Recognizing and honoring York for his role in the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1317 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1317.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1317 provides for consideration of H.R. 1286, the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order two germane Republican amendments that were submitted for consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee report.

The rule also provides for the adoption of a germane Rules Committee amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report to clarify that the bill does not in any way limit access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting along the trail.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

And, finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1286, amends the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

The trail extends approximately 600 miles, spanning nine States and the District of Columbia, tracing the routes taken by the armies under the command of General George Washington and French Count Rochambeau on their march from Newport, Rhode Island, to face the British forces under General Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia.

After meeting in Philipsburg, New York, the combined armies traveled through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the future District of Columbia before arriving in Virginia.

With a French fleet blocking the Chesapeake, barring British reinforcements from New York or a sea escape for Cornwallis' troops, the combined Continental and French armies' 3-week siege at Yorktown ended with General Cornwallis' surrender to General Washington on October 19, 1781.

Historians regard the Battle of Yorktown as one of the most decisive events in bringing an end to the American Revolution and the beginning of a new and independent Nation known as America.

H.R. 1286 is the carefully considered result of years of study by the National Park Service, which found that the trail is suitable and feasible for designation as a national historic trail.

I would add that H.R. 1286 includes specific language protecting private property rights, prohibiting the Federal Government from acquiring any land or interest in land without the consent of the owner.

In fact, the Park Service study found that ``no Federal acquisition of lands or interests in lands is proposed or anticipated.''

H.R. 1286 also states that nothing shall prohibit or hinder the development, conveyance, or transmission of energy along the trail.

Finally, there is a Rules Committee amendment to the bill that would clarify that Federal designation of the trail has no impact on State and local laws governing hunting, fishing, or trapping, or recreational shooting. This language is nearly identical to language that has already overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives.

I would like to commend Chairman Rahall and Mr. Hinchey for bringing this widely supported legislation to the floor today so we can ensure that America's history is protected for future generations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my good friend, my colleague from Washington State, has once again leveled a litany of accusations and, as usual, the rhetoric does not equate with the reality that we see.

Let's take the attacks one by one. There were a total of five amendments submitted to this rule, all by Republicans. Three amendments were submitted by Mr. Bishop of Utah, one by Mr. Flake of Arizona, and one by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico. Two amendments were made in order, Bishop No. 1 and Pearce No. 4. Two amendments were not germane to the bill and ruled out of order by the Parliamentarian, Bishop No. 3 and Flake No. 5. The subject matter contained in amendment No. 2 by Representative Bishop was already being addressed by a self-executing provision in the rule which was based on language previously adopted in this House by a vote of 416-5, rollcall vote 171, with all Republicans, including my good friend from Washington, voting in favor of the amendment.

Let me take this opportunity to clear up what must be a further misunderstanding on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Contrary to what my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, would have us believe, the amendment was not the modified Bishop amendment. And I can assure you that the Rules Committee did not hijack any portion of the amendment submitted by our good friend and former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop). The provision in the rule was based on language passed on April 9, 2008 during consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, and it was done to address a concern that a number of Members had about the bill. The amendment was offered by Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania, was adopted with an overwhelming rollcall vote, as I said before, with every Republican voting in favor of the amendment. If you don't take my word for it, I would be happy to share the Rules Committee report from that bill, which contains the text of the amendment. And I have copies of the section of the Congressional Record that contain the debate and the vote on the Altmire amendment.

I also want to point out that the self-executing language in the rule is not an unusual or unprecedented procedure. It was done numerous times when the other side was in the majority, as my good friend from California (Mr. Dreier) alluded to in committee testimony on Tuesday. It's a legitimate tool available to address concerns in a bill.

The amendment that we are self-executing is nearly identical to the Altmire language. The Rules Committee believes that this language improves the bill. And it is entirely reasonable to self-execute language with a track record of overwhelming bipartisan support in the House. Those Members who don't like the language are perfectly able to vote against the rule.

Now the question of gas prices. Certainly this is an important issue that has been addressed by this House a number of times. We have seen oil climb to record $145 a barrel, and we have also seen big oil companies continue to post record profits. Let's go over a few of the points that have happened in the past years.

The President signed into law legislation including landmark provisions to make cars and trucks more fuel efficient and to promote more affordable American biofuels. That all happened because we passed it in this House and provided leadership on this. The new fuel standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels a day in 2020, one-half of the current U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf, and will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump.

The House also passed legislation to suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And just this week, the Speaker called on the President to unilaterally start releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to try and bring down the cost of oil on the world market, a very responsible proposal.

We have also voted to invest in home-grown American biofuels in the farm bill. We voted to provide tax incentives for renewable energies and energy efficiency and plug-in vehicles, and creating hundreds and thousands of green jobs. We further voted to reduce public transit fares for commuters pinched by the pump. We voted to crack down on oil price gouging, and in fact we're looking into more of that. We've directed the CFTC to use its full authority to curtail excessive speculation in the markets and other practices which may be distorting the energy market. In fact, the Ag Committee, as we speak, is meeting to look into this matter and plans another hearing tomorrow. We have voted to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and we have called on the repeal of subsidies to profit-rich Big Oil so we can invest in renewable energy futures.

Further, I think it's important for us, as Members, to look at who, in fact, is moving to block the lowering of our prices at the pump. A general blanket statement that we can make, that I have observed, is you put oil people in the White House and you can expect oil prices to go up. President Bush and Republicans have blocked virtually every step that we have tried to make to lower gas prices for the American people. Some of these steps have been:

Cracking down on oil price gouging, which was opposed by 140 Republicans the first time and 145 Republicans the second time, including all the Republican leadership.

The Democrats in the House proposed ``use it or lose it'' for oil companies holding permits and not drilling. There are 68 million acres that are available for lease right now and to be drilled upon. That use-it-or-lose-it provision that was sponsored by House Democrats was opposed by 176 Republicans.

The motion to hold OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans the first time and by 82 Republicans the second time, including most of the Republican leadership.

The proposal repealing subsidies to profit-rich oil companies and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency was opposed by 174 Republicans, including every member of the Republican leadership.

Increasing Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight authority to prevent manipulation of energy prices, which was in the farm bill, was opposed by 94 Republicans.

The Bush administration has vetoed or threatened to veto each and every one of these price control bills.

In addition, the Republicans have initially opposed suspending the Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve. And while the President signed it into law, it was only after issuing veto threats.

The President vetoed the farm bill twice, which included the CFTC provisions and the historic investment in American biofuels.

I mention all these in the context of my good friend from Washington bringing up that Mr. Clinton vetoed in 1995 a bill that was put forward on energy. The Republican Party in this House is

still blaming President Clinton for problems 13 years after the fact when they have been in control of this House and the Presidency for the last 7\1/2\ years for the Presidency and almost 14 for this House before we took over in 2006. I think it's time for us to understand who truly has culpability with this energy crisis that is at hand today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would love to point out to the gentleman that there were a number of self-executing provisions put into bills while the current minority was in the majority in the 109th Congress. There were a total of 44 rules with self-executing provisions.

Let me read just a few examples of the self-executing rules that the Republicans did when they were in the majority just to show that this is not a unique practice:

H. Res. 75, the rule on H.R. 418, the REAL ID bill, self-executed major changes in the bill to gain votes on the bill and the rule.

H. Res. 151, the rule for an Iraq/Afghanistan/tsunami relief bill, self-executed the totally unrelated REAL ID bill to the supplemental after final passage.

H. Res. 248, a rule on the budget resolution conference report, self- executed a new budget point of order against appropriations bills in order to get the conservative Republicans to vote for the conference report.

H. Res. 258, a rule on the conference report on the Iraq/Afghanistan/ tsunami emergency supplemental, contained a self-executing provision that authorized the Judiciary Committee to file a supplemental report on an extremely controversial report that had grossly mischaracterized votes taking place in the Judiciary Committee markup.

H. Res. 351, one rule, provided for separate consideration of four OSHA bills, each under a closed rule, and then self-executed language for two of the bills adopting the committee-reported substitutes. The rule also had a self-executing provision that combined all four bills into one text after passage of each bill separately.

H. Res. 365, a State Department authorization rule, self-executed an amendment that struck a section of the bill.

H. Res. 369, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization rule, made in order an entirely new substitute as base text.

H. Res. 387, a China trade rights enforcement rule, self-executed a new text that was considered under a closed rule.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that my colleagues doth protest too much.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to observe once again that this Congress has approved and authorized 66 million acres for exploration and leasing throughout this country. Now, that may be hard for some folks to visualize that amount of property, so let's talk about it in something that people understand, the size of States.

Sixty-six million acres is virtually the size of New England, including New Jersey and Maryland and Delaware. That is the size of land that we have opened up to exploration. Can we do more? Possibly. Are there other alternatives? Absolutely. The Speaker this week proposed trying to bring down prices by opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That might actually bring down the cost of oil, and all we've gotten from the White House is a blanket ``absolutely not.''

Madam Speaker, there are a number of measures that this House has moved to try and bring down oil prices and bring relief to the American people. We started in our 6 for '06 with H.R. 6 that tried to bring down oil prices before it was ever even a crisis because we anticipated that this might be a problem. I would also suggest that it has been said that over 90 percent of the Bush-Cheney oil energy policy has been implemented by the prior 109th Congress and the Republican Congresses before that. Mr. Bush got 90 percent of what he wanted for American energy and we have this crisis. I submit to you what we need is a change at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to try and regain energy independence and with a change there we may just do that.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

We have no more speakers.

I am, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to clarify for my colleague from Washington. Once again, he sort of mischaracterized what is happening in the House of Representatives with regard to the work that we are doing to lower gas prices.

I would invite the gentleman to join me in the Ag Committee as I leave this chamber today and go to hearings that will be going on all afternoon in the Ag Committee to get to the bottom of the trading issues that might be leading to increased speculatory problems that are possibly causing increased gas prices and the hearings that we are going to have in the Ag Committee all day tomorrow with regard to the same subject. There are a number of us that will be working very hard the next 2 days to try and resolve to get to the bottom of this crisis.

Madam Speaker, I want to refer back to the bill at hand. We have gotten way far afield of what the topic was of discussion for this rule, and that is the National Trail System Act. That act was put in place 40 years ago to provide for the conservation of historic and culturally significant areas.

I think there is no more deserving historic designation than the one commemorating our Nation's struggle for independence. The bill that we are talking about deserves strong support by all Members of the floor. It's a good bill done by the Natural Resources Committee and chairman, Mr. Rahall, bringing it to the floor. I would urge that we support it heartily.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1317 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2208) to provide for a

standby loan program for certain coal-to-liquid projects. All

points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one

hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce, and the chairman and ranking member of the

Committee on Science and Technology; and (2) an amendment in

the nature of a substitute if offered by Representative

Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which shall be

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40

minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and

an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, last week on July 4, our country celebrated its 232nd birthday, and this week the liberal majority in the House of Representatives marks the worst record in our country's entire history when it comes to allowing open debate, following the rules, treating each Member with respect, and acting in an honest way.

When control of the U.S. House changed a year ago last January, Democrat leaders promised, they promised, Madam Speaker, the American people that they would run the most open and honest House in history. They've not

kept that promise. In fact, they've done the exact opposite of what they promised the American people.

Democrats have passed, to date, 59 closed rules, rules that prevent every single Representative from even being allowed to offer an amendment on the House floor. There are no amendments, Madam Speaker, allowed under a closed rule, as you know. That means open deliberation is nonexistent, and the bill is just forced through the House.

These 59 closed rules are more than any Congress in the history of the United States, and every time we have a closed rule in the future, and we will, this liberal Congress will be setting a new record.

The rule that the House is currently debating allows only two amendments to be offered by just two Members of the House. It closes off any opportunity for the other 433 Representatives to come to the floor and offer an amendment to modify or improve this legislation.

Even more egregious is the fact that the Rules Committee set a deadline of 10 a.m. last Tuesday for Members to file amendments they may wish to offer on this bill. Yet, it wasn't until 4 hours later, 2 p.m. on Tuesday, that the actual bill and report were filed in the House.

But this pales in comparison to the Rules Committee action regarding an amendment that Mr. Bishop of Utah filed actually before the 10 a.m. Tuesday deadline.

Mr. Bishop's amendment was aimed at protecting the second amendment rights of Americans along the new 600-mile trail that this bill would create. Instead of allowing Mr. Bishop to offer his amendment on the House floor, the Democrat Rules Committee took Mr. Bishop's amendment, altered it, then automatically added it to the bill without ever, ever consulting Mr. Bishop. This is not only an offense to Mr. Bishop, it is a threat to every Member in the House.

Because Democrat leaders refuse to allow open debate under an open rule on the House floor, Members have only one way to get an amendment looked at, and that is for them to offer and submit an amendment to the Rules Committee for advance review.

But now, Madam Speaker, it appears that all Members must be aware that the Rules Committee may take, co-opt, edit or otherwise pilfer and steal their amendments and ideas. Sadly, Representatives of this House may need to get a copyright on their amendments before submitting them to the Rules Committee.

Now, Madam Speaker, to many across America this may seem like legislative inside baseball or petty parliamentary quarrels. But what this is really about is that the Democrat leaders are breaking their promise to the American people to run the most open and honest House in history. Instead, they are running the most closed and unfair House in our Nation's history.

Yet, Madam Speaker, these broken promises should not distract us from the even more pressing matter on which Democrat leaders have also broken their promise. It was on April 24, 2006, that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a press release claiming that the House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Two weeks later, in May 2006, Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.''

Nancy Pelosi has now been Speaker of the House for over 18 months, and this plan, this promised plan, is nowhere to be seen. Gas prices continue to set record highs, and this House has been and continues to be blocked from voting on legislation that would lower gas prices by producing more American-made energy.

Today, instead of voting on legislation to lower gas prices, the House is debating the bill to create a new 600-mile long scenic trail recognizing the Revolutionary War.

Speaker Pelosi and other liberal leaders who control this House may oppose drilling in Alaska or offshore, they may oppose more nuclear power, they may oppose hydropower dams, and they may oppose other ways of making more American-made energy--and holding these positions, of course, is their right as Members of this House--but they should not, Madam Speaker, have the right to block the House from even having a debate and a vote on this important issue.

Record gas prices are hurting Americans. It's hurting families. It's hurting seniors on fixed incomes. It's hurting college students. It's hurting small business owners and their enterprises. It's hurting schools who have to figure out how and what services to reduce to afford gasoline for their school buses. Yet these liberal leaders of this House refuse to allow an open debate on ideas to lower gas prices. They continue to block votes on drilling for oil in America that will increase supply and lower prices at the pump.

Madam Speaker, our Nation needs to invest in more nuclear power. We need to invest in more clean and renewable hydropower, as well as wind and solar energy, and we need to foster development of biofuels, hydrogen fuel cell technology, and the invention of other potential clean energy products.

Yet, Madam Speaker, we must recognize the fact that gasoline and diesel cannot be replaced overnight. New technologies and energy sources take time, sometimes years or decades to fully develop. Our economy is dependent on oil for Americans to get to work, for food to go from the farmer's field to the grocery store, to get kids to school safely and back home, to deliver the mail, to fly airplanes, to operate construction equipment, for police to patrol neighborhoods, and ambulances to transport patients.

The price of gas has an enormous impact on the lives of Americans and families in every town, in every county, in every State in this country.

Madam Speaker, I spent last week visiting school districts and small businesses throughout my central Washington district.

I listened to the heavy impacts that gas prices are having on my constituents in Yakima, Wenatchee, Cashmere, Moses Lake, Orondo, Richland, Union Gap and Pasco. Madam Speaker, the message I heard was loud and clear, that Americans are hurting because of high gas prices and this Congress needs to act. Americans can't afford a Congress that does nothing to increase the supply of American-made energy. If there is price gouging, Madam Speaker, it must be fully prosecuted. If speculators are trying to unfairly profit, we must stop them, also. And yet we must also tap into America's enormous oil and gas reserves.

We have the resources right here in this country that can increase the supply of oil and reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, but our Nation's deep reserves have been put off-limits. With the national price of gas well over $4 a gallon--and it's over $4.29 a gallon in my district--Americans can't afford this off-limits policy any longer.

Madam Speaker, consider this: Alaska's ANWR region contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil; that's more than twice the proven reserves in the State of Texas. The oceans off America's coastline contain 240 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. Federal lands contain an estimated 31 billion barrels of oil. Simple economics tells us that the way to combat rising prices due to high demand is to increase the supply, and obviously it is to tap into these known resources. Yet proposals to increase American oil and gas production have faced years of opposition. Drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR in Alaska, for example, has been blocked since President Bill Clinton vetoed a like proposal back in 1995, and we are now paying the price.

It's time to stop saying no to solutions and start saying yes, not only to drilling for gas and oil, but to all parts of the answer, as I mentioned this previously, so let me repeat what I said earlier.

We need to license and build more American refineries. We need to expand wind, solar, hydrogen fuel cells and other new energy sources, reduce fuel blend mandates that increase costs, and invest more in nuclear and hydropower.

Now, Madam Speaker, it's interesting, some say we shouldn't bother because all of this will take years to produce results. Yet these same people claim that the answer is new Federal mandates, government control of the kind of car you want to drive and how far you can drive it, and pinning everything on the hope that a new technology breakthrough will eliminate

our dependence on oil. But Madam Speaker, that, too, takes time. But more importantly, such a course of action is not the American way, and it's a dangerous gamble that puts our economy at serious risk. We need to increase the supply of oil to decrease the price of gasoline, it's as simple as that. And we need to do it here in America. The longer we postpone producing more oil here, the longer we will pay higher gas prices.

Americans are hurting, and yet there is not a single solitary piece of legislation that this House will consider this entire week that even remotely relates to producing more American-made energy and lowering gas prices.

Americans are feeling the pain, and the liberal leaders of the House simply are not listening. They not only do nothing to help, but they block every attempt made to bring legislation to the floor that would help lower gas prices.

So, Madam Speaker, once again, I will attempt this morning to bring energy legislation to the House floor for debate and vote. If my colleagues will join me in defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow a debate and vote on legislation that will help produce more American-made energy. The House apparently has time to debate the creation of the 600-mile trail about the Revolutionary War, so let's make time for the House to vote on solutions to lower gas prices.

Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my good friend from California mentioned CAFE standards as one solution to the problem. CAFE standards, by a law that was passed here, would not take place until 2020. We can drill and produce in ANWR before 2020.

My friend also said that I made a litany of accusations and that the facts don't match the rhetoric. Well, the fact is--and he didn't refute the fact--that we've had 59 closed rules, and that is unrefutable. And I also mentioned that there was not an energy bill on the floor of the House this week; that is also irrefutable.

Madam Speaker, I want to yield 4 minutes to a good friend from Utah, a former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop.

Madam Speaker, we acknowledge that there is a practice of self-executing rules. That's been done. Principally they are done, however, on technical grounds but admittedly they are done on substantive pieces of legislation. But the fact is already in this Congress there have been more self-executed amendments by this Democrat Rules Committee than there was in the entire last Congress. Already. And we still have 6 months to go before this session is over.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend from California, the gentleman from

the Sacramento area, the former attorney general, Mr. Lungren.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, can I inquire of my friend from California if he has any more speakers, or he is prepared to close?

The gentleman is prepared to close if I close?

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering gas prices. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow the House to consider a bill that will help produce more American-made energy, H.R. 2208, introduced by Mr. Boucher of Virginia and Mr. Shimkus of Illinois, the cosponsors of that bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, this House is on a course to complete its work by early this afternoon. The only legislation the House is even considering is this bill to consider a 600-mile scenic trail about the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow, the House won't even be in session. The House was originally scheduled to be in session, working tomorrow, but that was canceled yesterday.

The Democrat leaders of this House are choosing to do nothing for a day and a half, today and tomorrow, that was scheduled, and of course, do nothing about gas prices. They decided to just stop working and go home early rather than vote on legislation to lower gas prices by producing more American-made energy.

The House needs to confront the skyrocketing price of gasoline. It shouldn't be clocking out early and calling it a week. It's time right now for Congress to act on gas prices.

So, once again, Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to take up serious legislation, bipartisan legislation, to bring down gas prices at the pump.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I am going to support the bill at hand because it is the only way we can implement what we just did.

I want to thank my friends on the other side. I know this is a complex rule. It is unfortunate we had to go through the machinations we did to get where we are, but this was a historic vote today as we propel legislation along the great ark of our Nation's history as the world's most vibrant experiment in representative democracy.

Two hundred six years ago this month, Thomas Jefferson became the first President to take his oath in what was called the Federal City here in Washington. But through the confluence of circumstances and accident, the great compromise that birthed our Constitution and put the Nation's Capital here also produced a grotesque injustice we have so far been unable to right. Today is a time for another great compromise.

The capital of the free world doesn't provide full voting representation for residents. In fact, that has been true for too long, but today we have started the process of correcting an unhappy legacy left by the first Congresses.

I have discovered over the last 4 years that there are substantial myths surrounding the founding of Washington, DC, so I want to take a few minutes today to lay out the facts of how the city became what it is.

The idea for a Federal district arose out of an incident that took place in 1783 while the Continental Congress was in session in Philadelphia. When a crowd of Revolutionary War soldiers who had not been paid gathered to protest outside the building, the Continental Congress requested help from the Pennsylvania militia. The State refused, and the Congress was forced to adjourn and reconvene in New Jersey.

After that incident, the Framers concluded there was a need for a Federal district under solely Federal control for the protection of the Congress and for the territorial integrity of the capital. So the Framers gave Congress broad authority to create such a Federal district and broad authority to govern such a place. That is the limit of what the Framers say about a Federal district in the Constitution, that there should be one, and that it should be under congressional authority.

After ratification of the Constitution, one of the first issues to face the new Congress was where to place the Federal District. Some wanted it in New York. Others wanted it in Philadelphia. And others wanted it near George Washington's home on the Potomac.

These sectional factions fought a fierce political battle to decide the matter because they believed they were founding a great city, a new Rome. They expected this new city to have all the benefits of the great capitals of Europe. They never once talked about denying that city's inhabitants the right to vote.

Finally, Jefferson brokered a deal that allowed the city to be placed on the banks of the Potomac in exchange for Congress paying the Revolutionary War debt. New York got the debt paid, Philadelphia got the capital for 10 years. Then, as now, those political decisions were shaped by the issues of the day.

In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act in which the right to vote was given to those residing in the new District. But while the capital was being established, those living here were permitted to continue to vote where they had before, in their States, on the Maryland side in Maryland, on the Virginia side of the District in Virginia.

The seat of government officially moved in 1800. In his final address to the Sixth Congress, less than a week after it took up residence in the new Federal District, President John Adams reminded Members, ``It is with you, gentlemen, to consider whether local powers over the District of Columbia vested by the Constitution in Congress shall be immediately exercised.'' That one statement explains the nature of the debate to follow.

Once again, the issues of the day shaped the actions of Congress. The political parties couldn't come to an agreement. Imagine that. The Federalists wanted to ensure a strong central control over the city. Anti-Federalist Republicans wanted to limit authority and distrusted all things urban.

With Jefferson and his Republicans preparing to take control of the Presidency and Congress, a pervasive atmosphere of crisis compelled the Federalists into action. If a bill was not passed before Jefferson took over, it would never pass.

Eventually, the Congress passed a stripped-down version of a bill authored by Virginia Congressman ``Light Horse Harry'' Lee. It simply stated that the laws of Virginia and Maryland then in effect, having been superseded in the District, would still apply.

We may never know why this version was passed because no records survived, but there is absolutely no evidence the Founding Fathers, who had just put their lives on the line to forge a representative government, then decided the only way to secure that government was to deny representation to some of their fellow citizens.

One historian aptly described the process as a ``rushed and improvised accommodation to political reality, necessitated by the desperate logic of lame-duck political maneuvering.'' But the inelegant compromise ultimately adopted left a decidedly undemocratic accident in its wake. District residents had no votes in Congress.

This wasn't, and is not, merely a quirk of history that affects very few people. The problem affects the very

reputation of our entire Nation. Foreign visitors I have met comment with puzzlement on the lack of voting representation in the Nation's Capital. I heard it from the mayor of Hong Kong when we were discussing his relationship with China.

Over the next few weeks and as this moves to the other body, we have to agree on this principle. So we have taken important action today.

Our very practical Founding Fathers left us a tool in the Constitution to deal with future problems. The District Clause in the Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 17, is there for a reason. Congress reaches its zenith of power in dealing with issues relating to the District.

Over the years, Congress has exercised its power to treat the District as a State when necessary, to ensure that the citizens of the city have substantially the same rights as all other Americans. Surely Members should resolve any difference of opinion they may have in favor of our authority to use that plenary power to provide residents with full voting representation.

Scholars spanning its political and legal spectrum have concluded, as I do, that Congress has authority through this legislation to provide voting representation in Congress for local residents. What was done by statute in 1790, and then undone by statute in 1800, can be redone by statute today.

This is often called the ``People's House,'' and rightly so. Article I, section 2, sets forth that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States.''

That same language, ``People of the several States,'' among the several States, is why the District of Columbia pays Federal taxes, even though it applies to people of the several States.

The sixth amendment's right to trial by jury, even though it says that it will be an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall be committed, has been applied to the District.

Prohibiting district laws which interfere with interstate commerce among the several States, Congress has applied that to the District of Columbia and the courts have upheld it.

Treat the District as a State for purposes of full faith and credit. That talks about States and the Constitution. But under the District clause, we have included the District of Columbia.

Grant people who live in the District the ability to sue people. Diversity of jurisdiction again applies to States, between citizens of different States under the Constitution, but under the District clause we have applied that by statute.

This body has taken an historic step today. I want to thank my colleagues who worked toward this, including my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, who supported this. But to continue this, we need to support the issue at hand, the bill that is currently on the floor under the PAYGO legislation.

It is kind of a jurisdictional morass, but I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering legislation that, in my view, represents the first brick in a Chinese wall of tax increases.

Generating revenue by assuming that Americans with more than $5 million in income will increase their annual withholding by one-tenth of 1 percent simply makes a mockery of PAYGO.

The majority is exploiting a statistical quirk in the way that the Joint Tax Committee does its revenue estimates, and will have accountants, not normally known for their high spirits and good humor, roaring with laughter all over the country.

Perhaps, in the aggregate, there are enough people in America making more than $5 million who will pay an extra $2,000 in estimated taxes to raise revenues as much as anticipated, but this seems more likely to be an instance where the Joint Tax Committee's scoring rules and common sense have dramatically parted ways.

If the Judiciary Committee thinks the companion bill to create a new Member from Utah and add voting rights to a Member from the District of Columbia is such a good idea, surely they could have found some program within their jurisdiction to trim by an offsetting amount. And they didn't find a user fee in their jurisdiction to increase by just a few dollars.

In fact, despite the fact the Democratic majority created a budget that includes more than $2 trillion in spending, they could not even trim $3 million from that total to pay for this rather modest initiative. To put this in perspective, the majority could have offset this bill by reducing entitlement spending by just two ten-thousandths of a percent.

By not going down that route, this bill confirms what we have all suspected: the Tax Code is going to be the ATM machine that pays for all of the new majority's fondest initiatives. The bill today may be cheap in total dollar terms, but we will not be so lucky the next time around.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in my view, H.R. 1906 represents what will be the first of a series of bizarre revenue raisers, Rube Goldberg devices, and tax gimmicks to be trotted out to pay, first for small things, and then pay for the demands of the majority's budget, which includes the largest tax increase in American history, nearly $4 billion over 5 years.

It also demonstrates that the majority's PAYGO promise that new entitlement spending could be offset with entitlement spending cuts is hollow and cynical. If they can't even find $3 million of entitlement savings for this bill, can we expect them to pay for their new programs with anything other than a significant tax increase ultimately on the middle class?

This makes even traditional budget gimmicks, like putting routine spending into an emergency spending bill, or bypassing the budget resolution by using ``advanced appropriations'' look pristine by comparison.

The process for this bill's consideration is flawed, deeply and fundamentally. It did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means. This is another example of the new majority ignoring their own promises for regular order.

The procedure, Mr. Speaker, for considering the broader issue of expanding the House of Representatives itself is deeply flawed. The example being set today that you can split a bill into separate elements so as to limit what amendments and motions will be germane is the triumph of form over substance.

The proposal before us only adds more complexity to the Tax Code. And think about this: if you thought filling out your taxes wasn't tough enough, our friends on the other side of the aisle are raising the level of difficulty to complicate the code and increase the risk that an inadvertent error will have the IRS demanding interest on your underpayment.

At least it is better than the last version of this proposal, which generated an even more ludicrous $3 million by raising the safe harbor amount for people with incomes over $150,000 by just three one- thousandths of a percent.

Mr. Speaker, this is a flawed bill. It is a silly exercise. And I think it is appropriate that we vote it down.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, may I reclaim my time? And instead allow the leader on his own time to pose those sorts of questions.

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, it is my time and I will allow the gentleman from Wisconsin to yield to the leader on the leader's time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, it would be my privilege now to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to yield 5 minutes to a gentleman who brings marvelous expertise to any tax debate, who is entitled to wear a green eye shade if he chooses, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just briefly yield myself 15 seconds to thank the last speaker for her eloquence and her marvelous remarks and to say that I am very proud to stand with her today as one of the 22 who voted for the preceding bill. I am very proud of the fact that at a time when we are debating the needs of democracy all over the world that we have taken the time in the House to move forward to correct an anomaly in our own representation and create an opportunity for the gentlelady who has for many years so well represented the District of Columbia to have an opportunity fully and legally to vote on the floor, representing her people.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I do have one other speaker who has appeared, and one who has made an immense contribution to the debate on the previous bill. So it is my privilege now to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you it is a privilege to be on the floor today to play a role in having passed the last bill which our last speaker spoke about with great eloquence. It is a real privilege to be here with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who certainly has had a long career of fighting for people's voting rights and civil rights. It is great to look across the floor and see former Secretary Jack Kemp, a 20-year veteran of this institution, present here today.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle, I voted for the last bill, and as a strong supporter of tax simplification and fiscal responsibility, it is my privilege to vote against the bill that is before us at this moment, which is a procedural grotesque, a gimmick, a trick, a ploy, a ruse, and one that I think represents the poorest of possible tax policies.

I ask my colleagues to vote this bill down and send a clear message that we don't support this kind of chicanery on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 317, I call up the bill, (H.R. 1906) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the estimated tax payment safe harbor based on income for the preceding year in the case of individuals with adjusted gross income greater than $5 million, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 1906. No one, but no one will pay more taxes under the bill. It merely ensures that multi-millionaires don't add to our tax gap.

The bill changes in a very minor way estimated tax payments made by wealthy individuals with incomes of more than $5 million a year. It makes a technical timing change to tax payments made by these individuals. They do not pay more taxes. H.R. 1906 is critical to the pay-as-you-go pledge of this Congress.

I am pleased to have supported H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. For 207 years, Washington, D.C. residents have paid Federal taxes, and for 207 years they have had not a voting representative in the United States Congress.

The right to vote is precious. It is sacred. It is the cornerstone of our democracy.

Americans sacrificed everything for this right. They were harassed, beaten, jailed and even killed for the right to vote.

Not so long ago, many of my friends, many of my colleagues lost their lives. There are many more faceless, nameless heroes who suffered and sacrificed for this basic right.

How can we preach this principle around the world and not practice it here in our Nation's Capital? It is the foundation of our democracy.

So I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1906.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give Members 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 1906.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Congressman Hill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I don't understand it, Mr. Speaker, how my colleague, my friend, my brother from Georgia can come here and state in an open way that this is the most oppressive Congress. We have only been in the majority for 4 months, 4 short months, not quite 4 months. You really don't believe that.

Yes, I will yield to my friend.

Let me say to my friend from Georgia, I think it was a good and a necessary rule.

I will no longer yield.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is an historic day. This is a wonderful day for the people of the District of Columbia.

I first came to Washington, Mr. Speaker, in May of 1961 to go on something called the Freedom Rides. It was impossible for blacks and whites to board a Greyhound bus or Trailways bus here in the District of Columbia, and travel together through Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, into Mississippi and to New Orleans.

I came back here in 1963 at the age of 23 with Eleanor Holmes Norton, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, to participate in the March on Washington. To be here and see Jack Kemp, an old friend, former colleague, on this day is a great day.

So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1906. And I want to make it plain and crystal clear that no one, but no one, will pay more taxes under this bill. It changes in a very minor way estimated tax payments made by wealthy individuals. This bill does not increase their taxes. It would affect only 4,000 multimillionaires. It is only a tiny change.

Yes, I am going to say it again: I am pleased to have supported H.R. 1905. Today is the day for Washington, D.C. residents to realize the dream that so many take for granted. The 200-year wait is over. The 200-year wait is over.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1906.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

Rules From the 109th That Added Text of House-Passed Bills to

Underlying Bill

H. Res. 151 rule for H.R. 1268, 3/14/05, 7:30 p.m., Making

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005--a.k.a.

Iraq/Afghanistan/Tsunami Relief.

Open: waives all points of order against consideration;

waives points of order against bill for clause 2, Rule XXI

except two sections; provides for the text of H.R. 418 as

passed the House to be added to the end of H.R. 1268.

H. Res. 783 rule for H.R. 4975, 4/26/06, 11:20 p.m.,

Lobbying Accountability & Transparency Act of 2006--ethics

reform.

Restrictive: waives all points of order against

consideration; 1 hour general debate controlled by Majority &

Minority Leaders; makes in order Rules Committee 4/21/06

print in Part A of Rules' report and self-executes its

adoption; allows only those amendments printed in Part B of

the Rules' report as specified; waives all points of order

against amendments; after final passage adds text of H.R. 513

as passed the House (527 Reform bill) to H.R. 4975; provides

for consideration of Senate bill (S. 2349) and substitutes

House passed text and calls for conference; waives all points

of order against consideration of Senate bill and against

motion to strike and insert.

H. Res. 1100 & 1099 rules for H.R. 6406 and H.R. 6111, 12/

7/06, 10:30 p.m., To modify temporarily certain rates of duty

and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to

extend certain trade preference programs, and for other

purposes.

Closed: Consideration in the House; waives all points of

order against consideration; provides that in the engrossment

of H.R. 6111, the text of H.R. 6406 will be added at the end.

(H. Res. 1099) Provides for a motion to concur in the

Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of

H.R. 6408 for a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of

1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for

equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running

on the period of limitations while such claims are pending--

vehicle for tax extenders and more . . . .