Providing For Consideration Of Motions To Suspend The Rules
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES -- (House of Representatives - September 28, 2006)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1045 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman 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.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1045 provides that suspensions will be in order at any time through the legislative day of September 29, 2006. Further, it provides that the Speaker or his designee will consult with the minority leader or her designee on any suspension considered under the rule.
This is the last week before Congress will recess until November so that Members can return home and spend their time meeting and working with those that they represent. Currently, there are several necessary and noncontroversial bills that are waiting consideration by the House of Representatives. It is important that the House be able to consider these bills before adjourning.
The suspension authority provided in this resolution will ensure that Congress can complete some additional key work by allowing for consideration of a number of important bills through the legislative day of September 29, 2006.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, there have been several references today and in the past few days about the issue of the minimum wage. I think that we need to set the record straight as exactly what this House has done regarding that issue, because the issue has been around some time.
Before we went on our district work period in August, the week before we left at the end of July, this House did pass, did pass and sent over to the Senate, an increase in the minimum wage.
Yes, it was attached to other bills, or other issues. That is not anything that is unusual in this body. That goes on all of the time. But what were those other issues? Those other issues provided tax relief for certain Americans. One of that was sales tax deductibility, for example, for States that do not have an income tax. My State happens to be one of those. Broad support in both Houses of the Congress.
The other was the, not the elimination, but capping of the death tax. That has support in both Houses. It unfortunately does not have the required filibuster-proof support in the other body. But that was part of that tax bill.
There is also a provision for research and development tax credits to keep our economy moving. That has broad support in both Houses. That was part of that tax bill. And then there were some other provisions in that also.
Attached to that, yes, was the minimum wage. I voted for that. I have to say, Madam Speaker, I am not one that is generally in favor of the minimum wage. But I felt coupling that together with these other important measures to keep our economy going, to take care of those taxpayers in States that do not enjoy broad parity with other States, I thought it was important.
So if the issue then is to pass a minimum wage, it seems to me the message ought to be sent to the other body, because that bill is still waiting over there. All they have to do in the final days of this session is to stop the filibuster and pass that bill over there, and we will have the minimum wage increase that we keep hearing over and over and over.
So, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to set the record straight that this House has acted on that, and I think in a very responsible way.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I just want to touch on a couple of issues that were brought up here, and hopefully set the record straight as to what has happened.
There has been talk about Medicare. I just remind my colleagues that the Medicare legislation that had the prescription drug benefit was passed by a prior Congress. To be sure, it was put in place and implemented during this Congress, and that was done because we were really blazing new ground with that Medicare prescription drug reform and the Medicare reform in general. I might add, too, Madam Speaker, for 40 years when the other side controlled this body, there was no prescription drug benefits available at all for anybody on Medicare. So this was new ground, and we put into place, I think, some very innovative reforms that, frankly, have proven to have been very well accepted by people across the country.
I think the most important part of this Medicare reform was that we made it voluntary. It was not a mandatory program. To suggest that people once they turned 65 cannot make decisions, I think, is wholly underestimating senior citizens. In my district, for example, when the Medicare plan was fully put in place there were 30 plans to choose from in my district. Seniors had a number of choices. I had a forum where a number of seniors came up, asked questions and then made their decisions before the sign-up time. They will have another opportunity to sign up, again, of course in November.
While this program is only in place now for less than a year being implemented, by and large, across the country, it is being well accepted because it provides the coverage that was not available before, and I think that point needs to be emphasized.
I might add that when we reformed this program there was a lot of criticism about the cost of this program. Sure, anytime you have a Federal program, it is going to cost some money, but their substitute plan cost infinitely more than what our plan was that we put into place.
So I just wanted to set that record straight, and I think it is important.
Secondly, I want to talk a bit about border security and the overall war on terror. I just remind ourselves, earlier this month, we passed the 5-year time period when we were brutally attacked by terrorists on 9/11/2001, and let us remind ourselves, we have not been attacked in this country since that time. Other countries have faced international terrorism in London, in Spain, and in Indonesia comes to mind right off the top. Same people are behind this as international terrorist group.
So what we have done is to try to secure our country, and since we are involved in this war on terror, I think it is clearly in our best interests to try to engage them on their turf. We have been successful thus far, but as President Bush has said, this is going to be a long, long process, but keep in mind, there is no question that the ultimate target in this international war on terrorism is our way of life.
In response to that, we have secured our border. There is absolutely no question about that. In some cases, it was passed with bipartisan support, and in some cases, it was not, but the record, Madam Speaker, I think needs to be said, and that is that we are doing things to secure our border and make America safe.
The fact that we have not been attacked I think is credit to those that do that work to secure us on the homeland security, on the border, the first responders. They have all responded. Our intelligence community is much, much more robust than it was before and that has added to our security.
So, Madam Speaker, there has been a lot that has been accomplished in this Congress, and I think that we can go into this break before the elections with a very high head.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 1045 Providing for Motions To Suspend the Rules
At the end of the resolution add the following new Sections:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this resolution and without intervention of any point of order it shall be in order immediately upon adoption of this resolution for the House to consider the bills listed in Sec. 3:
Sec. 3. The bills referred to in Sec. 2. are as follows:
(1) a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
(2) a bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour.
(3) a bill to provide authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and people with disabilities.
(4) a bill to repeal the massive cuts in college tuition assistance imposed by the Congress and to expand the size and availability of Pell Grants.
(5) a bill to roll back tax breaks for large petroleum companies and to invest those savings in alternative fuels to achieve energy independence.
--
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-IIIinois) 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.''
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 to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/