[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22063-22069]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1500 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1500

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of September 28, 2008, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont a recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my 
friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the 
rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H. Res. 1500.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1500 authorizes the 
Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any 
time through the calendar day of Sunday, September 28, 2008. The rule 
is necessary because under clause 1(a), rule XV, the Speaker may 
entertain motions to suspend the rules, as you know, only on Monday, 
Tuesday and Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be 
considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize such 
consideration.
  This is not an unusual procedure, particularly at the end of the 
legislative session. In the 109th Congress, for instance, my friends on 
the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided 
for additional suspension days. We are doing the same.
  This rule will help us move important bipartisan legislation before 
we adjourn. Of course, all bills considered under suspension of the 
rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the 
House.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule, which will 
simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we 
adjourn.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my good friend, Mr. Welch, the gentleman from Vermont, for the 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule, which is a framework under which legislation 
is brought to the floor, if passed, will

[[Page 22064]]

allow the House to consider legislation under suspension of the rules 
until Sunday.
  Suspension of the rules is a procedure by which the House of 
Representatives generally acts to approve legislation promptly. 
Legislation considered under suspension of the rules is usually 
noncontroversial. It usually has bipartisan support, by virtue of the 
fact that in order for bills to pass under that procedure known as 
suspension of the rules bills have to pass with at least two-thirds of 
the votes of the House.
  Yesterday I came to the floor to manage for the minority a similar 
rule. I did not ask for a vote in opposition regarding that rule 
yesterday. But today I must rise and oppose this rule, because unlike 
yesterday's rule, today's rule does not specify which bills the House 
of Representatives will consider. Instead, this rule, this framework 
that we are going to vote on now, in a few minutes, this rule provides 
blanket or blind authority to the majority.
  Now, yesterday we received a list of 44 bills that the House was 
being authorized to consider. But today we received nothing, just a 
request in effect for absolute power to bring legislation to the floor. 
So this will allow the majority to bring legislation to the floor that 
most Members haven't even heard about, much less read, not to mention 
that we will have absolutely no chance to amend any of the bills.
  According to a senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee, 
such a procedure is ``outside the normal parameters of the way the 
House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our rights 
and responsibilities as serious legislators.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is quite unfortunate that the majority has 
opted to pursue this path. In reality, this is the sixth time that the 
majority is bringing forth a rule like this during this Congress. I 
know the majority will claim that is the same number, the same amount 
of times that the 109th Congress used this procedure, but I would 
remind our friends on the other side of the aisle that in every other 
record for limiting debate in the House, they have far exceeded the 
109th Congress, and that is so even though on the opening day of the 
110th Congress the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. 
Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would 
``begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of 
democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.''
  So, let us take a look at their record-breaking performance, Mr. 
Speaker. First let us begin with closed rules.
  There can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more 
offensive to the spirit of representative democracy than the closed 
rule. Those rules, closed rules, block Members from both sides of the 
aisle from offering amendments to legislation, no matter their party 
affiliation. When the House of Representatives is operating under a 
closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on 
the floor. Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, they 
silenced the voice of every Member and of all the constituents of every 
Member a record 64 times, Mr. Speaker. Sixty-four times.
  No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought 
forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the 
Republic has brought forth 64 pieces of legislation during one Congress 
under the parliamentary procedure known as the closed rule, that shuts 
out all amendments, all possibility of Members, from both sides of the 
aisle from introducing amendments.
  The consistent use of closed rules by the majority is most 
unfortunate. It is really, I believe, quite offensive to the democratic 
spirit, and really obviously a contradiction with regard to the 
promises made by the majority.
  They have also systematically bypassed the conference process, the 
process by which the House and Senate reconciles differences on 
legislation before voting on a final version, an identical, final 
version of legislation before sending it to the President. They have 
systematically bypassed this conference process, effectively shutting 
out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to 
the President's desk.
  They also have used a technique known as ping-pong 14 times to 
subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and 
amendments. Now, in comparison, in the 108th and 109th Congresses 
combined, that technique, ping-pong, that the majority has used 14 
times during this Congress, that technique was used a total of three 
times in the prior two Congresses.
  So, again, the tendency can be seen time and time again, in 
contradiction, direct contradiction to the promises to go in the other 
direction, to go in the direction of transparency and fairness and 
openness. So with ping-pong we also see the tendency of the majority 
not fail.

                              {time}  1215

  They also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They blocked 
minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute 
amendments, again, even though they promised a procedure that, ``grants 
the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a 
substitute.'' Again, the majority contradicted its own promise, 
directly, directly contradicted its own promise again.
  Now, these records that I have alluded to, do not etch them in stone 
yet. We still have a few days left in the 110th Congress. I would bet 
that the majority will break their own records yet again and, once 
again, their promises for a fair and open Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I want to respond to some of the points made by 
my friend from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, this process of allowing for suspensions on days late in 
the week, particularly towards the end of the session, is something 
that we have done quite a bit, generally on a cooperative basis, and 
there is a self-policing mechanism that applies.
  The self-policing mechanism, of course, is the fact that to pass a 
suspension bill requires two-thirds vote, and the majority party does 
not have a two-thirds majority, so anything that's going to pass is 
going to require a substantial positive vote, a ``yes'' vote, from 
Members on both sides of the aisle.
  It also is kind of a practical thing to do. Our session is getting 
extended a bit because we are trying to come to some resolution to ease 
the credit crisis that is afflicting our economy, and that's incredibly 
serious, requires us to stay as long as it takes to address that issue.
  But many of us are not involved in the minute-to-minute negotiations, 
as our committee chairs are, as our leadership is. We are still on the 
clock, working for the American taxpayer. So if there is an opportunity 
to use our time productively by bringing up suspension bills that meet 
the two-thirds test, advances concerns of importance, if not as grave 
importance as the issue about Wall Street, why not take the opportunity 
together to move ahead on things that will be helpful to our country.
  Also, just a little bit of history here, the Republicans, of course, 
were in the majority from 1994 until 2006. In the last session of 
Congress, the 109th session of Congress, they found themselves in 
similar circumstances at the end of the session. They had time that 
could be utilized and did, by bringing up some suspension bills. Then, 
as now, it did require a two-thirds vote before any suspension bill 
could pass.
  I will just go through a few things. My friend probably knows all 
this, but I will remind him, anyway, a little education here. He was 
here. I wasn't.
  I am told that on June 30, 2005, H. Res. 345 provided for a blanket 
suspension day on June 30, and that was pending the July adjournment of 
that year. The House took up a number of bills under that suspension 
authority.
  Similarly, on July 28, 2005, there was a blanket suspension for 
suspension day. Again, the House took advantage of that. September 8, 
2005, provided another day for a blanket suspension.
  There are others. H. Res. 623 provided for suspension day on December 
17.

[[Page 22065]]

That applied to a number of pending House bills, H.R. 4519, H.R. 2520, 
H.R. 4568, H.R. 3402, H.R. 4579, H.R. 4525; a Senate bill, S. 1281. 
There was a conference on Senate 467. It was a joint resolution 
providing for a fiscal year 2006 continuing resolution.
  That was all pretty important business. It all passed with that two-
thirds majority. It took advantage of the fact that many people from 
both sides of the aisle, who were not involved in what was the end of 
the session, intense negotiations on other legislation, they could use 
their time productively.
  There were a couple of combination rules with suspension day 
authority. H. Res. 1096 waived the two-thirds requirement on December 7 
on any rule, providing for a blanket suspension day. It tabled H. Res. 
810, 939, 951 and 1047.
  There was another such action on December 8, 2006, H. Res. 1102, and 
that waived the two-thirds rule on the December 8 proceedings on any 
rule and that provided for a blanket suspension on that date. There is 
a strong precedent here for allowing suspension authority to occur at 
the end of the week, rather than just the beginning of the week. Again, 
it's grounded in the practicality, using the time that we have, that we 
didn't expect to have, to advance the legislative calendar.
  The gentleman from Florida mentioned the ping-pong procedure that has 
allowed this House and the Congress to pass critical legislation for 
working and middle class Americans. The fact is that we have utilized 
the ping-pong approach because of some of our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle in the Senate that have blocked motions to go to 
conference.
  Incidentally, I think I probably agree with my friend that going into 
conference is the better way for us to try to resolve differences 
between the two bodies. It takes two to conference, just like it takes 
two to do that famous south Miami dance, the tango. I know on our side, 
Republicans and Democrats would prefer to be able to use the tried-and-
true method of a conference committee to resolve our differences.
  It certainly allows our body to be fully represented on both sides of 
the aisle, members of the conference would come from the Democrat and 
Republican Parties. It would allow for more vigorous debate about the 
differences between the legislation that's passed by the House and 
passed by the Senate. In fact, I think it's a little sad, and, frankly, 
dangerous a bit, that we don't have a conferencing process, because it 
really does allow the focus on the issues and allows for a fuller 
debate from which, in the ideal circumstances, a better solution 
emerges.
  I think I am in agreement, maybe I can hear from the Member from 
Florida, but I think I am in agreement with him about the preference 
for a conference procedure. It's just not something that's unilaterally 
within the control of this body. That's true, whether there is a 
Republican majority or a Democratic majority. There certainly has to be 
a level of cooperation in the other body in order for the House to be 
able to participate in a conference.
  So what we find ourselves, oftentimes, is confronted with a situation 
where the negotiating gets done at leadership level or at the chair of 
committee level. It leaves a good number of Members out of those final 
and often very critical negotiations about the final points of 
legislation that's in contention.
  So maybe the Member from Florida and I can work together to try to 
persuade our friends in the other body to return to the tradition of 
House-Senate conferences.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend for his 
presentation.
  Mr. Speaker, it's important to point out, that we make distinct and 
analyze a number of the matters that we have brought forth.
  With regard to the ability of the House to consider suspension bills, 
it's evident that that is a process that has much tradition. My 
objection, and I know that in the last Congress it was done six times, 
and it's done six times in this Congress, but I think it's unfair, 
really, in an exceptional way to the membership, for them, for Members 
not to know even the title of legislation that is being brought forth 
so that, along with their staffs, they can study bills that are 
expected to be noncontroversial because of the two-thirds requirement, 
but there is a great difference. We all accept that suspension bills 
are a part of the process towards the end of the session, but there is 
a great difference between authorizing suspensions that are identified, 
legislation bills that are identified, like we did yesterday, and, you 
know, in a blanket way authorizing the majority to bring forth any 
bills on suspension without even identifying them, which is what we are 
doing today.
  There is a difference. Yes, it was done six times in the last 
Congress, and it has been done six times in this Congress.
  What I pointed out was that the tendency toward unfairness becomes 
evident when one analyzes the entire spectrum of activity by the 
majority, procedurally, six and six on what I consider to be 
inappropriate formats for presenting suspension bills.
  But when we leave that particular aspect of the suspension bills 
unidentified, and we analyze, for example, the closed rules, there the 
majority broke the record in a significant way, 64 closed rules. That's 
extraordinary, that's unprecedented.
  I would remind you that the closed rule is most undemocratic. Then my 
friend referred to the ping-pong process, the process by which 
conference is avoided. In the last Congress, there was a similar 
situation of one party in control of both Houses as there is in this 
Congress. Yet the times in this Congress that conference has been 
avoided just went through the ceiling, went through the roof, in 
comparison to the past. I think it was three versus 14 times. It's 
extraordinary, the difference. And when we analyze all of this in 
conjunction with and in the context of the promises made by the 
majority to improve instead of to worsen significantly. In other words, 
the promise was, with regard to these questionable procedural 
processes, or manners of acting, rather, the promise was, we are going 
to improve, we are going to have transparency, we are going to have 
openness, we are going to have fairness. That was the promise.
  Then when you see that promise and you juxtapose it to the reality of 
performance, and the reality of performance is much worse, is much more 
unfair, it really becomes dramatic, the contrast between promise and 
performance. That's what I was alluding to.
  With regard to some points made by my friend, it's almost inevitable 
for my friend from Vermont not to make appropriate and quite defendable 
statements, because he is one of the most respected Members of this 
House, and in the short period of time that he has been here, he has 
earned that respect on both sides of the aisle.
  But I think it's appropriate to analyze, without passion, the points 
that I brought forth with regard to the great contrast between promise 
and performance of this majority. It's a dramatic contrast and an 
unfortunate contrast.
  I would ask at this time, my friend, if he has any other speakers.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, 
``man is man plus his circumstances.'' That is one, I think, of the 
wisest sayings I have ever heard by one of the great philosophers of 
the 20th century, Jose Ortega y Gasset, who led a fascinating life. He 
was a professor in various universities in Spain, actually dabbled in 
politics, was a member of the parliament during the Second Republic in 
the 1930s in Spain, and then was a long-time exile.
  Toward the end of his life, I think he returned to Spain but just for 
a short period of time because he did not outlive the Franco 
dictatorship and Ortega y Gasset never wanted to live nor, quite 
frankly, visit his country under dictatorship.
  But that phrase, ``man is man plus his circumstances,'' I think, 
summarizes so much of life. And so we today,

[[Page 22066]]

while not engaged, because this is a procedural debate and I would 
expect my friend on the other side of the aisle to agree that perhaps 
it is not one of the most popular to watch if a guest were here in the 
galleries because it is procedural, this debate. And yet process really 
is key to the functioning of representative democracy, Mr. Speaker.
  Why do I say that: because the rights of the minority are just as 
important as the right of the majority to rule. You can't have a 
functioning, a genuine, representative democracy unless, along with the 
right of the majority to rule, the minority has the right to be heard. 
And the opposition, the minority, has the right to play a significant 
role. And so process is what makes that possible. Without process, 
guaranteeing the rights of the majority to rule and the minority to be 
heard and to have all of the procedural rights followed by the 
majority, without that process, there can be no representative 
democracy. And so even though this debate may seem somewhat technical, 
process is important.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some of the 
comments made by my friend from Florida. But first of all, I thank my 
friend. He is very generous in his comments about me. The feelings are 
mutual. I have enjoyed working with you on the Rules Committee, and 
love hearing you speak and argue, and I know the affection people have 
for you here in this body. And for you to be here with your brother, 
what a wonderful family story, to have brothers serving together 
keeping an eye on each other. And you need to have an eye kept on you.
  I missed the name of the philosopher from Spain.
  I yield.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Ortega y Gasset. In Spain, you 
often have compound names or long names. Ortega y Gasset. An 
extraordinary philosopher, really a liberal in the best sense of the 
word and an open man, a man open to realize, my distinguished friends, 
that good ideas often come from not only both but all political 
viewpoints. And Ortega y Gasset was one such thinker. I highly 
recommend him to such an erudite, studious not only here Member of the 
House but generally a man of the law as my friend.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Well, thank you. I am going to take you up on 
that because you are probably more familiar with that history of Spain 
during the preceding Franco years and the internal revolution and 
during the period of the republic.
  That phrase you used, man and his circumstances, is very, very 
powerful.
  I yield.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend.
  ``Man is man plus his circumstances.''
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. And he had to contend with that, as did all 
Spaniards during the period of the republic in the revolution with just 
this wrenching upheaval in their own society where brothers were 
fighting brothers and the worst of all things were happening, as they 
were here during our Civil War and countrymen were pitted one against 
another, and people were forced to deal with circumstances that were 
just beyond what they ever could have imagined. And then the struggle 
in those circumstances for people of conscience to make a decision 
about what was right to do when the implication of following through 
and doing that right could be frightening, physically dangerous to 
themselves, the person who was making the decision to act, but it was 
equally frightening about a decision not to act and what the 
consequences would be for other people. So I look forward to reading 
that.
  I am just going to make a suggestion to you. That phrase ``man is man 
plus his circumstances,'' and I have to write that down.
  But Graham Greene is one of my favorite authors. And the reason I 
like Graham Greene, he writes articles about flawed human beings. The 
protagonists in his novels are all deeply flawed people, like all of 
us. They have real limitations. Some of them are alcoholics. They can't 
control certain parts of their behavior. But what he writes about is 
individuals who find themselves in circumstances where they have to 
make decisions that require them to act in ways that ultimately may be 
physically dangerous to them, but where they have a capacity to 
respond, to see, what the moral imperative is. And then they are able, 
despite their flaws and weaknesses, to summon the internal courage to 
do the right thing. They don't do it to be a hero. They are reluctant 
heroes. They end up being heroes. And in some cases they sacrifice 
their lives. It is not that they wanted to do it or anything that they 
thought about as an image of themselves. In fact, they oftentimes took 
refuge in their weakness, by alcohol, frequently, in the Graham Greene 
novels.
  But when they were confronted with a situation where they had an 
opportunity, by circumstance beyond their control, accidental almost, 
where their action could save a fellow human being or turn the tide of 
events in a way where more people would be spared suffering, despite 
their weakness, despite not wanting to do it, despite their resistance, 
there was something deeply moral embedded in who they were where the 
decision they made was for others, not for themselves.
  Your comments about the Spanish philosopher brought to mind the 
reactions I have had from reading so many Graham Greene novels.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Repeat the name of the author.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Graham Greene. I just really appreciate your 
remarks.
  And I want to talk about a second topic you mentioned, the importance 
in a democracy about procedure. The gentleman is right. One of the 
things that I have admired about our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, is 
that I believe he does his best, it is always debatable, but I think he 
does his best to scrupulously abide by the procedural rights.
  We have battles about the rule we are bringing forward and whether it 
is the right thing to do or not, but I agree, procedure is important. 
Procedure is often substance. How you design it and allow something to 
be taken up really affects the outcome of what will occur.
  One of the constant decisions that we have to make, you had to make 
when you were in the majority and we have to make while we are in the 
majority, is how to get a specific question to this body for an up-or-
down vote. And it requires the Rules Committee, and you know better 
than I do, you are much more experienced on the Rules Committee than I 
am, it requires the Rules Committee to decide what the question will 
be, to decide what amendments will be allowed. There is always an 
ongoing tension between the majority and the minority, and that flips 
as the voters decide to change the majority here.
  So your aggression, and that is not the right word, your defense of 
procedure is well taken by me.
  Before I came here I served for a period of time in the State Senate 
in Vermont. It is a much different situation. We had 30 members, very 
small, very intimate. No staff. Literally no staff. The one member of 
the Senate who had one staff person was the President pro tempore, and 
I served in that job for the 4 years before I came here. But nobody 
else had a staff. I have gotten to like staff, don't get me wrong, but 
there was something quite wonderful about the fact that the members had 
to do all of their own work. What it meant is that we were talking to 
one another constantly. And the problems that were being developed 
couldn't be mitigated or muted by having staff talk to staff for 
another member.
  That very intense, immediate interaction I actually thought was very 
helpful. I know there are a number of Members on both sides of the 
aisle who talk, and we have this opportunity when we are on the floor 
voting to try to hear where each of us are coming from and what ways we 
may be able to find a path to getting ``yes.''
  But as Senate President, I had a lot of responsibility about 
procedures. So I

[[Page 22067]]

did two things that were kind of unusual, and we can't do them around 
here, but in the small circumstances of the Vermont Senate we could. We 
had 21-9 majority, and I had the cooperative power of appointment. And 
I appointed three members of the Republican Party to serve as chairs of 
important committees.
  The reason that I did that, two reasons, it just so happened that the 
three people who got appointed were the best people for the job. They 
were terrific. The second reason was it allowed us to find ways to work 
together because we all had a stake in the future.
  So any time that we can work together, I want to do it. I appreciate 
your openness and willingness to do that as well.
  But getting back to the question before us, mainly this question of 
the suspension authority and your concern about it being ``blanket,'' I 
understand that. But the self-correcting mechanism here is the 
requirement under suspension that there be a two-thirds vote. That by 
definition means that there has to be a good deal of support on the 
Republican side as well as on the Democratic side for this suspension 
authority to allow consideration and for a bill considered to be 
passed.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my distinguished 
colleague for his remarks, and for this opportunity of being able to 
bring forward the points that we both brought forward today.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say at this point that Americans are really upset 
with regard to spending more and more of their paycheck for energy 
needs. For months they have been calling on Congress to consider 
legislation to help lower the price of gasoline.
  Just like the American people, the minority has been calling for 
legislation that will help the American consumer with the skyrocketing 
price of energy. Yet every time the minority has tried to debate 
comprehensive energy legislation, the majority has blocked and stymied 
our efforts.

                              {time}  1245

  In August, the majority decided to close shop, head back to their 
districts, instead of really seeking to solve, in a comprehensive 
manner, this extraordinary issue facing our constituents, which is the 
rising price of gasoline.
  So I would imagine the majority heard quite a bit from their 
constituents in August, because when they returned in September they 
decided that they would finally, at least, debate energy legislation.
  Last week the majority brought to the floor their so-called 
Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, 
which really, ironically, did nothing to produce energy or provide 
Americans with energy security since really it only, that legislation, 
increased our dependence on unstable foreign sources of energy. So that 
bill is most unfortunate. Also, it won't be enacted into law, and it 
was only put together to provide the majority with a kind of political 
cover to say that they actually passed energy legislation, when, in 
reality, they did nothing.
  Now, the majority is set to end this Congress and, really, any chance 
to actually pass a comprehensive energy bill, comprehensive energy 
legislation will also end with this Congress for now. Our point is that 
this is not appropriate. We think that the energy issue is of 
extraordinary importance, and that we should not leave without 
comprehensive energy legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' to vote 
with me to defeat the previous question so that the House can finally 
consider comprehensive solutions to rising energy costs. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will move to amend this rule to 
prohibit the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for an 
adjournment until comprehensive energy legislation has been enacted 
into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. By voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, Members can assure their constituents that they are committed 
to enacting legislation to help their constituents with rising energy 
prices.
  I also remind Members that the previous question in no way would 
prevent consideration of any of the suspension bills.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield back, but I 
just want to thank the gentleman. I enjoyed this conversation. What a 
privilege it was to spend a little time with you talking about 
philosophy and literature, as well as the business of the House.
  I am the last speaker on this side. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1500 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 2. It shall not be in order in the House to consider a 
     concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of either 
     House of Congress until comprehensive energy legislation has 
     been enacted into law that includes provisions designed to--
       (A) allow states to expand the exploration and extraction 
     of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf;
       (B) open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale 
     reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and 
     extraction;
       (C) extend expiring renewable energy incentives;
       (D) encourage the streamlined approval of new refining 
     capacity and nuclear power facilities;
       (E) encourage advanced research and development of clean 
     coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies; 
     and
       (F) minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably 
     delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     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

[[Page 22068]]

     "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.

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered, 
and the motion to suspend with regard to S. 2932, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 192, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 651]

                               YEAS--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bachus
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cubin
     English (PA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Waters
     Watson
     Weller
     Wexler

                              {time}  1313

  Messrs. REHBERG, HALL of Texas, PRICE of Georgia, and CHILDERS 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 196, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 652]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson

[[Page 22069]]


     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bachus
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cubin
     English (PA)
     Frank (MA)
     Lowey
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Waters
     Weller
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1325

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________