[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15034-15041]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2, AMERICAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS FOR 
LOWER COSTS AND MORE AMERICAN JOBS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
H.R. 4, JOBS FOR AMERICA ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE 
       PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 22, 2014, THROUGH NOVEMBER 11, 2014

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 727 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 727

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2) to remove 
     Federal Government obstacles to the production of more 
     domestic energy; to ensure transport of that energy reliably 
     to businesses, consumers, and other end users; to lower the 
     cost of energy to consumers; to enable manufacturers and 
     other businesses to access domestically produced energy 
     affordably and reliably in order to create and sustain more 
     secure and well-paying American jobs; and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to make 
     revisions to Federal law to improve the conditions necessary 
     for economic growth and job creation, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     September 22, 2014, through November 11, 2014,--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
friend, 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering a rule for 
the consideration of two bills, a package to boost America's energy 
production and a package to jump-start our American economy. Combined, 
these bills will help get America back to work with an America that we 
can afford.
  First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2, the American 
Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act.
  This bill would accomplish three important goals for the American 
family: first, it would create up to 1.2 million good-paying jobs for 
Americans who are out of work or who are underemployed; second, it 
would lower--it would lower--energy prices in America; third, it would 
draw our country closer to an important goal that we should all share, 
and that is American energy independence.
  Let's start by identifying the problem. The facts of the case are 
that the Federal Government is standing in the way of an American 
energy boom. That means they are standing in the way of American 
progress and progress for Americans to have jobs and a better life.
  For over 6 years, the American people have waited for this 
administration to approve construction of the Keystone pipeline. 
Unfortunately, the approval process has been marred by indecision and 
unnecessary delays.
  First, opponents of the pipeline argue that it would be an 
environmental disaster; since then, virtually all of the major 
environmental concerns surrounding the project have been not only 
addressed, but debugged.
  Second, opponents of the pipeline argue that it was unsafe; yet study 
after study after study have shown the pipeline to be safe and an 
effective means to transport much-needed energies for America's 
resources.
  The opponents of the Keystone pipeline have run out of excuses, but 
they continue to delay a decision.
  Then there is the Department of Energy, which has been far too slow 
in approving applications to export liquefied natural gas. The 
Department has decided on only nine applications submitted to it for 
the last 4 years.
  Twenty-six applications still await action--many, many of which have 
been delayed by this administration for purely political reasons--
another reason to say they are getting in the way of Americans having 
jobs today. They are getting in the way of American independence for 
energy.
  As a result of these delays, America is squandering an energy boom 
that could make America, which is the largest producer of natural gas, 
even better and add to the American economy.
  The Department's broken application process destroys good-paying jobs 
and hampers our economic growth. The energy revolution already supports 
1.7

[[Page 15035]]

million high-paying, great jobs in America, and we could add an 
additional 1.3 million new American high-paying jobs by 2020, but only 
if the Federal Government will get out of the way of its development.
  It also allows our international competitors, such as Russia and 
Iran, not to be dominant in the marketplace and not to use domination 
for political power and economic power over other countries in Europe.
  The Federal Government has ruled 87 percent of our offshore acreage 
currently off-limits to energy production. Even worse, the 
administration doesn't have a plan to develop these resources. In fact, 
the administration's offshore leasing plan for the next 3 years offers 
no new areas for lease and includes the lowest number of lease sales in 
history.
  This administration's no new drilling policies have cost Americans 
jobs. We have forfeited revenue that would help us pay down our 
national debt and denied access to American oil and natural gas that 
would lessen dependence on foreign sources. More importantly, the 
American consumer continues to pay higher prices at the pump, nearly 
double from the time this administration took office a scant 5-plus 
years ago.
  My friends in the minority might rightly point out that U.S. oil and 
natural gas production is growing; however, the growth is entirely due 
to increased output on State and private lands, not on Federal lands. 
Our growth in energy production is in spite of the Federal Government, 
not because of it.
  Combined, these policies hurt the American people. They hurt men, 
women, and families who need to be able to have a stable price at the 
pump with energy that is available in a constant supply throughout the 
seasons.
  High energy costs drive up prices, they limit what American families 
can do with their individual resources, and it is a problem in our 
economy. That means that the American people have less money in their 
pockets to buy groceries, to pay the mortgage, or to purchase school 
supplies for their kids.
  What are the solutions to these problems? First, the energy package 
considered under this rule would speed up approval of the Keystone 
pipeline. When completed, the Keystone pipeline will transport over 
800,000 barrels of oil every single day, adding to the supply.
  That means that we can wean ourselves off Middle East oil. The 
equivalent of half of our daily imports comes from the Middle East.
  Second, the bill would force the Department of Energy to issue a 
final decision on applications to export liquefied natural gas within 
30 days of completing the environmental review process, an important 
step in increasing our exports of LNG and adding to the 1.3 million 
jobs that are awaiting filling as a result of this delay by this 
administration.
  Third, H.R. 2 would expand oil and natural gas production in the 
United States by rolling back the administration's overzealous 
environmental policies that have slowed our economic progress and made 
energy too expensive.
  At a time when so many Americans are unemployed and underemployed, 
this job-creating legislation would unleash our vast energy resources 
to create these 1.2 million jobs. We need them now. We need America to 
have stable energy prices.
  In short, the bill would finally pave a way forward for energy 
policies that would lower energy prices, strengthen our economy, create 
jobs, lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources, and give the 
American family and worker an opportunity to have gasoline at the pump 
at a lesser price.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bills, the so-called American Energy Solutions for Lower 
Costs and More American Jobs Act--it is H.R. 2--and the Jobs for 
America, so-called, Act, H.R. 4. Don't let the titles of these bills 
fool you. H.R. 2 and H.R. 4 won't create any new jobs but would 
continue to degrade the quality of life and health of the American 
people.
  These bills put more money in the pockets of big industry, corporate 
welfare, undermine the efficiency of our regulatory activities, and 
continue to fail to provide opportunities for the middle class, while 
they continue to enrich international conglomerates and corporations.
  Not only are these bills bad, but I should add, Mr. Speaker, the 
House has already voted on all of these bills that are already included 
in H.R. 2 and H.R. 4 this session--just another waste of taxpayer time 
and money here debating and voting on bills that have already been 
passed. Just as the Republicans have chosen to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act 53 times, so too we are passing many of these bills for the 
second time here today if that is the decision the House chooses to 
make.
  Now, I think it is clear, all of us here know, that these bills will 
not become law, that the Senate did not take them up after the House 
passed them. There is no indication or reason to believe that in this 
new configuration and being lumped together in new and more sinister 
ways that the Senate will react any more positively.
  Sadly, it is quite clear that the majority here in the House are 
either unable or unwilling to bring forth fresh ideas to jump-start the 
middle class.
  These bills instead are bound to political pandering, rewarding of 
campaign donors and large corporations in advance of elections, instead 
of taking advantage of our precious few remaining days of session to 
address the real problems facing our Nation.
  I am also dismayed that both of these bills are being reviewed under 
a closed rule here today. It was fairly recently here on the floor of 
the House that we celebrated the diamond jubilee of closed rules, 75 
closed rules from the Republican Party. H.R. 2 and H.R. 4 are the 76th 
and 77th closed rules this Congress. Just before this Chamber breaks 
for a 6-week-long recess, the majority has shut down the process of 
regular order and not allowed Republicans or Democrats to offer our 
amendments to improve these bills.
  Even though they are not bringing new legislation before us today, we 
should at least allow--at least allow--Democrats and Republicans to 
offer their ideas to make these bills better. What is the point in 
passing the exact same bills without even giving Members of this body 
the ability to make them better?
  I offered two amendments in this bill, which I will speak about 
later, but, unfortunately, neither was made in order. Other Members of 
this body also offered great ideas to help improve this legislation, 
but none were allowed. Instead, we have a restricted rule which has 
shut out debate from Members on both sides of the aisle. If we can 
defeat this rule, we can move forward with an open process, encouraging 
and allowing amendments from both sides of the aisle.
  We don't have the precious time left for political posturing. While 
we were talking here now, I got a text on my phone that votes are, in 
fact, canceled for tomorrow. I am not sure if my colleague is yet aware 
of that or if the Speaker is yet aware of that, but this, in fact, may 
be the last day that we are in session before the election.
  And yet instead of dealing with immigration reform, there is a bill 
to pass of more than two-thirds. Instead of protecting LGBT Americans 
from being fired from their job just because of who they love or who 
they are, here we are today bringing forward bills that have already 
passed in different configurations, that would hurt the quality of life 
for American families, that would hurt the environment and hurt the 
health of the American people.
  This compilation of bills in H.R. 2 is really an oil and gas industry 
wish list. Now, of course all of us support responsible energy 
development on Federal lands and private lands, make sure we balance 
production with our quality of life and our health. This bill, however, 
would prioritize development over all other uses of land and all other 
values that we hold as a country. This bill

[[Page 15036]]

would also reduce important protections that we have in favor of 
speculative energy exploration and development.
  Now is not the time to pass a massive corporate giveaway bill to the 
oil and gas industry, an industry that is already very profitable. They 
don't need more taxpayer subsidies just to add to their bottom line, 
especially not at the expense of our health, our environment, and the 
enjoyment of our public lands and our quality of life.
  While there are many problematic provisions in the bill, several are 
particularly concerning. One provision in the bill would streamline 
pipeline approvals, so it would even allow for the automatic approval 
of natural gas pipeline projects without any impact studies or 
opportunities for public comment.
  This bill would also discourage environmental analysis, undermine 
agency decisions like curbing carbon pollution, and yet another 
provision would prevent the Federal Government from overseeing fracking 
activities on Federal lands, an issue near and dear to the hearts of my 
constituents in the State of Colorado.
  It is particularly egregious that given that this bill has a wish 
list from the oil and gas industry, that somehow, for those of us who 
support an all-of-the-above energy approach, it left out the wind 
energy production tax credit. The wind production tax credit is a 
solution that has allowed for rapid scaling of wind power over the past 
couple of decades. So why would we be doubling down with taxpayer 
subsidies for the oil and gas industry at the same time we are not even 
renewing the one important subsidy that wind energy has?
  Now, I offered two different solutions for this, and I was hoping 
either one of them would have been a constructive way to approach this 
on the floor of the House. I offered an amendment with Mr. Perlmutter 
to simply extend the wind production tax credit for the next 2 years. 
Now, that would create jobs, encourage private investment, and allow 
wind energy to compete on a level playing field with the heavily 
subsidized oil and gas industry.
  I also offered another solution--and I am certainly willing to 
support either--and that solution would be to eliminate the over $40 
billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas industry. If we had 
gone that route, again, at least wind and solar energy would be able to 
compete on a level playing field because we would stop doling out our 
precious taxpayer dollars as subsidies to the legacy interests in the 
oil and gas industry.
  That too was not allowed to even be debated, not for 10 minutes, not 
for 1 minute. Instead, apparently having Friday off was more important 
than allowing Democratic and Republican Members of this body to present 
their ideas on how to make a bad bill better.
  H.R. 4, the Jobs for America Act, is a group of 15 bills that have 
also been previously passed by the House. Many of them serve to attack 
our processes we have in place to keep American consumers safe. The 
bill empowers polluters, bogs down agencies that are charged with 
protecting the public health. None of them have become law, having 
already been passed, and I think all my colleagues here know that none 
of them will become law in this new and more sinister configuration.
  Now, I would love to see a balanced tax extender package that lowers 
the Federal deficit, strengthens our economy, can actually pass the 
Senate and be signed into law, but I think we all know that is not the 
bill before us today.
  H.R. 4 would actually add to the deficit by making tax cuts for many 
special interests permanent. A $574 billion deficit-busting bill on our 
last day of session, what a great lead-in to the general election for 
the Republicans to present a massive, Big Government spending, $574 
billion subsidy bill for our consideration. I think the American people 
understand the contrast and the different approaches that are in play 
this year.
  Now, an amendment I offered with Mr. Blumenauer, which I mentioned 
earlier, would have offset some of that cost by eliminating the oil and 
gas industry subsidies to the tune of $40 billion. Now, the bill still 
would have cost $534 billion, but it would have cost $40 billion less 
if we had eliminated the oil and gas subsidies. But, again, apparently 
having a Friday off is more important to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle than having a full and open debate of the merits or 
lack of merits of the proposal I advanced with Mr. Blumenauer.
  In summary, I oppose the closed rule in addition to the underlying 
bills.
  Now, we could have shown the American people that Congress could end 
on a positive note, that we could come together and address our broken 
immigration system, that we could come together to address our deficit; 
but instead, we are providing yet another example of why Congress 
continues to have record low approval ratings: rehashed, repackaged, 
partisan bills costing taxpayers $574 billion, enriching the special 
interests in corporations, and then going on vacation. And people 
wonder why the American people aren't thrilled with the United States 
Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden), from the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Rules Committee has 
actually read the bills that are in this package and knows that they 
are much more than what my colleague and friend from Colorado just 
described. Because actually, the forestry legislation is something that 
passed this House 363 days ago in a big bipartisan vote, a big portion 
of which was written by my Democratic friends Peter DeFazio and Kurt 
Schrader. That is in this package.
  We have another bill coming up later that has twice passed this House 
unanimously. Those aren't partisan bills that are being put out, as you 
said, Mr. Polis, to reward donors or anything else. This is about 
creating jobs in America.
  By the way, lots of parts of the world, like my district, need jobs. 
They need the certainty of jobs. And I don't know about Colorado, but 
Oregon and California and a lot of places are going up in smoke, choked 
with smoke because of forest fires.
  The legislation in this package that we are going to send back over 
to the Senate one more time, thanks to this rule and thanks to the 
leadership of this chairman, would allow us to get people back to work 
in the woods, address the problems of these fires, produce revenues for 
schoolteachers, for sheriffs and sheriff's deputies, for search and 
rescue, for all the basic, fundamental services that matter in rural 
communities and, I think, matter across the West.
  So, if you don't believe in taking care of your forests, then vote 
``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, 363 days ago, the House passed H.R. 1526, the Restoring 
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. Two days short of a year, 
the Senate has done nothing--nothing. They failed to pass a single 
active forestry bill--nothing. Our forests are going up in smoke. We 
are spending taxpayer dollars to fight the fires. We are devastating 
watersheds. This has to change.
  The Federal Government controls over 50 percent of the land in 
Oregon. In 10 of the 20 counties I represent, they control over half of 
the land. Over the last 30 years, timber harvests on these lands, these 
Federal lands, has been decreased by 90 percent--nine-zero. Forests 
aren't static; they keep growing and they keep dying. We get beetle 
infestations; we get drought; and then we get fire. Nothing happens 
after the fire, other than the trees sit there and burn. Then they die; 
then they rot; then they fall over. There is no productive use. All 
that needs to change.
  Ninety percent reduction in harvest of Federal lands.
  Do you know what that means out in rural areas where the Federal 
Government is supposed to be the steward? It means that we have lost 
300 mills and 30,000 American jobs--30,000 American jobs. These are 
jobs bills we are talking

[[Page 15037]]

about here. These same rural areas that I represent have poverty rates 
at 20, 25, 30, even as high as 33.9 percent in Josephine County, right 
down in here, 33.9.
  You want to do something about poverty? Create a job. You want to do 
something about getting America on track? Pass these bills. Get the 
Senate to pass these bills. We will create jobs. We will generate 
revenue. We will have positive cash flow in this country for once. It 
doesn't have to be this way. We can put people back to work. So 
Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop and myself and others worked on 
the bipartisan forestry legislation.
  As I mentioned, we actually have run this bill through an independent 
evaluation process to say what does this mean for the people of Oregon, 
because there is a portion here that relates just to the O&C lands 
which are only in Oregon. Democratic Governor--Democratic Governor--
John Kitzhaber, his team took a look at our bipartisan bill, and they 
concluded that it would create or save 3,000 Oregon jobs. These are 
real jobs. These are real people. These are real families that have 
been suffering. Three thousand Oregon jobs.
  It would generate $100 million in revenue or thereabouts. That would 
pay--pay--for basic services, pay for basic services. 500 million 
board-feet of timber a year would be harvested. It would be 
predictable. You would have a private sector involvement here.
  Twenty-nine Oregon counties, from Klamath, to Hood River, to Wallowa, 
including all 20 in my district, 29 Oregon counties passed resolutions 
supporting this bipartisan legislation. We passed it 363 days ago. The 
Senate, I don't know what they do over there, not much productive. We 
are going to give them another chance.
  Yes, we are repackaging these bills. Yes, the House has passed these 
bills before. Yes, they passed in a bipartisan manner. We are at the 
end of our legislative session. It is time, one more time, to make 
another attempt to pass this into law, to wake up the Senate, to get 
them to do the right thing.
  So support the rule. Let's move forward. We don't need more partisan 
rhetoric here. We need to help America get on its feet. We need to take 
better care of our forests. We need to take better care of our 
watersheds. We need to put people back to work in America. And that is 
what these bills do.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. And for 
the benefit of my colleagues, I want to be very clear about one of the 
implications of the language in this rule that is before us.

                              {time}  1230

  A vote for this rule is a vote to shut off the mechanisms of the War 
Powers Resolution for the next 2 months. If any Member of this House 
has any concerns about the ongoing military operations in Iraq, the 
potential of U.S. military airstrikes in Syria, or the possible 
introduction of U.S. combat ground forces into either country, then 
this rule will tie their hands for the next 2 months.
  If any Member introduces a privileged resolution under the terms of 
the War Powers Resolution, this rule freezes that resolution in place 
and stops the clock that would normally advance under the War Powers 
Resolution.
  It is perfectly clear that the House will not debate and vote on an 
authorization on Iraq at this time. Unfortunately, it is not clear if 
any vote will ever happen at any time in this House, even after we come 
back in November, even though there is a growing bipartisan consensus 
that such an authorization is needed.
  This rule freezes out each and every Member of this House from taking 
any action to move forward the possibility of a vote on Iraq or Syria 
under the terms put in place by the War Powers Resolution.
  On August 8, the U.S. began daily bombing in Iraq--at first to 
protect the Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar. But almost immediately, 
the bombing campaign expanded to include infrastructure, and then to 
provide air support to ground operations to retake territory by Iraqi 
and Kurdish military forces, and then to protect more major 
infrastructure, and this week to dislodge ISIL from the environs of 
Baghdad. For 6 weeks, I have been waiting patiently for the leadership 
of this House to recognize that what we all know is true: the United 
States is engaged in hostilities and carrying out sustained combat 
operations in Iraq and that it is time for the House to debate and vote 
on an authorization.
  Yesterday, this House voted to authorize training and equipping 
Syrian opposition forces. But we have yet to debate and vote on an 
authorization for the combat operations we are already carrying out in 
Iraq. Over 150 airstrikes--bombs falling nearly every day--in Iraq. And 
if that doesn't count as sustained combat, then I don't know what the 
hell does.
  I hear the Senate is drafting an authorization, but no such 
leadership is happening here in the House. The Speaker says he is 
waiting for the White House to send a request for an authorization to 
the House. But as I have said before, the President has stated that he 
thinks he has all the authority in the world that he needs or wants. It 
is Congress that is failing to carry out its constitutional 
responsibilities. It is Congress that is shirking its duties. It is 
Congress that is sniping from the sidelines while avoiding any 
responsibility for the servicemen and -women that we are placing in 
harm's way.
  In July, this House overwhelmingly passed a resolution that I 
offered, along with Walter Jones and Barbara Lee, requiring the House 
to vote on an authorization. And I have been waiting--patiently and 
respectfully--for the Speaker to schedule such a vote.
  Instead, this rule goes in the opposite direction, shutting down the 
ability of any Member to introduce a privileged resolution and allowing 
it to mature, as we set forth in the War Powers Resolution.
  Now, I understand that this restriction is often included when 
Congress is in recess for a prolonged period of time. But this time is 
different, Mr. Speaker, and every Member of this Chamber knows it is 
different.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Not only are we engaged in sustained combat operations 
in Iraq, but the President announced last week that he intends to 
escalate and expand those military operations, and quite likely extend 
them to Syria. This is a moment in history when the House should not 
and must not remain silent, let alone slink out of town. We have a 
responsibility to act.
  Until that happens, until we get an ironclad commitment from the 
leadership of this House that we will debate and vote on an 
authorization, then I would urge my colleagues to vote down this rule. 
We have a constitutional responsibility when it comes to war.
  Now, I don't believe we should go into another war, but whether you 
agree with me or you think we should launch into another war, we have 
an obligation, a constitutional responsibility, to debate and vote on 
that authorization. We are not doing that. I urge the Speaker to give 
us that commitment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts well understands that we handled a 
privileged resolution on the floor where there was a vote a little bit 
more than a month ago before the last break.
  What the gentleman wants to do is bring Congress back to come and 
grandstand on the floor for a privileged resolution during the break. 
The gentleman well understands the rules of the House, the privileges 
that he is given as a Member, and he knows that he has approached me 
numerous times, as well as the Speaker of the House, who has offered 
the gentleman every opportunity, under the rules of the House, that any 
Member would have.
  What this very clearly says is we will not start that clock while we 
are on recess. That is a normal and regular thing for the House to do, 
for the rules of this House to protect all the Members.

[[Page 15038]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I see no reason to. The gentleman just had time and 
spoke his words. I thank the gentleman very much.
  At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather 
Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Each year, Washington imposes thousands of pages of rules and 
regulations on America's private sector employers, as well as State and 
local governments. Buried in those pages are costly Federal mandates 
that make it harder for businesses to hire and cash-strapped States, 
counties, and cities to serve their citizens.
  There are some who may not understand why a bill to improve the 
regulatory process is also a bill about jobs. As a former small 
business owner, I understand firsthand the concerns job creators have 
about how lengthy, confusing rules affect their ability to conduct 
business and provide jobs and opportunities to their employees.
  That is why I introduced H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information 
and Transparency Act, which we call UMITA, and am glad to see it 
included in H.R. 4, the Jobs for America Act.
  The bill builds upon the bipartisan 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act, also known as UMRA, and will ensure awareness and public 
disclosure of the cost--in dollars and jobs--that Federal dictates pose 
to the economy and local governments.
  H.R. 899, as included in H.R. 4, does not seek to prevent the Federal 
Government from regulating. Rather, it seeks to ensure that its 
regulations are deliberative and economically defensible.
  Asking regulators to thoroughly consider and understand the costs of 
a rule in addition to its benefits should not be controversial--it is 
just plain common sense.
  Regulators and legislators should know exactly what they are asking 
the American people to pay and whether the cost of compliance might 
make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat.
  And no government body--on purpose or accidentally--should skirt 
public scrutiny when jobs and scarce resources are at stake.
  In the nearly 20 years since UMRA's passage, weaknesses in the law 
have been revealed, weaknesses that some government agencies and 
independent regulatory bodies have exploited.
  UMITA makes independent regulatory agencies subject to UMRA's 
requirements, ending a two-tier system that allowed regulations to be 
implemented without the required consideration, scrutiny, or public 
input.
  H.R. 899 recognizes that the Federal Government's reach extends way 
beyond the taxes it collects and the money it spends. Regulations can 
advance government initiatives without using tax dollars.
  Rather than count expenses for new programs, the government can 
require the private sector, as well as State and local governments, to 
pay for Federal initiatives through compliance costs.
  This bill shines much needed light on the murky regulatory process 
and ensures the public has transparent access to proposed rules and 
regulations.
  Both Democrats and Republicans recognize that appropriate regulations 
don't need to be issued in the dead of night or negotiated behind 
closed doors. That is why the House passed H.R. 899 with bipartisan 
support earlier this year.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I won't need 1\1/2\ minutes, but I want to be clear for Members. The 
privileges that are afforded to Members of this House to vote on the 
war, those privileges are taken away by this rule.
  I want to assure the gentleman from Texas, my colleague and my 
friend, that I am not interested in grandstanding, and any such a 
suggestion I find offensive, quite frankly. What I am interested in is 
us doing our job.
  And I want to remind my colleagues that war is a big deal. It is a 
big deal, and it is long past time that this House treated it as such. 
We have a constitutional responsibility that we are not living up to.
  We voted in July overwhelmingly to say that if there are sustained 
combat operations in Iraq we are going to have a vote on that. Well, 
there are sustained combat operations in Iraq. We are much more deeply 
involved today than we were in July. And I predict by the time we come 
back in November we will be even more deeply involved.
  When are we going to do our job? When are we going to vote? That is 
what my complaint is about, I would say to the gentleman from Texas. My 
complaint is that we are not living up to our constitutional 
responsibilities.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With great respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I appreciate 
his insistence on the floor and respect that very much.
  I think that this House is, respectfully, doing its obligations and 
duties. That is what we are doing here today, trying to work with the 
American people so that we can once again move a jobs package forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman for 
yielding.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this rule and the underlying 
legislation, which I support, because included in the underlying 
legislation is H.R. 1493, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and 
Settlement Act, that I authored.
  I support these bills that the House will debate and vote on because 
they will make a difference in the lives of and make them more 
affordable for families in Georgia and all across America.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, the Republican solutions that are offered in 
these bills that are being brought to the floor today are solutions for 
moms and dads who can't find full-time employment, who can't afford to 
buy a full tank of gas, who sit down at the kitchen table with a heavy 
heart because they can't afford the basics that they just heard their 
child talk about that they wanted.
  Mr. Speaker, America is searching for the things that matter. They 
are wanting their government to work and they are wanting their 
government to put ideas to paper. It is not the ideas simply spoken on 
the floor, but it is the ideas and the dreams and the hopes of every 
family as they come together wanting a better life, and they want the 
government not to impede those areas and actually to encourage them.
  These bills don't represent just the hard work of my colleagues. They 
represent the hopes and dreams of Americans who have given up on our 
government.
  House Republicans stand united with one goal: to restore what has 
been lost. To restore the jobs, the affordable housing, the quality 
education, the ability to start a business in your home and to see it 
flourish.
  I support these bills to expand domestic energy production because 
each job it creates equals a family that can put food on the table, buy 
school uniforms, and do the things that they want to do, not what 
government dictates.
  I am a Republican because I believe that government exists to help, 
not hinder its citizens. I support these solutions because I firmly 
believe every family in this Nation should be able to afford life and 
everything that it entails.
  Remember, our Founders said it is the pursuit of happiness, not a 
guarantee of happiness. And too many times coming from Washington we 
want to say we will guarantee your happiness. That is not what the 
Founders said. In fact, what the Founders said is the government will 
provide the

[[Page 15039]]

basis for you to go pursue your own happiness, to provide lifelong 
tools to those who have fallen on hard times, to help moms who are 
struggling to provide for their kids and have no one to help them. This 
is the type of government that I believe in, and this is the type of 
government Republicans in the House are committed to fighting for.

                              {time}  1245

  Unfortunately, many times what happens, I believe, is that the 
Republicans are the ones that have the ability and the track record to 
create a Federal Government who keeps our Nation safe from terrorism, 
who gives parents more control over their children's education, and 
encourages startups and businesses to grow and hire more and more 
people.
  Unfortunately, many times in our debates over priorities and jobs, we 
come and paint with broad strokes. We paint with broad strokes, saying 
that if you want to get government out of the business of hindering 
businesses through regulation after regulation after regulation--not to 
destroy quality of life, but to improve business and maintain both--
that you are simply destroying the things that built America.
  Those are broad strokes that the American people, Mr. Speaker, are no 
longer buying. They are no longer buying a government that simply gets 
in the way and does not encourage.
  I support these solutions on the floor today because I support a 
government that works, not a government that works against its people. 
The Republicans are putting forward on this floor today not just simply 
partisan bills that have been attacked, but these are bipartisan bills 
being put forward.
  I agree with many on the floor today, but it is time that the system 
work, and it is time for the United States Senate to work. If they 
don't like our ideas, they should put their own ideas on paper and send 
them back over, instead of hindering what is going on and having a 
debate that simply rounds up in this room right here, with friends on 
both sides of the aisle frustrated with the process.
  Before I came to Congress, I was a pastor. I am still a chaplain in 
the United States military. The greatest thing that I see for people 
today is that they have lost trust, unfortunately. They have broke a 
breach of faith with us.
  I believe when we decide that government should be about the people 
and for the people, then we are doing exactly what we are supposed to 
be doing; and that is to encourage, as our Founders said, the pursuit 
of happiness and not the guarantee of happiness.
  When we do that, Mr. Speaker, that is Republican principles at play, 
that is Republican solutions, and that is what these bills offer today.
  Don't buy the other argument. Buy the Republican principles that we 
will help those who need help, and that is the American citizen. That 
is what I believe in. That is the government I want to see work, not 
one that hinders people.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has 
any remaining speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for asking and would 
respond back that I do not have any additional speakers.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, the 
comprehensive immigration reform bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas yield for the 
purpose of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thought it was worth a try here to reduce the deficit by over $200 
billion, create several hundred thousand jobs for Americans, secure our 
border and restore the rule of law but, apparently, going on vacation 
on Friday is more important.
  These are likely the last votes that this Chamber will take before 
the election. Unfortunately, rather than move forward on protecting our 
borders, rather than move forward on reducing our deficit, rather than 
move forward on so many of the important national priorities we have, 
we are simply taking up bills that have already passed, reconsidering 
them under new and more sinister forms, and sending them nowhere at no 
time.
  These bills are not going to be law. They didn't become law last 
time. It is even harder for them to become law when they are packaged 
together in new and different ways. There is a word for this kind of 
legislative activity, and it isn't ``governing.'' It is called 
``pandering.''
  Rather than spinning our wheels, we should have taken up the 
bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. I was hoping that I 
could have gotten the permission under unanimous consent to bring that 
up. I am confident we have strong support from Democrats and 
Republicans in this body to pass that bill and to send it on into law.
  Unfortunately, more than a year after the Senate has passed 
immigration reform, the House still refuses to even allow a vote on our 
bipartisan immigration reform bill that secures our borders and 
restores the rule of law, reduces our deficit, and creates jobs for 
Americans; instead, the only votes the House has taken this year on the 
entire topic of immigration have been to subject DREAMers--who grew up 
here and know no other country--to deportation and send immigrant 
children fleeing violence back to their countries, where they face 
possible persecution or death.
  Rather than continuing to waste the American people's time and 
taxpayer money debating recycled measures over and over again, I wanted 
to give this body, through my unanimous consent request, one more 
opportunity to tackle an issue that will get larger and harder to deal 
with the longer we wait, and that is immigration.
  If there are 10 million people here illegally today, Mr. Speaker, if 
this body continues to object to every motion we make to bring up a law 
that would secure our borders and restore the rule of law, there is 
likely to be 15 million people here illegally in 10 years. You can 
count on it.
  This Nation deserves to have secure borders, we deserve to restore 
the rule of law, and we deserve to reflect our values as a Nation in 
our immigration system. I know we have the votes for this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to change their plans for tomorrow and, instead, 
allow us to come back and pass immigration reform so that we can 
finally solve this issue, reduce our budget deficit, create jobs for 
Americans, secure our border, and end this Congress on a positive note, 
a positive note of moving forward on solving an issue that the American 
people are screaming out for a solution to rather than rehashing and 
repackaging special interest bills into new and more sinister forms.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider six 
separate pieces of legislation that are true priorities for jump-
starting the middle class: the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Fair Minimum 
Wage Act, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, the 
Healthy Families Act, the Strong Start for America's Children Act, and 
the Bring Jobs Home Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
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 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat 
the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  I encourage us to stay here and address immigration reform so that we 
can solve this issue for our country, reduce our deficit, and secure 
our borders.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule, number 
76 and 77 of this Congress, allowing no allowed

[[Page 15040]]

amendments from either side, including the very reasonable all-of-the-
above energy amendments that I offered with my colleagues Mr. 
Perlmutter and Mr. Blumenauer that either would have eliminated oil and 
gas subsidies or provided a similar and corresponding subsidy for the 
production tax credit and wind energy, so at least it can compete on a 
level playing field with the oil and gas industry.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, we have heard a number of speakers not only on the Republican 
side, but also the Democrat side, talk about the issues that need to be 
addressed today.
  The Republican Party--the Republican majority--under the leadership 
of our great Speaker, John Boehner, has gathered together today a group 
of bills that have passed the House of Representatives, many of them 
with overwhelming majorities.
  We heard the gentleman from Oregon, Greg Walden, talking about the 
plight of the West--and not just in Oregon--where men and women who 
live in rural communities have found themselves losing their jobs as a 
result of the administration's policies of how they would treat their 
own natural resources.
  Mr. Walden, an Eagle Scout, just as I am an Eagle Scout, has the 
forestry merit badge. We understand healthy forests and how they can 
provide a product, a service, and enjoyment to the American people if 
well-managed; instead, this administration, because of their unwise 
management techniques, have allowed the West to burn down over the last 
5 years.
  At record levels, these forests and resources are up in smoke, not 
allowing those communities the opportunity to properly replant and take 
care of their own resources.
  What I would like to highlight, if I can, is the Tax Code of America 
and how America is increasingly becoming less competitive with the 
world as a result of President Obama's and the Democrats' insistence to 
continually raise taxes and stand in the way of allowing us to be 
competitive with the world.
  I would like to highlight, if I can, a chart here that comes from the 
Tax Foundation. They say America currently ranks 32nd among 34 major 
international nations in international tax competitiveness. This 
competitiveness, as you see here, starting at the very top, would find 
America 32nd out of 34th.
  What does this mean? This means that, at a time when economies around 
the world are growing, we are finding that our country is stuck at an 
average rate of 2.2 percent.
  We have other countries, for instance, like India, which has a 5 
percent growth; Russia has surpassed ours over the last 4 years; and 
China finds their GDP growth at 7.7 percent over the last 2 years; and 
we are finding that, quarter after quarter, American is even or below, 
only to ``roar'' back at a 2 percent level.
  Ladies and gentlemen, Members of the House, what the package on the 
floor today is about is to talk about our ability--America--to be 
competitive with the world so that America's businesses and America's 
employers find work not only in America but compete on a global basis.
  What Republicans are talking about today is a chance to have America 
gain back its footing, not with supremacy, but with competitiveness on 
a world stage, in a world market, where American products made by 
Americans--not just manufacturing, but other important intellectual 
properties--are sold to the world.
  When America is at its very best, we are leaders in not just freedom 
but also in economic opportunity, and it spurs competitors around the 
globe.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are about today in our closing is that the 
Republican Party, through our great Speaker, John Boehner, is sending a 
strong message to the American people that we in the United States 
House of Representatives recognize that for America to be competitive, 
for America's greatest days to be in our future, we must have a 
comprehensive view of not just the world and our competitiveness, but 
an opportunity for its citizens--as Congressman Collins has said 
today--to find work, to be entrepreneurial, and to move our country and 
the world forward. I believe that what we are talking about today makes 
a difference.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, ``yes'' on 
the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An amendment to H. Res. 727 offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 7. 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. 
     377) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 
     more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the 
     payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the joint 
     resolution are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the joint resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After 
     general debate the joint resolution shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the joint resolution for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the joint 
     resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the joint resolution 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 joint resolution, 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 joint 
     resolution.
       Sec. 8. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 377, 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. 
     1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. 
     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 Education and 
     the Workforce. 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. 9. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 1010, 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. 
     4582) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 
     for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for 
     other purposes. 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 among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
     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.

[[Page 15041]]

       Sec. 10. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 4582, 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. 
     1286) to allow Americans to earn paid sick time so that they 
     can address their own health needs and the health needs of 
     their families. 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 among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration, and the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 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. 11. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 1286, 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. 
     3461) to support early learning. 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 Education and the Workforce. 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. 12. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 3461, 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. 
     851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage 
     domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. 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 Ways and 
     Means. 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. 13. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 377, H.R. 1010, H.R. 4582, H.R. 1286, 
     H.R. 3461, or H.R. 851.
                                  ____


        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 Democratic minority 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.''
       The Republican majority may 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on 
this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________