[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10202-10209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6049, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB 
                          CREATION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1212 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1212

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     6049) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
     incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend 
     certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax 
     relief, 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 amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
     Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 6049 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. 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 this rule is for debate 
purposes only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask 
unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which 
to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1212.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1212 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 6049, the Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. 
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on 
Ways and Means and waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule also provides 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and H.R. 
6049, the Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, which will not only 
bring this country into a new alternative energy future, but strengthen 
our economy by directing fiscally responsible tax relief to middle 
class families, creating jobs at small businesses in the very towns and 
rural communities where we need it the most.
  The legislation this rule provides for consideration of will extend a 
number of critical tax relief measures targeted at middle class 
families and small businesses, including deductions for State and local 
sales tax, tuition education expenses, and expanding the child tax 
credit and research and development tax credit.
  During these uncertain economic times, it is also absolutely critical 
that we pass legislation to invest in jobs for today and long-term 
development for tomorrow, including alternative energy like wind and 
biomass that will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and 
bring the price of gas at the pump to a level families and businesses 
can afford. The best way to encourage growth and development of new 
technology is to let businesses invest their own money in ways that 
expand our economic horizons. Tax credits for alternative energy 
production have the power to truly jump-start our economy and create 
good paying, highly skilled jobs that can't be sent overseas.
  In my upstate New York district, our location, natural resources, 
renowned colleges and universities and world class scientific and 
technological companies perfectly poise our community to seize this 
opportunity to create a new green economy, complete with green jobs.
  I have spoken numerous times throughout the debate over how to extend 
these renewable tax credits and about the new businesses in my district 
that are utilizing the national investment in alternative energy to 
create good paying jobs in upstate New York. Those businesses are to be 
commended, and that is why I am proud to support nearly $20 billion in 
long-term clean renewable energy tax incentives and investment included 
in the Energy and Job Creation Act. I hope that doing so will encourage 
other companies to follow suit, both in our region and across this 
great Nation.
  The underlying legislation extends and modifies critical tax credits 
for the production of electricity from renewable sources ranging from 
wind, solar and geothermal energy to closed-loop and open-loop biomass. 
It would also extend clean renewable energy bonds, efficient commercial 
building tax incentives, investment tax credit for solar and fuel cell 
systems, tax credit for energy efficiency upgrades to existing homes, 
tax credits for production of efficient home appliances and tax 
incentives for consumer purchases of energy efficient products. Most of 
these incentives either expired at the end of last year or are set to 
expire at the end of this year. It is vitally important to sustaining 
the development of clean energy technology industries that these 
incentives are extended.
  H.R. 6049 also includes an extension of the research and development 
tax credit that allows companies a tax credit for a portion of their 
research and development expenditures. Extending the R&D credit is 
vital to ensuring that America remains on the cutting edge of 
innovation that keeps our companies competitive and working here, not 
offshore. This credit is of particular interest to the area that I 
represent because its extension will further the expansion of the 
microchip fabrication and nanotechnology industries which are beginning 
to blossom in our region.
  American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuity to 
adequately plan their long-term research projects. I support this 1-
year extension to provide that continuity and I will continue to work 
with leaders on the committee and in this body to seek a permanent 
extension that would eliminate concerns over expirations and lapses.
  The bill also extends important tax credits for individuals, as well 
as creating new and expanded credits. It extends for 1 year the 
personal income tax deductions for tuition and education expenses, the 
State and local sales taxes, and teachers' out-of-pocket expenses for 
classroom supplies. The bill creates a new standard deduction for up to 
$700 for couples to cover State and local property taxes, and expands 
the eligibility for the refundable child tax credit. Under the child 
tax credit, certain low-income taxpayers can claim a refundable tax 
credit equal to 15 percent of their earned income above an inflation-
adjusted threshold. In 2008,

[[Page 10203]]

this threshold is set to be $12,050, but under H.R. 6049 that threshold 
will be reduced to $8,500, providing increased relief to more than 12 
million families with children nationwide.
  Supporting H.R. 6049 comes down to simple common sense. We can create 
tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from 
hostile regimes, reduce greenhouse gases, spur innovation and provide 
tax relief to middle class families, and we can do it all--and let me 
emphasize this--all of those things, without adding to the national 
deficit.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague 
and friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule marks the 60th time that the leaders of this 
Congress have totally closed down the House floor by refusing to allow 
any Member of this House to offer an amendment to a bill pending and 
have it debated and voted upon. This is more closed rules than any 
Congress in the history of our country, which is exactly the opposite 
of the promise that the Democrat leaders made to the American people 
when they promised to run the most open and honest House ever.
  The House is not open when no amendments are allowed to be offered 
and when a Republican alternative is blocked from even a minute of 
debate and denied a vote on the House floor. And it is not in the most 
honest House when the Rules Committee Democrats block the Republican 
plan to prevent tax increases from being considered, using the excuse 
that it doesn't meet House PAYGO rules, especially, Mr. Speaker, when 
it was just one week ago that the same Democrats were blatantly 
violating PAYGO rules by billions of dollars in the farm bill. Under 
this liberal Congress, it is only okay to break the House rules, 
apparently, when you are increasing spending by billions of dollars, 
but not by preventing tax increases on the American people.
  The Republican plan that was denied, that the Democrats refused to 
allow the House to vote upon, would provide the following: 1 year of 
relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, or the AMT; a 2-year extension 
of the State and local sales tax deduction for those States that do not 
have a State income tax; 2 more years for the research and development 
tax credit; 2 years for the tuition tax credit; and extensions for more 
expiring tax provisions.
  This Democrat bill, for example, does absolutely nothing, nothing at 
all, to fix the AMT tax for 2008. Twenty-one million middle class 
individuals will pay an additional $61.5 billion in higher taxes next 
April if the AMT is not fixed and addressed. That is an average of over 
$2,800 per affected taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. The Republican plan fully 
fixes it, but today that fix is not even allowed to be considered on 
the House floor. Instead, the House is given one choice, and that is a 
fool's choice bargain to raise taxes by $54 billion in order to simply 
extend existing tax policies that are due to expire.
  Mr. Speaker, current provisions in tax law are expiring, and Congress 
needs to act to keep these taxes from going up. But, Mr. Speaker, we 
all know that is no excuse to raise other taxes by billions of dollars.
  I and many of my Republican colleagues support a great number of the 
tax relief extensions included in this bill, including the State and 
local sales tax deduction, the research and development tax credit, 
education and tuition tax credits, tax credits for teachers, and 
several renewable income tax credits. These low tax policies have been 
law for many years, Mr. Speaker, and they have been extended multiple 
times, multiple times, and always without raising taxes.
  My Democrat colleagues will try to defend their tax-raising ways by 
invoking the PAYGO rules they ignored just last week. They will claim 
that this is just being responsible and it is not about increasing the 
national debt, that it is about government living within its means.
  If only that were true, Mr. Speaker. But it is not. All you have to 
do is to read the final budget plan for next year that this House will 
vote on later today. Their budget reveals this Congress as what they 
truly are, and what they truly are, Mr. Speaker, is old time tax-and-
spend liberals. In their budget, spending increases by $250 billion 
over the next 5 years. They increase the debt limit in 2008 by $654 
billion, which is the largest increase in history, and they raise taxes 
by $683 billion, which is the largest amount in American history. More 
spending, higher debt, record tax increases. That is obviously the plan 
of this liberal Congress.
  Now, my Democrat colleagues will also try to claim the tax increases 
that are in this bill aren't really that bad. But the facts are the 
facts, and the facts are that this bill unnecessarily increases taxes 
by over $50 billion. And that is just the beginning. Remember that 
their budget would increase taxes by over two-thirds of a trillion 
dollars. If they aren't raising your taxes this time in this bill, I 
can assure you, your time is coming. They will get you the next time.
  When this liberal Congress imposes the largest tax increase in 
American history to pay for more government spending, don't think that 
you can escape permanently their tax-and-spend ways. Their tax increase 
plans include cutting the child tax credit, cutting that in half; 
reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax; and a tax increase 
for every single American taxpayer. It would even levy taxes on low-
income workers who currently pay none.
  But if there is a ray of sunshine, and there always is a ray of 
sunshine in bills, there is a newly created tax break, one that will 
put a big smile on the faces of some in this country, and it is worth 
over $1.5 billion.

                              {time}  1100

  The only problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this new tax break is only for 
trial lawyers. So the only people who will be smiling are the trial 
lawyers and presumably the Democrats that they give tens of millions of 
dollars in campaign contributions to each year.
  Under this bill, the American taxpayers will be subsidizing 
speculative lawsuits by trial lawyers to the tune of $1.5 billion. This 
special interest tax break will allow trial lawyers to make special 
arrangements that essentially allow them to gamble on lawsuits where 
they get paid on contingency fees if they win. Meanwhile, taxpayers 
will be footing the bill for trial lawyers writing off the expenses of 
conducting these ``sue them and see what we can win'' lawsuits. Count 
me among those, Mr. Speaker, who believe we already have too many 
lawsuits in this country and that we shouldn't be inventing new special 
tax breaks that may and probably will encourage more lawsuits. Our 
justice system can operate fairly, as it has done so for many years, 
without having to give special tax treatment to trial lawyers.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically mention the extension of 
the State and local sales tax deduction that is included in this bill. 
For nearly 20 years, Americans who paid State income taxes could deduct 
those taxes from their Federal tax bill, while Americans who paid State 
sales taxes but had no State income tax were not allowed to do so.
  In 2006, the Republican Congress restored the sales tax deduction 
after years of bipartisan effort from the congressional delegations of 
the affected States, including my home State of Washington. The initial 
reinstatement of the deduction was for 2 years, 2004 and 2005. In 2006, 
the Republican Congress extended the sales tax deduction for 2 more 
years, 2006 and 2007. That deduction has now expired, and this 
deduction does not exist for this year, 2008.
  Efforts last year to extend this deduction and ensure it didn't 
expire were unfortunately blocked by the Democrat leaders. I regret 
that the extension provided for the sales tax deduction in this bill is 
for 1 year only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a step backwards. This deduction has been 
extended 2 years each time in the past,

[[Page 10204]]

and it should be extended 2 years now. Otherwise, we face expiring in 
about 6 months from now because, as I mentioned, there is no sales tax 
deduction for the calendar year 2008. So if we are to pass this and it 
were to be signed into law, we would have 6 months on it from right 
now. The bipartisan Senate bill introduced last month by the chairman 
and ranking member of the Finance Committee includes a 2-year extension 
of this sales tax deduction.
  The Republican plan that House leaders and the Rules Committee last 
night blocked from being considered and debated on the floor today 
provided for a 2-year extension. An amendment was filed with the Rules 
Committee by Mr. Brady of Texas which also would have extended the 
deduction for 2 years, but that too was blocked by the Rules Committee 
from being debated on this floor.
  It is very unfortunate that this bill moves sales tax deduction 
fairness backwards, not forwards. Taxpayers in income tax States have a 
permanent tax deduction, and taxpayers in sales tax States that have no 
State income tax deserve, in my view, equal treatment. The sales tax 
deduction should be made into permanent law. Even though I think a 2-
year extension is better than 1, it should be made permanent. At the 
very least, they deserve at least a 2-year extension.
  What really is more upsetting, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill could 
have provided very easily under existing PAYGO rules a 2-year 
extension. The over $1.5 billion cost of the tax deduction given to 
trial lawyers could instead have been used to give a 1-year extension 
of the sales tax deduction for those States.
  So this bill chooses to create a new billion-plus-dollar tax cut for 
trial lawyers over tax fairness for the millions of residents in the 
State of Washington, my State, the State of Florida, the States of 
Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
  Mr. Speaker, I have supported every bill that has passed this House 
to reinstate and extend the State sales tax deduction, but none of 
these bills, none of these bills that extended that was being held 
hostage for another tax cut for another special interest.
  Restoring and continuing the State sales tax deduction is a matter of 
fairness. The residents of sales tax States shouldn't have their fair 
treatment conditioned upon passing huge tax increases.
  The rule that is currently before the House and the underlying bill 
reveal this Congress for what it really is. The rule is totally closed 
and does not allow debate or a vote on any amendments or an alternative 
Republican plan. It violates Speaker Pelosi's promise to the American 
people to run an open and honest House. The bill itself is just the 
opening act of a move to impose the largest tax increase in history on 
the American people. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress the only 
tax bill allowed on the floor of the House is one that will raise 
taxes. Under this liberal Congress, tax relief is a myth and tax 
increases are a certainty. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress, 
Americans will be sending more and more of their hard-earned dollars to 
Washington, DC so this Congress can increase spending and the size of 
the Federal Government.
  My colleagues should oppose this closed rule and this tax increase 
bill. We should demand a clean tax relief extension bill that doesn't 
include new tax breaks for trial lawyers and over $50 billion in tax 
increases. This bill we know will never pass the Senate, and it will 
never be signed into law, if on the slim chance that it should pass 
both Houses and be sent to the President. Raising taxes right now on 
the American economy is simply the wrong thing to do, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one point. Some 
people in this institution tend to talk about trial lawyers and seem to 
want to point out the things that they do that they think aren't good. 
But no one talks about the fact that trial lawyers are out there 
representing people who have been injured. They are protecting people's 
civil rights. They are defending people on a contingency fee basis who 
don't have the money to come forward and sue people that have hurt 
them. That is critically important. And this bill does not give a 
windfall tax rebate to lawyers. All it does is allow them to claim 
expenditures that they have put out in the year that they have made 
that expenditure, no different than any other business in this country 
can do.
  So I think it is unfair to criticize trial attorneys who are out 
there doing the kind of things that people hire them to do; and that is 
protecting people's civil rights and ensuring that people who are 
injured are able to get what they need so that they are not victimized 
even further.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, my friend and 
colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation. This bill is a good example of Congress taking action to 
address the needs of America's businesses and consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, our economy is in a downturn. More and more Americans 
are feeling insecure about their future, and they are looking to this 
Congress for relief. The tax extenders package that is before us today 
will help millions of working families cope with everyday expenses of 
life from tuition to the cost of caring for their children. It will 
also move our Nation forward to meet the many energy challenges we 
face.
  Investing in renewable resources is the best long-term strategy to 
reduce dependence on foreign oil and lower energy costs. Clean energy 
is also a major economic engine that will power the economy of the 
future.
  In my hometown of Sacramento, clean energy investments made years ago 
are now sustaining over 90 local businesses, from solar and wind 
companies, to cellulosic fuel and green building enterprises. Clean 
energy has changed my district's business climate forever. Sacramento's 
clean energy economy can be replicated across this country, but 
Congress needs to provide the right incentives to make this vision a 
successful reality. This bill will help current and future generations 
live in a country with a healthier economy, a cleaner environment, and 
a more sustainable policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding.
  I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee chose to 
reject an amendment that I offered that was an attempt to bring some 
clarity and light to this debate, particularly as it relates to energy 
needs.
  I represent a district, Mr. Speaker, in the Chicago area which the 
Chicago Tribune this week has reported has the highest gas prices in 
the Nation. So in an attempt to try to take that on, I offered an 
amendment that I thought was a very straightforward thing, not meant to 
be controversial, not meant to be overly partisan, just a good 
commonsense idea that unfortunately the majority on the Rules Committee 
rejected. That was a simple thing, and that would create a tax credit, 
Mr. Speaker, a tax credit for biofuel vehicles.
  Right now we have got a tax credit for alternative fuel vehicles, and 
that is great. But you have got a lot of municipalities in my district 
that are really suffering under the weight of these high gas prices, 
and they are looking for alternatives and a biofuel vehicle is just one 
of those things. So, in other words, oftentimes these vehicles can 
start up using gasoline, and then it can be transferred and powered on 
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied propane, or 
hydrogen, all things that if municipalities are using will take 
pressure off gas prices.
  Now think about it. This is an opportunity for Congress to do 
something to

[[Page 10205]]

help to create a market for other vehicles. Right now sometimes the 
private marketplace isn't able to come up as quickly as we want it, so 
we have got local units of government that are saying we want to use 
these types of vehicles; and this Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, has 
denied the tax credit that would empower that kind of thing. It makes 
no sense to me. I am just deeply disappointed that folks on the Rules 
Committee who are in the majority just rejected this idea. It is not a 
partisan idea. It is what is called a good idea that we need to move 
forward.
  In 1968, Richard Nixon campaigned for the Presidency claiming he had 
a secret plan to end the war. He went all over the country and said: I 
have got a secret plan to end the war. If you elect me President of the 
United States, my secret plan to end the war will win it all and will 
bring it all home.
  Well, we all know there was no secret plan. His Secretary of Defense 
said so, everyone has declared so, and history shows it. But there are 
eerie similarities between that declaration of Richard Nixon in 1968 
and the words of now Speaker Pelosi when she was the minority leader: 
She had a plan to bring gas prices down.
  Well, if what the majority is doing on the Rules Committee is 
rejecting commonsense ideas like tax credits for biofuel vehicles that 
help suburban communities in my district, I am very interested for when 
this secret plan that the Speaker has alluded to is going to be coming 
forward. I don't think there is a secret plan, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I think the Speaker in the last campaign was using the 
type of campaign rhetoric that is now unfortunately coming home to 
roost.
  I am deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee didn't see fit to 
let a commonsense idea that helps the suburban municipalities that I 
represent cope with outrageous gas prices.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from New York.
  This bill has many good features, and I want to speak about two. One 
is energy and two is children.
  If we are going to take on the challenge of energy independence, then 
we have to start providing incentives, as we do in this bill, for wind, 
for solar, for biomass, for alternative energy and efficiencies. It is 
a confident Nation that takes on that challenge. It is a submissive 
Nation where the leader of our country goes hat in hand to a country 
that is not our friend and asks him to solve our problem by pumping 
more oil. This moves us in a confident direction of independence, self-
sufficiency, and self-reliance.
  The second is children. It is troubling I think to many of us in this 
country, and many of us in this body, that the gap between the wealthy 
and the poor has never been wider. The top five hedge fund managers 
last year earned $12.6 billion. The 9 million lowest income families, 
that was their equal income, $12.5 billion.
  This bill finally increases the earned income tax credit for low-
income families, bringing down the floor to $8,500, and 15 percent 
above that is going to be eligible. Do you know what that is going to 
mean just in the State of Vermont? 21,000 kids are going to get help. 
21,000 kids. It also means 77 low-income kids from military families 
are going to get some assistance. This is money in their pocket where 
they too can be self-reliant.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of 
the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule 
and the underlying bill which the Democratic majority refers to as the 
Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. I don't know how anyone can call 
this an energy creation act when it does nothing, absolutely nothing, 
to lower the price of gasoline.
  With a week-long recess ahead, I am sure the majority wants to pass 
something with the word ``energy'' in it so they can pay lip service, 
while the American people are paying more at the pump.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding real change and 
real solutions. They want Congress to end this energy crisis which is 
eating into the budgets of American families and harming their quality 
of life.
  This bill will not solve their problems. While this bill does extend 
temporarily some important tax provisions, it does absolutely nothing 
to address the looming alternative minimum tax which will hit millions 
of Americans, in fact, 22 million of them, if this Congress fails to 
act. And there's nothing in this bill concerning the alternative 
minimum tax.
  Shortly we will begin debate on another rule for the budget 
conference report. I have often heard my colleagues on the other side 
refer to the Federal budget as a moral document. Mr. Speaker, I agree 
with them. I agree with them.
  However, when I look at the details of this budget, I can't help but 
ask, how is it moral to impose the largest tax increase in the history 
of this country on working Americans, almost $683 billion over the next 
5 years?
  Mr. Speaker, how is it moral to raise the marginal tax rate on lower 
income workers and impose tax burdens on marriage, children, and family 
businesses?
  Mr. Speaker, how is it moral to provide more than $1 trillion in 
discretionary spending, while doing absolutely nothing to reform 
entitlement spending and to ensure the solvency of Social Security and 
Medicare for our future generations, indeed, our children and our 
grandchildren?
  The majority can refer to its budget as a moral document all they 
want to, but the devil is in the detail, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the 
majority believes it's moral to rack up debt and raise taxes to pay for 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to cut government spending, and we need to 
reform uncontrolled entitlement growth by eliminating waste, fraud and 
abuse, so that we can provide tax relief to hardworking Americans and 
to prevent the tax increases of the Democratic budget, $683 billion.
  I urge my colleagues, vote against this rule, the underlying bill and 
the Democratic budget.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, in a weak economy it's important for us to 
take steps to help small businesses create jobs and provide targeted 
tax relief to middle class American taxpayers.
  Today's tax relief package will encourage investment in renewable 
energy and energy efficient technologies. We help small businesses by 
extending the R&D tax credit and the State and local sales tax 
deductions.
  Also included are extensions of three tax cuts that I introduced last 
year, including extending the $250 tax credit to help teachers pay for 
out-of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies, encouraging companies to 
donate computers to schools, and investing in the clean-up and 
development of former industrial sites, commonly referred to as 
brownfields.
  This bill cuts taxes for small businesses, promotes energy 
independence, and provides targeted tax relief for middle class 
American families.
  I urge my colleagues to support this tax relief package.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of passage of H.R. 
6049, the Energy and Tax Extenders Act.

[[Page 10206]]

  Back home in Arizona, each and every day practically, we have free 
energy that radiates from the sky. An Arizona utility company recently 
proposed a plan to take advantage of that sunshine by building one of 
the world's largest solar power plants, 280 megawatts. This project 
will inject millions of dollars into the State and regional economy, 
and once it's complete, will produce enough electricity to power 77,000 
homes.
  This exciting announcement comes with a caveat. If Congress fails to 
extend the 30 percent solar tax investment tax credit, this plant will 
not be constructed. The same stipulation has been given for a variety 
of solar projects across the Southwest.
  H.R. 6049 provides those vital extensions for renewable energy tax 
credits which include solar energy, and it will be the fourth time that 
the United States of House of Representatives has acted on this issue.
  I have repeatedly pushed for passage of these extensions because I 
know that they're essential for the solar industry in our country. They 
will spur innovation, decrease our emission, and improve our energy 
independence.
  With technology improving, many solar industry leaders furthermore 
believe that solar energy is on track to be cost competitive with 
fossil fuels by 2015, if not sooner. But to achieve the goal, we have 
to act today before the current energy tax incentive expires.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Energy and Tax Extenders 
Act. This is an important piece of legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 10 
minutes. The gentleman from New York has 17 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, over the next few years the renewable 
energy industry in the United States is poised to create hundreds of 
thousands of family wage jobs. But none of it will happen, and in fact 
we will lose jobs if we don't extend the investment and production tax 
credits for new energy technologies.
  As someone who spent my entire career in the wind industry, I know 
firsthand how critical these credits are to increasing renewable energy 
use and production. These incentives helped to turn wind power into a 
viable and growing energy option.
  Just last week, the Department of Energy released a report estimating 
that wind could provide 20 percent of our Nation's energy by 2030. 
Renewable energy is now competitive with conventional power.
  I recently hosted a meeting in my district with the heads of solar 
and wind energy companies to discuss the potential for employment in 
the renewable sector. It's clear, with the right Federal incentives, 
the industry will flourish, and we could see the creation of half a 
million new energy technology jobs in just the next few years.
  There's also a flip side. When the production and investment tax 
credits lapse, there's a devastating consequence for the renewable 
energy industry. For instance, the last time we didn't extend the 
production tax credit, the wind industry lost thousands of good paying, 
green energy jobs all across our country.
  That's why today's legislation is so important. If we are serious 
about weaning ourselves off foreign oil, we need to pass the production 
and investment tax credits today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all I think my friend from Georgia 
needs some responding to in terms of the issue of the price of gas 
today. I just want to point out that what is false is Republicans, not 
Democrats, advocated and tried to pass legislation to increase the gas 
tax on Americans, offering legislation that would cost American drivers 
$800 million. That was a GOP motion to recommit on H.R. 2776 on August 
4, 2007. And that data comes from the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  The fact is not a single member of the Democratic Caucus supported 
the Republican effort to increase the gas tax on American families. 
That comes from rollcall vote 834.
  The fact is that the Democratic leadership has not brought forward a 
bill to increase the gas tax on drivers, only your side of the aisle.
  Another point dealing with the pay-fors in this legislation. I just 
want to point out one of the pay-fors, the worldwide interest 
allocation, would bring in $24 billion raised to help pay for what 
we're attempting to do here.
  I know my friend, Mr. Hastings, was making reference to this, that 
these are simply tax increases. The provision that we're talking about 
specifically in worldwide interest allocation, $29 billion, if so, if 
this is a tax increase, I just want to remind the gentleman that in 
H.R. 3221, the Ways and Means amendment to the Democratic homeownership 
rescue bill, that the same provision was included in that bill in which 
95 members of your party supported it, including Mr. Hayes, Mr. Porter, 
Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Camp, Mrs. 
Capito, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Keller, Mr. 
Knollenberg, Mr. Shays, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Linder, Mr. Walberg, Mrs. Drake, 
Mr. English, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Murphy----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Weller, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Young.
  If these are tax increases, I just want you to know, for the record, 
that in the previous bill that was passed by this House, 95 members of 
your caucus supported the identical provision that is in this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  In response to my good friend from New York's response, let's set the 
record straight. We are talking about tax extenders. By definition, tax 
extenders mean we are extending existing tax relief for people. These 
are in law already. They have been extended many, many times in the 
past and always been extended without raising taxes on the other end.
  Now the gentleman says that the provision they have in this bill may 
or may not have bipartisan support. I'm not going to argue with that 
point. It probably should be looked at on its merits.
  But my point in this and the whole part of this debate is that these 
are extending existing tax relief for the American people, and you 
don't have to start setting the principle of raising taxes in other 
areas to continue tax extensions that are already in law. That's the 
point that I was making.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I rise in support of this energy and jobs bill and, in 
particular, want to talk about two provisions that are very important 
to my constituents and I think very important to the country.
  The first are provisions that would extend tax credits for the solar 
energy industry. In my district alone, there are hundreds of jobs at 
stake. These are hundreds of good, well-paying, clean jobs that not 
only are good for the citizens in my district, but also are good for 
the country. We need an Apollo project like effort to wean ourselves 
off fossil fuels.
  We want the ability to be able to tell the oil producing nations of 
the world that they can take their oil and they can keep it, that we 
don't need it.
  We want to be able to address global warming. We want to be able to 
make sure that we have a sound energy policy based on this Nation's 
future. And solar energy is a big part of the solution.

[[Page 10207]]

  So this tax credit alone, I've had business people in my district 
tell me if this tax credit goes away, those jobs will go away. It's as 
simple as that. Homeowners won't be able to meet the financial burden 
of putting solar power panels on their roofs. Those that produce those 
panels will have to lay off the people in that industry. People will 
become more reliant on fossil fuels, not less.
  There's a second provision, very important to my constituents and 
also very important to an industry that has a positive balance of trade 
with every other country on earth, and that is the entertainment 
industry. We have tax incentives to try to keep production in this 
country of small and medium sized films. We're losing a lot of that 
production to Canada. We'll lose even more if the tax credits that 
incentivize those small productions go away. I'm very proud that we're 
taking action to deal with the problem of runaway production. Again, 
good, well-paying jobs that we want to keep in this country. This 
legislation will help keep them there.
  Many of my constituents are losing those jobs to Canada, Australia 
and other countries because those other countries are offering 
incentives to keep and move production there.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SCHIFF. This good bill will help us wean ourselves off fossil 
fuels. It will help us keep good-paying jobs in the energy industry, in 
the entertainment industry, and a great many other industries, and I 
urge support.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, once again, can I inquire of 
the time on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 9 minutes. 
The gentleman from New York has 10 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would inquire of my friend from New 
York how many speakers he has.
  Mr. ARCURI. We have no additional speakers, so I am prepared to 
close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote against the 
previous question so we can address the issue of high gasoline prices. 
But before I make my motion and explain what my motion would be if we 
defeat the previous question, I want to quote several parts of an 
editorial that was written by Tracy Warner who is the editorial writer 
for the Wenatchee World newspaper in Wenatchee, Washington, in my 
district. He kind of hits some of the issues of what we are doing, or 
probably I should say not doing, on the head.

                [From the Wenatchee World, May 14, 2008]

                   Irrational Policy Part of the Show

                           (By Tracy Warner)

       The Keystone Cops of Congress wave their truncheons, circle 
     and bump and wriggle their mustaches, then rush to the paddy 
     wagon in search of greedy oil companies. In this time of 
     hardship, this will have to suffice for energy policy.
       The goal of the troupe is to somehow make the price of 
     gasoline lower. High gasoline prices are extremely unpopular. 
     If they could be forced downward, this would please Americans 
     at an advantageous time on the political calendar. If that is 
     not possible, and likely it is not, then complaining loudly 
     will do. Or, for a real show of statesmanship, you can dole 
     out financial punishment to the companies that make the 
     product you want more of.
       The most recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the 
     government cease stockpiling oil in the strategic petroleum 
     reserve, where some 700 million barrels are kept for national 
     emergencies. This halt, passed by the Senate 97-1 and the 
     House 385-25, will reduce federal petroleum purchases by 
     70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world oil 
     markets, which are based on global production of 87 million 
     barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08 
     percent. We should be grateful.
       In a very small way this shows our representatives have 
     some understanding of economics. Oil markets are mainly a 
     supply-and-demand issue. Raise supply and the price should 
     drop, if demand is steady. Raise supplies by 0.08 percent and 
     the price will drop, maybe by a like amount. We will watch 
     with great anticipation.
       The other legs of the constantly evolving federal oil 
     policy are not so easily explained. Congress remains adamant 
     that we will not attempt to affect supplies by drilling on a 
     few thousand acres of the vast Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge, where production could exceed 1 million barrels a 
     day. The reason given is this is part of an ``oil friendly 
     policy'' and we cannot ``drill our way'' to ``energy 
     independence'' because the effect of a million barrels is so 
     small. So we deny ourselves a million barrels a day because 
     it is so little, and then demand the federal government cease 
     purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that is too much.
       Some propose sending the Justice Department to file an 
     antitrust case against OPEC, because its members scheme to 
     limit the supply of oil and thus drive up the price. So, we 
     do not wish to drill ourselves, because that would be wrong, 
     but we demand OPEC sell us more, and if they don't we will 
     send lawyers. And oh, we want ``energy independence.''
       And with lawyers after OPEC, the cops will still be after 
     the oil companies. The line is oil companies get ``tax 
     subsidies'' they do not deserve. So the House has voted to 
     rescind a tax break for the five largest oil companies. The 
     ``subsidy'' to which these congressmen refer was no special 
     deal. It was a two-point corporate tax cut given to all 
     manufacturers in 2004. In the meantime, oil companies pay 
     taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, based on data from 
     the Energy Information Agency, it is only in the last three 
     years that after-tax profits of the oil industry have 
     exceeded its taxes paid to federal and state governments. In 
     the last 25 years, oil company taxes were nearly double oil 
     company profits--government makes twice off oil what oil 
     companies make off oil.
       On we go. Newly popular in Congress is a windfall profits 
     tax, to collect for government the oil profits government 
     considers ``obscene.'' Oil company profit margins are less 
     than many other industries, but setting that aside, what 
     would be the effect of confiscating them? When this was tried 
     in 1980, oil companies stopped selling the product from which 
     only government would profit, and we went from expensive gas 
     to no gas.'
       And, we can make price gouging a crime, even though it 
     already is a crime in most states. Make it a crime to sell 
     fuel when prices are high. Won't that increase supplies?
       The sum of all this policymaking is astonishing 
     incompetence. Playing for the crowd usually leads this way.

  Let me just make a few points here that he raised that I thought were 
rather interesting.
  He talks about what Congress is doing or not doing, and he says then, 
and I will quote verbatim, Mr. Speaker, from his editorial, ``The most 
recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the government cease 
stockpiling oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, where some 700 
million barrels are kept for national emergencies. This halt, passed by 
the Senate 97-1 and the House 385-25, will reduce Federal petroleum 
purchases by 70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world 
oil prices or oil markets which are based on global production of 87 
million barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08 
percent.''
  He then goes on to say, after I quote there, he goes on to talk then 
about things that we probably are not doing and should be doing 
otherwise. He goes on to compliment Congress by saying that ``at least 
they have some understanding of economics.'' If you're going to not put 
oil in a reserve, you presumably have more supply.
  He then goes on to talk about what we haven't been doing, which of 
course is looking at more known reserves we have in our country to be 
energy independent. Again I would like to quote, then, verbatim as he 
makes, I think, a very good point:
  ``Congress remains adamant that we will not attempt to affect 
supplies by drilling on a few thousand acres of the vast Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, where the production could exceed 1 million 
barrels a day. The reason given is this is part of an `oil friendly 
policy' and we cannot `drill our way' to `energy independence' because 
the effect of a million barrels is so small. So we deny ourselves a 
million barrels a day because it is so little, and then demand the 
Federal Government cease purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that 
is too much.''
  Mr. Speaker, he goes on to talk about other things here, but they 
make a very good point. The bottom line is our energy policy is not 
looking at the supply side of it. We import so much of our crude oil 
and we aren't energy independent in that sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so I have an opportunity to amend the rule.

[[Page 10208]]

  Since the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the 
cost of gasoline has risen to record-setting prices. According to a 
report from just 2 days ago by the AAA in my State of Washington, the 
price of gasoline is at a record $3.86 per gallon. That's 24 cents 
higher than just last month. The average price of a gallon of diesel is 
$4.69, which is $1.61 higher than a year ago. In the Tri-Cities where I 
live, a gallon of gas is $3.83. In Yakima, in the central part of my 
district, it's $3.84.

                 [From the Seattle Times, May 19, 2008]

          AAA: Average Gallon of Gas in Washington Hits $3.86

       The AAA auto club says the average price of a gallon of 
     gasoline in Washington continues to climb into record 
     territory at $3.86.
       That's up 24 cents in the past month and 42 cents in the 
     past year. It's seven cents higher than the national average.
       The AAA survey for today found that the average price of a 
     gallon of diesel in the state is $4.69. That's up 29 cents in 
     the past month and $1.61 in the past year.
       The AAA says the highest gas prices in the state are at 
     Bellingham at $3.93 and the lowest in Spokane at $3.70.
       Prices in some other cities, according to the AAA: Olympia 
     $3.89, Seattle $3.88, Tacoma $3.87, Vancouver $3.84, Tri-
     Cities $3.83, Yakima $3.84.

  This increase in prices is causing real strain on family budgets, 
farmers, and for small businesses. This Congress needs to act, and we 
can't afford to sit and do nothing while prices continue to climb. The 
American people deserve action.
  Speaker Pelosi made a promise that the Democrats had a ``commonsense 
plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump.'' But this Democrat Congress 
has done nothing but see fuel prices rise.
  One of the most important things that this House can do is recognize 
a basic economic principle of supply and demand. Mr. Speaker, the laws 
of supply and demand cannot be changed by wishful thinking. At times, I 
get the distinct impression that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle believe that wishful thinking will actually lower gas prices.
  I support proposals to invent and to develop new sources of energy. I 
think we should have a diverse portfolio of energy, and I believe a 
vast majority of my colleagues do as well. But gas, diesel, and oil are 
absolutely vital to our economy and our way of life and our future.
  The problem we are facing at the gas pump is one of high demand and 
limited supply, and it's part of a global economy and a global product. 
With India and China suddenly consuming enormous amounts of oil, the 
price of it is being bid up around the world. The way to combat rising 
prices due to high demand is to increase supply. And yet proposals to 
increase oil and gas production and exploration in our country have 
faced years and years in opposition. Mr. Tracy, in his article, points 
that out as it relates to ANWR.
  We've been stymied by Democrats in the House, blocked by Democrat 
Senators, and vetoed by a Democrat Senator specifically with ANWR. This 
liberal Congress is continuing to say ``no'' to developing energy in 
our country, to block any bill from being considered or voted upon that 
would allow for oil and natural gas exploration in Alaska or in the 
oceans on the Outer Continental Shelf, while at the same time they pass 
bills threatening to sue foreign countries to produce more oil. That 
doesn't increase supply, Mr. Speaker.
  We are now paying the price for so many years of repeated refusal to 
make use of our country's own natural resources. Not only are we seeing 
gas prices going up and up, but our country is even more dependent on 
foreign sources of oil. Often the response to this argument from the 
other side of the aisle is that even if we approve production in ANWR 
or coastal reserves today, it wouldn't come on line for years and 
wouldn't really help much.
  The hollowness of this argument in my mind, Mr. Speaker, is 
astonishing. We are paying the price today for their years of 
opposition to real solutions, and they want to keep saying ``no'' and 
blaming somebody else.
  America can't afford to keep sticking its head in the sand when it 
comes to building more refineries and developing our own oil and gas 
reserves. It's time for the House to act. It's time for the House to 
debate ideas for lowering prices, and it's time for the majority to 
reveal their promised plan.
  By defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, this House can 
finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous 
question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not 
rewrite the rule, that would lower the gas prices of unleaded gasoline.
  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, I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question so that we can consider this vitally 
important issue for America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and 
friend from Washington. It's always a pleasure managing a rule on the 
floor with you.
  I would like to thank him for making a point which I think is a very 
good point in his closing, and that is we can't drill our way to oil 
independence. I think that is abundantly clear, especially to 
Americans. I think they know that.
  The fact of the matter is, is that oil is a finite resource. That as 
much as we want to dream and that as much as we want to wish, it is a 
finite resource. And while there may be reserves that may last us 5 
years or 10 years, the fact of the matter is if we don't deal with the 
fact that it is a finite resource, then our children and our 
grandchildren will have to deal with the fact that there is no more oil 
left.
  That's what today's bill does. That's what this rule does. It 
attempts to take real steps to promote alternative energy because that 
is the future of our children and our grandchildren.
  H.R. 6049, if it passes the House today, it will be the fourth time 
the House has voted to extend many of these energy tax provisions. In 
each of the previous three times, the legislation has come under heavy 
fire because of the revenue-raising provisions that were included to 
ensure that the extensions were compliant with House pay-as-you-go 
rules. That is the new Democratic majority's commitment to lowering the 
national debt by bringing fiscal responsibility back to the House of 
Representatives.
  The debate has not fallen on deaf ears. I applaud the Ways and Means 
Committee and Chairman Rangel for its tireless commitment to finding 
less controversial means for paying for this vital tax relief and 
alternative energy development incentives. Their efforts have been 
successful judging by the list of organizations and businesses that are 
supporting H.R. 6049, including the League of Conservation Voters, the 
National Retail Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, Dow 
Chemical Company, The Sierra Club, The American Farm Bureau, and the 
list goes on and on.
  Providing tax relief to middle class families and small businesses, 
providing incentives to promote alternative energy development, and 
adhering to fiscal responsibility should never, never be a partisan 
issue.
  Too often in this Chamber we hear countless reasons why not to do 
something, but the fact of the matter is, we cannot afford to allow the 
vital tax relief and renewable energy incentives in H.R. 6049 to fall 
victim to Washington politics.
  Just to set the record straight, by voting ``yes'' on the previous 
question and voting ``yes'' on the rule and bringing this legislation 
to the floor, it will allow 11 million families to deduct State and 
local sales taxes; it will allow 3\1/2\ million teachers to deduct 
classroom expenses so they can better educate the children they teach; 
it will allow 4 million families the ability to deduct education 
expenses and help put their children through college; it will allow 13 
million families to claim the child tax credit and make it a little

[[Page 10209]]

easier to put food on their table; and it will allow 27,000 domestic 
businesses to remain competitive in the global marketplace by investing 
in vital research and development.
  Clearly we in the majority are working to advance the interests of 
the American people. I am hopeful we can come together later today, 
Republicans and Democrats, pass this rule, pass the underlying 
legislation, and move our country forward.
  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. 1212 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the operation of the previous question, it 
     shall be in order to consider any amendment to the substitute 
     which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the 
     effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of 
     regular unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 of rule XXI.
                                  ____

       (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.

  Mr. ARCURI. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

                          ____________________