Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2609, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do feel obligated to point out that the object under discussion currently is the rule that will allow us to debate the energy and water appropriations bill. The rule is an open rule. If the gentleman has disagreements with the language in the underlying bill, it's an open rule. He's free to bring those amendments to the floor, have a full and fair debate, both sides, one opposed, one in support; and the will of the House will prevail. That is the way it should be under an open rule.

Let me just state that I have, for the record, amendments that I will be placing before the House. I hope they're accepted, but I will accept the underlying bill even in the absence of those amendments. And I hope the gentleman from Colorado will approach it in a similar spirit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to respond to something that was said in the initial opening by the minority. The student loan bill passed this House over a month ago. It has been sitting in the Senate for the entire month of June. The problem with student loans could have been addressed by the other body. It could have been addressed prior to the July 1 deadline, which was a deadline, after all, that the Democrats had set when they were in the majority.

So to say that the House has not done its work is in fact not correct. The House has done its work. We await the other body to act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, again, just a bit of a history lesson.

In 2007, Democratically-controlled House, Democratically-controlled Senate passed the student loan rates. They built into the law an expiration date of last July. Last July, a 1-year extension was passed. This year, the Republican House passed a responsible extension. The Senate, the other body, needs to do its work. When they do, we're here to talk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I cannot recall a place in the Constitution where it says the House passes a bill, the Senate can't pass it, so the House comes back and tries to find a better bill that maybe the Senate will now take up. Boy, I wish that had happened on that health care stuff back in 2009 and 2010. We would have a lot better world today.

But the fact of the matter is, the House has passed the student loan bill and the Senate has the obligation to act. The deadline of July 1 was, in fact, provided to us by a funding cliff that the Democrats enacted back in 2007 when they started this process.

The deadline was self-imposed by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and a Democratic majority in the Senate. Democrats in the other body are fully aware of that deadline, we are fully aware of that deadline, and they were the ones that let it lapse. The House had done its work. They were fully capable of passing something and sending it back to us so that it could either be passed or adjusted prior to the July 4 recess.

In regards to the legislation we are currently considering, we do continue the Republican commitment to maintaining an open and transparent nature to the appropriations process. This rule balances our commitment to energy independence and national security with good stewardship of taxpayer money.

I want to, again, commend Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Kaptur for working together to craft a bill that balances our spending priorities with our concerns over the deficit and our climbing national debt.

At this point, I ask for an ``aye'' on the previous question and an ``aye'' on the underlying resolution.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 288 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 2. 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. 2574) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the current reduced interest rate for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans for 1 year, to modify required distribution rules for pension plans, 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 among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 2574.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source