[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19211-19222]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6899, COMPREHENSIVE AMERICAN ENERGY 
                  SECURITY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1433 provides a closed rule for consideration of 
H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer 
Protection Act. The resolution provides 3 hours of debate on the bill, 
controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. Speaker, American families and businesses from every city, town 
and village across our districts are struggling with the skyrocketing 
gas prices and ever-increasing energy costs, which have obviously gone 
over into the cost of food and every other commodity that we use. The 
American people are calling out for relief, which is why we have this 
comprehensive energy package before us today.
  In considering this legislation, we must ask ourselves: How did our 
great Nation get into this terrible place concerning energy in the 
first place? Eight years ago, two oilmen took the reins of America's 
energy policy, and they never looked back. They held secret, closed 
door meetings with Big Oil and energy companies at a tremendous cost to 
the American people. And the Republican Congress supported them every 
step of the way. To this day, we do not know about the secret meetings 
that the Vice President held.
  Just this past summer, the American people struggled through an 
excessive speculation crisis when oil prices jumped over $150 a barrel. 
Of course, when the Democrats threatened to rein in speculators, they 
pulled over $39 billion out of the futures market. We must address 
speculation before we leave this session. Because now, the oil prices 
are hovering over $90 a barrel, and we cannot let that go uncared for.
  Just last week, we saw the havoc that the Bush-Cheney energy policies 
have wreaked when the Interior Department's Inspector General reported

[[Page 19212]]

that administration employees at the Minerals Management Service, who 
were supposed to be regulating oil royalties, were literally accepting 
improper gifts and engaging in unethical conduct, such as having sex at 
parties, using drugs with persons, employees of the oil companies. They 
were literally, Mr. Speaker, in bed with each other.
  My colleagues across the aisle say they want to change the energy 
policy, but their record certainly proves differently. The very same 
Republicans voted ``no'' to the first new vehicle efficiency standards 
in 32 years that would have saved $1,000 in fuel costs per car per 
year. They said ``no'' to recouping the royalties that the oil 
companies failed to pay to taxpayers. They said ``no'' to curbing 
excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, and ``no'' to 
requiring the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of Federal 
land that they already control nationwide, and the list goes on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, if the other party has its way in energy, we will have 
more of the same Bush-Cheney energy policy written by and for the oil 
companies. They would help Big Oil to get more public land owned by 
every American, more American oil, more taxpayer dollars, and 
continuing record profits while American families and businesses get 
stuck paying record prices at the pump and heating prices.
  Mr. Speaker, today this comprehensive bill presents the 
administration and its allies in Congress with a clear choice on 
energy. Either side with the American taxpayer, side with the people 
who sent you here to vote and vote for this, or side with the Big Oil 
companies who have had the largest profits in the history of mankind 
and certainly do not need more tax breaks from the American public.
  Now, there are significant differences between the Bush 
administration's policy that got us into this mess and the plan before 
us today. This package is an energy package for a 21st century policy 
that will help Americans to reclaim a clean energy future.
  And the choice is very clear, as I said before, which side are you 
on? The bill addresses America's energy crisis in both the short term 
and the long term.
  By releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we will 
immediately lower prices at the pump for American families struggling 
with high gas costs. And we will replace the oil at the reserve as the 
gas prices stabilize.
  Meanwhile, by investing billions of dollars over the long term in 
renewable energy, energy efficiency, and mass transportation, we will 
harness innovation and create good-paying American jobs while 
strengthening our energy security.
  By expanding the access to offshore oil reserves and encouraging 
responsible drilling, the bill promotes more exploration and will lead 
to increased domestic energy production.
  By promoting energy efficiency and conservation in buildings, through 
upgraded building codes and incentives for energy-efficient 
construction, the bill would lead to reduced energy use and lower 
utility prices.
  In light of the Inspector General report from the Interior Department 
showing that the Minerals Management Service employees were accepting 
gifts from the oil companies and engaging in unethical conduct, this 
bill would subject the MMS employees to a higher ethical standard and 
make it a Federal offense for oil companies to provide them with gifts 
of any kind.
  At the same time, by providing more funding for home heating 
assistance, we ensure that seniors and other vulnerable populations do 
not have to choose between food and heating oil.
  Under this bill, we would enact our first national renewable 
electricity standard. The power companies would be required to generate 
15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, 
reducing the air pollution from power plants and helping address the 
threat of global warming.
  As Americans use more public transportation in the face of high gas 
prices, this bill will help the transit agencies deal with the added 
costs of increased ridership by providing $1.7 billion in grants.
  And at the same time, with the record-breaking oil company profits, 
it requires the oil companies to pay their fair share by repealing the 
tax subsidies they do not need and by requiring that the Federal 
Government collect the oil royalties due to the American people. That's 
one of the reasons why reform at the committee is so important.
  This comprehensive energy legislation is the result of a serious 
compromise on the part of this Congress to bring down prices now and to 
invest in a clean renewable future. It will provide America with the 
American-owned energy policy that this administration has failed to 
deliver in the last 8 years.
  Mr. Speaker, there are precious few moments in each of our lives 
where we have a chance to do something that profoundly affects not only 
our own lives but the lives of future generations.
  Today, we do have a choice. Do we want to continue on the same 
dangerous energy policies of the past or do we want to invest in a 
clean energy future that will help to ease consumer costs in the short 
term while putting the Nation on a path to a clean energy future that 
will create a stronger and safer America?
  Our energy choices will not only affect Americans who are suffering 
at the pump but profoundly affect the future of life on this planet.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford more of the same when it comes to this 
administration's energy policy.
  We are all proud Americans, but it is time we start acting like 
Americans once again. Our great Nation is known around the world for 
dreaming big and for reaching those dreams. When President Kennedy set 
a goal to put a man on the Moon in 10 years, America got to work and 
did it. It is time to set big goals and work diligently to achieve 
them, and that's exactly what this bill does.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make history 
by supporting this comprehensive bill that sets the country back on 
track to a clean energy future and finally begins to break our 
dangerous addiction to oil which we have been promising to break for at 
least the last 30 years. The world deserves nothing less.

        [From the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, July 30, 2008]

                 The GOP Energy Plan: None of the Above

       Republicans may talk a good game, but their actions speak 
     louder than words. Republicans have voted against the 
     critical solutions that must be part of a comprehensive New 
     Direction for Energy Independence. They voted against 
     renewable energy and conservation, responsible domestic oil 
     production, short-term measures to bring down prices now and 
     punish those who are manipulating the oil market, and new 
     requirements that oil companies pay their fair share.
       Instead of working on behalf of American families and 
     businesses, the House Republicans ``all of the above'' energy 
     plan simply rehashes failed ideas on domestic drilling or 
     proposes ideas that Republicans have repeatedly blocked in 
     the past. Their all-out legislative battle in recent years to 
     protect the record profits of oil companies earning record 
     profits has earned them the moniker ``Grand Oil Party.'' 
     Americans paying $4 a gallon thanks to an energy policy 
     literally written by the oil industry cannot afford this the 
     GOP's ``none of the above'' energy plan.
       The Republican leadership's ``none of the above'' record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Use it, or       Price       Renewable    NOPEC price     Public        Energy
                                          Free our oil    Drill act      lose it       gouging       energy        fixing        transit      security
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Boehner, Republican Leader.........           NO            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO
Roy Blunt, Republican Whip..............           NO            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO   ............
Adam Putnam, Conference Chairman........           NO            NO            NO            NO            NO   ............           NO   ............
Thaddeus McCotter, Policy Committee                NO            NO            NO   ............           NO   ............  ............           NO
 Chairman...............................
Kay Granger, Conference Vice-Chair......           NO            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO
John Carter, Conference Secretary.......           NO            NO            NO            NO   ............           NO            NO            NO
Tom Cole, Chairman, National Republican            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO            NO   ............           NO
 Congressional Committee................
Eric Cantor, Chief Deputy Whip..........           NO            NO            NO            NO            NO   ............           NO            NO

[[Page 19213]]

 
David Dreier, Rules Committee Ranking              NO            NO            NO            NO            NO   ............           NO   ............
 Republican.............................
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            H.R. 6578     H.R. 6515     H.R. 6251     H.R. 6346     H.R. 6049     H.R. 6074     H.R. 6052        H.R. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       A full list of measures that large percentages of House 
     Republicans voted against:
       Comprehensive energy legislation that includes the first 
     new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years, saving families 
     up to $1,000 a year at the pump. [93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/
     6/07, HR 6; 50.3 percent, Vote 1177, 12/18/07, HR 6].
       Tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel 
     from America's heartland, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, 
     and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances--four 
     times in just the last 18 months. [82 percent, Vote 344, 5/
     21/08, HR 6049; 91 percent, Vote 84, 2/27/2008; 93 percent, 
     Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 95 percent, Vote 835, HR 2776].
       Investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, 
     including solar, biofuels, hydropower, and geothermal energy, 
     as well as new vehicle technology and energy efficient 
     buildings and homes, with a 50 percent increase over the 
     President's request. [56 percent, Vote 641, 7/17/07, HR 
     2641].
       Landmark energy efficiency standards for buildings, homes, 
     appliances, and lighting to save consumers $400 billion 
     through 2030. [93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 50.3 
     percent; Vote 1177, 12/18/07, HR 6].
       Requiring that 15 percent of American electricity come from 
     renewable energy by 2020. [83 percent, Vote 827, 8/4/97, 
     amendment to HR 3221].
       Reducing transit fares for commuter rail and buses and 
     expanding service through grants to transit agencies. [52 
     percent, Vote 467, 6/26/08, HR 6052].
       Responsible drilling in Alaska in the National Petroleum 
     Reserve (NPR-A). [86 percent, Vote 511, 7/17/08, HR 6515].
       Requiring oil companies to drill on 68 million acres they 
     already control. [94 percent, Vote 469, 16/26/08, HR 6251].
       Releasing a small portion of the government's oil 
     stockpile, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to bring down 
     gasoline prices. [81 percent, Vote 527, 7/24/08, HR 6578].
       Cracking down on price gouging oil companies that 
     artificially inflate the price of energy. [74 percent, Vote 
     448, 6/24/08, HR 6346].
       Repealing unnecessary subsidies for the top five oil 
     companies earning record profits--four times over the last 18 
     months. [91 percent, Vote 84, 2/27/2008; 93 percent, Vote 
     1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 95 percent, Vote 835, HR 2776; 81 
     percent, Vote 40, 1/18/07, HR 6].
       Recouping royalties that oil companies owe American 
     taxpayers for drilling on public lands. [86 percent, Vote 
     832, 8/4/07, HR 3221; 81 percent, Vote 40, 1/18/07, HR 6].

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentlelady from New York, the Chair of the Rules Committee, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for many months the liberal leaders that control this 
House have blocked, dodged, and refused to allow a vote on legislation 
to produce more American-made energy.
  Democrat leaders have been absolute in their opposition to lifting 
the ban on drilling offshore, and they have repeatedly and adamantly 
refused any action on such legislation to help lower gas prices that 
are hurting people at the pump.
  And yet today, Mr. Speaker, after these many months and years of 
stamping their feet and yelling ``no,'' are we now to believe that 
these same liberal Democrats, standing before us today with a salesman 
smile on their face, are we to believe them that they are now declaring 
that this is a pro-drilling bill?
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are not fools. They won't be taken 
in by this sham of a bill that will actually lock down Americans' ocean 
oil reserves.
  There are two phrases that come to mind, Mr. Speaker, about this 
bill. The first is ``grasping at straws,'' which is defined as trying 
to find reasons to be hopeful about a bad situation. The second phrase 
is ``fig leaf,'' which means something you use to try to hide an 
embarrassing fact or problem. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, Democrats 
are grasping at straw fig leaves.
  There's an election coming up, and Democrats are desperately in 
search of political cover, political cover for their long record of 
opposing drilling and producing more American-made energy.
  This straw fig leaf bill was written in secret. There were no public 
hearings on this bill. The first copy of it was made public at 9:45 
p.m. last night, barely 12 hours ago, and it's 290 pages long.
  The Democrat-controlled Rules Committee blocked every single Member 
of this House from being able to offer their ideas for improving this 
bill. No amendments were allowed to the bill.
  So, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are simply playing a political game. 
Everybody knows this bill will never pass Congress and become law, but 
don't take my word for it. Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana 
said this bill is ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' And when you 
examine the details of this bill, it certainly deserves to be dead, Mr. 
Speaker.
  It permanently locks up vast amounts of America's oil and gas 
reserves, including more than 10 billion, with a B, 10 billion barrels 
of oil on Alaska's remote North Slope. It leaves 88 percent of 
America's offshore energy resources locked up. It increases taxes by 
billions of dollars, taxes which will land squarely on the shoulders of 
American consumers. And it permanently bans drilling within 50 miles of 
American shores.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, why is this fact important? It's important because, 
according to the Interior Department, of the nearly 10 billion, again 
B, barrels of oil believed to be offshore in California, only 5 percent 
is beyond the 50-mile barrier.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, what this simply means is that this bill permanently 
bans drilling on 95 percent of the oil believed to be off the coast of 
California.
  As if a permanent ban on drilling in the first 50 miles offshore were 
not enough, drilling between 50 and 100 miles out would also be 
effectively banned. By refusing to allow States to share in revenue 
generated by offshore drilling, this bill guarantees that drilling 
offshore will never be permitted by the States.
  Right now, States along the Gulf of Mexico are paid a share of the 
oil produced in those waters. Under this bill, royalty sharing won't be 
allowed. As a result, States would have no incentive to allow any 
drilling whatsoever. In fact, I would submit they would have a 
disincentive. Why would a State allow someone to come into their back 
yard and pay them no share of the profits that would be made by the 
offshore drilling? It is the equivalent of the government opening a 
Starbuck's or a McDonald's franchise in your garage or family home but 
paying you nothing, even to alleviate the cost of dealing with the 
impacts of that business.
  And consider this, Mr. Speaker, if this is truly a drilling bill, why 
is there no outcry from the radical environmental special interests? 
Mr. Speaker, it's because they know that drilling will never happen 
under this plan. Those who are opposed to drilling can vote for this 
bill secure in the knowledge that drilling will never actually happen 
under this sham bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my district in central Washington is the home of Grand 
Coulee Dam and vast amounts of hydropower. It is the home of the only 
nuclear plant in the Pacific Northwest. It is home to the vast majority 
of wind farms in Washington State. And it is home to the Pacific 
Northwest National Lab, a leader in renewable energy research.
  Those who call central Washington home believe in an all-of-the-above 
plan that lowers energy prices. That means promoting alternative energy 
sources like wind and solar power, recognizing a need for more nuclear 
power, protecting our valuable hydropower dams, and also allowing 
drilling offshore in Alaska and on other Federal lands. But this bill, 
Mr. Speaker, does not address those issues.
  The Democrat plan just means billions of dollars in higher taxes, 
more

[[Page 19214]]

government mandates that will increase costs for everyone, and a 
permanent ban on most of our offshore resources.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people deserve a vote on 
legislation that truly expands alternative energy sources and lifts the 
ban on offshore drilling and in Alaska. They deserve a vote on H.R. 
6566, the American Energy Act, but the liberal leaders of this Congress 
have blocked a fair yes-or-no vote on this bill for months. They 
blocked a fair yes-or-no vote, Mr. Speaker, because I believe they know 
if it were on the floor, it would likely pass.
  Mr. Speaker, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi 
control the Democrat Party here in this Congress. They oppose drilling. 
They have fought and blocked it for years. Every time drilling has come 
up they've said ``no, no, no.'' And this bill is just more of the same 
because it says no drilling in Alaska, no to truly lifting the offshore 
drilling ban, no to opening up oil shale in the western United States, 
no to hydropower as a renewable energy source, no to non-carbon 
emitting nuclear power, no to building new refineries here in America, 
and no to clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology. The only thing that 
the Democrat bill says yes to are tax increases, permanent bans on 
drilling, and continued high prices.
  Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to shine 
the light on an area of this bill that has not gotten much attention, 
partly because no one had a copy to read this bill before 9:45 last 
night.
  Of serious concern are the costly new mandates included in the 
national Renewable Energy Standard that this bill creates. The most 
likely and certain result of this is to increase the power bills of 
almost every American family and business that it affects. That's 
right, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat bill isn't going to lower gas prices, 
but it will increase power bills.
  The most egregious of it all is that this new mandate is slanted and 
biased by saying solar and wind power are renewable under the standard, 
but that hydropower isn't. This discrimination against hydropower is 
absolutely ridiculous. Hydropower is the most abundant source of 
renewable energy in our country. Hydropower is renewable, clean, non-
emitting, non-polluting, and a reliable energy source.
  Mr. Speaker, those are the facts.
  And consider this; if capturing the sun shining and the wind blowing 
is renewable energy, then so is water running downhill, which is 
precisely what hydro is all about. But believe it or not, it is not 
renewable by definition under this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, when Democrats--who just days ago were proudly declaring 
their career-long opposition to oil drilling--are suddenly preaching 
the merits of this self-proclaimed drilling bill, you know, it's really 
hard not to laugh, except for the fact that families, workers, farmers, 
schools and small businesses are struggling under the high cost of 
gasoline, and really this Democrat Congress is doing nothing to help.
  Instead of real solutions to real problems of high gas and energy 
prices that Americans are facing, this Democrat Congress has chosen to 
look after themselves in writing this bill. What do I mean by that? 
This bill will do nothing, nothing but give Democrats a talking point 
and a 30-second television commercial where they can smile and claim 
that they are supporting drilling for American oil.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule and this sham 
bill.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here to 
decide to make policy instead of continuing to play politics.
  I happen to be among those who believe that we cannot drill our way 
out of this energy crisis, yet I support this bill that contains 
significant offshore and domestic drilling, and I'll tell you why. This 
will offer a transition fund so that we can go from an energy-dependent 
economy on oil to an independent energy economy.
  What this bill will do is marry the argument that has been made on 
the other side that we have to have supply to get from here to there--
that's true, it's indisputable--and that developing our own domestic 
resources is a way to help us get there. And it marries that to 
establishing that the revenues that will be generated will be used for 
the benefit of the American people to achieve the goal of energy 
independence, which requires two things: It requires investment in 
research and development of alternative energies, and it requires 
investment in the implementation of alternative energy projects.
  So what you have here is a recognition that we do need supply; that's 
true. That's been the argument of the Republican side. Valid point. But 
it also recognizes that we need a sustainable financial fund in order 
to implement research and development in the implementation of clean 
energy projects.
  This bill also cracks down on speculation, makes oil available, which 
will have an impact on the price of oil. It does a whole array of 
things that most of us are in agreement need to be done on wind, solar, 
biomass.
  So, Mr. President, we can't drill our way out, but we can't get to 
where we need to be, a post oil-dependent economy, unless we have a 
sustainable energy fund that will allow us to do that. We managed to do 
this in Vermont when we had a fierce debate over nuclear power, and in 
the storage of nuclear waste, assessed a fee that went into a clean 
energy fund. It is now allowing schools to literally cut in half their 
cost of heating their schools. This is a very wise decision and allows 
us to work together to get something done.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 19\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentlewoman from New York has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the Republican whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  This bill comes to the floor today, this rule comes to the floor 
without an opportunity to talk about issues that have been before the 
House for months now. Our Members--even with a 9:45 notice last night 
that finally there was a bill that nobody had seen on this side of the 
aisle before 9:45, 10:45 Rules Committee meeting--brought a stack of 
amendments a foot high to the committee, none of which we're voting on 
today, amendments and legislation that have been out there for months 
for people to look at that do most of the things that the gentleman 
from Vermont just mentioned.
  And I agree that we need to be doing everything--we need to be doing 
more biomass, we need to be doing more wind, we need to be doing more 
solar, but we need to be doing more of everything. And everything is 
not in this bill. There is no nuclear, there is no lawsuit permitting 
reform. There is no real way to do oil shale in this bill.
  Most importantly, this bill that now purports to allow drilling 
offshore doesn't do that because you don't open the door to that 
offshore drilling. We have four States in America today that get 37.5 
percent of the revenue taken from that resource near their State. We're 
telling the other States, the other coastal States, you're not going to 
get anything, but we want you to vote to open the door to that 100-mile 
area offshore.
  We're taking too much permanently out of play. The 25-50 mile range 
that Republican bill after Republican bill--and in fact Democrats also 
supported bills that have that 25-mile boundary in there and let the 
States open that door, this doesn't do that. This doesn't produce any 
real new energy to solve this problem. And it sets efficiency standards 
for utilities that can't be met in the time frame necessary. This bill 
will raise almost every American's

[[Page 19215]]

utility bill, some by as much as 100 percent in a decade, and it won't 
produce the energy that it purports to produce.
  I think it's a shame we're bringing this rule to the floor. I will 
vote against the rule. I am going to be working hard to find another 
alternative to this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida, a member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Castor.
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank the distinguished chairwoman from the Rules 
Committee.
  I rise in support of the landmark Comprehensive Energy Security and 
Consumer Protection Act and this rule. This represents the culmination 
of years of debate over energy policy. And it does contain numerous 
measures that have already been adopted by this body in a bipartisan 
fashion, but most importantly, this compromise energy bill represents 
fundamental change in the country's energy future and a significant 
break with White House policies that give little priority to ending the 
Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
  Instead, this is the kind of comprehensive and balanced energy 
initiative that the American people have been calling for because it 
diversifies our Nation's energy portfolio and invests in new 
technologies and innovation. For example, we are going to make historic 
new investments in renewable energy through incentives for solar power 
and wind power that will have an additional benefit of producing 
thousands of new jobs across America.
  We have the technology to save energy and to save consumers 
significant money. And this bill strengthens energy efficiency in 
residential and commercial buildings and promotes conservation as well. 
And American families could use a little cost savings right now. This 
energy bill also dramatically expands domestic supply and oil drilling 
because we realize that excessive entanglements in the Middle East do 
not serve our national security interests.
  The contrast between the policies of the past and our forward-looking 
bill could not be more clear. There are real differences. Remember just 
7 years ago the administration's Energy Task Force met behind closed 
doors. It consisted of oil company executives. And the administration 
fought tooth and nail to keep those meetings secret. Renewable sources 
of energy were not a priority, and a balanced comprehensive approach 
was not a priority.
  So here is the question: Do the American people continue to subsidize 
big oil companies while they are making record profits, or do we shift 
our investment to cleaner, renewable fuels?

                              {time}  1400

  I know it has been difficult for some to stand up to the White House 
and the big oil companies. But the American people are demanding it. We 
must make this transition and set new innovative priorities for this 
country when it comes to energy. Our ground-breaking effort, our reform 
and our new policy set this country on a path toward energy 
independence, particularly from the Middle East. So today we will cast 
aside the policies of the past and start down a path based upon the 
right energy priorities for America.
  I congratulate Speaker  Nancy Pelosi for her leadership in crafting 
this compromise future-oriented bill, and I thank my colleagues and the 
American people for their commitment to a new energy future for 
America.
  I urge adoption of this landmark energy bill and this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 
minute to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis 
of California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my ranking 
member on the Rules Committee for a very fine statement that he made on 
introduction to his opposition to this rule, and I rise in opposition 
to the rule myself.
  The folks at home have gotten the message relative to the level of 
competence or incompetence of the United States Congress. Polls 
indicate that our rates are somewhere at the 9 percent range, and there 
are serious doubts about our capability to effectively address major 
issues and in a sensible way come to conclusions that make sense for 
them.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was 82 days ago today that in 
the full Appropriations Committee I personally carried a substitute 
that would have opened the whole discussion and debate and the 
possibility of an up-or-down vote of drilling off our Continental 
Shelf. There is little question there is enough reserves if we will 
just tap them to assure American energy independence.
  Since that time, the Appropriations Committee has closed down, 
literally they have done none of their work. And because of that, we 
find ourselves in the circumstance where today the leadership is 
undermining our ability to go forward towards energy independence.
  Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan majority in the House has been calling for 
a real debate on energy issues for months now. But it was 82 days ago--
during a scheduled full Appropriations Committee markup--that the real 
debate began.
  That debate in full committee was short-lived and it ended rather 
abruptly; the majority leadership ordered Chairman Obey to pull the 
plug on that markup when it became evident that they would lose a vote 
on off-shore drilling. The Appropriations Committee has not met since.
  All year long, the majority leadership has abdicated its 
responsibility to have the Appropriations Committee proceed under 
regular order, largely relegating our work to the back-burner. The 
assumption has been that Barack Obama would be elected President in 
November. The assumption has been that the House majority would remain 
the House majority and that an Obama administration would be more 
inclined to support higher levels of spending in bills reflecting the 
majority's budget priorities.
  Such a scenario, assumes that the House pass very few bills, pass a 
continuing resolution, and leave the future of the remaining bills 
unanswered until after the November election. But, what if John McCain 
is elected President? And what if he draws an even harder line on 
spending than President Bush? What then? Is the Appropriations 
Committee going to do nothing for the next 4 years?
  Because the legitimate work of the House is now being dictated by 
election-year politics, it now appears that the Appropriations 
Committee will not meet again this year. It also appears that we will 
not have a chance to debate and consider a legitimate energy bill this 
year.
  The vast majority of Americans support an energy policy that includes 
off-shore drilling for oil and natural gas. But the majority leadership 
still doesn't get it. Rather than working across party lines to develop 
a bipartisan bill--a consensus bill--we can all support, the House is 
being forced to consider a ``take it or leave it'' energy bill that 
leaves out over 80 percent of known energy reserves off our coasts.
  This misguided strategy reflects decisions made at the highest levels 
of the majority leadership. It is especially disappointing to me 
because in recent years the Appropriations Committee has largely set 
aside partisan differences to pass all of our bills in a timely 
fashion. More often than not, we have been able to say, ``We have 
fulfilled our responsibility. We have done our work.'' But not this 
year.
  This year, one issue--the high price of oil and gas--has completely 
paralyzed the appropriations process and, indeed, the legislative 
process in the House of Representatives. We are now two weeks away from 
the beginning of the new fiscal year and what have we done? Nothing! 
Absolutely nothing! Instead, funding bills essential for every 
conceivable function of government have been put on a shelf to avoid 
votes on offshore drilling, on oil shale, and drilling in ANWR.
  In past years, when controversial issues have come to the full 
committee, we took them head on.
  During my service as chairman, we debated and considered raising the 
minimum wage, the millionaires' tax, and the Truman Commission. I was 
opposed to each of these amendments but felt our Members--Republicans 
and Democrats--deserved to have their voices heard.
  Had the Interior bill been considered in full committee on June 18 as 
originally scheduled, the committee and the House would not be in this 
position today. It would have broken the logjam and enabled us to 
complete our work. And, it would have given Members of the House an 
opportunity to openly debate the most important issue facing our 
constituents today.
  To me, preparing a long-term energy strategy is like preparing for 
retirement. It doesn't

[[Page 19216]]

happen overnight but takes careful, thoughtful, long-term planning. 
Addressing the OCS issue is just one leg of the energy stool (along 
with conservation, oil shale, renewables, etc.) just as a 401(k) plan 
is one leg of the stool when planning for retirement. I believe we have 
to take the long view just as we take the long view when planning for 
retirement. It can't and won't happen overnight.
  Republicans and Democrats alike deserve an opportunity to have a 
straight up or down vote on energy amendments addressing the high price 
of oil and gas. Again, ``all of the above'' has been replaced with 
``take it or leave it.''
  Mr. Speaker, I don't recognize this place anymore. Once upon a time, 
members of the People's House worked together to serve the best 
interests of our country. Now, we either march in lockstop to the whims 
of the majority leadership or we are left out of the legislative 
process altogether.
  When I first came to Congress, legislation was drafted not by the 
Speaker of the House but by committee chairmen with jurisdiction over 
the issue of the day. Members of the minority party had every 
opportunity to participate in the debate by offering amendments. But 
those days are no more. Members of the minority party no longer have 
any rights. We are basically told to ``sit down and shut up'' because 
the majority leadership knows best.
  This Member has had enough. And my constituents have had enough. I 
encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in rejecting 
this irresponsible approach to governing. Let's work together and 
openly debate energy policy. Let's vote on a consensus bill that 
addresses the high price of oil and gas. Remember, our constituents are 
closely watching this debate. They will remember what we do when they 
vote on November 4.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California, the Chair of the Committee on Natural 
Resources, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the Chair. Mr. Speaker, I 
want to thank the Rules Committee for bringing this resolution to the 
floor so we can debate on the energy bill and vote on the energy bill 
later today. And I rise in very strong support of this comprehensive, 
forward-looking bill that will provide relief at the pump, create good 
jobs in America and finally put our Nation on a path toward a clean, 
more independent and sustainable energy future. Surely that is 
something that all of us can support.
  America understands the problem: Our Nation is addicted to oil. 
Consumers are paying record prices to heat and cool their homes and 
drive their cars and their trucks. Global warming is a real, serious 
and growing problem. Meanwhile oil companies are making more money than 
ever before.
  That is why Democrats made energy a top priority when they took back 
the House and the Senate last year. We raised the fuel economy 
standards for the first time in 30 years, overcoming the objections of 
the auto industry, the oil industry, the Republicans in Congress and 
the White House. And we passed one bill after another to improve 
America's energy policy and its energy future, to expand wind, solar 
and other renewable energy sources, to increase the efficiency and 
conservation and our use of energy, to curb speculation in the oil 
markets so consumers would not be ripped off by the oil speculators, to 
release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that small 
businesses, truckers and airlines would not be thrust into economic 
hardship and to recoup tens of billions of dollars from the oil 
companies that are unfairly taken from the taxpayers. All of these are 
thrusting America into the future with respect to its energy resources, 
its supply and its usage.
  But every bill was opposed by a majority of the Republicans in 
Congress and by President Bush. This is sort of the Goldilocks of the 
energy debate, too much wind, not enough solar; too much solar, not 
enough energy; too much going after the speculators, not enough going 
after the oil companies; too much going after the oil companies, not 
enough for the energy industry. They could never get it right. And they 
could never support an energy bill. And they have never been able, in 
all the time they controlled this Congress, to move America into the 
future of energy, to move America into renewables, to move America into 
efficiency. They voted against it all. And they didn't propose it. And 
at the end of their decade in Congress, gas was $4 a gallon. They 
controlled the White House, and they controlled the Congress. At the 
end of their decade, gas was $4 a gallon.
  So what are we able to do here today? We're able to help consumers 
and the taxpayers by ending the subsidies to oil companies, subsidies 
that President Bush said were obsolete at $50 a barrel. Well they are 
certainly obsolete today at $100 a barrel or $90 a barrel or $140 a 
barrel. But the Republicans are going to hold to those subsidies. We 
are going to end the royalty holiday, a holiday for oil companies where 
they don't have to pay royalties. Where is the holiday for consumers? 
Where is the holiday for the person commuting to work? Where is the 
holiday for the person heating their home? Not from the Republicans. 
They fought tooth and nail. The President fought tooth and nail to hold 
on to those royalty holidays.
  And finally we are talking about creating jobs for Americans here at 
home in green industries and the renewable energies of the future, in 
the efficiencies of the future. That is what the American energy future 
looks like. And that is what this Congress is going to be able to vote 
on. And that is what the American people are going to get as a result, 
a bright, renewable, smart energy future.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. 
Barton of Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. First of all, all you need to know about this 
bill is the title of section 1 of the bill. This is title 1, section 1, 
section 101, prohibition on leasing. Prohibition on leasing. This is a 
pretend bill. This is a bill that has, once again, been put together in 
the dead of night. I was notified by my staff about 10:30 last evening 
that the Rules Committee was going to meet at approximately 10:45 in 
the evening. I'm not sure what time they did meet. We had prepared a 
number of amendments. We were led to believe that it might be a rule 
that if you had an amendment to the Rules Committee, it might be made 
in order. We were even led to believe there might be a Republican 
substitute made in order. So we were prepared for all of those, ``we'' 
being the Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Of course this is a closed rule, which means there are no amendments 
made in order. There is a motion to recommit. It is a 260-page bill. It 
has over 100 titles. If this bill were to become law, which it won't, 
but if it were, there wouldn't be one barrel of oil developed as a 
consequence of this bill because of title 1, section 1. This puts a 
permanent moratorium in place on any area that is currently not under 
lease unless you comply with the very specific instructions in this 
bill. And amongst those are if you have an existing lease in the Gulf 
of Mexico that was authorized under the Deep Royalty Relief Act, I 
believe, of 1998, you have to go in and renegotiate that lease before 
you can bid on any of these new leases. This is a bad bill. It is a 
terrible process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 15 additional 
seconds.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. This is a terrible process, a closed system and 
a political sham. We should vote against the rule and then let those 
Democrats that wish to work with those Republicans that wish to to 
bring a bipartisan product to the floor that can be voted on. The day 
before the election in the last Congress, the price for gasoline in 
Texas was approximately $2 a gallon. The day Speaker Pelosi became 
Speaker, it was $2.33. Today it's pushing $4. If we don't do something 
about energy policy, it's going to go higher, not lower.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our Chair 
of the Rules Committee for

[[Page 19217]]

yielding to me. I rise in strong support of our legislation H.R. 6899, 
The Comprehensive American Energy Security and Taxpayer Protection Act 
and this rule.
  Why we identify this as a comprehensive bill is very simple. Our 
country needs a comprehensive legislation that deals with energy. We 
need everything for our country to both be energy efficient but also to 
be able to afford it. All sides of debate can longer insist on the 
``it's my way or the highway'' approach to energy. We need all energy 
resources, both conventional and renewable. And everyone must be 
willing to sacrifice to reach that common ground.
  I do not believe our bill goes far enough to address all of our 
domestic energy resources, especially nuclear energy. But however in 
every shortcoming there are positive concessions. Our legislation 
improves on a provision included in the original H.R. 6 by at least 
freezing independent oil and natural gas producers at their current 
section 199 manufacturing deduction rate instead of a complete repeal. 
Our bill modifies provisions from the flawed use of ``use it or lose 
it'' legislation which necessarily hammered future lease acquisitions. 
It retains but adds accountability to the tainted Royalty-In-Kind 
Program that we all read about.
  It improves the management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with an 
idea offered by my good friend from Texas, Nick Lampson, by allowing a 
swap for heavy crude which could immediately lower prices for 
consumers.
  Most dramatically, our proposal will help utilize our domestic oil 
and natural gas resources in the outer continental shelf. Our 
legislation incorporates most of the offshore drilling provision that I 
and other ``Energy Democrats'' first introduced in the LEASE Act by 
directing the immediate opening of all areas beyond 100 miles off our 
coasts. That is over 300 million acres of outer continental shelf that 
are automatically open to oil and natural gas leasing. States are given 
the option to opt in the additional 50 to 100 miles off their coast, an 
estimated 90 million acres for production.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle argue that this does not 
open enough acreage in the Gulf of Mexico. I agree. I would like to 
open up the eastern Gulf of Mexico. But there was an agreement made by 
the Republican Congress in 2006 for Florida, and we are not going to 
break that agreement on the House side.
  But let's not forget the fact that during the height of the 
Republican rule under both the Republican President and Congress, 
Republicans were only able to open 8.3 million acres of leasing in the 
Gulf of Mexico. And President Bush took 7\1/2\ years, almost 7\1/2\ 
years of his administrations to actually decide to take off the 
moratorium. So who really wants to drill?
  Over 350 million acres will be open. This bill is hundreds of 
millions more acres that are directly opened in contrast to the Senate 
``Gang of 20,'' or in the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's 
bill, his Gas Price Reduction Act, which has the support of only 44 
Republican senators. We open so many more than even the Republican 
leadership and the Senate wanted to, more acreage for exploration and 
production.
  Most importantly, we use the revenues from oil and gas production to 
transition to a clean energy future. Our bill would create a fund to 
invest in renewable, clean energy efficiency, land and water 
conservation and LIHEAP. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and I will 
continue as we go to the debate. This bill is a drilling bill, but it's 
also a future bill for comprehensive energy production.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why Congress is in the 9 
percent favorable rating. We have not done the Nation's business. I 
look at former Chairman Barton sitting in the second row here. When we 
did the 2005 EPACT bill, we had lots of amendments here on the House 
floor, in fact, 23 different Democratic amendments, some amendments to 
amendments. And some of them would say at the end of the day that it 
was, in fact, a bipartisan bill because Congress worked its will. And I 
would say some of them were pro-energy. Frankly, some of them were 
anti-energy. One offered by Ms. Solis was described as an amendment 
that sought to delete refinery revitalization provisions in the bill. 
Thank goodness it was defeated. The bill moved forward, and it was 
signed into law.
  But today we have a new bill that is hundreds of pages long. We 
haven't had a single hearing in subcommittee or full committee. We 
haven't had a single markup in subcommittee or full committee. And we 
have a rule that means when it comes to the House floor, there are no 
amendments allowed at all.
  The Volt is an exciting new GM vehicle that is going to be in the 
showroom by 2010. It needs to be plugged in. We need to have 
electricity to make it move.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 15 additional 
seconds.
  Mr. UPTON. There are no amendments in here for coal. There are no 
amendments for nuclear. There are no amendments to provide for drilling 
offshore, no incentives, no amendments for oil shale, no amendments to 
bring in Canadian tar sand where they are producing 1 million barrels a 
day. Mr. Speaker, there is no beef in this legislation. Many would say, 
``Where is the beef?'' There is none. The rule needs to be rejected.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the chairman of the 
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very simple debate. The Republicans 
are very upset that the Democrats are going to take the oil companies 
and make them pay taxes to the American people when they drill on the 
land owned by the American people, and the Democrats then want to move 
the money over to wind and solar and plug-in hybrids for tax breaks. So 
the Democrats are saying that America needs an oil change. So, as Mr. 
Green just said, we open up vast new areas where the oil industry can 
drill, drill, drill; drill, baby, drill.
  But what we put into the bill is something else as well. We put in 
change, baby, change. Because we only have 3 percent of the oil in the 
world, we have 4 percent of the population, and we consume 25 percent 
of the oil in the world on a daily basis. That is not a long-term 
recipe.
  So we need an oil change. And what we need to do and what we are 
going to do is allow them to drill in thousands and thousands of 
additional acres, to go for the oil, to go drill, baby, drill, but then 
say we need back some of those tax breaks that you don't need at $100 a 
barrel, $140 a barrel, $4 a gallon at the pump. We don't need to 
subsidize you anymore.
  The taxpayer doesn't need to be tipped upside down and have money 
shaken out of their pockets as taxpayers to hand over to the oil 
companies, because they have already been tipped upside down and had 
money taken out of their pockets as consumers by the oil companies.
  So we just take back those tax breaks, put a little bit of a tax on 
where they don't pay any taxes at all, and where do we shift it over 
to? Ladies and gentlemen, we shift it over to wind and solar and green 
buildings and plug-in hybrids. We shift it over to the future. We 
unleash a technological revolution that will break our dependence upon 
imported oil.
  It is change, baby, change. It is innovate, baby, innovate. These 
guys are a one-note organization. They have been since two oilmen went 
to the White House 8 years ago.
  Drill, baby, drill is not a long-term strategy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute

[[Page 19218]]

to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for America. Contrary to 
what my friend from Massachusetts says, there is no drill, drill, 
drill, no change in this bill. There is not one drop of oil in this 
bill. And let me explain why.
  I went to the Rules Committee and said that any oil produced under 
this bill will be challenged in lawsuits and there won't be a drop 
produced. Let's put a limit on the lawsuits. The Rules Committee said 
absolutely no.
  Why did I do that? Last year, the Bush administration issued 487 
leases in the Chukchi Sea. Environmental groups sued not 484 or 485 or 
486. They sued every single lease.
  There are 748 leases also in Alaska in the Beaufort Sea. The 
environmentalists have sued all 748.
  There were 12 drilling plans filed last year with the Minerals and 
Management Service to produce oil off of Alaska. How many were sued? 
All 12. The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, every single lease has been challenged in court. We 
could solve that problem with limits, reasonable limits on litigation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. SHADEGG. But instead, the Rules Committee said absolutely no, we 
want no limits on litigation. Not only are there lawsuits filed by 
environmental groups against every existing lease in Alaska and the 
lower 48, they filed a lawsuit against all future oil leases.
  Any American who believes this bill will produce one drop of oil is 
being deceived by the lawyers that will sue and sue and sue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committees on Natural 
Resources and Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. INSLEE. You know, if we were having this debate in the 1800s, 
someone would be arguing about need to preserve whale oil, because that 
was the dominant source of energy in the 1800s and they couldn't see 
the emerging transition to different fuels. And now we have some people 
in this Chamber who don't understand the transition of fuels for 
Americans, the only transition that has a chance of breaking our 
addiction to oil and truly keeping down the price of energy.
  I want to show you a transition fuel that is just on the cusp. I met 
a man named Tony Markel. He works at the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, two weeks ago, and he showed me this.
  This is a photo-voltaic panel. It is about 400 square feet, and it is 
plugged into two plug-in electric hybrid cars. These are cars that run 
on electricity, only electricity, for about 40 miles, and if you want 
to go further than 40 miles, you use gasoline. This one system, a PV 
system, can power these two cars for essentially 40 miles, and then you 
use gasoline if you want to go more than 40 miles.
  This bill that the Republicans hate is going to give Americans a step 
forward to this future, which is the only future, together with some 
biofuels and perhaps even some other technologies, that can break the 
stranglehold of the oil and gas industry over the American consumer. 
And it is clear to me from people at Boeing, who revolutionized 
commercial aircraft; from people at Microsoft, who revolutionized 
software, that now is a chance for Americans to revolutionize the world 
of new clean energy.
  We know that we need innovation, not intransigence. We need 
invention, not insignificance. And we know we can't drill our way out 
of this problem. But we can, we must, and we will innovate our way to a 
clean energy future. This is a destiny of ours. It is a clean energy 
destiny.
  In addition, I would like to add that Tony Markel is an employee of 
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL is a national laboratory 
that provides great data and research on energy efficiency and 
renewable energy; however, NREL does not generally have a position on 
pending legislation, nor does it have a position on this bill, H.R. 
6899.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 11\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 6 minutes 
remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, our side of the aisle is responding to three 
fundamental facts that have changed everything: An economic crisis, an 
energy crisis, and a national security crisis. Higher energy costs are 
bringing down our economy; energy bought from overseas is depriving us 
of American jobs; and foreign purchase of energy is transferring our 
wealth, $700 billion overseas. This is threatening our very national 
security.
  We need a bill that has conservation, renewables, nuclear power, and, 
yes, American oil and American gas. That American oil and that American 
gas will pay for all the renewables we all want. It will help secure 
our Nation. It will grow our economy. And it will make sure that 
Americans have jobs, and our government has revenue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make here is that the 
Republican bill, which has all of the above, sets aside $8.8 billion 
that would be taken from the profits of this oil leasing, and that 
money would be put into alternative and renewable energy. That money 
would go to the long-term solution, which is electric vehicles. 
Lithium-ion car batteries would eventually come on to the market.
  But the reality is in the short-term we cannot afford to do what the 
Democrats want to do. In the last 2 years that they have run the 
Congress, they have doubled the price of gas by putting in place 
moratoriums, including one on oil shale development, a moratorium, by 
the way, that is on three States, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. We lift 
that moratorium in our bill because of the reserves there. They do not.
  We have a situation today where what we would do is allow offshore 
drilling. Gazprom, the Russian oil giant, is up in the Arctic drilling. 
No. They say no drilling in the Arctic. Off the coast of Florida, we 
watch as the Cubans drill. No, we are not going to be allowed to drill 
there.
  They take 88 percent and take it off the table, and the other 12 
percent, they say you have got to get the State to go along with. That 
means they just continue this moratorium. This is outrageous.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. ROYCE. I appreciate that.
  Our own United States Air Force would like to try coal-to-liquid. 
They would like to try gasification out of coal. This is used by South 
Africa to make gas. That is prohibited. The Democrats won't lift their 
moratorium on that.
  Clean coal, nothing in here for clean coal. Another prohibition 
brought to us by our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Basically, what the problem here is the leadership on the Democratic 
side of the aisle are so focused on saving the planet that they are not 
going to save the United States of America when we are in this crisis 
over these oil prices and dependency on foreign countries.
  Nancy Pelosi herself, the Speaker of the House, said, ``I want to 
save the planet.'' ``I want to save the planet.'' The majority leader 
of the Senate said, ``All fossil fuel is poison and we need to get rid 
of it.'' The gentleman from the

[[Page 19219]]

Sierra Club, Carl Pope, the executive director, said, ``We are better 
off without cheap oil, without cheap gas.''
  We are better off without cheap gas? Tell that to the people in the 
11th Congressional District back in Georgia when they are paying $4 and 
$5 a gallon.
  The bottom line, my colleagues, is what the Democrats have done is 
come in here with a farce, a hoax of an energy bill, and say, okay, we 
know the American people, 85 percent of them want an energy bill and 
they want to be able to drill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman.
  They want this, and they want it now.
  I just want to call my colleagues' attention to this Charlie Brown 
cartoon. This young man is Charlie Republican. This is Lucy Democrat. 
Lucy Democrat has teed up an energy bill that includes drilling, but 
when Charlie Brown goes to kick that field goal, she yanks it away. 
That is what the Democrat majority has done, and it is shameful, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this very misnamed 
bill and the rule that brings it to the floor.
  First, it claims to be a comprehensive bill, yet it has nothing about 
nuclear energy, clean coal or increasing refinery capacity and halts 
much oil shale development. Second, and more importantly, it has no 
reforms or limitations on lawsuits by special interests environmental 
groups.
  Radical environmental groups have successfully used lawsuits, the 
courts and administrative procedures to stop or drastically slow down 
all types of energy production and have really shut down this country 
economically in many, many ways. They have opposed not only drilling 
for oil, but also digging for any coal, cutting any trees, or, heaven 
forbid, any new nuclear plants. They want to go to wind power, but they 
oppose putting up any windmills.
  I have noticed that almost all radical environmentalists come from 
very wealthy or very upper-income families. Perhaps they aren't hurt by 
high gas prices, high utility bills, higher prices for everything made 
out of wood and higher prices for everything. But almost all middle- 
and lower-income people are hurt by these higher prices.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DUNCAN. The trucking and railroad industries have been hit 
especially hard by higher diesel fuel costs. The president of 
Burlington Northern and Sante Fe Railroad told me his company spent $1 
billion on fuel in all of 2003, and spent over $1 billion on fuel just 
in the first quarter of this year. All of these costs are passed on to 
the consumer in the form of higher prices.
  The Air Transport Association says each one penny increase in jet 
fuel costs the aviation industry $200 million a year. Jet fuel has gone 
up far more than one penny, leading to much higher fares for the 
hundreds of millions who fly each year.
  The hoax of a bill that we consider today is not a good bill, Mr. 
Speaker.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a Member of this body who 
has been absolutely steadfast on the proposition of expanding our 
energy supply, Mr. Peterson.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy 
heart.
  America is in a crisis for affordable, available energy. Our folks 
back home want us to sit down and figure out how to have available, 
affordable energy. Four hundred Members of Congress, including me, who 
have been involved in this debate for years, this morning found out 
there is a 290-page bill that we are going to vote on today with no 
amendments.
  That's not the process of how to get to a solution. That's the 
political process. This is a political process, not a process about 
solving America's energy crisis.
  Mr. Markey's just sharing with us that we are holding back wind and 
solar and geothermal. That's not true. There is no Member of Congress 
that I know of that won't fund all of those.
  The Peterson-Abercrombie bill funds every renewable that's on the 
books for 5 years. It funds all the conservation programs that both 
parties have thought of, and it funds environmental cleanups. It 
incentivizes all the forms of energy that will help us get to where we 
need to be.
  The Pelosi bill, unfortunately, talks with one hand of opening up 
drilling. On the other hand, it locks it back up because of a 50-mile 
setback, and then States are supposed to open it up when Members of 
Congress don't have the courage to, with no reward of a royalty. No 
State legislature is going to open up the second 50 miles and get no 
royalties.
  America doesn't want this political rhetoric. America wants us to sit 
down as Republicans and Democrats. They don't want a Republican bill or 
a Democrat bill. They want us to sit down and discuss energy into the 
night, day after day, until we get it right, and we fix and provide 
America available, affordable energy.
  Folks, we can do that. We have lots of reserves. Twenty-eight years 
ago we started locking up our reserves and decided not to produce 
energy. We caused the shortage. We caused the high prices. We are the 
reason the oil companies have made huge profits.
  When you lock up supply, the price triples. Whoever owns it gets 
rich. That's how it works, folks. We need to open up supply, bring 
prices down and give America energy to heat their homes and drive their 
cars so that they can afford to pay for them.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire if my friend, 
the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, has any other speakers?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have one further speaker, and then 
I will close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very 
pleased to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner of 
Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Washington for yielding 
and suggest to my colleagues that we are engaged in exactly what the 
American people are sick of, and that is political games here in 
Washington that are intended to be political games and to have no 
outcome.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a bill that will be up soon. I don't know how 
many pages it is, because I haven't seen it yet. Of course, there is no 
Member of Congress who has seen this bill and no Member of Congress who 
has read it because it was introduced last night at 9:45. It's going to 
be up this afternoon, a bill that no one has seen, has been through no 
committee, written in the dark of night behind closed doors.
  But what we do know about it is that it locks up about 88 percent of 
the known resources off our shores. We are the only country in the 
world that doesn't allow drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, and 
this locks up 88 percent of it.
  Is that a way to get to more energy? We have a bill that does all of 
the above on our side. But when you look at their bill, there is 
nothing about any nuclear energy in there, nothing about coal-to-
liquids or coal to gas, nothing that is going to bring us, really, more 
American energy.
  On top of all that, it has a big tax increase in it. If that isn't 
bad enough, we have an earmark in the bill, an earmark of $1.2 billion 
for the City of New York, for some railroad bonds. This is

[[Page 19220]]

not the way the American people want us to get our jobs done. They want 
us to work together. They want us to listen to them, and they want us 
to do their will, and that's not what's happening today. If all this 
isn't bad enough, the rule that we are considering to allow this 
legislation to come to the floor doesn't even allow the minority, the 
Republican Members of the House, to offer a substitute, no amendments, 
no substitute.
  Now, it was Ms. Pelosi, back when she was the minority leader, that 
called for this to be the most open and fair and ethical Congress in 
history. She said that bills should come to the floor generally under 
an open rule that would allow us to offer amendments, but, no, there 
are no amendments allowed.
  There is no substitute allowed. This is intended for one purpose and 
one purpose only, as this bill is coming to the floor, so that some of 
my colleagues in the majority, the Democrat party can say, we voted on 
energy. Didn't do anything. They know this bill that they are bringing 
has no chance of becoming law, and yet they are bringing it up under a 
scenario which is, frankly, unfair. There is not one Member, one Member 
of this Chamber, who doesn't understand that this is unfair.
  This rule should be defeated. Let's go back to the drawing boards and 
do this right, and we can do it right in very short order and have this 
bill on floor yet this week.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Rogers.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this is the trouble when you 
introduce bills to hurt somebody, to try to punish somebody. When the 
Democrats took over a couple of years ago, they said they had a secret 
plan they were going to lower gas prices. The problem was the plan was 
deeply rooted in punishing average Americans.
  If you drive a minivan, you are bad, and you are wrong. If you use 
electricity at home, you are wrong. If you commute more than 40 miles 
to work, you are wrong. So you have developed a plan that punishes 
them, and we are seeing the impact of that in every community in this 
country.
  Single moms are having a difficult time packing their kids up. They 
have got to be at three events, they have got to pay for child care. 
They have got to stop and get gas to get them there. What they said is, 
you are wrong. You are wrong for working that hard.
  What this bill does is it says ``no'' to more than it says ``yes.'' 
You want to hurt somebody so bad, oil companies, Alaskans, middle-class 
families. You are in such a hurry to do that, you have created a bill 
that hurts them more.
  If you go home and try to put your kids on the Internet to do their 
homework, it will raise their monthly bill. If you cook their food on 
the stove, it will raise their monthly bill. If you put food in the 
refrigerator, this bill will raise their monthly bill.
  It does nothing to help middle-class families. This is a slap in 
their face.
  You say no to biomass, no to coal, no to shale oil, no to nuclear 
because you don't like it. This bill makes it easier for China to drill 
off our coast than it does for American companies to produce American-
made energy.
  This is not an energy bill for average Americans. I am a small-town 
guy. I plead with you, come to small-town America, see what these 
provisions, these plans are doing to average Americans in the middle 
class. It's killing them.
  Don't punish America. Unleash the resources that we have to help 
America.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire if my colleague has more speakers?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have two additional 
individuals, and then I am prepared to yield back.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California, a Member who served here 
previously and who was very active on this issue, Mr. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate with much interest 
as I notice the anti-drillers on the other side of the aisle straining 
to prove that their bill actually includes real drilling.
  So you listen to it, and it appears they are lip-synching their 
message while the special interests, environmental extremists and 
lawyers, are actually writing and singing their anti-energy lyrics. No, 
no, no, no, no, that's what we are hearing.
  It just appears to me that the Democrats have brought us their 290-
page bill, and they are trying to display it as their newest 
legislative Grammy winner. What it really is is nothing more than their 
newest version of Drilli Vanilli.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. I appreciate this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately an amendment that I proposed was shut out 
by the Democratic majority regarding renewal energy projects on public 
lands.
  As you know, Nevada is on the forefront of a renewable energy. We 
have the third largest solar facility in the world in my district.
  I have made some suggestions, so I have had to drop my own bill, 
since the leadership would not allow this to be heard, to ensure that 
when leasing or buying Federal lands, developers of renewable energy 
shall be able to lease or buy the property at existing fair market 
value.
  It would expedite the process. We want to make sure if there is a 
solar or geothermal facility or wind or, whatever alternative energy, 
it is an expedited process.
  It would direct the Secretary of the Interior to expedite these 
applications for renewable energy; direct the Secretary to also 
prioritize Federal land across the country, which could be used for 
renewable energy projects, and by local governments. It directs the 
Secretary to identify all Federal lands around the country that are 
suitable and feasible for alternative projects.
  It's unfortunate this would not be heard by the majority party. This 
is something that is important to move this process along.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to act now to encourage the development 
of renewable resources on Federal lands, but as always bureaucracy and 
red tape are interfering with the process.
  I am proud to introduce legislation that will remove regulatory and 
bureaucratic delays that are impeding the development of renewable 
energy projects on available Federal lands in resource rich states like 
my home state of Nevada.
  According to the Department of Interior, there are currently 210 
solar energy applications pending with the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) and 217 applications pending with the BLM for wind energy 
projects.
  My legislation would help alleviate the bureaucratic hurdles and 
delays and streamline the application process needed to move renewable 
energy projects forward as we seek to address the current energy 
crisis.
  My legislation will also:
  Ensure that when leasing or buying Federal lands, developers of 
renewable energy projects shall be able to lease or buy the public land 
at the existing value fair market value, not the price of the land once 
the plant is built and improvements are made;
  Expedite an efficient process for the submission and consideration of 
renewable energy projects;
  Direct the Secretary of Interior to expedite all those applications 
for renewable energy projects currently in the logjam of bureaucratic 
delays;
  Direct the Secretary to prioritize Federal land transfers for 
renewable energy projects to local governments; and
  Direct the Secretary to identify all Federal lands around the country 
that are suitable and feasible for alternative energy projects.

[[Page 19221]]

  A brief reminder of why renewable energy development is important to 
the Nation:
  The economic impact of new renewable energy projects is immense--
hundreds of thousands of jobs to develop and operate these power 
plants, bringing new tax dollars into rural communities, where 
unemployment is high and a boost to the local economies are sorely 
needed.
  Renewable power plants reduce the Nation's dependence on fossil fuels 
and imports, enhancing our national security, improving our balance of 
payments, and stimulating our economy.
  Renewable power plants improve our environment, reducing greenhouse 
gases and clearing our air.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation,
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon, a member of the Committees on Natural Resources and 
Transportation, Mr. DeFazio.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  If you listen to the Republicans here today, you would think that 
Detroit can't make more efficient automobiles, something the 
Republicans blocked for 12 years, which we did within the first year of 
taking back power here in the House.
  They are saying that our electric generators can't produce 15 
percent, one-sixth of their energy from renewable resources. In the 
United States of America in the 21st century, we can't get 15 percent 
from renewables? We have to rely on fossil fuels?
  Do you believe that they say that the oil companies can't afford to 
pay the American taxpayers fair royalties for the nonrenewable 
resources they are extracting from our Federal land? If you do believe 
all that, then you probably believe that they do have a plan for 
independence and energy sustainability for the future.
  Now the gentleman there spoke earlier, the gentleman from Washington, 
a good friend, about a fig leaf hiding an embarrassing fact or problem. 
There is one huge fig leaf over this debate today, and here is what is 
under the fig leaf: George Bush, holding hands with the King of Saudi 
Arabia.
  Now the Bush administration, last time I checked, same party 
affiliation as that side of the aisle, the Republicans, led by Vice 
President Cheney, last time I checked, a member of the Grand Old Oil 
Party, wrote an energy bill in secret. They pushed for it for 5 years.
  When the Republicans controlled everything, the House, the Senate and 
the White House, they jammed through their energy bill over the 
objections of many on our side of the aisle who said wait, no, this 
isn't a forward-looking energy policy. It's going to make us actually 
more dependent on imported oil, and it's going to make us more 
dependent on fossil fuels, and it's not going to give us a new energy 
future that the American people need. It's not going to make us more 
efficient, more sustainable and more affordable.
  Now they are trying to hide that fig leaf. Now they have also talked 
about the price per gallon, that when Speaker Pelosi became Speaker 
almost 2 years ago, there has been a big run-up in prices.
  Whoops. Here is when George Bush took office. Gas was about $1.45 a 
gallon; today, bumping back up, over $4 in some hurricane areas.
  Now there is something else that goes along with that that they don't 
want to talk about, and this is what's really going on here, folks.

                              {time}  1445

  They want to talk about relief for American consumers. They don't 
give a fig leaf about relief for American consumers.
  This is what the debate is all about. Look at the obscene growth in 
profits of the oil industry since the oil men in the White House, 
George Bush and Dick Cheney, took over; from $30 billion a year to $160 
billion this year, every penny of that extracted from the pockets of 
American consumers and American business. An unbelievable, 
unprecedented breath-taking run-up in profits.
  And they say now they are concerned and want a change. They don't 
really want a change. They don't want this to change. They want us to 
continue to be dependent on oil and foreign oil and, yeah, maybe a 
smidgeon more of domestic oil.
  Now they have a few other whoppers out there today. They say no 
drilling in Alaska. Whoops, sorry, wrong, guys. Actually, this bill 
would push the industry to get off its rear and begin to extract oil 
from the former Naval Petroleum Reserve, renamed the National Petroleum 
Reserve Alaska by the Republican Congress and put out for leasing. It 
has been leased. Bill Clinton, in fact, did the first leases. But guess 
what, 10 years later not a drop of oil, even though the known reserves, 
and why was it the Naval Petroleum Reserve for 80 years, because we 
knew there was a pile of oil under there, a huge pool of oil under 
there, more than 10 billion barrels.
  No one knows if there is any oil under the Alaskan National Wildlife 
Refuge, but they want to talk about the refuge. They don't want to talk 
about the fact that their friends in the hugely profitable oil industry 
have failed to extract any oil from the known 10 billion barrels of 
reserves in the Naval Petroleum Reserve Alaska.
  This bill would push for production there, push them to connect it to 
the existing pipeline, and push them to bring that oil down to the 
lower 48.
  As Members on my side said earlier, we need a transitional fuel. We 
need to enhance our oil supply; this bill would do that. We also need 
to go after natural gas in a much more robust way, a cleaner fuel, a 
fuel of which we have significantly more reserves here in the United 
States of America which we don't need to import if we develop those 
reserves. This bill would do that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This bill would also reform royalties. It would end the 
party. The Minerals Management Service under the Bush administration 
was swapping oil or something for royalties, or maybe it was sex, drugs 
and rock and roll. This bill would reform that process.
  This bill would bring back integrity, fiscal responsibility, and give 
us a sustainable, renewable and cleaner energy future. Vote for a new 
future, not the same old Big Oil, Grand Oil Party plan.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, my plea to those Democrats 
who proclaim their support for more drilling and making America more 
energy independent, I urge you to vote ``no'' against this sham bill by 
voting ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous 
question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6566, the 
American Energy Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because that means 
we will have a vote on both their bill and our bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this whole debate boils down to one issue 
today: whose side are you on? Which side are you on, the side of the 
persons who sent you here, your constituents and the businesses that 
you represent, or are you on the side of the oil companies? I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1433 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       Strike all after the resolved clause and add the following:
       That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
     House shall, without

[[Page 19222]]

     intervention of any point of order, consider in the House the 
     bill (H.R. 6899) to advance the national security interests 
     of the United States by reducing its dependency on oil 
     through renewable and clean, alternative fuel technologies 
     while building a bridge to the future through expanded access 
     to Federal oil and natural gas resources, revising the 
     relationship between the oil and gas industry and the 
     consumers who own those resources and deserve a fair return 
     from the development of publicly owned oil and gas, ending 
     tax subsidies for large oil and gas companies, and 
     facilitating energy efficiencies in the building, housing, 
     and transportation sectors, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions of the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources; (2) an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, as introduced, if 
     offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order or demand for division of the question, shall be 
     considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 3 
     hours equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        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 Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution [and] has no substantive legislative 
     or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what 
     they have always said. Listen to the definition of the 
     previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       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 Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

                          ____________________