[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5141-H5148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4078, RED TAPE REDUCTION AND SMALL 
  BUSINESS JOB CREATION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
6082, CONGRESSIONAL REPLACEMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ENERGY-RESTRICTING 
                AND JOB-LIMITING OFFSHORE DRILLING PLAN

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 738 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 738

       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. 4078) to provide that no agency may take any 
     significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is 
     equal to or less than 6.0 percent. 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 two hours equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform. 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 Oversight and 
     Government Reform now printed in the bill, an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 112-28, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House 
     and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of 
     further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the 
     bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in 
     part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 
     further 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 further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       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. 6082) to officially replace, within the 60-day 
     Congressional review period under the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act, President Obama's Proposed Final Outer Continental 
     Shelf Oil; Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017) with a 
     congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and 
     natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy 
     development, job creation, and increased domestic energy 
     production to ensure a more secure energy future in the 
     United States, 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. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources 
     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 Rules Committee Print 112-29. 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 C 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.

                              {time}  1320

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, 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 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 738 is a structured rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of President 
Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan, 
from the Natural Resources Committee and Chairman Hastings, and seven 
other bills that will be considered as a single package, including 
mine, H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act; 
H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act by Mr. Griffin; H.R. 
4607, the Midnight Rule Relief Act by Mr. Ribble; H.R. 3862, the 
Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act by Mr. Quayle; H.R. 
4377, the RAPID ACT by Mr. Ross of Florida; H.R. 2308, the SEC 
Regulatory Accountability Act by Mr. Garrett; and H.R. 1840, which is a 
bill by Mr. Conaway to improve consideration by the

[[Page H5142]]

Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the cost and benefits of its 
regulations and orders.
  H.R. 6082 is a bill to replace the Obama administration's final 
offshore drilling plan announced on June 28, which keeps 85 percent of 
America's offshore areas off limits to energy production, with one that 
would establish a timeline for 29 specific leases, some of which are 
not open for drilling under the Obama plan.
  The legislation would also require the Interior Department to prepare 
a multilease environmental impact statement for any leases required 
under the bill not in the June 2012 plan.
  The remaining bills are rolled into one package; and while each has 
its own unique virtues, they're all intended to provide for Federal 
regulatory relief.
  H.R. 373 is the culmination of nearly 5 years of work to build on the 
success of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA, which is a 
bipartisan initiative that has not been modernized since its inception 
in 1995.
  Given his express support for regulatory reform, my hope is that 
President Obama will support my bill, which incorporates many of his 
ideas, including those embodied in Executive Order 13563.
  Mr. Speaker, so often we thank people for working on our legislation 
and for working in the Congress only at the time that they retire, but 
I want to give some thanks today for the hard work that's been done, 
particularly on H.R. 373. There's an enormous amount of work that has 
gone into bringing this bill to the floor.
  I'd first like to thank Brandon Renz, my legislative director, who 
has worked with this for over 5 years. I thank Kristin Nelson and Peter 
Warren with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for 
providing the diligence and creative thinking needed to shape the 
product we're considering today.
  I also thank Ryan Little, Austin Smythe, Daniel Flores, and Hugh 
Halpern for their help shepherding this bill through the various 
committees of jurisdiction. It's this kind of cooperation that's 
necessary to ensure the proper functioning of this legislative body.
  I thank Chairman Darrell Issa for bringing this bill to the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee. He is providing extraordinary 
leadership for that committee and our country. But it's my colleague 
and good friend, Congressman James Lankford, the chairman of the House 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, 
Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, 
who is deserving of my most sincere appreciation and praise.
  Mr. Lankford's dogged work and determination to build upon and 
improve on my initiative is only one demonstration of his keen 
intellect and exceptional legislative acumen. For a freshman with no 
prior legislative experience to have received such immense respect by 
peers of both parties further underscores his professionalism and 
amiable personality. Undoubtably, this House would be better off if it 
were filled with legislators as serious about seeking tangible 
solutions to problems as Mr. Lankford and Mr. Issa.
  Mr. Speaker, it's on that note that I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule and the underlying bill and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I'd like to address process just very briefly, and that is that, when 
we began this session of Congress, we were advised by our Republican 
colleagues that we were going to bring up each measure individually and 
discuss them. This is a structured rule that does contemplate the 
opportunity for many Members to participate, but it isn't an open rule. 
What it is is it's a measure as the base bill that has cobbled to it 
six distinctly different measures--evidenced by the number of thank-
yous that had to come from Dr. Foxx to the various committees.
  I do agree with the one, Dr. Foxx, where you thank the young man for 
creative thinking. This is out of the box when it comes to us as far as 
process is concerned being creative. Cobbling six pieces of 
legislation--with another to make seven--is a bit much.
  This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape 
Reduction and Small Business Act of 2012, and H.R. 6082, which has such 
a long and convoluted name that the cost to the government to simply 
print the bill may require the Republican majority to raise the debt 
ceiling.
  What the red tape bill should be called, Mr. Speaker, is the 
``Eliminate the Government's Ability to Protect Its Own Citizens Act of 
2012,'' because that is what the radical legislation--creative, though 
one may think it is--aims to do.
  Under this legislation, Federal agencies would be prohibited from 
issuing new regulations until the unemployment rate falls below 6 
percent.

                              {time}  1330

  And I defy any economist or anybody else in the world to tell me when 
that's going to be in an economy such as the one that we have. So too, 
would new regulations be prohibited between Election Day in early 
November and Inauguration Day in late January.
  For the past 2 years, the Republican majority has been spending its 
time doing everything, it seems to me, to crash the economy by 
defaulting on our debt, eliminating the greatest health care 
protections made in decades, and turning sensible decisions about 
women's health care into a fantasy of religious persecution.
  But now it appears that perhaps struggling Americans have finally 
managed to capture the Republicans' attention, except that the 
majority's response is not to make the kind of investments that will 
actually create jobs, but, instead, to gut the Federal Government's 
efforts to protect the health and safety of American citizens.
  I realize that in the fantasy world inhabited by some far-right 
ideologues allowing polluters to run amok is tantamount to creating 
jobs, allowing corporations to pursue fantastic profits at the expense 
of public health and safety is somehow good governance, and enabling 
the middle class to fall farther and farther behind the ultra-wealthy 
is somehow a shining example of the American spirit.
  But I have to ask, under this legislation, where will these new jobs 
come from?
  I suppose we'll need more doctors to care for sick children, since 
the FDA will be prohibited from monitoring the safety of baby formula. 
We will need caregivers, I'm sure, willing to provide free care for 
older Americans, as Medicare will be unable to change its payments to 
providers. And we'll need new water treatment plant workers, as 
corporate polluters will have increased freedom to dump harmful 
chemicals into our drinking water, as they have for years.
  If I sound extreme, Mr. Speaker, it's because this bill is extreme. A 
blanket prohibition on new regulations is not any kind of solution to 
grow our economy. The FDA, the EPA, and the Veterans Administration, 
these agencies are not responsible for the failure of our jobless 
recovery.
  What is irresponsible is the failure to address the real needs of the 
American people. Rather than preventing the Federal Government from 
ensuring clean drinking water, we ought to be investing in the 
infrastructure that makes clean drinking water possible and that 
desalinates salt water.
  We ought to be investing in economic development projects, in the 
national infrastructure, in clean energy technology, in education, and 
in the kinds of programs that support those Americans who are 
struggling the hardest. Rich CEOs of big polluters aren't one of those 
that are in need.
  But speaking of rich CEOs out of touch with everyday Americans, it 
was Mitt Romney who said in 2009 that, ``You have to have regulation.'' 
He said that regulations need to be modernized, reviewed, and 
effective, and that Republicans ``misspeak'' when they say they don't 
like regulation.
  I guess what Mitt Romney calls ``misspeak'' other people might call 
``outright ridiculous'' because that is what the ideology behind this 
bill is. It is as ridiculous a notion that yet more drilling for oil 
will somehow--drilling in these places where companies like BP can 
cause the kind of incidents that we saw in the gulf--that somehow this 
is going to benefit the country. It won't.

[[Page H5143]]

  The other bill to be considered under this rule is just the latest 
manifestation of the Republican energy doctrine: ``Only drilling, all 
the time, and everywhere.'' This legislation does exactly two things. 
It tears up environmental protections, and it further enriches oil 
company executives.
  The House, under the Republican majority, has taken 142 pro-oil-and-
gas drilling votes this Congress. Using the hourly cost of voting in 
the House, as calculated by the Congressional Research Service, the 
more than 90 hours we have spent debating these measures that everybody 
in this House knew were going nowhere when they left this House, we've 
spent $54 million of the taxpayers' money debating, and these are the 
people that would tell me they want to cut costs.
  I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that there's always a chance that the 
Republicans will achieve success the 143rd time and additional hours 
that they try something. But once again, the majority's efforts reflect 
a dogged determination to rely on an outdated ideology that seeks only 
to reward the wealthiest corporations.
  We are already drilling at historic levels in this country. The 
United States is home to more offshore drilling rigs than the entire 
rest of the world combined. Seventy percent of offshore areas currently 
leased are not even active yet.
  This legislation isn't going to change the price of fuel for the 
average American. It does not mandate that oil drilled in the United 
States--Mr. Markey brought an amendment that allowed that if it's going 
to be drilled here, it ought to stay here. But this legislation doesn't 
allow for it to even be sold in the United States.
  In fact, oil will simply be shipped out to the highest bidder, 
similar to what's going to happen with Keystone when it's completed, on 
the world market, generating enormous profits for the oil companies 
while sticking the American public with the bill.
  I recently saw an editorial cartoon by Joel Pett. And in the cartoon, 
a man stands up at a climate change summit and asks, what happens if 
climate change is, indeed, a hoax, but we achieve energy independence 
anyway, that we preserve the environment anyway, that we create green 
jobs anyway, and livable cities, and have cleaner air and water. The 
answer, of course, is that we will all be better off.
  Republicans can stick their heads in the tar sands all they want, but 
pumping more fossil fuels out of the ground and into the atmosphere 
will not sustain the American economy, nor provide the kind of economic 
prosperity that will benefit all Americans. And as I've said before, 
and I repeat again, I'll be the last person standing against drilling 
offshore of Florida.
  At the same time, preventing the Federal Government from acting on 
behalf of public health and safety will not create new jobs. It won't 
return the unemployment rate to 6 percent, and it won't send a signal 
to the American public that their elected Representatives are ably 
minding public resources.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to point out to my colleague 
from Florida that we certainly agree on our side of the aisle with 
Governor Romney that we need regulations. These bills don't do away 
with all regulations. Republicans know you need government. We just 
want some common sense brought into our government. We want a cost-
benefit analysis done to rules and regulations.
  After all, we're here, we're breathing the air, we're drinking the 
water, we're eating the food. Our children, our grandchildren are, too. 
It doesn't make any sense these tired old accusations against 
Republicans that we don't care anything about our environment or our 
food because we're here living with them, also.

                              {time}  1340

  I don't think the American people are going to buy the arguments that 
my colleague made.
  I would now like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. I thank Ms. Foxx, my colleague, for her kind 
introduction on that.
  All aspects of this bill, each part of it, has gone through the 
committee process. Multiple of them have had multiple hearings related 
to them. There has been plenty of opportunity to be able to allow for 
input and for votes through the traditional committee process on this.
  The reality is that red tape is strangling our businesses. Each day, 
they wake up, and they are worried about what the Federal Government is 
going to do to them rather than what the Federal Government is going to 
do for them. There is an appropriate role for the Federal Government 
for regulations, but it seems like there is a never-ending acceleration 
of regulations--and not just small--they get larger and larger and 
larger and more and more expensive and more and more nonsensical at 
times.
  Let me just give you one quick example of this: community bankers 
that are facing hundreds of new regulations.
  When the problem seemed to be the largest investment banks, the one 
who got hit the hardest with the regulations were the community banks. 
Now community banks have to step aside. A bank that may have 14 to 20 
employees and $50 million or less in total assets, which is a very 
small rural bank, has to go and prove that these rules don't apply to 
them. That involves their hiring outside attorneys. That involves 
setting aside staff that should be doing loans. That involves setting 
aside additional time to prove these hundreds of rules don't apply to 
them and that they're not a big bank. Regulations passed on to them--
death by a thousand paper cuts is how they explain it to me.
  Simplicity and common sense need to be applied to how we do 
regulations. When there is no check and balance in the regulatory 
environment, it needs to have that.
  Now, the other side seems to assume that, occasionally, Americans are 
in need of daily oversight by the Federal Government, that unless some 
Federal bureaucrat or some Federal regulator is not standing next to 
their beds when they get up that they won't know how to get to work and 
that, when they get to work, they're going to cheat a neighbor and 
that, on the way home, they're going to cheat another neighbor, so we'd 
better have a Federal regulator standing right next to them because 
American citizens can't be trusted to do the right thing without 
Federal control.
  I would say the neighbors that I live around, in the cities that I 
visit all over America, have great citizens who want to do the right 
thing and are doing the right thing and are serving their neighbors. We 
have great city and State governments. They're doing very good 
regulatory schemes. We should trust them more to engage in what they're 
doing in the communities that they live in, where they eat the food, 
where they drink the water. They are the first line of defense on that, 
rather than taking all those things to Washington, D.C., and assuming 
all Americans can't function without someone from Washington, D.C., 
checking on them each and every day. Let me just give you a couple 
things on that.
  During the first hearing that I participated in here in this 
Congress, someone from the other side extolled the benefits of adding 
more regulations because companies were sitting on money and were not 
spending it. This was a way to force companies to hire additional 
people by hiring compliance officers--people to oversee regulations--
and that, if we couldn't increase employment in America through 
producing more goods and services, we would increase employment in 
America by creating more bureaucrats just in the private business.
  That's not how I see that you should grow an economy. Let me just 
highlight one area, one title of this great bill.
  Title IV of this is the Unfunded Mandates Information and 
Transparency Act of 2011. This was a bill that started in the previous 
Congress with Ms. Virginia Foxx as the author. That bill went through 
multiple processes in the previous Congress. We picked it up in the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and we did three hearings on 
it at the beginning of last year. We had city leaders, we had State and 
county leaders, we had private business leaders, and we had 
administration individuals from this administration and from the 
previous administration come and testify.

[[Page H5144]]

  In 1995, the House and the Senate and the President signed a bill 
called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It was a wide bipartisan act--
394 votes in the House and 91 votes in the Senate--to give information 
to the House and to the Senate before decisions were made about what is 
an unfunded mandate, and what effect will that have.
  There are large loopholes that have been exploited in the last 17 
years. This bill aims to fix those loopholes:
  It takes in all the independent agencies, and it also puts them under 
those same requirements;
  It puts in the language that President Clinton put in in Executive 
Order 12866 in order to clarify this, that the administration's 
functioned under. It puts that language and codifies it from President 
Clinton into this bill. It also takes a clarification of President 
Obama's that he has for this bill and also adds it into the language;
  It redefines ``direct costs'' with how the CBO already defines 
``direct costs,'' and it actually codifies that language and provides 
ability;
  It allows for a ranking member or a chairman of a committee to do an 
analysis of a rule to make sure that it is not exceeding our unfunded 
mandates requirements. It is very bipartisan. It's not just the 
chairman. A chairman or a ranking member can get in on that.
  It is the intent of this, in this modern regulatory environment, to 
clean this up and to make sure Congress has the information to make 
their decisions.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my good friend from Florida on the 
Rules Committee for yielding time.
  I rise to oppose the rule and the underlying bills, particularly H.R. 
6082, because that bill unreasonably expands offshore drilling without 
the corresponding and necessary safety standards.
  The Republicans are ignoring the lessons that we learned after the BP 
Deepwater Horizon blowout. Again, they are putting the profits of the 
oil companies ahead of the safety and larger economic concerns of 
families and businesses all across our great country.
  Certainly, memories cannot be so short that we don't remember the 
devastation caused by the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout and disaster. 
That oil spewed for months and months, and they could not cap the well. 
In the meantime, it caused serious economic damage, not just to my home 
State of Florida and to the tourism industry and fishing and to the 
hotels and motels and restaurants, but all across the gulf coast and 
all across the country.
  I recall very well, prior to the blowout, they said it was safe. They 
said drilling in deep water and offshore was safe and that there hadn't 
been very many accidents. But they were wrong. I remember Tony Hayward 
came in front of our committee, and he said, We were wrong. We didn't 
anticipate this would happen.
  You've got to anticipate that it will happen.
  Unfortunately, in the aftermath, we appointed a blue ribbon 
commission, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon 
blowout. They issued their report in January of 2011. They had many 
recommendations from experts in how you make offshore drilling safe. 
The Congress has not acted on any of those recommendations to make it 
safe. Yet, in this bill, they press ahead to open even more areas for 
oil drilling. That's not right. You're putting our economy and our 
environment at risk when you do so.
  This was a great commission, by the way, because they didn't just 
stop there. They've issued progress reports along the way. I know 
people oftentimes don't like report cards, and the Congress is not 
going to like this report card. They've broken it down into safety and 
environmental protection, spill response and containment, and ensuring 
adequate resources.
  Under safety and environmental protection, they say Congress has done 
nothing to make permanent the improvements that have been made by 
industry and the Obama administration. We've got to enact these into 
law before we go forward with more offshore drilling in new and 
pristine areas.
  They say Congress has provided little support for spill response and 
containment. If we're going to expand drilling--and it certainly has to 
be part of our energy portfolio--we have to be able to respond to a 
disaster, and yet Congress has done nothing there.
  It says, although the administration has provided increases in 
funding to oversight, Congress has taken little action to adjust the 
unrealistic limits on liability. Who is going to pay? It shouldn't be 
the taxpayers who pay for these disasters. Right now, they have not 
adjusted the outrageous liability limits that these oil companies have 
when there are accidents.
  What you're doing is really thumbing your nose at--you're turning a 
blind eye to--the hard work done by the commission, the commission that 
proposed to protect us if we were going to rely on offshore oil. I 
think it's going to be part of our portfolio, so why not adopt 
reasonable safety standards?
  I know some of my colleagues say, Well, we don't like red tape. I 
don't like red tape either, but this isn't red tape. These are vital 
environmental and economic safety standards to ensure that the $60 
billion tourism industry in Florida is maintained. Those are 
hardworking folks and good jobs back home. For the hotels and motels, 
even though the oil was coming out of the ocean 350 miles away, their 
businesses fell off. All we ask is that simple safety standards be 
adopted.
  Mr. Markey and Mr. Holt have proposed some of those as amendments. 
The Republicans rejected other ones. We need to adopt these. Otherwise, 
it is irresponsible to press ahead with expansive, new deepwater 
drilling in deeper areas, in pristine areas.

                              {time}  1350

  These recommendations are reasonable. And if the Republican Congress 
cannot take up reasonable safety standards in the wake of one of the 
worst economic and environmental disasters in our history, then I'd 
hate to say what's at risk for this great country.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Florida (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. Speaker, recent economic indicators show that another recession 
is a real danger. Consumer confidence is plummeting, businesses aren't 
hiring, and recovery continues to slow. Real unemployment is at 14.9 
percent, and millions of Americans have given up hope. The World Bank 
reports that the U.S. is now 13th in the world when measuring the ease 
of starting a new business. In 2007, we were ranked third. Last month, 
American manufacturing shrank for the first time in nearly 2 years. 
Economists are revising their growth projections downward. Inflation 
looms on the horizon, and Europe's sovereign debt crisis continues 
unabated.
  Some of the circumstances that led to this crisis are out of 
anybody's control, but many of these circumstances are not. 
Policymakers in Washington have an obligation to our constituents and 
to this country to work together to create an environment where the 
American people prosper. We have such an opportunity today. The Red 
Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act takes a balanced 
approach towards regulatory reforms that are desperately needed in 
today's market.
  For 25 years, before I was elected, I was a small businessman. I 
started a business not because of a government program or because of 
government lending; in fact, I couldn't even get a bank to loan me 
money. I borrowed money from a friend and grew that business over 20-
some years to 27 employees. I didn't do it because there were good 
bridges and roads next door to me. I saw a need, I took a risk, and 
worked harder than the next guy. I also knew the rules and understood 
that government was the referee, not the player.
  Today, the regulatory climate and litigious nature of many government 
agencies create uncertainty. Some falsely claim that certainty has 
nothing to do with our current economic crisis. Mr. Speaker, economics 
is as much a behavioral science as anything. When businesses don't know 
what the next regulatory hurdle will be, they won't invest.
  The Florida Chamber of Commerce has recently done a study of small

[[Page H5145]]

businesses in Florida. The results were clear: uncertainty is the 
number one issue facing job creators and entrepreneurs. Right now there 
are projects waiting on the sidelines that have the potential to create 
1.9 million jobs annually in this country. Talk about a shot in the arm 
to the economy.
  The only thing certain about this President has been the uncertainty 
that he has provided and the regulatory reform and tax reform for small 
business. Take my home State of Florida for example. According to 
research by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there is potential for 
121,000 jobs there if we have regulatory certainty. In the first year 
of operations, businesses could generate over $2 billion in employment 
earnings. This bill is not about generating profits for fat cats and 
Big Oil. How do I know? Because I have seen firsthand a project in my 
area come to a halt because of a litigious activist group that affected 
200 blue color jobs: secretaries, machinists, and more. There were 14 
Federal agencies, State and local agencies, 7 years of permits and 
review, only to have a lawsuit 1 month later kill the dreams of a 
better life for my neighbors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one thing I know about government 
is that before it gives to someone, it must take from someone else. 
This legislation presents solutions that are sensible and immediately 
effective. My neighbors are tired of the regulatory burden. I'm tired 
of the regulatory burden.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend 
and colleague from Florida that when he speaks about 120,000 jobs that 
may have been created, Governor Rick Scott categorically rejected money 
for light rail between the I-4 corridor of Orlando and Tampa that would 
definitely have produced 18,000 jobs.
  You can't have it both ways. You can't one minute say that you don't 
want something, and then the next minute say that some fictional number 
is going to take place that's a magic bullet. We worked hard to get 
that money appropriated. The last statement that he made was that you 
can't give something unless you get something. Well, they got from 
Florida, and that money went to the east coast corridor, to California, 
to Illinois. I'm not certain about whether any of it went to Kentucky, 
but I'm sure that the next speaker would be prepared to address that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to the rule which, if enacted, will block United States 
servicemembers and veterans from getting the best care and services we 
can offer.
  In the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to exempt from the 
proposed moratorium any regulation that is related to the health and 
safety of United States servicemembers and veterans. I did so because I 
believe, as I'm certain all my colleagues do, that servicemembers and 
veterans are best served when the agencies that serve them can provide 
critical treatment and assistance in a timely and responsive manner. 
Doing so often requires writing new rules and regulations. We should 
not, for example, block a new regulation that allows the VA to provide 
medical or other benefits to caregivers of veterans and servicemembers 
in exchange for a new talking point about the economy.
  My colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
agreed. My amendment was unanimously approved in a bipartisan fashion. 
Yet, inexplicably, Republicans are now blocking it from a full vote. 
Suddenly, they're ready to let our commitments to our heroes lapse. And 
for what, a new talking point? Over the next 5 years, more than 1 
million veterans will return home from war. Part of our commitment to 
them must be to ensure that they have the best services available, 
whether that's in health care, job training, or educational benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, most legislation has unanticipated consequences. This 
legislation has a consequence that is easily anticipated, and that is 
that we will be tying the hands of the agencies that serve our brave 
men and women in the armed services. I ask any one of my Republican 
colleagues from the Rules Committee to explain why this amendment 
wasn't made in order and why this rule is sending a message to our 
military and veterans that they aren't entitled to the best we have.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as I often do when I'm handling a rule, I have 
to make sure that the public understands the facts.
  It's my understanding that the amendment that the gentleman spoke of 
that was adopted in the committee and then presented in the way that it 
was presented for this bill was not germane. I need to point out to the 
public that it was not the majority, it wasn't the Republicans, who 
decided the amendment wasn't germane. It is our Parliamentarians, who 
are nonpartisan.
  I would now like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas, 
Representative Canseco.
  Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina, 
and I rise today in strong support of the rule for H.R. 4078.
  The Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act is an important piece of 
legislation that will ensure the government does not stand in the way 
of America's job creators.
  I have the honor of representing a district that reaches from San 
Antonio, Texas, to El Paso, Texas, including nearly 800 miles of U.S.-
Mexico border. When I head home for a work period, my days are spent on 
the road meeting with diverse groups of small businessmen, 
entrepreneurs, community bankers, farmers, energy producers, teachers, 
and law enforcement agents.
  The most common theme that I hear from my constituents, whether 
they're Democrat or Republican, conservatives or liberals, to the left 
or to the right, is that the Federal Government is intrusive and 
standing in the way of job creation by issuing job-killing regulations. 
One constituent even sent a letter to my office on how regulations and 
high energy costs are impacting his family. He writes:

       Our family is on a fixed income. It has become a hardship 
     to buy gasoline. Now, with the coal mines being shut down, 
     our electric bills are going to go through the roof. I guess 
     the wife and I will have to get a block of ice and a box fan 
     to stay cool this summer.

                              {time}  1400

  Since President Obama took office, we have seen a 52 percent increase 
in regulations deemed economically significant, which means a 
regulation costs the economy at least $100 million annually. And 
according to a September 2010 report from the Small Business 
Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion 
annually, enough money for business to provide 35 million private 
sector jobs with an average salary of $50,000. In the midst of an 
economic downturn in which the unemployment rate has been above 8 
percent for 41 consecutive months, 35 million private sector jobs is a 
very significant amount of jobs.
  The legislation we begin to consider today is an important step in 
the right direction to provide certainty to our Nation's job creators 
so they can start hiring again and get our economy back on track.
  It is amazing that this year alone, the Federal Register, where rules 
and regulations are published for the public to view, has seen more 
than 41,000 pages alone devoted to this regulatory explosion. These 
regulations would cost $56 billion and result in paperwork burdens that 
would take 114 million hours to complete. That is 13,000 years working 
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Imagine how many jobs we could create in 
America if those 114 million paperwork hours were spent on building 
roads, issuing loans, expanding small businesses, and selling products 
instead of pushing paperwork across a desk to please a government 
regulator.
  From regulating farm dust, stock tanks, and streams on private 
property, keeping young people off the farm, and imposing the most 
expensive rule ever on the energy sector, nothing is off limits for the 
out-of-control regulators in this administration. Even

[[Page H5146]]

though the House of Representatives has had some success in reining in 
job-killing regulations, right now it is still a good time to go to 
work for the Federal Government as a regulator in Washington, DC, 
because they are hiring.
  If we want more jobs on Main Street, we need less red tape from 
bureaucrats and other regulators in Washington, DC.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell 
both sides how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Florida has 
12 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 12 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased 
to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), 
whose State did benefit from that money that was to go to Florida, as 
appropriated.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on the 
so-called regulatory freeze bill which will act as a chain saw, going 
through parts of the government that have absolutely nothing to do with 
small business or small business job creation. And I say that as a 
former small employer.
  One of the regulations which will be butchered under this law is the 
income-based repayment program which the Department of Education is now 
in the middle of fashioning, which will provide loan payment relief for 
people paying title IV student loans. For a teacher making $25,000 a 
year with maybe about $20,000 in student loan debt, that program will 
reduce monthly payments by $100 a month. That is real help for people 
who are contributing to the U.S. economy. Allowing that regulation to 
go forward will not hurt the U.S. economy. In fact, it will provide 
more basis for that teacher to go out and survive and spend money on 
housing, car loans, et cetera.
  Yet this bill, in the name of job creation, will knock down the 
income-based repayment program.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. COURTNEY. The income-based repayment program is trying to provide 
student loan relief at a time when student loan debt in this country 
now exceeds $1 trillion--higher than credit card debt, higher than car 
loan debt. It is a commonsense program, fully paid for.
  The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, signed into law in 
2010, offset every nickel of cost in the income-based repayment 
program; and yet here we are, debating a bill at a time of crisis for 
middle class families because of student loan debt, denying them the 
needed relief which will help the U.S. economy.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The rule before us today provides for consideration of my bill, H.R. 
373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, as I 
mentioned before. While working on this legislation over the years, I 
have come to appreciate that the subject matter is not one of the most 
thrilling ever to be considered by this House. In fact, I'm confident 
that reading a summary of my bill would provide an effective remedy for 
even the most stubborn case of insomnia.
  Some have compared observing the legislative process with that of 
making sausage. Admittedly, in the case of my bill, it more closely 
resembles watching paint dry. Nor do I expect many in the media will 
sell many advertisements dissecting legislation entitled the Unfunded 
Mandates Information and Transparency Act. However, this certainly does 
not diminish the meaning or value of this important work.
  By collaborating with the House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, we've worked to create a comprehensive legislative package 
that promotes the principles of good government, accountability, and 
transparency that my constituents sent me to Congress to represent. 
These principles have been a top priority of mine throughout my 
legislative career, starting in the North Carolina State Senate.
  Very simply, H.R. 373 advances these priorities by drawing upon 
bipartisan initiatives to expand access to information. The legislative 
text, itself, identifies the stated purpose of H.R. 373 as improving:

     the quality of the deliberations of Congress with respect to 
     proposed Federal mandates by providing Congress and the 
     public with more complete information about the effects of 
     such mandates, ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates 
     only after focused deliberation on their effects while 
     enhancing the ability of Congress and the public to identify 
     Federal mandates that may impose undue harm on consumers, 
     workers, employers, small businesses, and State, local, and 
     tribal governments.

  But it does so much more than that. The strength of the bill is that 
it serves to inform more fully decision-makers engaged in the 
policymaking process while letting affected State and local governments 
and those in the private sector who must put Washington dictates into 
practice know what's coming and better participate in the process.
  Many provisions of the bill simply codify, clarify, and streamline 
existing practice. Others enhance the purpose of UMRA by applying its 
disclosure requirements to more circumstances while initiating more 
complete, detailed, useful, and accurate cost estimates to expose 
otherwise hidden costs. Yet others still protect legislative intent by 
closing loopholes in current law, allowing enterprising rule-makers to 
circumvent disclosure requirements while imposing costly mandates.
  All of these provisions are harmonized in a way that provides 
something for everyone--which, unfortunately, is a rare legislative 
virtue--yet underscores the unique opportunity Members of both parties 
have to vote for a modest, yet effective legislative solution.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentlelady 
that I'm going to be the last speaker, and I am prepared to close.
  Ms. FOXX. That would be fine with me, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman 
is prepared to close. I will have some more comments to make, and then 
I will close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  We could go back to the days when government was helpless against the 
robber barons who abused our public resources. We could go back to the 
days when citizens had no recourse against corporations who valued 
profit above individual health and safety. And we could go back to the 
days when unelected oligarchs drove this Nation's destiny, rather than 
democratically elected governments representing the interests of the 
American public.
  Prohibiting Federal agencies from carrying out necessary and 
essential public protections will not create new jobs. It will not 
boost our economy. It will not protect the most vulnerable and 
disadvantaged Americans in a time of extraordinary uncertainty.
  Drilling for oil everywhere and anywhere is not a solution. It won't 
even provide much benefit, unless you consider further enriching oil 
executives to be a benefit for millions of struggling Americans.

                              {time}  1410

  What Americans need is government that is willing to invest in its 
citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which proposes 
that Congress will not adjourn until the President signs middle class 
tax cuts into law.
  We have an opportunity to extend the middle class tax cuts for 98 
percent of Americans who make less than $250,000. This should not be a 
partisan fight; this is what we were elected to do. We should not 
adjourn into August recess while American families across this country 
are trying to make ends meet. It is imperative that Congress act on 
behalf of families across this Nation and bring them the certainty and 
security that their taxes will not go up in 6 months.
  I don't know about all of my colleagues here, but I have had the 
misfortune of having been involved in lame duck sessions; and the one 
that is coming up where we are about to go off the cliff is going to be 
brutal for some of the newcomers in this institution who do not 
understand that it seems to be a methodology to wait until the last

[[Page H5147]]

minute before we do something. We can do it in August. We can give 98 
percent of the American people certainty about their taxes and be 
assured that if they make less than $250,000 their taxes will not go up 
in December, or that their taxes will not be leveraged so we can avoid 
seeing to it that the Bush tax cuts on the 2 percent of Americans that 
are even concerned about the little bit of money that each one of them 
would have to provide in order for us to ensure safety for children, 
education for children, safety for old people, and understanding that 
the middle class has this great need.
  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 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the various elements of the comprehensive 
reform contained in title IV of the underlying bill can be 
overwhelming, which is why it may be helpful to elaborate on the 
purpose of some of the most prominent individual provisions within the 
package.
  In that light, it is important for the American people to understand 
the oppressive nature and full scope of the costs associated with 
complying with Federal mandates.
  As a former small business owner, I experienced a myriad of costly, 
overly burdensome Federal mandates, and I hear from my constituents 
every day about the challenges that they face in dealing with them.
  In my position as chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Higher 
Education and Workforce Training, I have become familiar with an 
example of a ridiculous rule that will unnecessarily complicate student 
access to higher education. As we all know, in recent months, students 
and families have urged Congress to act to stem the ever-increasing 
cost of higher education. In response, the Obama administration has 
offered several proposals claiming to reduce student loan debt and rein 
in tuition. However, these initiatives only further entrench the 
Federal Government in the affairs of States and institutions.
  In response, higher education officials are crying foul over a 2010 
Department of Education rule establishing a Federal definition of a 
credit hour. Higher education personnel believe this regulation will 
restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional 
Federal overreach into higher education. As we've seen many times 
before, onerous Federal regulation always come with a price, which in 
this case is paid by students or their families.
  It's time to take a comprehensive view of the problems facing our 
Nation's higher education system and eliminate burdensome Federal 
regulations that pile unnecessary costs on institutions and students. 
Rather than getting the Federal Government further entrenched in higher 
education, we should be working together to remove costly mandates that 
pile unnecessary financial burdens on colleges and universities.
  Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a statement from the 2012 
edition of ``Ten Thousand Commandments'' issued by the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute relative to the explosive growth of regulations by 
Federal agencies in the past 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, again I want to say that Republicans, contrary to what 
our colleagues have said across the aisle, are not opposed to all 
regulations and rules. We are not opposed to government. We understand 
that we have to have government in order to have a civil society. We 
understand that we have to have regulations to protect us in some cases 
from each other and to make sure that we have an orderly society.
  We live in the greatest country in the world, Mr. Speaker; and we got 
here not because of the government, but we got here because of the 
hardworking Americans who have good values, who love this country and 
want to see it continue to thrive. We can count on those hardworking 
Americans to do the right things in almost every case. What Republicans 
want are commonsense regulations, and we want to stop the flood of 
regulations that have come particularly from this administration. And 
the materials that I have submitted to the Record, Mr. Speaker, will 
document the unnecessary rules and regulations that have come, 
particularly in this administration.
  We have heard today many reasons for Congress and President Obama to 
pursue Federal regulatory reform as a cost-free way in which the 
Federal Government can promote economic growth. We have the worst 
deficit, the worst debt we've ever had in this country. We have an 
unemployment rate that is stifling economic growth. What we're 
proposing here today will help our economy, will help revive our 
economy, and will bring jobs to this country.
  This legislative package, with the passage of this rule, represents a 
variety of ways we can move towards these ends. As Americans look to 
Congress for innovative solutions to spur private sector job growth, I 
call on my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.

       The 2011 Federal Register stands at 81,247 pages. That 
     number is just shy of 2010's all-time record-high 81,405 
     pages. These years are the only two in which the number of 
     Federal Register pages topped 81,000.
       In 2011, agencies issued 3,807 final rules, compared with 
     3,573 in 2010, a 6.5-percent increase.
       Proposed rules appearing in the Federal Register increased 
     even more than the number of final rules, from 2,439 to 
     2,898, an 18.8-percent increase that signals a likely future 
     rise in final rules.
       Although regulatory agencies issued 3,807 final rules in 
     2011, Congress passed and the president signed into law a 
     comparatively few 81 bills. Substantial lawmaking power is 
     delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies.
       Of the 4,128 regulations now in the pipeline, 822 affect 
     small businesses and 212 are `economically significant' rules 
     wielding at least $100 million in economic impact. That 
     number represents a 32.5-percent jump over the 160 rules five 
     years ago, in 2006, and a higher level than any year of the 
     past decade except for the 224 rules in 2010.
       The number of final `major rule' reports issued by agencies 
     and reviewed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
     has grown. The 99 rules of 2010 represented the highest 
     number since this tabulation began. Five years ago, there 
     were 56 such reports.
       The five most active rule-producing agencies--the 
     departments of the Treasury, Commerce, the Interior, and 
     Agriculture, along with the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA)--account for 1,733 rules, or 42 percent of all rules in 
     the Unified Agenda pipeline.
       The government's reach extends well beyond the taxes 
     Washington collects and its deficit spending and borrowing. 
     Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic 
     regulations cost hundreds of billions--perhaps trillions--of 
     dollars every year over and above the costs of the official 
     federal outlays that dominate the policy debate.
       Economics 101 on tax incidence explains how and why firms 
     generally pass along to consumers the costs of some taxes. 
     Likewise, some regulatory compliance costs that businesses 
     face will find their way into the prices consumers pay and 
     into wages earned.
       Taxation and regulation can substitute for each other 
     because regulation can advance government initiatives without 
     using tax dollars. Rather than pay directly and book expenses 
     for new programs, the government can require the private 
     sector--as well as state and local governments--to pay for 
     federal initiatives through compliance costs.
       Because such regulatory costs are not budgeted and lack the 
     formal public disclosure of federal spending, they may 
     generate comparatively little public outcry. Regulation thus 
     becomes a form of off-budget or hidden taxation.
       As the mounting federal debt causes concern, the impulse to 
     regulate instead can also mount. Deficit spending, in a 
     manner of speaking, can manifest itself as regulatory 
     compliance costs that go largely unacknowledged by the 
     federal government. Worse, if regulatory compliance costs 
     prove burdensome, Congress can escape accountability by 
     blaming the agencies that issue the unpopular rules.
       Openness about regulatory facts and figures is critical, 
     just as disclosure of program costs is critical in the 
     federal budget . . .
       [But] Disclosure of and accountability for regulatory costs 
     are spotty. This allows policy makers to be reckless about 
     imposing regulatory costs relative to undertaking ordinary--
     but more publicly visible--government spending.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 738 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3
       It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent 
     resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die 
     unless the

[[Page H5148]]

     House has been notified that the President has signed a bill 
     to extend for one year certain expired or expiring tax 
     provisions that apply to middle-income taxpayers with income 
     below $250,000 for married couples filing jointly, and below 
     $200,000 for single filers, including, but not limited to, 
     marginal rate reductions, capital gains and dividend rate 
     preferences, alternative minimum tax relief, marriage penalty 
     relief, and expanded tax relief for working families with 
     children and college students.
                                  ____

       (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.

  Ms. FOXX. 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 on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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.

                          ____________________