[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 134 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7684-H7691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2, AMERICAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS FOR
LOWER COSTS AND MORE AMERICAN JOBS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 4, JOBS FOR AMERICA ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE
PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 22, 2014, THROUGH NOVEMBER 11, 2014
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 727 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 727
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2) to remove
Federal Government obstacles to the production of more
domestic energy; to ensure transport of that energy reliably
to businesses, consumers, and other end users; to lower the
cost of energy to consumers; to enable manufacturers and
other businesses to access domestically produced energy
affordably and reliably in order to create and sustain more
secure and well-paying American jobs; and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to make
revisions to Federal law to improve the conditions necessary
for economic growth and job creation, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from
September 22, 2014, through November 11, 2014,--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 5. Each day during the period addressed by section 3
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 6. Each day during the period addressed by section 3
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my
friend, 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. SESSIONS. 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
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering a rule for
the consideration of two bills, a package to boost America's energy
production and a package to jump-start our American economy. Combined,
these bills will help get America back to work with an America that we
can afford.
First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2, the American
Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act.
This bill would accomplish three important goals for the American
family: first, it would create up to 1.2 million good-paying jobs for
Americans who are out of work or who are underemployed; second, it
would lower--it would lower--energy prices in America; third, it would
draw our country closer to an important goal that we should all share,
and that is American energy independence.
Let's start by identifying the problem. The facts of the case are
that the Federal Government is standing in the way of an American
energy boom. That means they are standing in the way of American
progress and progress for Americans to have jobs and a better life.
For over 6 years, the American people have waited for this
administration to approve construction of the Keystone pipeline.
Unfortunately, the approval process has been marred by indecision and
unnecessary delays.
First, opponents of the pipeline argue that it would be an
environmental disaster; since then, virtually all of the major
environmental concerns surrounding the project have been not only
addressed, but debugged.
Second, opponents of the pipeline argue that it was unsafe; yet study
after study after study have shown the pipeline to be safe and an
effective means to transport much-needed energies for America's
resources.
The opponents of the Keystone pipeline have run out of excuses, but
they continue to delay a decision.
Then there is the Department of Energy, which has been far too slow
in approving applications to export liquefied natural gas. The
Department has decided on only nine applications submitted to it for
the last 4 years.
Twenty-six applications still await action--many, many of which have
been delayed by this administration for purely political reasons--
another reason to say they are getting in the way of Americans having
jobs today. They are getting in the way of American independence for
energy.
As a result of these delays, America is squandering an energy boom
that could make America, which is the largest producer of natural gas,
even better and add to the American economy.
The Department's broken application process destroys good-paying jobs
and hampers our economic growth. The energy revolution already supports
1.7 million high-paying, great jobs in America, and we could add an
additional 1.3 million new American high-paying jobs by 2020, but only
if the Federal Government will get out of the way of its development.
It also allows our international competitors, such as Russia and
Iran, not to be dominant in the marketplace and not to use domination
for political power and economic power over other countries in Europe.
The Federal Government has ruled 87 percent of our offshore acreage
currently off-limits to energy production. Even worse, the
administration doesn't have a plan to develop these resources. In fact,
the administration's offshore leasing plan for the next 3 years offers
no new areas for lease and includes the lowest number of lease sales in
history.
This administration's no new drilling policies have cost Americans
jobs. We have forfeited revenue that would help us pay down our
national debt and denied access to American oil and natural gas that
would lessen dependence on foreign sources. More importantly, the
American consumer continues to pay higher prices at the pump, nearly
[[Page H7685]]
double from the time this administration took office a scant 5-plus
years ago.
My friends in the minority might rightly point out that U.S. oil and
natural gas production is growing; however, the growth is entirely due
to increased output on State and private lands, not on Federal lands.
Our growth in energy production is in spite of the Federal Government,
not because of it.
Combined, these policies hurt the American people. They hurt men,
women, and families who need to be able to have a stable price at the
pump with energy that is available in a constant supply throughout the
seasons.
High energy costs drive up prices, they limit what American families
can do with their individual resources, and it is a problem in our
economy. That means that the American people have less money in their
pockets to buy groceries, to pay the mortgage, or to purchase school
supplies for their kids.
What are the solutions to these problems? First, the energy package
considered under this rule would speed up approval of the Keystone
pipeline. When completed, the Keystone pipeline will transport over
800,000 barrels of oil every single day, adding to the supply.
That means that we can wean ourselves off Middle East oil. The
equivalent of half of our daily imports comes from the Middle East.
Second, the bill would force the Department of Energy to issue a
final decision on applications to export liquefied natural gas within
30 days of completing the environmental review process, an important
step in increasing our exports of LNG and adding to the 1.3 million
jobs that are awaiting filling as a result of this delay by this
administration.
Third, H.R. 2 would expand oil and natural gas production in the
United States by rolling back the administration's overzealous
environmental policies that have slowed our economic progress and made
energy too expensive.
At a time when so many Americans are unemployed and underemployed,
this job-creating legislation would unleash our vast energy resources
to create these 1.2 million jobs. We need them now. We need America to
have stable energy prices.
In short, the bill would finally pave a way forward for energy
policies that would lower energy prices, strengthen our economy, create
jobs, lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources, and give the
American family and worker an opportunity to have gasoline at the pump
at a lesser price.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
{time} 1215
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bills, the so-called American Energy Solutions for Lower
Costs and More American Jobs Act--it is H.R. 2--and the Jobs for
America, so-called, Act, H.R. 4. Don't let the titles of these bills
fool you. H.R. 2 and H.R. 4 won't create any new jobs but would
continue to degrade the quality of life and health of the American
people.
These bills put more money in the pockets of big industry, corporate
welfare, undermine the efficiency of our regulatory activities, and
continue to fail to provide opportunities for the middle class, while
they continue to enrich international conglomerates and corporations.
Not only are these bills bad, but I should add, Mr. Speaker, the
House has already voted on all of these bills that are already included
in H.R. 2 and H.R. 4 this session--just another waste of taxpayer time
and money here debating and voting on bills that have already been
passed. Just as the Republicans have chosen to repeal the Affordable
Care Act 53 times, so too we are passing many of these bills for the
second time here today if that is the decision the House chooses to
make.
Now, I think it is clear, all of us here know, that these bills will
not become law, that the Senate did not take them up after the House
passed them. There is no indication or reason to believe that in this
new configuration and being lumped together in new and more sinister
ways that the Senate will react any more positively.
Sadly, it is quite clear that the majority here in the House are
either unable or unwilling to bring forth fresh ideas to jump-start the
middle class.
These bills instead are bound to political pandering, rewarding of
campaign donors and large corporations in advance of elections, instead
of taking advantage of our precious few remaining days of session to
address the real problems facing our Nation.
I am also dismayed that both of these bills are being reviewed under
a closed rule here today. It was fairly recently here on the floor of
the House that we celebrated the diamond jubilee of closed rules, 75
closed rules from the Republican Party. H.R. 2 and H.R. 4 are the 76th
and 77th closed rules this Congress. Just before this Chamber breaks
for a 6-week-long recess, the majority has shut down the process of
regular order and not allowed Republicans or Democrats to offer our
amendments to improve these bills.
Even though they are not bringing new legislation before us today, we
should at least allow--at least allow--Democrats and Republicans to
offer their ideas to make these bills better. What is the point in
passing the exact same bills without even giving Members of this body
the ability to make them better?
I offered two amendments in this bill, which I will speak about
later, but, unfortunately, neither was made in order. Other Members of
this body also offered great ideas to help improve this legislation,
but none were allowed. Instead, we have a restricted rule which has
shut out debate from Members on both sides of the aisle. If we can
defeat this rule, we can move forward with an open process, encouraging
and allowing amendments from both sides of the aisle.
We don't have the precious time left for political posturing. While
we were talking here now, I got a text on my phone that votes are, in
fact, canceled for tomorrow. I am not sure if my colleague is yet aware
of that or if the Speaker is yet aware of that, but this, in fact, may
be the last day that we are in session before the election.
And yet instead of dealing with immigration reform, there is a bill
to pass of more than two-thirds. Instead of protecting LGBT Americans
from being fired from their job just because of who they love or who
they are, here we are today bringing forward bills that have already
passed in different configurations, that would hurt the quality of life
for American families, that would hurt the environment and hurt the
health of the American people.
This compilation of bills in H.R. 2 is really an oil and gas industry
wish list. Now, of course all of us support responsible energy
development on Federal lands and private lands, make sure we balance
production with our quality of life and our health. This bill, however,
would prioritize development over all other uses of land and all other
values that we hold as a country. This bill would also reduce important
protections that we have in favor of speculative energy exploration and
development.
Now is not the time to pass a massive corporate giveaway bill to the
oil and gas industry, an industry that is already very profitable. They
don't need more taxpayer subsidies just to add to their bottom line,
especially not at the expense of our health, our environment, and the
enjoyment of our public lands and our quality of life.
While there are many problematic provisions in the bill, several are
particularly concerning. One provision in the bill would streamline
pipeline approvals, so would even allow for the automatic approval of
natural gas pipeline projects without any impact studies or
opportunities for public comment.
This bill would also discourage environmental analysis, undermine
agency decisions like curbing carbon pollution, and yet another
provision would prevent the Federal Government from overseeing fracking
activities on Federal lands, an issue near and dear to the hearts of my
constituents in the State of Colorado.
It is particularly egregious that given that this bill has a wish
list from the oil and gas industry, that somehow, for those of us who
support an all-of-the-above energy approach, it left out the wind
energy production tax credit.
[[Page H7686]]
The wind production tax credit is a solution that has allowed for rapid
scaling of wind power over the past couple of decades. So why would we
be doubling down with taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas industry
at the same time we are not even renewing the one important subsidy
that wind energy has?
Now, I offered two different solutions for this, and I was hoping
either one of them would have been a constructive way to approach this
on the floor of the House. I offered an amendment with Mr. Perlmutter
to simply extend the wind production tax credit for the next 2 years.
Now, that would create jobs, encourage private investment, and allow
wind energy to compete on a level playing field with the heavily
subsidized oil and gas industry.
I also offered another solution--and I am certainly willing to
support either--and that solution would be to eliminate the over $40
billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas industry. If we had
gone that route, again, at least wind and solar energy would be able to
compete on a level playing field because we would stop doling out our
precious taxpayer dollars as subsidies to the legacy interests in the
oil and gas industry.
That too was not allowed to even be debated, not for 10 minutes, not
for 1 minute. Instead, apparently having Friday off was more important
than allowing Democratic and Republican Members of this body to present
their ideas on how to make a bad bill better.
H.R. 4, the Jobs for America Act, is a group of 15 bills that have
also been previously passed by the House. Many of them serve to attack
our processes we have in place to keep American consumers safe. The
bill empowers polluters, bogs down agencies that are charged with
protecting the public health. None of them have become law, having
already been passed, and I think all my colleagues here know that none
of them will become law in this new and more sinister configuration.
Now, I would love to see a balanced tax extender package that lowers
the Federal deficit, strengthens our economy, can actually pass the
Senate and be signed into law, but I think we all know that is not the
bill before us today.
H.R. 4 would actually add to the deficit by making tax cuts for many
special interests permanent. A $574 billion deficit-busting bill on our
last day of session, what a great lead-in to the general election for
the Republicans to present a massive, Big Government spending, $574
billion subsidy bill for our consideration. I think the American people
understand the contrast and the different approaches that are in play
this year.
Now, an amendment I offered with Mr. Blumenauer, which I mentioned
earlier, would have offset some of that cost by eliminating the oil and
gas industry subsidies to the tune of $40 billion. Now, the bill still
would have cost $534 billion, but it would have cost $40 billion less
if we had eliminated the oil and gas subsidies. But, again, apparently
having a Friday off is more important to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle than having a full and open debate of the merits or
lack of merits of the proposal I advanced with Mr. Blumenauer.
In summary, I oppose the closed rule in addition to the underlying
bills.
Now, we could have shown the American people that Congress could end
on a positive note, that we could come together and address our broken
immigration system, that we could come together to address our deficit;
but instead, we are providing yet another example of why Congress
continues to have record low approval ratings: rehashed, repackaged,
partisan bills costing taxpayers $574 billion, enriching the special
interests in corporations, and then going on vacation. And people
wonder why the American people aren't thrilled with the United States
Congress.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden), from the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Rules Committee has
actually read the bills that are in this package and knows that they
are much more than what my colleague and friend from Colorado just
described. Because actually, the forestry legislation is something that
passed this House 363 days ago in a big bipartisan vote, a big portion
of which was written by my Democratic friends Peter DeFazio and Kurt
Schrader. That is in this package.
We have another bill coming up later that has twice passed this House
unanimously. Those aren't partisan bills that are being put out, as you
said, Mr. Polis, to reward donors or anything else. This is about
creating jobs in America.
By the way, lots of parts of the world, like my district, need jobs.
They need the certainty of jobs. And I don't know about Colorado, but
Oregon and California and a lot of places are going up in smoke, choked
with smoke because of forest fires.
The legislation in this package that we are going to send back over
to the Senate one more time, thanks to this rule and thanks to the
leadership of this chairman, would allow us to get people back to work
in the woods, address the problems of these fires, produce revenues for
schoolteachers, for sheriffs and sheriff's deputies, for search and
rescue, for all the basic, fundamental services that matter in rural
communities and, I think, matter across the West.
So, if you don't believe in taking care of your forests, then vote
``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, 363 days ago, the House passed H.R. 1526, the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. Two days short of a year,
the Senate has done nothing--nothing. They failed to pass a single
active forestry bill--nothing. Our forests are going up in smoke. We
are spending taxpayer dollars to fight the fires. We are devastating
watersheds. This has to change.
The Federal Government controls over 50 percent of the land in
Oregon. In 10 of the 20 counties I represent, they control over half of
the land. Over the last 30 years, timber harvests on these lands, these
Federal lands, has been decreased by 90 percent--nine-zero. Forests
aren't static; they keep growing and they keep dying. We get beetle
infestations; we get drought; and then we get fire. Nothing happens
after the fire, other than the trees sit there and burn. Then they die;
then they rot; then they fall over. There is no productive use. All
that needs to change.
Ninety percent reduction in harvest of Federal lands.
Do you know what that means out in our areas where the Federal
Government is supposed to be the steward? It means that we have lost
300 mills and 30,000 American jobs--30,000 American jobs. These are
jobs bills we are talking about here. These same rural areas that I
represent have poverty rates at 20, 25, 30, even as high as 33.9
percent in Josephine County, right down in here, 33.9.
You want to do something about poverty? Create a job. You want to do
something about getting America on track? Pass these bills. Get the
Senate to pass these bills. We will create jobs. We will generate
revenue. We will have positive cash flow in this country for once. It
doesn't have to be this way. We can put people back to work. So
Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop and myself and others worked on
the bipartisan forestry legislation.
As I mentioned, we actually have run this bill through an independent
evaluation process to say what does this mean for the people of Oregon,
because there is a portion here that relates just to the O&C lands
which are only in Oregon. Democratic Governor--Democratic Governor--
John Kitzhaber, his team took a look at our bipartisan bill, and they
concluded that it would create or save 3,000 Oregon jobs. These are
real jobs. These are real people. These are real families that have
been suffering. Three thousand Oregon jobs.
It would generate $100 million in revenue or thereabouts. That would
pay--pay--for basic services, pay for basic services. 500 million
board-feet of timber a year would be harvested. It would be
predictable. You would have a private sector involvement here.
Twenty-nine Oregon counties, from Klamath, to Hood River, to Wallowa,
including all 20 in my district, 29 Oregon counties passed resolutions
supporting this bipartisan legislation. We passed it 363 days ago. The
Senate, I don't know what they do over there, not much productive. We
are going to give them another chance.
[[Page H7687]]
Yes, we are repackaging these bills. Yes, the House has passed these
bills before. Yes, they passed in a bipartisan manner. We are at the
end of our legislative session. It is time, one more time, to make
another attempt to pass this into law, to wake up the Senate, to get
them to do the right thing.
So support the rule. Let's move forward. We don't need more partisan
rhetoric here. We need to help America get on its feet. We need to take
better care of our forests. We need to take better care of our
watersheds. We need to put people back to work in America. And that is
what these bills do.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. And for
the benefit of my colleagues, I want to be very clear about one of the
implications of the language in this rule that is before us.
{time} 1230
A vote for this rule is a vote to shut off the mechanisms of the War
Powers Resolution for the next 2 months. If any Member of this House
has any concerns about the ongoing military operations in Iraq, the
potential of U.S. military airstrikes in Syria, or the possible
introduction of U.S. combat ground forces into either country, then
this rule will tie their hands for the next 2 months.
If any Member introduces a privileged resolution under the terms of
the War Powers Resolution, this rule freezes that resolution in place
and stops the clock that would normally advance under the War Powers
Resolution.
It is perfectly clear that the House will not debate and vote on an
authorization on Iraq at this time. Unfortunately, it is not clear if
any vote will ever happen at any time in this House, even after we come
back in November, even though there is a growing bipartisan consensus
that such an authorization is needed.
This rule freezes out each and every Member of this House from taking
any action to move forward the possibility of a vote on Iraq or Syria
under the terms put in place by the War Powers Resolution.
On August 8, the U.S. began daily bombing in Iraq--at first to
protect the Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar. But almost immediately,
the bombing campaign expanded to include infrastructure, and then to
provide air support to ground operations to retake territory by Iraqi
and Kurdish military forces, and then to protect more major
infrastructure, and this week to dislodge ISIL from the environs of
Baghdad. For 6 weeks, I have been waiting patiently for the leadership
of this House to recognize that what we all know is true: the United
States is engaged in hostilities and carrying out sustained combat
operations in Iraq and that it is time for the House to debate and vote
on an authorization.
Yesterday, this House voted to authorize training and equipping
Syrian opposition forces. But we have yet to debate and vote on an
authorization for the combat operations we are already carrying out in
Iraq. Over 150 airstrikes--bombs falling nearly every day--in Iraq. And
if that doesn't count as sustained combat, then I don't know what the
hell does.
I hear the Senate is drafting an authorization, but no such
leadership is happening here in the House. The Speaker says he is
waiting for the White House to send a request for an authorization to
the House. But as I have said before, the President has stated that he
thinks he has all the authority in the world that he needs or wants. It
is Congress that is failing to carry out its constitutional
responsibilities. It is Congress that is shirking its duties. It is
Congress that is sniping from the sidelines while avoiding any
responsibility for the servicemen and -women that we are placing in
harm's way.
In July, this House overwhelmingly passed a resolution that I
offered, along with Walter Jones and Barbara Lee, requiring the House
to vote on an authorization. And I have been waiting--patiently and
respectfully--for the Speaker to schedule such a vote.
Instead, this rule goes in the opposite direction, shutting down the
ability of any Member to introduce a privileged resolution and allowing
it to mature, as we set forth in the War Powers Resolution.
Now, I understand that this restriction is often included when
Congress is in recess for a prolonged period of time. But this time is
different, Mr. Speaker, and every Member of this Chamber knows it is
different.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. McGOVERN. Not only are we engaged in sustained combat operations
in Iraq, but the President announced last week that he intends to
escalate and expand those military operations, and quite likely extend
them to Syria. This is a moment in history when the House should not
and must not remain silent, let alone slink out of town. We have a
responsibility to act.
Until that happens, until we get an ironclad commitment from the
leadership of this House that we will debate and vote on an
authorization, then I would urge my colleagues to vote down this rule.
We have a constitutional responsibility when it comes to war.
Now, I don't believe we should go into another war, but whether you
agree with me or you think we should launch into another war, we have
an obligation, a constitutional responsibility, to debate and vote on
that authorization. We are not doing that. I urge the Speaker to give
us that commitment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Massachusetts well understands that we handled a
privileged resolution on the floor where there was a vote a little bit
more than a month ago before the last break.
What the gentleman wants to do is bring Congress back to come and
grandstand on the floor for a privileged resolution during the break.
The gentleman well understands the rules of the House, the privileges
that he is given as a Member, and he knows that he has approached me
numerous times, as well as the Speaker of the House, who has offered
the gentleman every opportunity, under the rules of the House, that any
Member would have.
What this very clearly says is we will not start that clock while we
are on recess. That is a normal and regular thing for the House to do,
for the rules of this House to protect all the Members.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I see no reason to. The gentleman just had time and
spoke his words. I thank the gentleman very much.
At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather
Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairman of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
Each year, Washington imposes thousands of pages of rules and
regulations on America's private sector employers, as well as State and
local governments. Buried in those pages are costly Federal mandates
that make it harder for businesses to hire and cash-strapped States,
counties, and cities to serve their citizens.
There are some who may not understand why a bill to improve the
regulatory process is also a bill about jobs. As a former small
business owner, I understand firsthand the concerns job creators have
about how lengthy, confusing rules affect their ability to conduct
business and provide jobs and opportunities to their employees.
That is why I introduced H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information
and Transparency Act, which we call UMITA, and am glad to see it
included in H.R. 4, the Jobs for America Act.
The bill builds upon the bipartisan 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act, also known as UMRA, and will ensure awareness and public
disclosure of the cost--in dollars and jobs--that Federal dictates pose
to the economy and local governments.
H.R. 899, as included in H.R. 4, does not seek to prevent the Federal
Government from regulating. Rather, it seeks to ensure that its
regulations are deliberative and economically defensible.
Asking regulators to thoroughly consider and understand the costs of
a rule in addition to its benefits should not be
[[Page H7688]]
controversial--it is just plain common sense.
Regulators and legislators should know exactly what they are asking
the American people to pay and whether the cost of compliance might
make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat.
And no government body--on purpose or accidentally--should skirt
public scrutiny when jobs and scarce resources are at stake.
In the nearly 20 years since UMRA's passage, weaknesses in the law
have been revealed, weaknesses that some government agencies and
independent regulatory bodies have exploited.
UMITA makes independent regulatory agencies subject to UMRA's
requirements, ending a two-tier system that allowed regulations to be
implemented without the required consideration, scrutiny, or public
input.
H.R. 899 recognizes that the Federal Government's reach extends way
beyond the taxes it collects and the money it spends. Regulations can
advance government initiatives without using tax dollars.
Rather than count 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.
This bill shines much needed light on the murky regulatory process
and ensures the public has transparent access to proposed rules and
regulations.
Both Democrats and Republicans recognize that appropriate regulations
don't need to be issued in the dead of night or negotiated behind
closed doors. That is why the House passed H.R. 899 with bipartisan
support earlier this year.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I won't need 1\1/2\ minutes, but I want to be clear for Members. The
privileges that are afforded to Members of this House to vote on the
war, those privileges are taken away by this rule.
I want to assure the gentleman from Texas, my colleague and my
friend, that I am not interested in grandstanding, and any such a
suggestion I find offensive, quite frankly. What I am interested in is
us doing our job.
And I want to remind my colleagues that war is a big deal. It is a
big deal, and it is long past time that this House treated it as such.
We have a constitutional responsibility that we are not living up to.
We voted in July overwhelmingly to say that if there are sustained
combat operations in Iraq we are going to have a vote on that. Well,
there are sustained combat operations in Iraq. We are much more deeply
involved today than we were in July. And I predict by the time we come
back in November we will be even more deeply involved.
When are we going to do our job? When are we going to vote? That is
what my complaint is about, I would say to the gentleman from Texas. My
complaint is that we are not living up to our constitutional
responsibilities.
I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With great respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I appreciate
his insistence on the floor and respect that very much.
I think that this House is, respectfully, doing its obligations and
duties. That is what we are doing here today, trying to work with the
American people so that we can once again move a jobs package forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman for
yielding.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this rule and the underlying
legislation, which I support, because included in the underlying
legislation is H.R. 1493, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and
Settlement Act, that I authored.
I support these bills that the House will debate and vote on because
they will make a difference in the lives of and make them more
affordable for families in Georgia and all across America.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the Republican solutions that are offered in
these bills that are being brought to the floor today are solutions for
moms and dads who can't find full-time employment, who can't afford to
buy a full tank of gas, who sit down at the kitchen table with a heavy
heart because they can't afford the basics that they just heard their
child talk about that they wanted.
Mr. Speaker, America is searching for the things that matter. They
are wanting their government to work and they are wanting their
government to put ideas to paper. It is not the ideas simply spoken on
the floor, but it is the ideas and the dreams and the hopes of every
family as they come together wanting a better life, and they want the
government not to impede those areas and actually to encourage them.
These bills don't represent just the hard work of my colleagues. They
represent the hopes and dreams of Americans who have given up on our
government.
House Republicans stand united with one goal: to restore what has
been lost. To restore the jobs, the affordable housing, the quality
education, the ability to start a business in your home and to see it
flourish.
I support these bills to expand domestic energy production because
each job it creates equals a family that can put food on the table, buy
school uniforms, and do the things that they want to do, not what
government dictates.
I am a Republican because I believe that government exists to help,
not hinder its citizens. I support these solutions because I firmly
believe every family in this Nation should be able to afford life and
everything that it entails.
Remember, our Founders said it is the pursuit of happiness, not a
guarantee of happiness. And too many times coming from Washington we
want to say we will guarantee your happiness. That is not what the
Founders said. In fact, what the Founders said is the government will
provide the basis for you to go pursue your own happiness, to provide
lifelong tools to those who have fallen on hard times, to help moms who
are struggling to provide for their kids and have no one to help them.
This is the type of government that I believe in, and this is the type
of government Republicans in the House are committed to fighting for.
{time} 1245
Unfortunately, many times what happens, I believe, is that the
Republicans are the ones that have the ability and the track record to
create a Federal Government who keeps our Nation safe from terrorism,
who gives parents more control over their children's education, and
encourages startups and businesses to grow and hire more and more
people.
Unfortunately, many times in our debates over priorities and jobs, we
come and paint with broad strokes. We paint with broad strokes, saying
that if you want to get government out of the business of hindering
businesses through regulation after regulation after regulation--not to
destroy quality of life, but to improve business and maintain both--
that you are simply destroying the things that built America.
Those are broad strokes that the American people, Mr. Speaker, are no
longer buying. They are no longer buying a government that simply gets
in the way and does not encourage.
I support these solutions on the floor today because I support a
government that works, not a government that works against its people.
The Republicans are putting forward on this floor today not just simply
partisan bills that have been attacked, but these are bipartisan bills
being put forward.
I agree with many on the floor today, but it is time that the system
work, and it is time for the United States Senate to work. If they
don't like our ideas, they should put their own ideas on paper and send
them back over, instead of hindering what is going on and having a
debate that simply rounds up in this room right here, with friends on
both sides of the aisle frustrated with the process.
Before I came to Congress, I was a pastor. I am still a chaplain in
the United States military. The greatest thing that I see for people
today is that they have lost trust, unfortunately.
[[Page H7689]]
They have broke a breach of faith with us.
I believe when we decide that government should be about the people
and for the people, then we are doing exactly what we are supposed to
be doing; and that is to encourage, as our Founders said, the pursuit
of happiness and not the guarantee of happiness.
When we do that, Mr. Speaker, that is Republican principles at play,
that is Republican solutions, and that is what these bills offer today.
Don't buy the other argument. Buy the Republican principles that we
will help those who need help, and that is the American citizen. That
is what I believe in. That is the government I want to see work, not
one that hinders people.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has
any remaining speakers.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for asking and would
respond back that I do not have any additional speakers.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, the
comprehensive immigration reform bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas yield for the
purpose of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thought it was worth a try here to reduce the deficit by over $200
billion, create several hundred thousand jobs for Americans, secure our
border and restore the rule of law but, apparently, going on vacation
on Friday is more important.
These are likely the last votes that this Chamber will take before
the election. Unfortunately, rather than move forward on protecting our
borders, rather than move forward on reducing our deficit, rather than
move forward on so many of the important national priorities we have,
we are simply taking up bills that have already passed, reconsidering
them under new and more sinister forms, and sending them nowhere at no
time.
These bills are not going to be law. They didn't become law last
time. It is even harder for them to become law when they are packaged
together in new and different ways. There is a word for this kind of
legislative activity, and it isn't ``governing.'' It is called
``pandering.''
Rather than spinning our wheels, we should have taken up the
bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. I was hoping that I
could have gotten the permission under unanimous consent to bring that
up. I am confident we have strong support from Democrats and
Republicans in this body to pass that bill and to send it on into law.
Unfortunately, more than a year after the Senate has passed
immigration reform, the House still refuses to even allow a vote on our
bipartisan immigration reform bill that secures our borders and
restores the rule of law, reduces our deficit, and creates jobs for
Americans; instead, the only votes the House has taken this year on the
entire topic of immigration have been to subject DREAMers--who grew up
here and know no other country--to deportation and send immigrant
children fleeing violence back to their countries, where they face
possible persecution or death.
Rather than continuing to waste the American people's time and
taxpayer money debating recycled measures over and over again, I wanted
to give this body, through my unanimous consent request, one more
opportunity to tackle an issue that will get larger and harder to deal
with the longer we wait, and that is immigration.
If there are 10 million people here illegally today, Mr. Speaker, if
this body continues to object to every motion we make to bring up a law
that would secure our borders and restore the rule of law, there is
likely to be 15 million people here illegally in 10 years. You can
count on it.
This Nation deserves to have secure borders, we deserve to restore
the rule of law, and we deserve to reflect our values as a Nation in
our immigration system. I know we have the votes for this bill.
I urge my colleagues to change their plans for tomorrow and, instead,
allow us to come back and pass immigration reform so that we can
finally solve this issue, reduce our budget deficit, create jobs for
Americans, secure our border, and end this Congress on a positive note,
a positive note of moving forward on solving an issue that the American
people are screaming out for a solution to rather than rehashing and
repackaging special interest bills into new and more sinister forms.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider six
separate pieces of legislation that are true priorities for jump-
starting the middle class: the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Fair Minimum
Wage Act, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, the
Healthy Families Act, the Strong Start for America's Children Act, and
the Bring Jobs Home Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
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 Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat
the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I encourage us to stay here and address immigration reform so that we
can solve this issue for our country, reduce our deficit, and secure
our borders.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule, number
76 and 77 of this Congress, allowing no allowed amendments from either
side, including the very reasonable all-of-the-above energy amendments
that I offered with my colleagues Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Blumenauer
that either would have eliminated oil and gas subsidies or provided a
similar and corresponding subsidy for the production tax credit and
wind energy, so at least it can compete on a level playing field with
the oil and gas industry.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, we have heard a number of speakers not only on the Republican
side, but also the Democrat side, talk about the issues that need to be
addressed today.
The Republican Party--the Republican majority--under the leadership
of our great Speaker, John Boehner, has gathered together today a group
of bills that have passed the House of Representatives, many of them
with overwhelming majorities.
We heard the gentleman from Oregon, Greg Walden, talking about the
plight of the West--and not just in Oregon--where men and women who
live in rural communities have found themselves losing their jobs as a
result of the administration's policies of how they would treat their
own natural resources.
Mr. Walden, an Eagle Scout, just as I am an Eagle Scout, has the
forestry merit badge. We understand healthy forests and how they can
provide a product, a service, and enjoyment to the American people if
well-managed; instead, this administration, because of their unwise
management techniques, have allowed the West to burn down over the last
5 years.
At record levels, these forests and resources are up in smoke, not
allowing those communities the opportunity to properly replant and take
care of their own resources.
What I would like to highlight, if I can, is the Tax Code of America
and how America is increasingly becoming less competitive with the
world as a result of President Obama's and the Democrats' insistence to
continually raise taxes and stand in the way of allowing us to be
competitive with the world.
I would like to highlight, if I can, a chart here that comes from the
Tax Foundation. They say America currently ranks 32nd among 34 major
international nations in international tax competitiveness. This
competitiveness, as you see here, starting at the very top, would find
America 32nd out of 34th.
What does this mean? This means that, at a time when economies around
[[Page H7690]]
the world are growing, we are finding that our country is stuck at an
average rate of 2.2 percent.
We have other countries, for instance, like India, which has a 5
percent growth; Russia has surpassed ours over the last 4 years; and
China finds their GDP growth at 7.7 percent over the last 2 years; and
we are finding that, quarter after quarter, American is even or below,
only to ``roar'' back at a 2 percent level.
Ladies and gentlemen, Members of the House, what the package on the
floor today is about is to talk about our ability--America--to be
competitive with the world so that America's businesses and America's
employers find work not only in America but compete on a global basis.
What Republicans are talking about today is a chance to have America
gain back its footing, not with supremacy, but with competitiveness on
a world stage, in a world market, where American products made by
Americans--not just manufacturing, but other important intellectual
properties--are sold to the world.
When America is at its very best, we are leaders in not just freedom
but also in economic opportunity, and it spurs competitors around the
globe.
Mr. Speaker, what we are about today in our closing is that the
Republican Party, through our great Speaker, John Boehner, is sending a
strong message to the American people that we in the United States
House of Representatives recognize that for America to be competitive,
for America's greatest days to be in our future, we must have a
comprehensive view of not just the world and our competitiveness, but
an opportunity for its citizens--as Congressman Collins has said
today--to find work, to be entrepreneurial, and to move our country and
the world forward. I believe that what we are talking about today makes
a difference.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, ``yes'' on
the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 727 offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 7. 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.
377) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide
more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the joint resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After
general debate the joint resolution shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the joint resolution for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the joint
resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the joint resolution 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 joint resolution, 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 joint
resolution.
Sec. 8. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 377, 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.
1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
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 Education and
the Workforce. 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. 9. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 1010, 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.
4582) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for
other purposes. 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 among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
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. 10. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 4582, 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.
1286) to allow Americans to earn paid sick time so that they
can address their own health needs and the health needs of
their families. 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 among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration, 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. 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. 11. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 1286, 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.
3461) to support early learning. 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 Education and the Workforce. 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. 12. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 3461, 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.
851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage
domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. 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 Ways and
Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-
[[Page H7691]]
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. 13. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 377, H.R. 1010, H.R. 4582, H.R. 1286,
H.R. 3461, or H.R. 851.
____
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 Democratic minority 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.''
The Republican majority may 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on
this question will be postponed.
____________________