[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H29-H37]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 712, SUNSHINE FOR REGULATORY
DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 1155, SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY
BURDENSOME ACT OF 2015
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 580
Resolved, That at any time after 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. 712) to impose certain limitations on consent
decrees and settlement agreements by agencies that require
the agencies to take regulatory action in accordance with the
terms thereof, 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 amendments specified in this section
and shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
114-37. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after 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.
1155) to provide for the establishment of a process for the
review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided among 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
[[Page H30]]
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. 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} 1245
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on House Resolution 580, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this
structured rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1155, the Searching for
and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2016,
or the SCRUB Act. This is a bipartisan measure that provides a fair and
reasonable way to find and repeal outdated and inefficient regulations
that are still on the books.
It doesn't target any particular type of regulation or industry, but
it prioritizes older, expensive rules that are ripe for improvement or
may no longer be necessary.
The needs of our economy, small businesses, and American families
aren't the same today as they were 15 or 20 years ago. Thus, we should
ensure that the rules governing the way we live and work reflect what
is best for our country today, not what agencies thought best decades
ago.
I thank my colleague from Missouri for introducing this bipartisan
solution and his staff for their hard work on this measure.
If you put a piece of paper in the hand of every single person who
lives in my hometown of Gainesville, Georgia, it still wouldn't equal
the number of pages in the 2015 Federal Register. In fact, it comes in
at a record-setting 82,036 pages. That means there were over 82,000
pages of new rules and regulations proposed just last year.
The Code of Federal Regulations is 235 volumes long, containing
175,000 pages of Federal regulations. Knowing this, it should come as
no surprise that Federal regulations impose an estimated burden of
$1.86 trillion. That is roughly $15,000 per U.S. household and is
higher than combined individual and corporate Federal income taxes.
It is difficult to imagine a scenario where there is nothing in those
thousands upon thousands of pages that can't be improved, streamlined,
or retired. Unfortunately, American businesses and families bear the
burden of compliance, even when a regulation is outdated, ineffective,
or just plain unnecessary. The SCRUB Act is a commonsense step toward
reducing unnecessary costs for families and businesses, leading to more
economic growth and job creation.
If you walked into a grocery store and found hundreds of expired and
moldy food on the shelves, you would be shocked. You would be even more
horrified if you were forced to purchase and eat them.
In the same way, my constituents in northeast Georgia and men and
women all across this Nation are appalled that we don't have an
existing process in place to clear duplicative, unnecessary, or
ineffective regulations off the pages of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Also, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 712,
the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015. This
legislative package contains the text of H.R. 712 in title 1; H.R.
1759, the ALERT Act, in title II; and H.R. 690, Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2015, in title III. Each of
these measures were considered and marked up by the Judiciary Committee
and are brought to the floor as reported by the committee.
America's small businesses and job creators need relief from the
flood of new regulations and red tape from Washington. Small business
owners often cite government regulations as the single most important
problem they face today.
A heavy contributor to the burden of new regulation is the use of
consent decrees and settlement agreements to bind Federal agencies to
issue new rules. Regulators often cooperate with pro-regulatory
organizations to advance their mutual agendas in this way.
The device agencies use is simple. An organization that wants new
regulations alleges that an agency has violated a duty to declare new
rules. The agency and the plaintiff work out a deal under the cover of
litigation. The deal puts the agency under judicially backed deadlines
to issue the rules.
These deadlines often give the public little opportunity to comment
on proposed rules and the White House limited ability to review them.
Deals can even require agencies to propose specific regulatory language
negotiated by the agency and its regulation-friendly plaintiff.
Those who will be regulated by the new deal typically do not know
about these deals until the plaintiffs' complaints and the proposed
decrees or settlements are filed in court. By then, it is too late.
Frankly, it is just also unfair.
Regulated businesses and individuals are unlikely to be able to
intervene in the litigation. The court usually approves the deals
before regulated parties have an opportunity to affect whether new
regulatory costs will be imposed upon them. These regulated parties
could be families, small businesses, farmers, ranchers, or even local
governments.
I introduced H.R. 712 to restore transparency, public participation,
and judicial review protections to shine a light on one of the worst
regulatory abuses in our system today: these ``sue and settle''
agreements.
The Sunshine for Regulatory Consent Decrees and Settlements Act of
2015 puts an end to the abuse of this practice and ensures that those
to be regulated have a fair opportunity to participate in the
resolution of litigation that affects them.
The bill respects the basic rights of plaintiffs and defendants to
manage litigation between them. As a result, the bill offers an
effective and balanced remedy.
We must ensure more transparency and scrutiny of consent decrees and
settlement agreements that require new regulations. These commonsense
reforms are needed to help control the tide of excessive and costly
rules.
It is time we get rid of the welcome mat outside the door of
regulatory agencies for these suits, under which they can more easily
issue expensive and controversial new regulations--policies that
oftentimes could never pass Congress--claiming that ``The court made me
do it,'' again bypassing our constitutional system. It is not a good
idea.
H.R. 712 addresses the weaknesses in the current system while
preserving consent decrees as an important mechanism for settling legal
disputes. It accomplishes this by increasing participation of affected
regulated entities and coregulators in the negotiation in
the consideration of decrees and settlements.
The ability of citizens to hold government accountable is an
important part of administrative law, but it must be appropriately
carried out with transparency and full public participation.
Importantly, H.R. 712 puts an end to a practice that uses taxpayer
dollars to
[[Page H31]]
allow special interests to abuse the system and force regulators to put
out even more regulations.
Title II of H.R. 712, the ALERT Act, continues our work to relieve
the regulatory burden on American families by requiring agencies to
publicly provide information on planned regulations, estimated
compliance costs, and other updates so that those impacted by the new
regulations have the information they need to make financial decisions
and plan for the future.
Title III of H.R. 712, the Providing Accountability Through
Transparency Act, is another good governing measure that demonstrates
this body's commitment to making life better for all Americans. It
requires agencies to publish a brief summary of each proposed
regulation online and in plain language.
Agencies do not have the right to conduct their business behind
closed doors and hide behind an overly complex regulatory system.
Every regulation impacts every American directly or indirectly, and
agencies should be held accountable for the regulations they produce
and how they communicate the new requirements to those who will be
forced to abide by them.
Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday evening on these
measures and heard testimony from the chairman and ranking member of
the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, the chairman of
Oversight and Government Reform, and the Government Operations
Subcommittee ranking member.
This combined rule makes every amendment submitted to the Rules
Committee in order. Seven amendments to H.R. 712 will be debated on the
House floor, and 11 amendments to H.R. 1155 will be considered.
For H.R. 712, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate with 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
For H.R. 1155, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate
equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
This rule and the underlying legislation represents regular order at
its finest. I am proud to see the leadership of Chairman Sessions and
Speaker Ryan are reflected in this robust and open process.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Over the holidays, like all Members of this body, I was back home and
excited about coming back in January to legislate and move the country
forward. I was hoping we could tackle some of the big issues of the
day: balance a Federal budget; pass immigration reform and secure our
borders; and, finally, deal with the contentious issue of what kind of
authorization of military force we want to give to the Commander in
Chief.
These are all important issues I was thinking about and reading about
and hoping we would deal with when we got back here. Instead, here we
are, our first day back in session. And I point out that most
Americans, of course, had to go back to work a couple of days ago. We
had a few days more to presumably think about what we wanted to do.
And here it is, another attempt to strip health care from over 22
million American families that rely on the healthcare insurance they
have today that this reconciliation bill would take away and another
attempt to defund Planned Parenthood and strip family planning and
cancer screenings away from millions of women across the country,
something that ultimately would add to healthcare costs, not to mention
the human toll of not diagnosing cancers early, adding to the
healthcare costs of this country by having to deal with far too many
catastrophic events for what would have been preventable conditions,
had they only been identified earlier through access to cancer
screenings and family planning services at Planned Parenthood and other
locations.
{time} 1300
This bill that will be brought under one of the rules that is coming
forward today would repeal or dismantle the Affordable Care Act for the
62nd time.
Again, I was hoping 2016 we would start something new. Instead, I am
seeing the same kind of bill that Republicans have brought forward in
2011; they brought it forward in 2012; they brought it forward in 2013;
they brought it forward in 2014; they brought it forward in 2015; and
here we are, not only bringing it forward in 2016, but doing it as one
of the very first bills in the very first week that this Congress is
back.
Look, I rise in opposition to the rule and both of those underlying
bills, H.R. 1155, which is called the Searching for and Cutting
Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome, or SCRUB Act, and H.R.
712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. These
bills will make the American people less safe, potentially removing
important safety and health regulations that are already in place for a
reason.
The gentleman from Georgia says, and I agree, there certainly could
be unnecessary regulations on the books. Let's tackle those in a laser-
like fashion.
And if the Chief Executive won't do it, then let's do it through a
legislative approach that targets the authority for a specific set of
rules that this body agrees are not necessary or are counterproductive,
as we have done in a number of instances, and go after it, rather than
somehow saying that, for every rule that is added arbitrarily, another
rule needs to be eliminated, there is some presumed magic to the amount
of words in rules.
The gentleman cited, I think it was 86,000 pages. There is no ideal
amount of rules. The least amount of rules and regs that can get the
job of keeping the American people safe done is the best, but you never
know what that is going to be, and maybe we should strip away 10,000
pages of that, and maybe we need another thousand pages for some new
technology and new device that could hurt people if there is not the
right safety regulations.
We need an adaptive administrative structure to allow our health and
safety agencies to do their job so that when people buy a consumer
product at the store, they have confidence it is not going to kill
them.
As a father of a 4-year-old and a 1-year-old, when I buy a toy and
get holiday presents for our kids, I want to make sure that those
products don't have lead or contaminants in them, make sure that my
child won't be severely damaged or hurt by the failure of our health
and safety agencies to make sure that those products are safe.
That is common sense. I think that is what the American people want
out of our health and safety regulators, and these bills would impede
their ability to do that.
Thirteen of the 16 Democrats who sat on the Judiciary Committee
offered dissenting views on H.R. 712, which read, in part: ``This ill-
conceived bill imposes numerous new procedural burdens on agencies and
courts, intended to dissuade them from using consent decrees and
settlement agreements to resolve enforcement actions filed to address
agency noncompliance with the law.''
Effectively, what that means is this bill would reduce the cost of
noncompliance with our regulations and laws. These burdens include the
unworkable requirements that agencies solicit public comments on all
proposed consent decrees and settlement agreements, and they respond to
every single public comment before submitting them to the court.
Now, again, that is an administrative burden that makes it impossible
for our eight health and safety agencies to do their job. You might get
100,000 comments on a particular consent decree or settlement
agreement, if somebody is ramping up what we call kind of the astroturf
side of trying to get people to write in about a particular topic. And
to say, somehow, that every single one of those comments has to be
responded to before submitting to the court is basically, not just a
policy that would slow down this process, but
[[Page H32]]
would deter agencies from ever engaging in settlement agreements and
consent decrees because it would be so prohibitive, from a staff
perspective, they would effectively be unable to do their job.
Like all antiregulatory proposals that have been brought forth in
this Congress, H.R. 712 is another solution in search of a problem.
Those in favor of the bill have failed to provide evidence to support
their claim that agencies are somehow conspiring with plaintiffs to
enter into consent decrees and settlement agreements.
But even if you agree with that claim, this bill wouldn't solve it.
All it would do is impose burdensome procedural requirements on
agencies and courts that hamstring and prevent the use of consent
decrees and settlements which, oftentimes, are a more efficient way for
both plaintiffs and defendants to get to a reasonable outcome than
interminable processes and legal bills that go on for years and years.
The other bill to be considered under this rule is another example of
a bill that would make the American people less safe. It is called the
SCRUB Act, which is also a dangerous solution in search of a problem.
Now, every branch of the government already conducts effective
oversight through retrospective review of agency rules. And again, if
there are rules that this body disagrees with, we should go after them,
go after the authority that this body has chosen to give the agency to
make health and safety regulations that keep the American people safe.
Each branch of government already conducts oversight and overlooking
this array of options that would provide the necessary scalpel for
smart regulatory cuts. This is, instead, a meat-cleaver approach that
can eliminate health and safety regulations, both good and ill-
informed.
Rather than creating jobs, growing the economy or making Americans
safer, this procedure would burden agencies with additional red tape
and waste valuable agency resources and taxpayer dollars at the expense
of the health and safety of the American people.
As my colleagues have alluded to, H.R. 1155's sole purpose is to
actually obstruct the safety and regulatory process by burying agencies
in endless red tape and extra costs. It would create legal ambiguity
that could lead to increased cost for businesses, for local communities
that rely on certainty to plan for the future, as well as uncertainty
for consumers and American families who don't know that the products or
services that they are buying are safe for them or their children.
Now, in principle, it is hard to argue against the notion that
agencies should periodically assess whether rules they have implemented
should be improved or repealed, and I agree with that concept. That is
not in dispute. That is not what this bill is about.
Rather than streamlining rulemaking, or eliminating unnecessary
rules, which we all want to do, through a thoughtful, retrospective
review process, even if it is required periodically, this bill,
instead, would result in years of delays for new and necessary health
and safety rules by requiring a new rulemaking process for any rule
that is eliminated.
The SCRUB Act would also establish a regulatory review commission to
identify duplicative, redundant, or potentially obsolete regulations.
Now, not only would the very creation of this commission be at the cost
of taxpayers, as would its limitless resources, hours of staff work
that the bill mandates, but the authorizing language of the commission
binds it to consider only the costs to affected industries, while
ignoring the cost to the general public.
So, if an industry, if this commission existed, and they were looking
at a regulation around dumping of toxic materials or toys that could
hurt kids, the only charge under this statute of that commission would
be what are the costs of compliance of this to industry, not what are
the savings to American families who won't have to worry about their
kid being hospitalized because of a choking hazard for a 3-year-old, or
increased cancer rate for a product that contains lead or a
carcinogenic agent. They can't look at that side of the equation.
Rather than to do a thorough cost-benefit analysis, this kangaroo
commission would rather superficially look at the cost to companies of
making sure that their products are not dangerous to the American
people. That is the wrong way to go about this.
Simply put, the SCRUB Act is a solution in search of a problem. There
are many tools available to each branch of government to conduct
effective oversight and make smart regulatory cuts. I think it is a
fine criticism of any administration that they haven't done enough in
that regard, and they should. And this body should encourage any
President to move forward with cutting unnecessary regulations that
cost businesses money and don't threaten the public health and safety.
But agencies must adhere to the robust requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act already, the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the Paperwork Reduction Act,
and the Congressional Review Act, and if some of those can be
consolidated, along with new ideas to cut red tape and regulation, you
will find strong bipartisan support for that concept.
But that is not what this bill does. This bill ties up the ability of
our agencies that this Congress has authorized to help keep the
American people and American families safe with additional red tape and
regulations. It creates a biased commission that, rather than looking
at the costs and benefits of health and safety requirements, only looks
at the costs.
Moreover, final regulations are subject to review by Federal courts
already, who are a final backstop to ensure that agencies have not
violated the authority that this body has given them, and that they
have satisfied all the applicable statutes, and whether agencies have
continued input from relevant stakeholders. We have set that process
up.
Now, if we have a thoughtful way to improve that process, around
encouraging more stakeholder involvement, looking at the authority that
we have given each agency in certain areas, by all means, let's discuss
those kinds of bills, rather than short-circuiting the very process
that Congress has put in place to help reduce unnecessary regulations.
In many cases, Congress not only mandates that agencies issue a rule,
they are doing the work that we have required them to do, but we also
prescribe the process already by which they must do so.
This bill, if it passes, will continue to waste the government's
time, and we are wasting more by even considering this today, as well
as this reconciliation bill that would take healthcare coverage away
from 22 million Americans.
You would think, Mr. Speaker, that if Republicans were bringing
forward a bill to remove healthcare insurance from 22 million
Americans, you would think that they would have a plan for those 22
million Americans, but they do not. They simply strip them of their
existing health care.
Twenty-two millions Americans will not be able to see their doctor
that they have been seeing for years, know that they can go to the
hospital if they need it, or have any adequate health insurance under
this reconciliation bill.
It defunds Planned Parenthood. It strips affordable planning and
lifesaving cancer screenings away from millions of women across the
country, precisely at the time that those cancer screenings would be
more necessary than ever, if the SCRUB Act passed, which would
hamstring our own Federal agencies in their ability to prevent
carcinogenic agents from being in consumer products and food products
that American people consume.
So, again, through these set of bills, the Republicans are saying: We
are going to not do the job that we have told our agencies to do in
keeping the American people safe; and, at the same time, the results of
that lack of safety--more hospital visits, more disease, more sickness,
more children choking, more sick kids--we are going to make sure that a
lot more of them don't have health care when they need it because of
the health and safety regulations that we have removed through tying
them up in red tape for years after years.
That is not what the American people want. That is not what my
constituents want.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H33]]
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as has already been said just a
little bit earlier on this floor, here we go again. I guess the straw
harvest was good this fall because, like my colleague, I was hoping
that there would be some stuff changed. Undoubtedly, it is not, because
the straw harvest was good, and it is now time to put up straw men when
we talk about regulatory reform, and we are back at it again.
I want to comment in just a moment on regular order and the fact that
stuff has been talked about.
We have two separate rules today. This is a rule that deals with the
regulatory issues and regulatory reforms, two bills, and we have a rule
that is going to come up here in just a little bit that deals with
repealing ObamaCare and dealing with the heinous issues of Planned
Parenthood. That is a separate bill.
I would want to talk about something else too, instead of the
regulatory issues that are here, because they do matter, they do create
jobs.
As we look at this, the one thing that always comes across, Mr.
Speaker, as we think about this, is a very clear choice, especially
from constituents all over the country, in my district, in particular,
when I think about this.
One of the main arguments against this is that it will burden the
government, so it is bad? The problem is, the government right now,
through regulatory process, is burdening small business, is burdening
families who simply want to be able to get up, go to work, do their
job, and be free of unnecessary burdensome regulations.
Again, we want to talk about throwing up the straw man that the
Republicans are out here poisoning the air, bad paint, terrible ideas,
killing kids. That is not what we are talking about.
Again, the harvest is ripe; the straw is being developed. And instead
of talking about getting rid of regulatory process, we are going to
talk about, oh, we are taking away safety.
There is no Republican on this side of the aisle that I have ever
heard stand from this place, or from anywhere else, and say: I want
dirty water. Give me choking air. Give me paint that is bad. Give me
products that are terrible. That is not what is ever said. And when
that argument is brought up, it simply cheapens and demeans the
process.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that was just said was that we don't
want to have public comments, that you have to answer to public
comments, that a government agency would have to answer to public
comment. In fact, one of the issues is H.R. 712 actually addresses this
because these sue and settlement agreements can take place without the
affected party even being in the room or even know it is happening.
Tell me where that is fair. Show me where two people can go in a room
and decide what is best for me in a business environment. Show where
that is fair. It is not fair and you can't argue that it is.
Public comment to the government is expected, and public comment
should be respected before these regulations or these consent decrees
are put out.
{time} 1315
We all have various roles. The executive branch has their role, and
there are places where they meet. And we are appreciative of the work
that is done. What is being talked about in these bills is, let's make
it more efficient and let's make it better because what we have in
Washington is, I would rather see this body take up the policy
argument, this body discuss the billions of dollars in costs that are
being implemented on businesses, and not the agencies who have no
answerability to the public. So when we look at this, these are just
the small things. We want to talk about what is actually coming to the
floor.
I have the privilege of sharing the Rules Committee with my friend
from Washington State, who is going to speak. I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse).
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia, a
fellow member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time to speak on
this important topic. I am very pleased to be able to contribute to
this conversation.
Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, I am a farmer. I can tell you that
growing crops, cultivating crops, can teach you a lot about a
responsible regulatory process. That may sound like a strange
statement, but let me just say I primarily grow hops and grapes, two
crops that require a trellis system. Neither of these crops would be
successfully grown without a good, strong trellis system that gives
them structure, direction, and support. However, on the flip side, if
the trellises aren't constructed properly, if they are not maintained
and kept in good working order, the crop growth would be affected. It
would be stunted, and production in the end would suffer.
Our regulatory process is very similar, Mr. Speaker. Congress passes
laws intended to provide a progrowth structure for our economy.
Regulatory agencies build out and fill in the details based on the
directions from us, from Congress. However, sometimes agencies provide
regulations that can significantly harm people and harm businesses and
the jobs they are supposed to be supporting. Many times these
regulations exceed or are in contravention to the discretion or
authority provided by Congress. Many times it seems as if the
regulators write these regulations for the sake of regulations with
little regard for the consequences to those that are forced to comply.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the
underlying legislation, as these bills will provide Congress and the
American public with new tools to ensure that regulations truly have
the public's best interest in mind and do not hinder economic expansion
and growth.
For example, H.R. 712 will prevent what are called the sue and settle
tactics that are used to circumvent the normal rulemaking process. It
has been well documented that, on numerous regulations, the
administration has intentionally dragged its feet and failed to propose
a regulation in a timely fashion. So what happens then, they can be
sued and ultimately settle on the terms decided solely by the court, by
the administration, and by the plaintiff.
This tactic has removed the cost-benefit analysis required for many
economically significant regulations. But more importantly, it has
eliminated stakeholder engagement in the regulatory process as well as
the public's right to comment on dozens of regulations with compliance
costs totalling in the hundreds of millions to the billions of dollars.
This legislation also includes other commonsense measures, such as
requiring agencies to post on the Internet in plain language 100-word
summaries detailing what a regulation does. Few individuals or small
businesses have either the time or the fleets of lawyers needed to pore
over hundreds of pages of regulations and be expected to comment or
comply.
I was also proud to cosponsor H.R. 1155, which this rule also
provides for consideration. It is estimated that the current Federal
code spans more than 175,000 pages. This important legislation will
enact a commission to review the regulatory code and make
recommendations on which regulations are necessary, which are
overlapping, and which are duplicative or obsolete. Wouldn't it be a
refreshing change, Mr. Speaker, if, for once, Washington, D.C., could
actually cut red tape instead of creating new barriers to economic
growth?
Too often regulations have begun to have costs that far outweigh
their benefits, seriously harming those they were intended to regulate,
help, and protect. Regulations resulting from sue and settle are often
impossible to comply with, and the public is removed from the
rulemaking process. We can and we must do better. These commonsense
reforms in H.R. 712 and H.R. 1155 will help reverse the trend of
regulations stunting growth and stalling production and restore the
progrowth-oriented structure and direction that Congress has intended.
Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that sometimes affected parties
aren't in the room during consent decree or settlement discussions.
That is a far cry from having to respond to potentially hundreds of
thousands or millions of public comments one on one.
[[Page H34]]
So, again, if there is a problem that they are trying to solve, let's
look at who is in the room and who the affected parties are in making
sure they are part of the process, not preventing any meaningful effort
for consent decree or settlement from even going forward by putting a
completely impossible requirement to fulfill, given the staff that they
have, of having to reply to every public comment when we all know that
public comments can be artificially ginned up through an Astroturf
process to deliberately bog down a process that otherwise could more
expeditiously settle a dispute than years and years of legal fees on
both sides.
I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Watson Coleman) to further discuss today's effort to strip away health
care from 22 million American families and to remove the ability of
hundreds of thousands of American women to have access to cancer
screenings across our country.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, it is a brand-new year, but you wouldn't know it if you
look at what we will be voting on this week.
Across the investigations of three separate committees in this body,
eight States, and four Federal court cases, not a single shred of
evidence has been found indicating that Planned Parenthood has broken
any laws. In fact, the Oversight and Government Reform chairman, Jason
Chaffetz, has admitted that he found no evidence that Planned
Parenthood did anything wrong.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to ignore the
facts here. Planned Parenthood is a healthcare organization serving 3
million Americans each year. In the course of their lifetime, one in
five Americans will receive care from Planned Parenthood. Despite
arguments to the contrary, there are simply not enough health centers
to fill the gap.
If we defund Planned Parenthood, we will be denying care to millions
of families. We will be taking away options from underserved
communities across the country--rural, urban, and otherwise. We will be
saying to women, once again, that how and when they get health care is
not their choice; it is the choice of a body overwhelmingly run by men.
When I got to Congress last January, I thought I would be voting on
legislation that would improve the lives of my constituents, Mr.
Speaker, giving them better wages, jobs, stronger education, and an
economy that started at a level playing field. Instead, I have been on
the floor more times than I want to count urging my colleagues on the
other side to give up the attacks on women's health.
It is a new year, Mr. Speaker. We have a new Speaker. Enough is
enough. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the
underlying bill.
I thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee and my good friend.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule
and the bills that this rule brings to the floor, and I thank the
gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. I primarily want to
talk for a couple moments, though, about health care.
In the mid 1990s, I went to a reception, and the doctor who delivered
me came and brought my records. I asked him how much he charged back
then. He said he charged $60 for 9 months of care and the delivery, if
they could afford it.
I recently read an article by a woman who wrote that you have to be
over 50 now to remember a time when health care was affordable. And it
used to be affordable, Mr. Speaker, for almost everybody. But then the
Federal Government got into it.
Several years ago, I asked the administrator of a hospital in
Knoxville how much medical costs would go down if you could get the
government out of health care. His estimate was that it would come down
50 percent overnight and another 50 percent over the next 6 months so
that costs would then be only about 25 percent of what they are now.
When the Federal Government got so heavily into health care, costs
just exploded. A few people in companies got filthy rich, but almost
everyone else got screwed. Now only a few billionaires can afford the
costs of a major illness.
We need to make health care affordable again. We can't do that by
making it even more bureaucratic than it already is.
The bill this rule brings to the floor is an attempt to give patients
more control over their healthcare dollars and give the Federal
Government less control and to stop making a very few rich off of the
system because they know how to work the system. It is an effort to
help bring down some of these ridiculous and exorbitant costs.
We can't get the government out of health care entirely. But thank
goodness we don't pay for other necessities, like food, clothing, and
housing, like we do for medical care. Thank goodness there is still
primarily a free market for other necessities. If we paid for food the
same way we pay for medical care, we would see crazy prices for steaks
and other types of food. Or if we paid for cars the same way we paid
for medical care, most people wouldn't have even been able to afford a
Yugo.
We need to move in a new direction, a less bureaucratic direction,
and a more affordable direction. This bill is an important first step
in that better direction.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, last year, newly elected Speaker Ryan made a
New Year's resolution that the House would once again consider serious
legislation for the benefit of the American people. Yesterday was the
very first day of our legislative session, and the bill we are
considering is not a serious proposal. Yes, we are voting on repealing
the Affordable Care Act for the 62nd time this Congress and attacking
women's health for the 11th time, and we are, in fact, going to have
the 5th vote on the defunding Planned Parenthood.
Now, we know that Speaker Ryan is a committed athlete. In fact, his
favorite workout is the P90X. It is based on repetition. An exercise
repeating the same action over and over again can lead to success. I am
sure we all admire Speaker Ryan's commitment to a healthy lifestyle.
Normally, doing additional reps builds muscle mass, but the one muscle
Republicans aren't exercising is their brain. Repeating the same, tired
repeal and defund bill does not lead to more healthy laws. It just
makes the American people tired and sore at the waste of taxpayer
money.
American women are scratching their heads thinking: Why does the
Republican leadership hate us so much? Why is it they want to take away
our rights? Why is it they want to take away the very services that
actually protect life? Planned Parenthood protects life by providing
more than 900,000 cancer screenings a year, and millions more receive
services through Planned Parenthood. Why are Republicans trying to deny
us from accessing this very vital health care?
It is time for the Republicans to stop shoving these unhealthy,
wasteful bills down our throats. Put down the political equivalent of a
giant plate of nachos and exercise the hard job of governing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this flabby rule.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind those who
are here that the rule's focus here is dealing with helping regulatory
reform burden. I do appreciate the opportunity of Republicans too to
take the burden off of individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. DelBene) to further discuss the Republican efforts in
our very first week back to take health care away from 22 million
Americans and remove resources that women have in place to engage in
lifesaving cancer screenings and other affordable family planning
services.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
I wish I could say I am surprised that House leaders are kicking off
2016 the same way they spent 2015--attacking women's health--but I am
not. For
[[Page H35]]
anyone who has forgotten, let me refresh your memory.
Last year, the House voted 10 times to attack women's health. That
included voting to restrict reproductive health care in private
insurance, enact a sweeping 20-week abortion ban, and allow employers
to discriminate against workers for using birth control.
Now we are voting to defund Planned Parenthood for the fifth time,
even though three House committees tried and failed to uncover any
evidence of wrongdoing. What is worse, today's vote takes place before
the Republicans' taxpayer-funded select committee to investigate
Planned Parenthood has even held its first meeting. It is shameful.
Americans expect us to focus on facts, not ideology. So far, there are
no facts to justify defunding a healthcare provider that 2.7 million
Americans rely on.
Here is what we do know: Planned Parenthood provides nearly 900,000
cancer screenings each year; 78 percent of Planned Parenthood patients
are low-income; and the services provided by Planned Parenthood help
prevent more than 500,000 unintended pregnancies every year.
With each passing week, it becomes clear this Chamber isn't
interested in the facts. It is only interested in pushing an extreme
ideological agenda designed to take away women's constitutional right
to choose.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Here we are, week one of 2016 and we have a multifaceted Republican
attack on women's health. On the one hand, we are removing the
abilities of our safety agencies from making sure that products that
are sold are safe. Whether that is shampoo or soap or makeup or a toy
for your child, we rely on our health and safety regulators to make
sure that nothing that can hurt the American people is put forward.
Oftentimes, when there is some kind of litigation around that, we have
a process that allows that to be settled to keep dangerous products off
the marketplace.
In setting up this commission that would only be able to look at the
cost of regulation rather than savings from a health and safety
regulation, you are deliberately putting in place a process that will
lead to additional costs going forward because it doesn't look at both
sides of the equation.
I would be supportive, as would many Democrats, of a thoughtful
approach to a red tape reduction commission, to a regulatory reform
commission. What should it look like? It needs to have both industry at
the table, as well as consumer health advocates, as well as thoughtful
leaders to make up the balance of that committee to side with either
side based on the merits. Importantly, their charge needs to be to look
at the costs and benefits measured through economic measurements that
the staff will be charged with doing, the costs and benefits of
reforms, to find out and eliminate regulations that cost more than they
benefit and to make sure that we improve and enhance regulations where
we can have more savings and more benefit to the American people at a
lower cost.
It is all about health and protecting the American people and
economic efficiency, and the commission can accomplish that. But not
the dangerous attack on women's health through this commission in this
bill, coupled the very same week with defunding Planned Parenthood,
taking low-cost cancer screenings away from hundreds of thousands of
Americans, telling 22 million American families you no longer have
health insurance, sending a cancellation notice in the first week of
the year to 22 million American families that you can't go see the
doctor, you can't go to the hospital or you are going to be bankrupt.
That is not the kind of progress the American people want.
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, guess what. Neither of these bills are going
to become law. President Obama stated he will veto these bills. These
bills that hamper the ability of our agencies to protect the health of
the American people, these bills that defund Planned Parenthood, this
reconciliation, they will be vetoed.
Therefore, the first week back, while the Republicans are trying to
cancel healthcare insurance for 22 million American families, while
they are trying to prevent low-income women from having access to
cancer screenings, while they are trying to remove the ability of our
health and safety agencies to keep our American people safe, they will
not succeed. They are wasting time. Therefore, these bills come at a
serious opportunity cost to the American people.
The American people want us to use their time and their money to
address real problems: to fix our broken immigration system and restore
order and security to our border, and to help the millions of Americans
suffering under an unlivable minimum wage by increasing it. They want
us to tackle reforming our archaic Tax Code by getting rid of special
interest tax loopholes and giving the American people lower tax rates
in return, rather than allowing Americans to avoid taxes by putting
assets in overseas shell corporations.
When I was back in my district over the holidays, I didn't have a
single constituent say that they wanted to remove or go after the
process of creating health and safety regulations. They wanted to hear
what we are going to do to create an environment that allows the
private sector to create jobs. For that to occur, the American people
need to have confidence that the products and services they buy are not
going to injure or kill them.
But instead, what is on the docket so far? Bills that would actually
increase red tape and disable agencies from generating meaningful
rulemaking by burying them in having to do mandatory responses, not
just to the affected parties, but to every member of the public that
wants to comment on a particular settlement or consent decree; and it
hands out special interest goodies through the regulatory review
process by a commission that would fully be under control of those who
have a vested interest in preventing even the most commonsense health
and safety regulations.
This may be a new year, but it looks like we are playing the same
political games.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would
close a glaring loophole in our gun laws allowing suspected terrorists
to legally buy firearms.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this bill that we would like to bring
forward, if we can defeat the previous question, would help keep the
American people safe. The bill would bar the sale of firearms and
explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.
On this day, today, Mr. Speaker, there are Americans that can't
legally fly because we don't trust them to be in the cabin of an
aircraft and are on the no-fly list, but they can quietly assemble an
arsenal of deadly weapons fully legally. In what world does that make
sense? With the increased risk of terrorist threats, with the
occurrences in France, and with what happened in San Bernardino, how
can we possibly stand by and say we don't trust somebody because of
what we know about them through law enforcement and through the
authorized practices that this body has set in place to investigate
terrorism? We know enough about them to know that they shouldn't be on
an airplane; but if they want to quietly assemble an arsenal of dozens
of deadly weapons, that is fine, why not let them do it?
We can fix that. By simply defeating the previous question, we can
bring forward that bill. I am confident it would have overwhelming
support. We can pass it. It is a bipartisan bill. Rather than strip
health care from 22 million Americans, rather than risk the health of
American families by removing the health and safety processes that we
want to put in place to make sure that products and services are safe,
rather than defunding Planned Parenthood and preventing hundreds of
thousands
[[Page H36]]
of American women from having low-cost access to cancer screenings and
reproductive health services, instead, let's make sure that those who
represent a terrorist threat to our Nation are not able to quietly
assemble deadly arsenals to commit terrorist acts.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
Vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
As this debate has come forward, I want to just point out, as a
member of the Rules Committee talking about rules bringing forth the
process for which debate will happen, I want to commend Chairman
Sessions and the Rules staff and also leadership--the chairman has done
a great job of leadership under Speaker Ryan and others--who have
brought forth two rules today. I know in the last, probably, about an
hour, that has become a little conflated, but this rule deals with
regulatory burden. This rule deals with the issue of jobs and job
creation.
I, like my friend from Colorado, have had many conversations with
many folks in my district, and, yes, it does come around to job
creation. One of the ways that you can do that, and one of the ways
that we are looking to be able to do this, is to free them up.
According to research that came out from the American Action Forum,
the savings from these bills that we are talking about under this rule
can save a total of $48 billion annually and save 1.5 billion paperwork
hours. If you want to make--and I have run small businesses, just as
others in here have. If you want to make your employees more effective,
have better contact with customers, come up with new ideas, and do
creation, then let them do their jobs and not have to be burdened with
government intrusion. This is a savings here.
Now, again, it has been stated over and over again, and we are at the
point now we are not going to be able to overcome this, so here is the
way. Mr. Speaker, just understand these are the parameters in which we
speak.
When Republicans want to stand up, this Republican majority wants to
stand up for businessowners and families who get up every day taking
care of their families, who go to work, find jobs, get good employment.
When we bring up ways that, unfortunately, as the other side
characterized it, burdens government, then we are portrayed as wanting
to ruin the environment, kill the babies, kill the toys, whatever it is
that they want to come up with. This is just a false narrative that
needs to cease.
The regulatory nation that we have become, apart from the
constitutional process that is set forth by Members elected from their
districts to come forward and put forth ideas, give those to the
executive branch to carry out, not make up new laws or to enter into
consent agreements without the litigant standing party available, is
wrong. It is not about anything but fairness. It is about cleaning up
government. It is about limiting government. It is about keeping our
airways safe. It is about having clean water. It is about having clean
air. It is about doing the things that government should be doing in a
limited process, not simply a jobs program inside the beltway.
When you have regulators who regulate banks who have never worked in
a bank and never gave a loan, that is not right. When you have folks
who never get outside of a cubicle but yet are able to, without input
many times, decide how farmers who have worked their land for many
years are to react, that is not right. This rule today lets us go
toward a forward step of doing just that. You see, it is about real
people. It is not about bureaucracies.
It is about real people, like Mr. Puckett from Columbus, Mississippi.
He has been creating jobs for over 100 years in his family. He has a
family-owned brick company. Mr. Puckett attributes the success of his
business to hardworking employees and loyal employees. Unfortunately,
when I met Mr. Puckett, the conversation was not so optimistic. He
testified in the Judiciary Committee in 2014 because his company had
just lost 50 jobs as a result of two regulations crafted behind closed
doors.
In a nation of over 300 million, 50 jobs may not seem like a lot, but
in the town of Columbus, Mississippi, it is the difference between 50
families having food on the table or going hungry. Every State, every
congressional district has their Mr. Pucketts. No business has been
untouched by the toll of costly and overly burdensome regulations.
This probably, Mr. Speaker, is one of the greatest times to be here
and to speak about this because the choice is clear. And you can try to
conflate it and talk about other things, but this rule deals with these
bills that deal with real jobs, such as Mr. Puckett. It deals with the
real priorities of the Republican majority, saying we want to put
people back to work, we want to make business more efficient, and we
want to have rules and regulations that are smart, sensible, and safe.
To say otherwise is not fair for the American people. In fact, it is
just a coverup for a society or a governing philosophy that says:
Bureaucracy knows best; government knows best; let us just continue to
grow.
{time} 1345
In fact, it was said earlier today that we have all of these
executive orders and all of these other rules that are designed to help
streamline regulatory burdens. If that is what they are supposed to be
doing, then they are failing because all we do is keep growing and
adding costs everywhere we go.
I can also understand my friend's concern about the government having
to answer public comments because I guess the EPA didn't want to have
to answer to itself when the EPA broke the law with the social media
push for the water rules that the GAO just nailed them on.
You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. You can't not want to
answer to the American public and then, when you want to influence your
own regulatory agenda, send out false narratives and break the law.
This is not Doug Collins' opinion or anybody else's. As reported in The
New York Times, it is the GAO's.
I understand that is why the system is broken, and that is why the
system needs to be fixed. That is why the vote is a ``yes'' on this
rule, on bipartisan legislation, by the way, and on legislation that
has been bipartisan. This is what we are talking about in this rule.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. When Members come to the floor for this
rule, they are voting for a government that becomes more efficient,
they are voting for a government that is responsive to those who are
being affected, they are voting for those who are responsible for
actually being able to do what they are being gifted to do in their
communities. That is what this rule does, Mr. Speaker.
In just a few moments, my friend from Georgia will talk about getting
this country back in shape and will talk about some other bills we are
offering today to free up the American people.
But in this rule, the question is: Are we standing for the Mr.
Pucketts of the world, the individuals and the businesses of the world,
or, as has been said on the floor today, are we more concerned about
burdening a government agency?
I think I know what the answer of the American people is: Government,
do what you are supposed to do. Do it within a limited form. Let us be
the generation of wealth and income in this country. Let us be the
capitalist system that we have brought this country into.
When we do that, then we are doing what we are supposed to be doing.
That is what this Republican majority is fighting for. That is what
this rule is. I would ask that everyone vote for this rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 580 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. 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
[[Page H37]]
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1076.
____
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. COLLINS of Georgia. 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 pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________