[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7491-7494]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1167 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1167

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of Thursday, May 1, 2008, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating 
     to the following measures:
       (1) The bill (H.R. 5715) to ensure continued availability 
     of access to the Federal student loan program for students 
     and families.
       (2) The bill (H.R. 493) to prohibit discrimination on the 
     basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance 
     and employment.
       (3) A bill to provide for a temporary extension of programs 
     authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 1167.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, as the Clerk just described, H. Res. 
1167 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend 
the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, May 1, 2008, 
on legislation relating to the following three measures:
  (1) H.R. 5715, to protect the Federal student loan program.
  (2) H.R. 493, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.
  (3) a bill to provide for a temporary extension of the farm bill.
  The rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the 
Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, 
Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be 
considered on other days,

[[Page 7492]]

the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.
  This is not an unusual procedure. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle reported a number of rules that 
provided for additional suspension days.
  This rule limits the suspension of rules to only these three time-
sensitive measures. This will help us move these noncontroversial, yet 
important, legislative initiatives that have widespread bipartisan 
support.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the 
chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, on September 28, 2006, the Republicans were in the 
majority and the Democrats were in the minority. I was managing a rule 
on the floor similar to what we are considering here today to allow 
specific bills to be considered under suspensions under the rule on a 
day that suspensions are not permitted under House rules like today.
  During debate on that day in September 2006, the then-ranking member 
of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, stated, ``It isn't just what the 
Congress has done with its time that is so disappointing. It is also 
what the Congress has not done, all of the challenges it has not 
addressed.''
  Madam Speaker, the same can be absolutely said today about the 
Democrat control of the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, 
House Democrats approved a budget that included a tax hike of $683 
billion, the largest in American history. Americans cannot afford the 
Democrat plans to cut the child tax credit in half, to reinstate the 
marriage penalty, and raise taxes on every single taxpayer. Instead of 
record-breaking tax increases, this Congress should work to make those 
tax cuts permanent.
  I'm also dismayed that the Democrat-controlled House of 
Representatives has not acted to extend the State and local sales tax 
deduction to States that don't have State income tax. That tax expired 
on January 1 of this year. The State and local sales tax deduction is 
important for those States that don't have a State income tax, such as 
my home State of Washington. Extending this deduction is a matter of 
fairness that Congress must act to renew as soon as possible.
  The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives have also failed to 
act to give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect 
our country from new terrorist threats by modernizing the seventies-era 
FISA laws. For over 74 days now, America has been hobbled in the vital 
work to monitor terrorist communications and detect new plots despite 
the fact that the Senate has approved a bipartisan plan and sent it 
over to the House. House Democrat leaders have refused to allow the 
House to vote on the Senate plan and have refused to go to conference 
with the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, why, I ask, why is an issue of this magnitude being 
placed on the back burner by Democrat leaders, despite repeated 
attempts by Republicans to allow the House to vote on this bipartisan 
plan?
  Madam Speaker, the Democrat-controlled House has also failed to 
address perhaps the most pressing issue on the minds of Americans 
today, rising gas prices.

                              {time}  1030

  Democrat leaders may not like to hear it, but since they took control 
of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of a gallon of gas has gone up 
by over 50 percent. In fact, the cost of gas has gone up by more in 16 
months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.
  Instead, they have spent hours giving speeches trying to blame the 
President and anyone but themselves for the fact that Congress has done 
nothing to address rising gas prices. But, Madam Speaker, facts are 
stubborn things.
  And the facts are that gas prices have gone up over a dollar a gallon 
on the Democrat Congress' watch. The facts are that Democrat leaders 
promised the American people in 2006 that if they were to control 
Congress that they had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower the price at 
the pump.''
  It's been 16 months of this Democrat Congress, and the promise is 
nowhere to be seen. This Congress has put forward no plan, has taken no 
action, and passed no bills to lower gas prices. They promised relief 
at the pump to lower gas prices, and they've done nothing.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to insert into the Record an 
article by Investor's Business Daily posted April 29, 2008, and it 
states, ``This Congress is possibly the most irresponsible in modern 
history. This is especially true when it comes to America's 
dysfunctional energy policy.''

            [From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]

                            Congress Vs. You

       Energy: President Bush let the Democrat-led Congress have 
     it with both barrels Tuesday, lambasting lawmakers for 
     fiddling while the energy crisis burns. It was a well-
     deserved takedown of do-nothing lawmakers.
       We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress 
     is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is 
     especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional 
     energy policy.
       The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its 
     failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an 
     ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from 
     understanding how free markets and supply and demand really 
     work. Sad, but true.
       So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling 
     out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-
     ranging press conference Tuesday.
       ``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues 
     affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to 
     mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to 
     their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately, 
     on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''
       Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just 
     generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of 
     congressional energy inaction, including:
       Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted, 
     estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from 
     this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and 
     diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of 
     the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so 
     your representative can raise campaign cash.
       Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one 
     since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique'' 
     fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem 
     at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price 
     spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.
       Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with 
     advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems 
     have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--
     the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total 
     energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their 
     power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are 
     expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at 
     $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural 
     gas.
       Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic 
     understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and 
     needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. 
     So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy 
     companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy 
     situation worse.
       These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all 
     while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add 
     more than a million barrels of new demand each and every 
     year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand 
     growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.
       Americans who are worried about the direction of their 
     country, including runaway energy and food prices, should 
     keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing 
     a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.
       The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker 
     who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two 
     years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and 
     irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

  Madam Speaker, we all know that we must work together, Democrats, 
Republicans, the House, the Senate and the President, to solve 
America's pain at the pump. Until this happens, however, we should not 
deny good ideas from being considered.
  Therefore, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so that I can amend the rule to make in order any bill that 
would ``have the effect of lowering the national average price per 
gallon of regular unleaded

[[Page 7493]]

gas.'' Let's defeat the previous question and show America that 
Congress is serious about addressing the rising cost at the pump.
  With that, I reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, since I will be the last speaker on 
this side, I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 
myself the balance of the time.
  Madam Speaker, Americans don't want a debate on the problems causing 
gas prices to dramatically increase. They want a debate on solutions.
  Therefore, as I stated a moment ago, I will be asking my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Members can offer 
solutions that have the effect of lowering the national average price 
per gallon of regular unleaded gas.
  As I mentioned, 2 years ago, then-minority leader, now-Speaker Pelosi 
promised Americans a Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump. 
They have controlled Congress for 16 months, but we still have not seen 
this plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gasoline is setting record highs. The 
time is now for the House to debate ideas and solutions for lowering 
gas prices, and it is time for the Democrats to reveal their plan that 
they promised 2 years ago.
  So, Madam Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to 
amend the rule to allow any bill to be offered and considered under 
suspensions of the rule that would have the effect of lowering the 
national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted in 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. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate, so that 
we can consider these vitally important issues that America's families, 
workers, truckers, small businesses, and our entire economy face with 
these rising prices of gasoline.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, while I had not planned to be here at 
this point to debate gas prices, I feel compelled to put a few things 
on the record.
  Everybody knows that ExxonMobil announced first quarter profits 
totaling $11 billion, up 17 percent from last year and just shy of 
record profits last quarter. BP announced profits increased 63 percent; 
Royal Dutch-Shell 25 percent, and this increases the 5-year trend of 
record oil profits.
  While my colleagues say we have done nothing, the fact is that we've 
done a great deal and they've almost consistently voted against it. For 
example, we have tried more than once to take away the Federal 
subsidies to these oil companies, to the big five, because they are 
awash in money, and we see no reason for them to get more from the 
taxpayers than they're already getting at the pump. That has been 
consistently fought by both the Republican Party and the President. The 
President calls for the same policies that he has done all along and 
sort of hopes for the best. For the last 7 years, congressional 
Republicans and President Bush doled out billions of dollars in 
subsidies to the big oil companies, instead of working for an energy 
independence plan for America which was rarely discussed even during 
their tenure.
  We're committed to a new direction. Speaker Pelosi has called on 
President Bush to suspend purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve temporarily. That would go a long way toward helping us with 
this. We have done this before, but President Bush says he doesn't 
think it would affect the price.
  On Friday, the New Direction Congress called on the Federal Trade 
Commission to enforce the law and to investigate record gas prices and 
possible market manipulation. Under the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007, the FTC has the authority, but will not take it, 
to exercise the power to protect the consumer from skyrocketing energy 
costs. That is the Republican administration.
  The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also included 
landmark provisions to make cars and trucks more efficient and to 
promote the use of more affordable American biofuels. The new fuel 
standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels per 
day by 2020, and it will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year 
at the pump. That is under the Democrats in Congress.
  We've also passed legislation in this House to crack down on oil 
price gouging, to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and then, 
as I said, to repeal the subsidies for profit-rich Big Oil so we can 
invest in a renewable energy future. However, President Bush and the 
Republicans block these efforts every step of the way.
  Cracking down on oil price gouging was opposed by 140 Republicans in 
the House, including all of the Republican leadership except Mr. 
McCotter. Holding OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans, 
including most of the Republican leadership, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Blunt, 
Mr. Cole, Mr. Dreier, and Ms. Granger. Repealing subsidies to the 
profit-rich oil companies and investing in renewable energy and energy 
efficiency was opposed by 174 Republicans, almost unanimously, 
including all of the Republican leadership. And in every case, the Bush 
administration threatened to veto the bills. Unfortunately, Republicans 
in the Senate refused to even let them become bills to go to the 
President.
  We have a good and sufficient record here. We have planned to do 
more. We have done more than was done in the last 7 years to try to do 
that.
  With that, 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. 1167 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     paragraph:
       (4) Any bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would 
     have the effect of lowering the national average price per 
     gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.
                                  ____

       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 form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually

[[Page 7494]]

     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. Madam 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. Madam 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.

                          ____________________