today than in the
rest of the world combined. Let me say that again: there are more oil
rigs at work in the United States today drilling for oil than in the
rest of the world combined; the number of oil rigs in operation in the
United States today has quadrupled since President Obama took office.
Last year, the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in
62 years.
I think what these facts demonstrate very clearly is that this is not
a supply-driven problem, nor--as good as it might feel to some--is this
a problem that can be blamed on the administration for not doing enough
to facilitate or encourage exploration for drilling.
This is not a demand-driven problem either. Demand is down 6\1/2\
percent in just 1 year and 17 percent since 2008.
There are several factors that contribute to rising gas prices, but
U.S. supply and U.S. demand are not among them.
The gas prices in my district of eastern Long Island are up over 60
cents per gallon in just a matter of weeks. Rampant speculation
accounts for most of that with over 60 percent of the market controlled
by speculators. The speculators' overriding goal is profit-taking,
which is what our legislation targets. There is nothing wrong with
profits. Profits are what made our Nation strong. But when profits are
pursued at the expense of middle class families or at the expense of
our fragile economic recovery, we need to take action.
This legislation makes sure that we do cut out speculators. It
strengthens penalties for manipulating the market, which forces up gas
prices and leads to price gouging. After we cut out speculators, we
should cut out the subsidies for Big Oil, and we should reinvest those
dollars in a long-term strategy focused on clean and renewable sources.
Mr. Speaker, our debate should focus on a green-energy policy free of
market speculation and subsidies our Nation can't afford. We must
tackle this problem rather than using it to point fingers and try to
score points. Thus I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
I advise my colleague that I am prepared to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Millions of Americans remain out of work, countless more run out of
unemployment assistance, and meanwhile gas prices continue to rise on
every American family; and they are turning to us for much needed
relief.
Today's bill does nothing to address these pressing economic issues.
Instead, we're doing more busy work on the floor today, preparing to
consider a bill that clarifies the responsibility for two government
agencies. This type of bill does little to create the many thousands of
jobs needed to begin reviving our economy.
I urge my colleagues to end the long delay and finally bring forth
two American job-creation legislations so that American families can
live with some hope.
{time} 1330
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am grateful that we have found new sources of energy, specifically
oil and natural gas, on private property because it has not allowed the
Federal Government to stop the development of those, and that is the
growth that we have seen in recent times.
However, it is interesting to note that the bill before us, which
deals with hydropower and development of more hydropower, is a
bipartisan bill and for just cause. We can both agree, on both sides of
the aisle, that there is a great need for more energy, and that
greater, cheaper energy is vital to the growth of the economy and the
growth of jobs. That's what this bill tries to do.
Frequently in this House, we have brought bills that have tried to
increase our offshore drilling on Federal property. We have talked
about the Keystone pipeline and the ability of 20,000 high-paying jobs
if it were just permitted. We have talked about trying to increase
domestic energy production on public lands that have been put off-
limits by this particular administration. Those efforts we have dealt
with. We have passed through this House. They're over sitting in the
Senate waiting for action. And today we add to that effort with a
significant bill that will add to our hydropower and hydroenergy that
once again comes along with this.
But the problem that we have and the reason why this bill is here
before us, if I can summarize, is, simply, our efforts to add this kind
of energy to our portfolio are being stopped by special interest groups
and, unfortunately, layers of bureaucracy.
It was Nelson Rockefeller who came up with the great line of calling
the deadening hand of bureaucracy on proposals and programs; and,
indeed, we see that and we feel it today as we are having a harder time
trying to be energy independent, and we are feeling the results of the
Federal Government's program to stop energy production on Federal lands
and Federal property every time we fill up our cars and, unfortunately,
every time we pay our electrical bills.
Now, it is bureaucratic manipulation that is causing this problem and
why this bill is here. Look, it was the energy debate and the energy
bill of 2005 that told the Federal Government to move forward in this
area with making sure that we had a master plan for hydrological
development of energy. Seven years later, now the Federal Government
and our Department of the Interior is starting to move forward in that
direction, which is either the old cliche of paralysis by analysis or
the fact that Rockefeller was right when he called the bureaucracy a
deadening hand on programs and progress.
One particular program, the Klamath River, took 5 years for
government to decide who actually had the authority to move forward on
the project. That is the kind of bureaucratic analysis, that's the kind
of red tape that is slowing back our efforts to develop this type of
energy, and we need it desperately.
That's why H.R. 2842 is here, to develop small projects that will add
to our total energy portfolio and add to our independence. It stops and
simplifies a regulatory process which unfortunately costs these small
efforts, these small entities trying to make these efforts tens of
thousands of dollars just to do the paperwork. It's ridiculous.
It clarifies the role of the Bureau of Reclamation on this area. This
only
[[Page H1177]]
deals with Bureau of Reclamation projects on manmade facilities, but
the jurisdictions are not clear. Some jurisdictions have been mandated
by Congress; some are administrative; some are questions on whether
FERC has responsibility, the Bureau of Reclamation has responsibility.
That is causing our slowing in developing these projects. This bill
clarifies what that role is.
It also clarifies NEPA, that you don't have to do a second NEPA on
these small jobs. Anything greater than 1.5 megawatts of production,
you do the analysis again. But for small projects, on man-made property
where the land has already been disturbed and already has had an
analysis done and the mitigation has already taken place, we move on
and do the job.
The Bureau of Reclamation does have a right of categorical exclusion,
but they won't do it. All they're saying is, We may start thinking
about it some time in the future.
Let me give you an example. There are three specific projects in the
neighboring State of mine. One was mandated by Congress in 1990. They
are still starting the process because of that administrative red tape.
Two other projects took a full year for them to decide to actually
start going through a process, and when they did it, they realized
there was no change; it had already been done before. All you did is
take a year to check off the box and do the expense with it. We had
somebody from Arizona come in and testify that the administrator review
cost more than the actual construction of the project. That's silly.
That is ridiculous,
H.R. 795 deals with this same issue on non-Federal land. This bills
deals with this same issue on existing Bureau of Reclamation projects.
It's a commonsense development to get an untapped resource that we need
to develop. It would not significantly enlarge the environmental
footprint because these are already man-made entities who have already
gone through the NEPA process once, and there is no rational reason to
reinvent the wheel and do it a second time only to find out they were
right the first time.
What would be the benefit from this bill?
First of all, new sources of clean energy to add to our portfolio.
Second, we can facilitate small projects to help offset carbon-based
irrigation pumping in the West.
Third, it would help reduce the cost of energy. It would produce a
cash flow to irrigation districts so they could actually increase and
pay for and improve their aging infrastructure and modernize these
water facilities.
Fourth, it does create jobs, and for once we have a bill that
actually increases revenue coming into the government from this. CBO
has estimated, the Congressional Budget Office, that this will generate
$5 million in additional revenue coming into the government. So not
only can we create more energy, we can do the right thing, we can fix
our infrastructure, but we actually make money that comes into the
government to help with other issues.
There is a reason this is a bipartisan bill: because it's the right
thing to do.
There is a reason why we should move forward with this bill: because
it taps a valuable resource that will go to waste if we do not do it.
There is a reason that this bill is here: to speed up the regulatory
red tape, to cut through the cost, to make things happen and help us
move forward as a Nation with better energy development and energy
independence.
There's a whole bunch of good reasons for this bill, and that's why I
support the bill, and I also support the rule that will make it
possible to give a good and fair open balance to this debate.
With that, this is a good bill and an incredibly fair rule. I urge
the adoption.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 570 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, 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.
964) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and
other fuels, 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 equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill 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. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this
resolution.
(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. BISHOP of Utah. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
[[Page H1178]]
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.
____________________