[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2965-2969]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2842, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL 
       CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL JOBS ACT OF 2011

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 570 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 570

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2842) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation 
     conduit facilities for hydropower development under Federal 
     Reclamation law, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except: (1) those received for printing in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII dated at least one day before the day of 
     consideration of the amendment; and (2) pro forma amendments 
     for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so received may be 
     offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or a 
     designee and shall be considered as read if printed. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The chair of the Committee on Financial Services 
     is authorized, on behalf of the committee, to file a 
     supplemental report to accompany H.R. 3606.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This resolution provides for a modified open rule 
for the consideration of H.R. 2842, succinctly titled the Bureau of 
Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 
2011. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources and makes in order all amendments which were 
preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with 
the rules of the House.

                              {time}  1310

  So this modified open rule is a very fair and generous rule--a 
continuation of the work of Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee--
and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of the 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in 
support of this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 2842. 
I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, Mr. Tipton of 
Colorado, as well as Mr. Gosar of Arizona, one of the cosponsors, 
Representative McClintock of California, who is the chairman of the 
subcommittee that held the hearings on this bill, and of course 
Chairman Hastings of the Resource Committee, who brought this bill 
forward as one of the companion pieces of the myriad of pieces of 
legislation which, if enacted, would greatly improve our Nation's 
energy policy and provide for a responsible and balanced approach to 
further energy development.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, in my home State of New York, unemployment continues 
to remain stubbornly high. Thousands of Americans have given up looking 
for work altogether. For many, unemployment benefits have expired, and 
there is little hope that a paycheck will soon be a regular part of 
daily life.
  Despite this dire economic reality, once again we are going through a 
bill that has nothing to do with job creation. Instead, we have 
piecemeal proposal after piecemeal proposal to do more to further 
ideological goals than create jobs.
  Instead of creating jobs, today's bill would clarify lines of 
authority for two government agencies. Is this a worthy goal? Maybe. 
Some say yes. But does it create thousands of American jobs? The answer 
is clearly no.

[[Page 2966]]

  As they have with so many other bills, the majority has also inserted 
unnecessary partisan language into today's bill language that attacks 
existing environmental law for no good reason. Specifically, it 
provides a categorical exemption for all small hydropower projects from 
National Environmental Policy Act compliance. There is no clear reason 
for this exemption from environmental protection.
  Currently, hydropower projects that don't raise substantive 
environmental concerns have always been approved relatively quickly. 
From 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions were completed in less than a year 
each. In 2011, there were nine exemptions that were granted in an 
average of 40 days. Yet, despite seeing a system that works relatively 
well, the majority decided to once again put industry before the 
environment and include this controversial provision. This approach may 
fill a legislative calendar, but it fails to create jobs for the 
American people.
  We could be considering a 5-year surface transportation bill, which 
everybody's waiting for, something we were supposed to consider weeks 
ago. A well-written and bipartisan bill--and all the transportation 
bills from the Eisenhower administration up to now were always 
bipartisan bills--would have created thousands of American jobs; but, 
once again, no such bill has come to the floor. Instead, they were 
forced to pull a proposed surface transportation bill because they had 
alienated Members of their own party with extreme provisions that would 
decimate public transportation and fail to create jobs.
  Now we continue to wait as the majority works to write a reasonable 
transportation bill that will actually create jobs. In the meantime, we 
consider bill after bill that does nothing to create the many thousands 
of jobs that are so desperately needed.
  Madam Speaker, the record is clear. When the majority pushes partisan 
politics over good governance, the American people lose. Today is the 
latest in a long line of such partisan bills, and yet one more day when 
the American people will go without new American jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the chair of the 
subcommittee that heard this particular bill.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this rule brings to the floor one of the most simple 
and sensible bills on energy development that we have yet heard. It is 
H.R. 2842, offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  What it promises is this: At precisely no cost to taxpayers, freeing 
up absolutely clean electricity on a scale so vast that it would take 
several hydroelectric dams to duplicate, simply by relaxing the 
regulatory stranglehold, simply by getting government bureaucrats out 
of the way, this bill has the potential of adding thousands of 
megawatts of absolutely clean and renewable electricity to the Nation's 
energy supply, reducing utility bills, reducing reliance on fossil 
fuels, and, to answer the gentlelady from New York, adding thousands of 
permanent high-paying jobs to the Nation's economy. All that is 
necessary for this to happen is for government bureaucrats to get out 
of the way and allow people to place small hydroelectric generators in 
thousands of miles of existing pipelines, canals, and aqueducts.
  This doesn't involve new construction. The facilities are already 
there. It doesn't involve any adverse impact to the environment. These 
are water pipes and canals in which there are no fish of any kind. And 
yet this administration forces water users and developers to go through 
a lengthy, costly, and pointless environmental review process that 
literally doubles the cost of these projects and makes them cost 
prohibitive.
  The reason there are so few applications is because the requirements 
of this absurd law simply make these projects cost prohibitive, and it 
simply doesn't make sense to move forward with them. This bill simply 
says this: You don't need to go through that nonsense anymore.
  Now, why isn't this bill being taken up on suspension? It would be 
one of the all-time no-brainers.It passed the Natural Resources 
Committee on a bipartisan vote. The reason that this debate is required 
is because this commonsense legislation is vigorously opposed by the 
environmental left; that is the measure of extremism from which this 
movement now suffers. Perhaps the best way to alert the American people 
to this extremism is through debate that this rule makes possible.
  A generation ago, in the 1960s, electricity was so cheap that some 
communities didn't even bother with electricity meters, and there's a 
reason for that. In those days, we were building hydroelectric dams 
that not only protected us from floods and droughts, but that delivered 
electricity for as little as 3 cents per kilowatt hour. At that price, 
an average household's electricity bill would come to about $30 a 
month. That dream seems surreal today.
  Today, government regulations are literally threatening the ability 
of this Nation to generate sufficient electricity to keep people's air 
conditioning and refrigerators running in the summer, just as similar 
policies prevent Americans from prospering from our vast petroleum 
reserves and nuclear power potential.
  It's no coincidence that the States with the most stringent 
regulations also have the highest electricity prices and the sickest 
economies. People of my State of California, the land of vast 
unrealized hydroelectric potential and a pioneer in nuclear power, now 
use less electricity per capita than any other State in the Union, and 
yet we pay among the highest electricity prices in the country. We also 
suffer from one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, 
despite ceaseless empty promises of green jobs.
  Now along comes this bill by Mr. Tipton of Colorado that does 
everything the environmental left claims it likes: It produces 
absolutely clean and renewable electricity in vast quantities at 
precisely no cost to taxpayers. It requires no new construction. All 
that's necessary to achieve this is to put small generators in existing 
pipelines and canals that have already passed environmental review and 
pose no conceivable environmental impact. Yet, instead of embracing 
this measure, these radical elements instead throw a conniption fit.
  Well, let them do that in public. Let the American people see this 
debate. Let them see for themselves the nihilistic ideology behind this 
movement and how it is practiced by those in this Congress who share 
and support it, and then let the American people judge. I think the 
debate over this bill will offer our fellow citizens a real insight 
into this movement, and I support the resolution that makes this debate 
possible.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question--and 
I hope we will--I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide 
that immediately after the House adopts the rule, we will bring up H.R. 
964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.
  To talk about our proposal, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, 180 days ago, the President of the United States came 
to this Chamber and laid out before the country and the Congress some 
very specific proposals to help put Americans back to work. The 
President proposed that we give a tax cut to small businesses who hire 
people. The House has never voted on that proposal. The President 
proposed that at a time when our bridges and roads and airports and 
ports need construction and reconstruction, that we put Americans back 
to work in the construction industry performing those vitally necessary 
tasks. The House has never voted on that proposal. At a time when 
police officers and firefighters and teachers are being laid off across 
our country,

[[Page 2967]]

the President proposed some short-term relief so we could put our 
officers back on the beat, our firefighters back on the apparatus, our 
teachers back in the classroom. The House has never voted on that 
proposal.
  Here we are 6 months later, doing what we're doing today. In that 6 
months, another crisis has manifested itself, one that affects 
Americans across our country more severely every day, and that is each 
time they fill up their vehicle, it takes just a little bit more money 
out of their grocery budget, the utility budget, what they use to pay 
their mortgage payment, what they use to educate their children. The 
rising price of gasoline is a serious threat to the prosperity and 
stability of American families.
  The president of Exxon has said that his conclusion is that about $30 
of the cost of a barrel of crude oil is attributable to the speculation 
of prices by people who never really buy, sell or use oil, but who bet 
on its price: casino gamblers, not deliverers of oil. Goldman Sachs 
estimates that anywhere from $22 to $28 a barrel is also due to 
speculation, and they ought to know because they're no doubt 
participating in it.
  The bill that we would propose be put on the floor this afternoon 
would crack down on that speculation. It would require that trades be 
disclosed; it would empower regulatory agencies to identify illegal 
price manipulation behavior; and reduce the price of crude oil to 
American consumers.
  There are other ways to do this. I, for one, favor increased domestic 
production. I think there are ways that we can increase the natural gas 
and coal and oil that we produce. I certainly think that we should 
expand renewables as well. But there is one regulatory tool that we 
have not given our regulators and we ought to give it to them here. The 
underlying bill is certainly worthy of consideration, but we have an 
immediate energy problem here in America, an immediate jobs problem. 
And I would respectfully suggest that the right vote is to defeat the 
previous question so we may move on and consider legislation that would 
deal with the current price of gasoline prices.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this 
particular bill, who will talk about how to create real power using 
water resources that we have.
  Mr. TIPTON. As a sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, I support 
the rule on H.R. 2842, and I encourage an open debate because I believe 
the merits of this bill will speak for themselves. H.R. 2842 is a 
bipartisan plan to authorize new hydropower production and streamline 
the regulatory process in order to create new American jobs.
  Many rural water and irrigation districts and electric utilities in 
western States seek to develop hydropower on Bureau of Reclamation 
water canals and pipelines, but overburdensome and unnecessary 
regulations stand in the way and discourage investment in these 
projects. Most of these small projects are not currently authorized at 
Bureau of Reclamation canals and, as a result, they never get off the 
ground. Those that are currently authorized are subject to an 
additional review process under the National Environmental Policy Act 
even though the canals on which they are built have already gone 
through a full environmental review when they were constructed or 
rehabilitated.
  H.R. 2842 authorizes the production of hydropower at all Bureau of 
Reclamation conduits; and by doing so, it allows placement of small 
hydropower generators on existing man-made canals and pipes that have 
already gone through the NEPA process. This authorization does not 
currently exist, and therefore hydropower development under current 
reclamation law will not happen unless Congress acts. This bill also 
eliminates duplicative red tape by exempting small hydropower projects 
on previously disturbed ground from going through an additional NEPA 
review. This bill does not apply to rivers, large dams, or natural-
flowing waters in any way, and it will not impact endangered fish or 
wildlife.
  In many cases, having to go through an additional unnecessary review 
process determines whether or not a hydropower project is economically 
feasible and, as a result, determines whether or not this country moves 
forward with the development of green energy.
  Chris Treese of the Colorado Water District in the Natural Resources 
Committee testified on this bill and he stated:

       Environmental reviews under NEPA are universally time 
     consuming and expensive. The River District's current 
     experience with an environmental assessment on a 
     nonconstruction action has taken over a year and nearly $1 
     million in outside expenses.

  By eliminating this duplicative requirement, we can add power to the 
grid, provide an environment for job growth in rural America and return 
revenues to the Treasury. This commonsense piece of legislation has 
bipartisan cosponsorship and passed out of the committee with 
bipartisan support. It's also been endorsed by the rural irrigators and 
electric utilities that operate the Bureau of Reclamation canals and 
know the issue best. These organizations include: the Family Farm 
Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the American Public 
Power Association, and the Association of California Water Agencies.
  I'm proud to offer this contribution to the House Republicans of the 
all-of-the-above energy strategy for America, and I look forward to a 
spirited discussion on how we can produce more renewable energy and put 
our people in this country back to work.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and in support of moving the 
previous question. This motion would amend the bill with strong 
provisions to stop price gouging at the gas pumps.
  We really are long overdue for a serious debate about gas prices. 
Scoring political points on this issue may make us all feel good, but 
it serves no one, particularly our constituents; and it certainly 
doesn't get us any closer to solving the problem.
  Here are the facts: domestic production of oil in the United States 
is at an 8-year high; imports of oil into the United States are at a 
17-year low; more oil rigs drill in the United States today than in the 
rest of the world combined. Let me say that again: there are more oil 
rigs at work in the United States today drilling for oil than in the 
rest of the world combined; the number of oil rigs in operation in the 
United States today has quadrupled since President Obama took office. 
Last year, the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in 
62 years.
  I think what these facts demonstrate very clearly is that this is not 
a supply-driven problem, nor--as good as it might feel to some--is this 
a problem that can be blamed on the administration for not doing enough 
to facilitate or encourage exploration for drilling.
  This is not a demand-driven problem either. Demand is down 6\1/2\ 
percent in just 1 year and 17 percent since 2008.
  There are several factors that contribute to rising gas prices, but 
U.S. supply and U.S. demand are not among them.
  The gas prices in my district of eastern Long Island are up over 60 
cents per gallon in just a matter of weeks. Rampant speculation 
accounts for most of that with over 60 percent of the market controlled 
by speculators. The speculators' overriding goal is profit-taking, 
which is what our legislation targets. There is nothing wrong with 
profits. Profits are what made our Nation strong. But when profits are 
pursued at the expense of middle class families or at the expense of 
our fragile economic recovery, we need to take action.
  This legislation makes sure that we do cut out speculators. It 
strengthens penalties for manipulating the market, which forces up gas 
prices and leads to price gouging. After we cut out speculators, we 
should cut out the subsidies for Big Oil, and we should reinvest those 
dollars in a long-term strategy focused on clean and renewable sources.

[[Page 2968]]

  Madam Speaker, our debate should focus on a green-energy policy free 
of market speculation and subsidies our Nation can't afford. We must 
tackle this problem rather than using it to point fingers and try to 
score points. Thus I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  I advise my colleague that I am prepared to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Millions of Americans remain out of work, countless more run out of 
unemployment assistance, and meanwhile gas prices continue to rise on 
every American family; and they are turning to us for much needed 
relief.
  Today's bill does nothing to address these pressing economic issues. 
Instead, we're doing more busy work on the floor today, preparing to 
consider a bill that clarifies the responsibility for two government 
agencies. This type of bill does little to create the many thousands of 
jobs needed to begin reviving our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to end the long delay and finally bring forth 
true American job-creation legislation so that American families can 
live with some hope.

                              {time}  1330

  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am grateful that we have found new sources of energy, specifically 
oil and natural gas, on private property because it has not allowed the 
Federal Government to stop the development of those, and that is the 
growth that we have seen in recent times.
  However, it is interesting to note that the bill before us, which 
deals with hydropower and development of more hydropower, is a 
bipartisan bill and for just cause. We can both agree, on both sides of 
the aisle, that there is a great need for more energy, and that 
greater, cheaper energy is vital to the growth of the economy and the 
growth of jobs. That's what this bill tries to do.
  Frequently in this House, we have brought bills that have tried to 
increase our offshore drilling on Federal property. We have talked 
about the Keystone pipeline and the ability of 20,000 high-paying jobs 
if it were just permitted. We have talked about trying to increase 
domestic energy production on public lands that have been put off-
limits by this particular administration. Those efforts we have dealt 
with. We have passed through this House. They're over sitting in the 
Senate waiting for action. And today we add to that effort with a 
significant bill that will add to our hydropower and hydroenergy that 
once again comes along with this.
  But the problem that we have and the reason why this bill is here 
before us, if I can summarize, is, simply, our efforts to add this kind 
of energy to our portfolio are being stopped by special interest groups 
and, unfortunately, layers of bureaucracy.
  It was Nelson Rockefeller who came up with the great line of calling 
the deadening hand of bureaucracy on proposals and programs; and, 
indeed, we see that and we feel it today as we are having a harder time 
trying to be energy independent, and we are feeling the results of the 
Federal Government's program to stop energy production on Federal lands 
and Federal property every time we fill up our cars and, unfortunately, 
every time we pay our electrical bills.
  Now, it is bureaucratic manipulation that is causing this problem and 
why this bill is here. Look, it was the energy debate and the energy 
bill of 2005 that told the Federal Government to move forward in this 
area with making sure that we had a master plan for hydrological 
development of energy. Seven years later, now the Federal Government 
and our Department of the Interior is starting to move forward in that 
direction, which is either the old cliche of paralysis by analysis or 
the fact that Rockefeller was right when he called the bureaucracy a 
deadening hand on programs and progress.
  One particular program, the Klamath River, took 5 years for 
government to decide who actually had the authority to move forward on 
the project. That is the kind of bureaucratic analysis, that's the kind 
of red tape that is slowing back our efforts to develop this type of 
energy, and we need it desperately.
  That's why H.R. 2842 is here, to develop small projects that will add 
to our total energy portfolio and add to our independence. It stops and 
simplifies a regulatory process which unfortunately costs these small 
efforts, these small entities trying to make these efforts tens of 
thousands of dollars just to do the paperwork. It's ridiculous.
  It clarifies the role of the Bureau of Reclamation on this area. This 
only deals with Bureau of Reclamation projects on manmade facilities, 
but the jurisdictions are not clear. Some jurisdictions have been 
mandated by Congress; some are administrative; some are questions on 
whether FERC has responsibility, the Bureau of Reclamation has 
responsibility. That is causing our slowing in developing these 
projects. This bill clarifies what that role is.
  It also clarifies NEPA, that you don't have to do a second NEPA on 
these small jobs. Anything greater than 1.5 megawatts of production, 
you do the analysis again. But for small projects, on man-made property 
where the land has already been disturbed and already has had an 
analysis done and the mitigation has already taken place, we move on 
and do the job.
  The Bureau of Reclamation does have a right of categorical exclusion, 
but they won't do it. All they're saying is, We may start thinking 
about it some time in the future.
  Let me give you an example. There are three specific projects in the 
neighboring State of mine. One was mandated by Congress in 1990. They 
are still starting the process because of that administrative red tape. 
Two other projects took a full year for them to decide to actually 
start going through a process, and when they did it, they realized 
there was no change; it had already been done before. All you did is 
take a year to check off the box and do the expense with it. We had 
somebody from Arizona come in and testify that the administrator review 
cost more than the actual construction of the project. That's silly. 
That is ridiculous.
  H.R. 795 deals with this same issue on non-Federal land. This bills 
deals with this same issue on existing Bureau of Reclamation projects. 
It's a commonsense development to get an untapped resource that we need 
to develop. It would not significantly enlarge the environmental 
footprint because these are already man-made entities who have already 
gone through the NEPA process once, and there is no rational reason to 
reinvent the wheel and do it a second time only to find out they were 
right the first time.
  What would be the benefit from this bill?
  First of all, new sources of clean energy to add to our portfolio.
  Second, we can facilitate small projects to help offset carbon-based 
irrigation pumping in the West.
  Third, it would help reduce the cost of energy. It would produce a 
cash flow to irrigation districts so they could actually increase and 
pay for and improve their aging infrastructure and modernize these 
water facilities.
  Fourth, it does create jobs, and for once we have a bill that 
actually increases revenue coming into the government from this. CBO 
has estimated, the Congressional Budget Office, that this will generate 
$5 million in additional revenue coming into the government. So not 
only can we create more

[[Page 2969]]

energy, we can do the right thing, we can fix our infrastructure, but 
we actually make money that comes into the government to help with 
other issues.
  There is a reason this is a bipartisan bill: because it's the right 
thing to do.
  There is a reason why we should move forward with this bill: because 
it taps a valuable resource that will go to waste if we do not do it.
  There is a reason that this bill is here: to speed up the regulatory 
red tape, to cut through the cost, to make things happen and help us 
move forward as a Nation with better energy development and energy 
independence.
  There's a whole bunch of good reasons for this bill, and that's why I 
support the bill, and I also support the rule that will make it 
possible to give a good and fair open balance to this debate.
  With that, this is a good bill and an incredibly fair rule. I urge 
the adoption.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 570 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     964) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and 
     other fuels, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the 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 Republican 
     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 Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
  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.

                          ____________________