Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this totally closed rule. As the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, I especially object to a very dangerous policy rider that could seriously threaten new job creation and economic growth across our entire country.

Section 429 of this bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw, with no public notice and no public comment, two rules established during the Bush administration that ensure the listing of the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act is not transformed into a vast new expansion of government power to impose greenhouse gas emission regulations on economic activity across America.

Section 429 empowers the Interior Department or a Federal judge to limit potentially any carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emission in all 50 States using the polar bear and the Endangered Species Act as a regulatory vehicle.

We all want to protect the polar bear. As the Washington Post editorialized last year, ``Though the polar bear deserves protection, the Endangered Species Act is not the means, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is not the agency to arrest global warming.''

By wiping out this rule under 429, any increase in carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emission would be subject to a potential lawsuit on the grounds that the action must first require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate emissions.

What emits greenhouse gases? I will name a few examples, Mr. Speaker. It's building a new factory in Pennsylvania or a new school on an Indian reservation, it's farming and cattle ranching. Most all of the shovel-ready projects on the trillion-dollar stimulus bill would, in fact, be at risk.

Democrats know section 429 is extremely controversial so they slipped this into this massive spending bill behind closed doors. Mr. Speaker, why the secrecy? The reason is obvious. Section 429 threatens the creation of new jobs in every State and can do real harm to our already troubled economy. This is a backdoor maneuver to warp the original purpose and intent of the Endangered Species Act to invent vast new climate change powers for the Federal Government to control economic activities.

Democrats claim section 429 is just an attempt to stop midnight rules completed at the end of the Bush administration. Yet, Mr. Speaker, these rules in the Bush administration were written in full compliance with the law. Democrats have written section 429 to say ``forget all the laws; forget public comment from the American people. We don't have to follow the laws. Just wipe these legal rules off the books that put jobs and our economy at risk.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to make note that last night the junior Democrat Senator from Alaska wrote to the Senate Democrat leadership expressing his deep concern and objections to this provision, the harm it could do to economic activity and that it should be removed from this legislation. That's exactly what we should be doing here today. And I ask my colleagues to support that action.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this measure, and I urge my colleagues to open up the omnibus appropriations bill to amendment.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, February 24, 2009.

Hon. Daniel Inouye,

Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Inouye: I write to express my serious concern

over Section 429 of the just-released House version of the

Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, H.R. 1005,

now being considered in the House of Representatives. This

section, which was included in the bill without any advance

notice, would provide significant new authority to the

Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to potentially overturn

two of the regulations the Bush Administration adopted under

the Endangered Species Act. One of the rules is the Polar

Bear Special 4(d) Rule, which has provided some much-needed

legal certainty to the application of the Endangered Species

Act to the North Slope of Alaska. The Secretary of the

Interior would have 60 days from the date of enactment of the

Omnibus Bill to withdraw or ``reissue'' the Special Rule for

the polar bear issued on December 10, 2008.

The language of Section 429 is attached. If Section 429 is

enacted as is, the Secretary would not have to comply with

any statutory or regulatory provision that would normally

affect such an action, including public notice or comments or

consultation requirements. Significantly, Section 429 also

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to ``reissue'' the

4(d) Rule for the Polar Bear. It is unclear what actions the

Secretary may take in reissuing the rule. While it is

possible that the Secretary would only be authorized to

reissue the Special 4(d) Rule as it was previously published,

under an alternative interpretation, the Secretary may be

able to issue a revised rule, with major changes, without

having to comply with the typical procedural requirements of

the Administrative Procedure Act or the Endangered Species

Act. The existing legislative history of the Omnibus Bill

does not explain how Congress intends the term ``reissue'' to

be interpreted. This lack of clarity will only cause more

legal uncertainty, in an area of law where litigation already

is rampant. Activities of numerous businesses operating in

Alaska, and of the Inupiat people of the North Slope, will be

caught in this void.

Additionally, there would be no ``incidental take''

protection if Section 429 is enacted and the polar bear 4(d)

Rule is withdrawn, without a similar Rule in its place.

Should the Secretary decide to withdraw the 4(d) Rule under

Section 429, the polar bear would remain listed as a

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Under

the Department of the Interior's regulations, the full range

of Section 9 prohibitions apply to all threatened species

unless a species is subject to its own Section 4(d) rule. As

such, the activities currently covered, and protected, by the

4(d) Rule would be at risk for incurring liability under the

Endangered Species Act, should a take of a polar bear occur.

This liability would extend even to minor, incidental impacts

on polar bears from otherwise entirely lawful activities.

This could endanger the public if a polar bear wanders onto a

North Slope playground or village. This liability risk will

remain until the Secretary promulgates new Section 4(d)

regulations for the polar bear. Under this section, the

protections built into the current 4(d) Rule could disappear

without a replacement 4(d) Rule in the works.

I see no valid public policy reason to inflict on the

people of the North Slope significant legal uncertainly and

potential liability under the ESA, by congressionally waiving

ordinary public notice and comment requirements that

routinely apply in virtually all other settings. The

inclusion of Section 429 is particularly disturbing in that

it effectively ``cherry-picks'' and exempts certain

regulations and has the effect of depriving the public of due

process. Irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with

the substance of rules adopted by the prior administration,

this action sets a bad precedent. If the current

administration disagrees with a rule previously adopted,

there exists a process by which the rule can be reviewed and

the notice and participation rights so citizens respected.

Finally, the underlying policy goal at issue here--using the

Endangered Species Act to regulate climate change--is far too

important a matter to be decided without debate as a non-

germane portion of an appropriations bill.

I understand that the House may move to strike Section 429

as an extraneous rider. If the motion to strike is not

adopted, I respectfully request your assistance and

leadership in seeking to omit the language from a Senate

bill, or seeking to have the language omitted from any final

House-Senate agreement.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this

important matter.

Sincerely,

Mark Begich,

U.S. Senator.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Two points. The reason this ruling came about was because of the listing of the polar bear and that the Bush administration started this process, which is required by law----

Will the gentleman yield?

There's probably some disagreement on the rule. But why not go through the regular process to change the rule? You're doing it without any regular process.

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding projects that I support for inclusion in the Department of Defense Appropriations bill and the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for FY 2009, which were included as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Amount: $800,000.

Account: Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard.

Entity receiving funds: HAMMER Training and Education Center located at 2890 Horn Rapids Road, Richland, WA 99354.

Description: Funds will be used to ensure that additional Civil Support Team (CST) and the Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear High-Yield Explosives Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP) units receive the training they need to respond to an attack using weapons of mass destruction.

Amount: $2.4 million.

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army.

Entity receiving funds: Infinia located at 6811 West Okanogan Pl, Kennewick, WA 99336.

Description: Funds will be used to provide the Army with power generation on the battlefield (a Sterling Tactical Cogeneration System or STaCS) that is small, efficient, quiet, low maintenance and reliable. This system is aimed at providing critical electricity needed by our troops on the battlefield.

Amount: $1.2 million.

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army.

Entity receiving funds: Moses Lake General Dynamics located at 9256 Randolph Road NE, Moses Lake, WA 98837.

Description: Funds will be used to provide the Army with non-lethal munitions to aid troops in the dispersion of the enemy while on the battlefield.

Amount: $3.2 million.

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

Entity receiving funds: Insitu located at 118 East Columbia River Way, Bingen, WA 98605.

Description: Funds will be used to provide the Navy with a Portable Launch and Recovery System that would allow small unmanned aerial vehicles to operate from Navy vessels.

Amount: $25 million.

Account: Research, Development and Operations--Laboratory Facilities.

Entity receiving funds: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory located at P.O. Box 999, Richland, WA 22352.

Description: Funds will be used to complete federal laboratory space critical to national security. The Lab supports the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding a project that I support for inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009.

I believe funding to clean up the Hanford site in Washington State, and the Department of Energy's other Environmental Management sites across the country, is a fundamental federal obligation, not an earmark as it is labeled in this bill. However, because it has been so labeled in the Committee report, I voluntarily submit to the House an explanation and justification of this funding in an effort to provide as much public disclosure as possible on congressionally directed funding and earmarks. The $10 million programmatic increase provided for in the bill will be used for the Department of Energy's Environmental Management program at the Hanford Site in Fiscal Year 2009. The entity to receive the funding is the U.S. Department of Energy located at 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585. The Federal Government has a legal and moral obligation to clean up the massive wastes and contamination it created at Hanford during the Manhattan Project, World War II and the Cold War. Funding to clean up Hanford is not a luxury sought by myself or my constituents, it is an essential responsibility of the United States government. The over 500- square-mile Hanford site is the world's largest and most complex environmental cleanup project, and the Federal Government must keep its commitment to clean it up. No matching funds are required.

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak today to pay tribute to Dr. Jerilyn McIntyre, the President of Central Washington University (CWU). Dr. McIntyre, who is the first female to serve as President of CWU, will retire at the end of this year after completing eight years of exceptional service to the students, faculty, and community of Central Washington University.

Since her appointment, CWU has experienced a period of incomparable growth and development. In fact, enrollment has increased by 27 percent. Dr. McIntyre has inspired academic advancement and diversity through the implementation of several initiatives. Specifically, the Performing Arts and Presidential Speaker Series, started in 2002, brings nationally renowned speakers and artists to CWU's campuses; providing unique opportunities for students to learn about various ideas, art and cultures. Dr. McIntyre has also encouraged excellence and ingenuity through the Spheres of Distinction initiative, which supports innovative and resourceful approaches to academic, student and campus life.

To complement the growing student body, Dr. McIntyre worked to transform the University's campuses into the state-of-the-art facilities we see today. In fact, the extensive renovation and restoration of both residential campus and academic facilities under Dr. McIntyre's tenure have been recognized with national architectural awards. CWU's University Centers in Lynnwood, Des Moines, Steilacoom, Wenatchee, Moses Lake, and Yakima have also benefited from renovation projects, providing a modem and exciting atmosphere that stimulates student life and academic discovery.

In addition to her role as President of the university, Dr. McIntyre has continued to regularly teach courses at CWU. Sharing her instructional talents and knowledge of communications studies clearly illustrates her enthusiasm and desire to directly contribute to her student's academic success.

Dr. McIntyre earned her Bachelor of Arts in History and Master of Arts in Journalism at Stanford University, and received her Ph.D. in History and Communication from the University of Washington. She is the author of numerous articles and papers on communication history, journalism ethics, and higher education issues.

Dr. McIntyre provided exemplary service to our state and the Central Washington University community throughout her eight years at CWU. I am honored that I had the opportunity to work with Jerilyn, and I commend her for her achievements and dedication to expanding the educational opportunities at the university. Undoubtedly Dr. McIntyre's contributions have made a remarkable and positive impression on the lives and academic opportunities of countless students.

I am also pleased to hear that Jerilyn and her husband David will be retiring in Ellensburg. It is great to know that they will remain constituents of mine and a part of the Ellensburg community. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. McIntyre for her service at CWU, and wish her the very best in all of her future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, our Democrat colleagues spoke about the need to ``pay as you go'' as that relates to government spending. They insisted that if we are going to extend existing tax relief to protect Americans from big tax increases, that those tax extenders must be paid for. So that is, to put it another way, to have tax relief, they insist on having massive tax increases. This is the reason that the House Democrats are staying away from passing a bipartisan compromise tax relief bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 93-2 and which President Bush said he would sign into law.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again; these are tax extenders, meaning that tax relief currently exists for the people I'm going to mention here, and without action, taxes will go up; like tuition deduction for students. That means that tuition will go up for students trying to improve themselves. State and local sales tax deductions for States that don't have an income tax. There are seven States; my State of Washington, Florida, Texas, and others, are involved in that. There is a research and development credit to enhance and help businesses innovate to help the economy move. That would go away also. And also, for our teachers that are teaching our school children, they get an expense deduction when they have to go out and buy other materials in order to teach the students that they are teaching.

Also just another example, there are many more examples, Mr. Speaker, is more standard deduction for real property taxes, when they are feeling the crunch right now, that should stay. These are current tax reduction principles that are in place.

But in order to put them in place, the Democrats would increase taxes in another way. Now that was what they were talking about this morning. It is now 3:45 this afternoon. And the tune of the remarks that they were making as relates to PAYGO has changed, because now they are proposing to increase government spending by billions and billions of dollars.

But it, Mr. Speaker, is not paid for.

So when it comes to lower taxes and preventing tax increases, Democrats insist on raising taxes. But when it comes to government spending, they just spend and spend and spend with no concern on how it's going to be paid for. I just want to kind of get a handle on this. Where is the impassioned opposition to deficit spending that came from those that opposed the tax extenders from those within the Democrat Party? The Democrat pay-as-you-go promise has been revealed unfortunately just today as nothing more than something that is hollow and meaningless. And it is really nothing, if you look at the examples, but an excuse to raise taxes.

Democrat leaders claim that this economic stimulus bill, this is a job creation bill, yet nothing could be better for our economy in creating jobs than ensuring the extension of the tax relief that I was talking about in just those small examples. But it is the House Democrats who are refusing to allow the House to vote on a bipartisan tax bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 93-2.

Tax increases would hurt our economy and cost jobs. History is full of examples like that. Yet House Democrats won't even let this House, the people's House, have a vote on a Senate bill that is focused on lowering taxes and not raising them. So House Democrats are the only ones that are standing in the way of tax relief and tax fairness from becoming law. And again, Mr. Speaker, this is existing tax law.

Just this morning, I spoke with the junior Democrat Senator from Washington State, my State, Maria Cantwell, who, by the way, is a member of the Senate Finance Committee. And she helped put this tax relief package together in the Senate. She called me because of her deep concern that the House's action or refusing to act might put this bill in jeopardy. I fully agree with her. And I told her that I am committed in a bipartisan way of supporting her work in voting on the Senate bill, and I said that yesterday, if of course the House Democrats would quit blocking the vote.

So here we are. Rather than voting on the Senate tax relief bill to help our economy, the House chooses to consider this cobbled-together appropriations bill. Now I have talked about this before. And it's probably well known. But the House Appropriations Committee unfortunately has failed to pass into law even one of the 12 annual appropriation bills to fund this government despite the fact that the fiscal year ends in only 4 days. That committee has failed to do its job of passing these bills unfortunately. I might say, and this is also well known, in the middle of a committee markup last summer, House Democrats just gaveled the meeting to a close, and they got up and walked out.

So now the House is considering this appropriation bill that was first unveiled to us around 9:30 this morning. And of course it was revealed without any consultation from House Republicans. So it would have to have been written in total secret if that is the case. And with this rule that we are considering, the House Democrats are now closing down any Member from offering any amendment to improve, to add, or even to subtract if one would desire, or to offer their own ideas on this spending bill.

It is a closed rule. And it has set another record in this Congress for having closed rules. I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a serious effort to stimulate the economy and create jobs because the Senate has defeated even considering a stimulus package in that body. So this bill isn't going to go anywhere. And frankly I think we all know that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me address another issue that we have had a great deal of discussion on in the past 2 days, and that is the issue of the Secure Rural Schools Act. This program affects hundreds of rural counties and thousands of school districts across the country. And these school districts and counties are running out of money. As a result, they are laying off teachers and closing lunchrooms. And frankly they are in deep pain. But this bill does nothing to help them. We were told this week by House Democrats that Rural Schools was left out of the tax bill because it's not paid for. But now they bring an unpaid-for appropriation bill to the floor and they left out Rural Schools in this bill.

House Democrats say Rural Schools isn't a tax bill because it's not a tax issue. I guess I can concede that. Then when we have an appropriations and spending bill, why then would you leave out Rural Schools because clearly it's a spending bill?

Mr. Speaker, I think this House needs to stop with the excuses, to stop wasting time, and stop paying lip service to these rural communities and the thousands of kids that attend schools in these communities.

In the Senate tax bill there is a provision to extend the Rural Schools Act for 4 years, 4 years, to help them. But the House apparently won't let us even vote on that proposition. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop standing in the way. Let's get on with this business as this Congress winds down.

And with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who probably knows more about the Secure Rural Schools Act than anybody in this country, and it is probably because his district is the second most impacted of any district in the country.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Sometimes getting between the dog and a fire hydrant has its problems right now, and let me kind of sort this out. Let me try to sort this out.

The question here, the question here is on a suspension bill. Now, there has been several times this year where there have been suspension bills that have not gotten the two-thirds votes, because it takes two- thirds, it's suspension bills, it's not open to amendment.

After the bill, therefore, has been defeated, the bill has gone back to the Rules Committee for a rule to be brought to the floor. The point the gentleman from Oregon was simply saying was that could have happened on that bill aforementioned earlier this year, but it has not gone back to the Rules Committee, point number one.

Point number two, and this is very, very important on this particular bill: if we had gone through the normal order of open, open amendment process on appropriation bills, which has historically been the case, then I suspect that my friend from Oregon--

I yield myself one additional minute.

I suspect my friend from Oregon or others would have had an amendment to put the Secure Rural Schools bill in this bill and offset it with the green initiative that was mentioned that's also on schools. But we haven't had the opportunity to even do that because of this process.

I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, and I wasn't suggesting that. As a matter of fact, I made the argument in the Rules Committee. I am a member of the Rules Committee.

I made the argument in the Rules Committee that we could waive the rules, which, of course, would have made it in order. It would have made it in order.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a former member of the Rules Committee, and a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Massachusetts that I am the last speaker on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I am really excited about what I am going to say because I think we are going to get a chance, finally, to vote up or down on Rural Schools. I say that because I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can simply amend the rule to allow the text of the Secure Rural Schools Act to be debated and voted on.

Now why am I excited? I am excited because we heard that we couldn't do it because of PAYGO. We heard another speaker, my friend from Oregon, say because of germaneness.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is germane. That is not an argument. And we have 90 Democrat cosponsors of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment

and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat one more time. There are 90 Democrats who are cosponsors of Rural Schools. The PAYGO issue is not an issue anymore because this one here doesn't comply with PAYGO, at least in the spirit. Germaneness is not an issue because that was an issue on a tax bill. So the germaneness issue is gone. I don't know what other thing could stand in the way of defeating the previous question so we can amend this rule to have an opportunity to debate and vote this issue of Rural Schools.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited. I think as we close this process down, we are finally going to get an opportunity. This is the opportunity.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for going on 14 years, and I thought I understood how this system works. We have Republicans and we have Democrats. And always, I think, it's in the best interest of the American people when we can work in a bipartisan way.

The issue I want to address myself to is the Secure Rural Schools Act. It expired. It is very, very important to States, particularly in the western part of the United States where there's a big influence of Federal lands and particularly forest lands.

I just caught the end of what my colleague from Oregon talked about as to

why we are in this situation in the first place. But I can tell you, this is a big economic hit for those rural areas because they don't get the revenue from the Federal lands that they otherwise would have had.

But what I don't understand is that this issue has strong bipartisan support. I serve on the Rules Committee, and there are five of my Democrat colleagues on the Rules Committee, five out of nine, that are cosponsors of this legislation.

We know that we are nearing the end of this Congress. And we know that there are things that have to pass. The tax extender package is a very important package for other provisions in that bill. For example, the sales tax deductibility for States that don't have a State income tax. Florida is in that situation. There are several members of the Rules Committee that are affected by that. My State is one of those.

But this issue of Secure Rural Schools is very, very important. I have four counties in my district that are impacted, and one that is heavily impacted, impacted in a way that my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden) talked about.

What I find rather confusing about this is that we have now a bill that will be brought before us that we could pass in a nanosecond. It's a tax extender bill that the Senate sent over with a vote of 93-2. It has essentially the same provisions that I think everybody agrees, taxes that need to be extended. But it has the provision and a fix to the Secure Rural Schools for 4 years. For 4 years. It allows those communities now to make some plans as to what the transition may be in the future, since we--of course, I think the best thing we ought to do is utilize our Federal lands. But if that's not going to happen, at least they'll have some time to plan for it.

This morning, and, by the way, we got the text of this bill at 9:52 this morning, which is a little over 3 hours ago, even though we were told that we're going to have 24 hours to look at any bill. But we had it at 9:52 this morning. And we discovered that the Secure Rural Schools Act was out of the House bill. It wasn't in there.

Well, I'm a member of the Rules Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, you can amend the rules by suspending rules to put certain provisions in that you think need to be passed. It happens all the time, especially at the end of the session.

So here we are, this morning, discovered the Secure Rural Schools wasn't in there. I questioned the individual from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon, who came up and testified on the bill, if this was in there. It wasn't in there.

By the way, his State is affected. Even though his district isn't affected, his State is affected.

So I asked him why this was not in the bill. And his response to me was, well, this is a tax bill and really the Secure Rural Schools issue is a spending issue, so we felt it shouldn't be part of the package.

Well, I said, if that's the case, and I accept your argument, then maybe it could go on some appropriation bill.

And then I thought, wait a minute. Yesterday we had a continuing resolution with three appropriation bills that passed this House, and Secure Rural Schools wasn't on it. I don't know why the Democrat leadership didn't put it on that vehicle. That probably would have been the proper one. But we're running out of time. And the House Rules Committee can suspend the rules and attach a provision to anything they want to. We know the Senate bill came over here 93-2.

So, Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to take the text of the Senate language, which passed 93-2, and asked that that be debated on the House floor, just asked for it to be debated. If it loses, okay. That's fine. But I think there's broad support. But if it loses, I understand that.

I called for a vote on that. And the vote was on a party-line vote, 8-3 no. In other words, the five Democrats that are cosponsors of this provision, in the waning days of the session, voted ``no'' to consider this on the House floor.

I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the broad bill and speak as to how important that bill is. I think it is vitally important to extend these tax extenders. Frankly, I think these tax extenders that we have here ought to be made permanent, but maybe we will have a debate on that at a future time.

It is especially important to my State of Washington, because it allows for the sales tax deduction of State sales tax from my Federal income tax obligation, because Washington State, along with six or seven other states, doesn't have an income tax, and this is simply a fairness issue.

So this is a very important bill, very broadly, but it is not a complete bill. This bill in its current form will not pass the Senate and therefore will not become law.

Why is that, Mr. Speaker? The reason why is because it leaves out a very, very important provision, a provision that the Senate put in there, and I don't always like to congratulate the Senate, but in this case, in their wisdom, to take care of a problem that faces rural America, especially, and especially rural America that has a lot of Federal lands, and that is the Secure Rural Schools Act. It extends it for 4 years.

What is this act? This act is simply an act to recognize that Federal policies in the past, i.e. policies that don't allow some communities to log their Federal lands and get the revenue from that, puts a big hurt on local government and school districts. The Secure Rural Schools Act is designed to mitigate that because of Federal policy.

Now, what I can't understand about this is this has broad bipartisan support. It has had support a number of times. And, here we are, winding our way down in this Congress, and you would think that the broad bipartisanship of this would recognize that the Senate passed this bill 93-2 and that they say I think this has a pretty good chance of becoming law. But, no, earlier this morning I offered an amendment to the rule to allow me to simply bring up the opportunity to vote up or down on this issue, and it was defeated on a partisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is very, very important. I have in front of me here, Mr. Speaker, and I will include it for the Record, a letter from the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition.

The essence of this--and it is dated today--a letter to Speaker Pelosi to include this provision in the Tax Extenders Act.

Well, it is in the act. It is in the act that passed the Senate.

Now maybe there are politics being played with this. I know that we are in a political arena here, sometimes that happens, but I think the Speaker of the House, who comes from urban San Francisco, doesn't understand rural America.

I would suggest that probably the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who comes from urban New York City, doesn't understand the needs of rural America. I can only think that's the reason it wasn't included in something that has broad bipartisan support.

I think that we should defeat this rule, and I think what we need to do at the end of the day is to pass the Senate bill, because we know the President will sign it. He has sent a letter to every Member of the House saying that he would sign that bill.

I don't like to concede everything to the Senate. There are a lot of times I disagree with what they are saying.

But I think we need to take into account what the majority leader has said. I think we need to take into account what was said by the senior Senator from Oregon. By the way, Oregon is one of these States that are heavily hit, impacted by the lack of rural school language in this bill.

Senator Wyden said, after passage of the Senate bill, and I quote, ``Now it's up to the House and the President to do the right thing, or thousands of critical employees in hundreds of communities across Oregon could face a very difficult winter.''

Well, I have got to tell you, the President is on board. He doesn't have to say the President would do the right thing, the President said he would sign this bill. It's up to the House.

The way to accomplish that is to defeat this rule so we can take up the Senate bill and concur with them, send it to the President's desk, and it will become law.

National Forest Counties and

Schools Coalition,

Red Bluff, CA, September 25, 2008.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are writing this letter to ask that

you please include four years of funding for Secure Rural

Schools and PILT in the final version of the Tax Extenders

Act of 2008. As you are aware this legislation is crucial to

school children and teachers across the nation, and the

continuation of vital county services. The Administration

``supports prompt passage'' of H.R. 6049, and has not

threatened to veto that legislation if it includes funding

for Secure Rural Schools and PILT.

We would very much appreciate your leadership on this

issue. You have an opportunity to ensure that school children

are afforded the opportunity for a quality education. We look

forward to working with you, and other members of Congress,

to include this funding package in the final legislation.

Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Douglas,

Executive Director.

I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, there are two points I want to make, and I know there are Members on your side that have advocated paying for things.

Yesterday we had two tax bills on the floor, the AMT fix, that didn't have a pay-for, and the disaster relief which didn't have a pay-for. So we have made exceptions to that in the past.

This issue has been in front of us for some time. It is absolutely critical to these communities involved.

Now I would suggest, in fact, when Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon was upstairs in the Rules Committee this morning in your stead, he suggested that rural schools probably shouldn't be on this bill, particular bill, because it's a tax bill.

I will concede that that may be a logical course of action. But if that is the case, it seemed to me there should have been another vehicle, like an appropriation bill in the CR, and it wasn't on the CR. We are running out of time, is what I am just suggesting to my friend.

Let me ask my friend, if this bill does not pass, is there any likelihood whatsoever of the Senate bill that passed 93-2 being enacted into law?

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Far be it from me to defend the actions of the other body. I am a Member of this House and I am proud to be a Member of this House.

But we have to recognize this is a bicameral process. Sometimes we have to recognize, as they have to recognize on some legislation that we pass, where we don't move, and that's happened in the past.

This one is a 93-2. That is overwhelming, and it includes language, as I mentioned on Secure Rural Schools, that is very, very important.

So I hope that the Senate bill passes. I would urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, as I mentioned, and the underlying bill so we can take that up, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the length of time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is really very, very important because we are at the last days of this session and we know there is a rush to try to get things done. And I understand that it was a bookkeeping--it wasn't intentional. I understand all of that, we've been through this before. But the significance of this, and it needs to be understood by this body as we are being asked in the future to make some big decisions, the difference in this little error was $100 million. It wasn't small potatoes, so to speak. And I just want to say that the right thing to do--and I hope this is what's going to happen--is that the Rules Committee goes back upstairs and reports it out correctly so we can have the text. But I think that point needs to be made. And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and, Mr. Speaker, 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.)

Wow. I couldn't help but listening to my friend from Massachusetts state at least his interpretation of history, but the fact is, just when the American people think that Congress can't sink any lower, the liberal leaders of the House and Senate prove that they are up to this challenge and they are finding another way to do it.

I have only 30 minutes to speak today, and that's simply not enough time to detail each of the many broken promises that the Democrat majority made to the American people in the election of 2006, and they have promptly done exactly the opposite. For brevity's sake, let me just list some of the more egregious:

Democrat leaders promised the most open House in history. That means allowing Members the open opportunity to offer amendments on the House floor to change and improve legislation. Instead of a record of openness, the Democrats have delivered the most closed down, sit-down- shut-up record in the history of this country. That's not

an exaggeration, it's a fact. Sixty-three times the Members of this House have been totally blocked from offering even one amendment on the House floor. They have not just set the record for closing down the House, they have shattered it and left it in the dust. They promised one thing to get elected in 2006, and then promptly have done another thing.

In addition to shutting down the House and taking away the ability of Members to offer amendments and alternatives on bills, they perfected a procedure that should be known as the Pelosi ping-pong. It's a trick, it's a gimmick, a game that allows the House and Senate to just ping- pong a bill back and forth between the two Chambers while writing in secret the text of the final legislation that will eventually become law.

They play the Pelosi ping-pong to bypass and sneak around the normal process of holding conference committees where the House and the Senate work in public to bridge differences and publicly write final texts of new laws. By playing Pelosi ping-pong, Democrats keep Members of the House, Members of the Senate and the American people in the dark while they work in a back-room way cutting deals, stuffing in unvetted earmarks, and hiding the process from public scrutiny.

Despite their loud complaints and protests about conference committees not being properly followed when they were in the minority just 2 years ago, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid have abandoned them almost completely in this Congress for this far more abusive and secret game they are now playing.

Speaker Pelosi promised that if the Rules Committee met in the dead of the night, after 10 p.m., that the House would not act on that bill the following day. Yet here we are, early this afternoon, considering a rule and a bill that the Rules Committee didn't even begin meeting on until after 11 p.m. last night. It's another broken promise to the American people.

Speaker Pelosi and the liberal leaders of this House promised that a bill would be available for 24 hours before the House would vote on it. This would allow Members to read it and know what they are voting on. The text of this massive bill was not made available to the Rules Committee until 11 p.m. last night. It's over 1,100 pages long, yet the 24-hour waiting period promised by Speaker Pelosi has been abandoned. This massive bill is being rushed through the House.

The rules of the House were also unilaterally rewritten by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats to block a vote on a fair trade agreement with Colombia, which is America's strongest ally in South America. The rules don't say there has to be a yes vote on the agreement, only that it hold a fair yes-or-no vote in a timely manner.

Yet instead of respecting our best ally and holding a vote on the agreement, Democrats chose to, instead, change the rules. So this fair trade agreement is essentially being held hostage and is locked away someplace, probably in the basement of the Capitol.

The fact is, Colombia already has open access to sell most of their goods into America. It's American farmers and businesses that face tariffs and hurdles to be able to sell their crops and goods into Colombia. This trade agreement is about fairness for American farmers and American workers.

The people that Democrats are hurting by blocking a vote on this fair trade agreement are Americans. Colombia has one-way access to our country, which Democrats have overwhelmingly voted on to give them. By passing this agreement, we would be making it a two-way street and give Americans fair access to Colombia. That should be what fair trade is all about.

Also, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leaders promised that earmarks would be scrutinized and be subject to debate and challenge on the House floor. Yet this 1,000-plus page bill contains an untold number of earmarks that have never seen the light of day. They have not been through a public review of any kind, no committee hearing, no debate on the House floor, no Senate and House conference committee review.

And today the House is going to spend a grand total of 1 hour reviewing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, that is not a broken promise, it really is irresponsible.

Now, the reason why this liberal Congress finds itself in this mess is because the fiscal year ends on September 30, and they have yet to pass a single one of the 12 appropriation bills needed to fund the Federal Government starting October 1. This Congress has totally failed in its most basic job.

They shut down the work of the Appropriations Committee. In fact, in the middle of a working markup, they literally gaveled the committee to close, got up and left the room and just quit working. I should qualify that, they quit working in public because Democrats have been working feverishly behind closed doors to write this massive spending bill.

But why did Democrats punt on their basic responsibility and retreat to work in secret and walk out of a markup? It is because Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to prevent us from lowering gas prices by producing more American-made energy with offshore drilling.

Democrats are so opposed to drilling offshore that they shut down the work of the Appropriations Committee. But the good news, Mr. Speaker, on this issue they have failed. Republicans have succeeded in forcing the ban on offshore drilling to be lifted despite the massive battle that Democrats waged for months to try and block it. With passage of this bill, the moratorium on offshore drilling will be lifted.

Yet, of course, this is just the first step. Democrats have shown the incredible lengths they will go to to block drilling. While they have been beaten this time, Americans, Mr. Speaker, should not be fooled. Democrats have chosen to play possum because election day is approaching and they want to hide from voters who support drilling offshore. There is much more to do, both now and after election day, to ensure that offshore drilling becomes a reality. But the reality is, Mr. Speaker, that Democrats and their allies will continue to use lawsuits and other tactics to block America from becoming more energy independent.

So, Mr. Speaker, this Democrat Congress has broken promise after promise to the American people. It has failed to do the most basic job to pass 12 funding bills by October 1. It is now jamming through a bill that was only made public at 11 p.m. last night, a little over 13\1/2\ hours ago. It is a bill that is over 1,000 pages long. It is a bill written in secret, spends hundreds of billions of dollars and includes untold numbers of earmarks that haven't been publicly vetted. The House will debate this monster piece of legislation for just one hour.

Mr. Speaker, for these many reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

This particular earmark you're talking about and the others that I have sponsored have been vetted. In fact, they were in last year's appropriations bill. I have no problem with earmarks being vetted.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about unvetted earmarks in this bill, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts if he would tell me that he has, and stake his reputation, and he is a very valuable member of this committee, that there are no unvetted earmarks in this massive bill.

I will yield to the gentleman if he will give me a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer.

Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman about unvetted earmarks, and his response was only his. I was talking about earmarks that everybody else would make, and the gentleman couldn't answer me.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, what is the time on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the normal process for appropriation bills are for them to come to the House floor and be debated under an open rule with the earmarks that are in the bill being open for everybody to look at them.

Now I find it rather interesting, when other Members were talking I saw my friend and his staff from Massachusetts frantically going through this 1,100 page bill to try to find earmarks. Well, if we'd gone through normal process, we would have known what those earmarks are. I have always said that I am one that is not necessarily opposed to them, but I think there ought to be transparency to this whole process. And there hasn't been any transparency, because only one, Mr. Speaker, only one of the appropriation bills was passed by the House, and that was not done under an open rule.

Had we had the normal process, all these earmarks would have been vetted, asked about, explained and so forth. But here we are, 1 hour to debate this 1,100-page bill of which there are three appropriation bills a part of this CR, and no real process to look at what the earmarks are. That's my whole point. Nothing more than that.

Yet because we aren't going through the regular order as we say, open process, in fact we go through 63 closed rules, Members don't have an opportunity to find out how the taxpayers' money is being spent on particular earmarks that all Members of this House have an opportunity to put in these bills. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what the qualms are over there. It's their process, they run this place, and it hasn't been open.

I reserve my time.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a valuable member of the Appropriations Committee, who is leaving the Congress after this term.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to ensure that the Congress will not adjourn, Mr. Speaker, until a comprehensive energy legislation bill has been enacted.

What this means, Mr. Speaker, is passing an all-of-the-above energy plan that, in addition to drilling offshore, we need to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, and shale oil reserves in other parts of our country. We also need to extend renewable energy incentives. We need to streamline approval of new refining capacity in the United States and nuclear power facilities in the United States, and we need to encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies.

And finally, we need to minimize drawn-out legal challenges that unreasonably delay and prevent actual domestic energy production, because I had mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that while the offshore is now open on October 1 to exploration, I'm almost sure that the lawsuits will ensue. The bill that I will be amending this rule to contemplate takes care of that provision.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous materials inserted into the Record prior to a vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask my colleagues now to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can simply amend the rule and take up this legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York, the Chair of the Rules Committee, 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.)

Mr. Speaker, for many months the liberal leaders that control this House have blocked, dodged, and refused to allow a vote on legislation to produce more American-made energy.

Democrat leaders have been absolute in their opposition to lifting the ban on drilling offshore, and they have repeatedly and adamantly refused any action on such legislation to help lower gas prices that are hurting people at the pump.

And yet today, Mr. Speaker, after these many months and years of stamping their feet and yelling ``no,'' are we now to believe that these same liberal Democrats, standing before us today with a salesman smile on their face, are we to believe them that they are now declaring that this is a pro-drilling bill?

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not fools. They won't be taken in by this sham of a bill that will actually lock down Americans' ocean oil reserves.

There are two phrases that come to mind, Mr. Speaker, about this bill. The first is ``grasping at straws,'' which is defined as trying to find reasons to be hopeful about a bad situation. The second phrase is ``fig leaf,'' which means something you use to try to hide an embarrassing fact or problem. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, Democrats are grasping at straw fig leaves.

There's an election coming up, and Democrats are desperately in search of political cover, political cover for their long record of opposing drilling and producing more American-made energy.

This straw fig leaf bill was written in secret. There were no public hearings on this bill. The first copy of it was made public at 9:45 p.m. last night, barely 12 hours ago, and it's 290 pages long.

The Democrat-controlled Rules Committee blocked every single Member of this House from being able to offer their ideas for improving this bill. No amendments were allowed to the bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are simply playing a political game. Everybody knows this bill will never pass Congress and become law, but don't take my word for it. Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said this bill is ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' And when you examine the details of this bill, it certainly deserves to be dead, Mr. Speaker.

It permanently locks up vast amounts of America's oil and gas reserves, including more than 10 billion, with a B, 10 billion barrels of oil on Alaska's remote North Slope. It leaves 88 percent of America's offshore energy resources locked up. It increases taxes by billions of dollars, taxes which will land squarely on the shoulders of American consumers. And it permanently bans drilling within 50 miles of American shores.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is this fact important? It's important because, according to the Interior Department, of the nearly 10 billion, again B, barrels of oil believed to be offshore in California, only 5 percent is beyond the 50-mile barrier.

Mr. Speaker, what this simply means is that this bill permanently bans drilling on 95 percent of the oil believed to be off the coast of California.

As if a permanent ban on drilling in the first 50 miles offshore were not enough, drilling between 50 and 100 miles out would also be effectively banned. By refusing to allow States to share in revenue generated by offshore drilling, this bill guarantees that drilling offshore will never be permitted by the States.

Right now, States along the Gulf of Mexico are paid a share of the oil produced in those waters. Under this bill, royalty sharing won't be allowed. As a result, States would have no incentive to allow any drilling whatsoever. In fact, I would submit they would have a disincentive. Why would a State allow someone to come into their back yard and pay them no share of the profits that would be made by the offshore drilling? It is the equivalent of the government opening a Starbuck's or a McDonald's franchise in your garage or family home but paying you nothing,

even to alleviate the cost of dealing with the impacts of that business.

And consider this, Mr. Speaker, if this is truly a drilling bill, why is there no outcry from the radical environmental special interests? Mr. Speaker, it's because they know that drilling will never happen under this plan. Those who are opposed to drilling can vote for this bill secure in the knowledge that drilling will never actually happen under this sham bill.

Mr. Speaker, my district in central Washington is the home of Grand Coulee Dam and vast amounts of hydropower. It is the home of the only nuclear plant in the Pacific Northwest. It is home to the vast majority of wind farms in Washington State. And it is home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab, a leader in renewable energy research.

Those who call central Washington home believe in an all-of-the-above plan that lowers energy prices. That means promoting alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, recognizing a need for more nuclear power, protecting our valuable hydropower dams, and also allowing drilling offshore in Alaska and on other Federal lands. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, does not address those issues.

The Democrat plan just means billions of dollars in higher taxes, more government mandates that will increase costs for everyone, and a permanent ban on most of our offshore resources.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people deserve a vote on legislation that truly expands alternative energy sources and lifts the ban on offshore drilling and in Alaska. They deserve a vote on H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, but the liberal leaders of this Congress have blocked a fair yes-or-no vote on this bill for months. They blocked a fair yes-or-no vote, Mr. Speaker, because I believe they know if it were on the floor, it would likely pass.

Mr. Speaker, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi control the Democrat Party here in this Congress. They oppose drilling. They have fought and blocked it for years. Every time drilling has come up they've said ``no, no, no.'' And this bill is just more of the same because it says no drilling in Alaska, no to truly lifting the offshore drilling ban, no to opening up oil shale in the western United States, no to hydropower as a renewable energy source, no to non-carbon emitting nuclear power, no to building new refineries here in America, and no to clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology. The only thing that the Democrat bill says yes to are tax increases, permanent bans on drilling, and continued high prices.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to shine the light on an area of this bill that has not gotten much attention, partly because no one had a copy to read this bill before 9:45 last night.

Of serious concern are the costly new mandates included in the national Renewable Energy Standard that this bill creates. The most likely and certain result of this is to increase the power bills of almost every American family and business that it affects. That's right, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat bill isn't going to lower gas prices, but it will increase power bills.

The most egregious of it all is that this new mandate is slanted and biased by saying solar and wind power are renewable under the standard, but that hydropower isn't. This discrimination against hydropower is absolutely ridiculous. Hydropower is the most abundant source of renewable energy in our country. Hydropower is renewable, clean, non- emitting, non-polluting, and a reliable energy source.

Mr. Speaker, those are the facts.

And consider this; if capturing the sun shining and the wind blowing is renewable energy, then so is water running downhill, which is precisely what hydro is all about. But believe it or not, it is not renewable by definition under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when Democrats--who just days ago were proudly declaring their career-long opposition to oil drilling--are suddenly preaching the merits of this self-proclaimed drilling bill, you know, it's really hard not to laugh, except for the fact that families, workers, farmers, schools and small businesses are struggling under the high cost of gasoline, and really this Democrat Congress is doing nothing to help.

Instead of real solutions to real problems of high gas and energy prices that Americans are facing, this Democrat Congress has chosen to look after themselves in writing this bill. What do I mean by that? This bill will do nothing, nothing but give Democrats a talking point and a 30-second television commercial where they can smile and claim that they are supporting drilling for American oil.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule and this sham bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Republican whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis of California.

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton.

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a Member of this body who has been absolutely steadfast on the proposition of expanding our energy supply, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire if my friend, the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, has any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, I have two additional individuals, and then I am prepared to yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, a Member who served here previously and who was very active on this issue, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

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

Mr. Speaker, my plea to those Democrats who proclaim their support for more drilling and making America more energy independent, I urge you to vote ``no'' against this sham bill by voting ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because that means we will have a vote on both their bill and our bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has spoken at length about the reasons--though not as long as I thought he would, let's put it that way--why he believes these stretches of the river in Vermont to be studied for the designation as Wild and Scenic, and it's very clear that he strongly believes in this bill to enact this study. He obviously has a great deal of love for his State when he challenges all of the other 49 States as not being as beautiful, at least indirectly, as Vermont. And I would just point out to him that in my State we have so much geographic diversity as far as beauty is concerned, from one area of the State where we have more rainfall than anyplace in a country--I'm not talking about Seattle; I'm talking about the Olympic Peninsula--to the area where I live, which is a desert area that has in some areas where I live less than 7 inches of rain. So I invite my friend any time he wants to come out to see what real beauty is in a short period of time, and he may want to ask me up there and I might respond to that.

But having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it's fair to say that the American people, frankly, are far less concerned about the rivers in Vermont and are far more concerned about the high price of gasoline and the fact that Congress is not acting right now on real solutions to lower energy costs.

The House of Representatives will spend over 2\1/2\ hours today discussing rivers in Vermont but not 1 minute,

Mr. Speaker, not 1 minute, on actual legislation to lower the price of gasoline. I really believe that the priorities of this Congress since we have come back from the 5-week August vacation are wrong. High gas and energy prices are hurting American workers and it's hurting our Nation's economy.

With jobs at stake, Mr. Speaker, this Congress twiddles its thumbs and busies itself once again, as we did earlier in the year, naming post offices and, today, studying the value of rivers in Vermont, in all deference to my friend from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, this House should be permitted to have a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on legislation to expand alternative energy sources and to lift the ban on drilling offshore, both coasts, Mr. Speaker, and in ANWR and other Alaskan lands in Alaska. But, unfortunately, the liberal leaders in this Congress have blocked, up to this point have blocked, a fair ``yes'' or ``no'' vote for months because I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the majority of Members of this body knows that if we were to put the all-of-the-above energy plan up for a vote, that a majority of this House would vote for it. But we have been denied that opportunity time after time after time. Instead, they voted to go on a 5-week vacation in August to avoid working to lower gas prices, to protect American jobs, to make our Nation more energy independent.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that during that time since the adjournment for the 5-week vacation, a number of my Republican colleagues, 136 of my Republican colleagues, were here every day for several hours a day, trying to attempt to call the ask the Speaker to call Congress back in session. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. So now we are back here again on a regularly scheduled basis, and we will certainly have an opportunity to have a vote on the all-of-the-above, and I will talk about that more later.

But, Mr. Speaker, in the past, in the past, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Harry Reid, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they are the leaders of the Democrat Party here in the U.S. Congress. Yet the one thing, other than being Democrat leaders, the one thing they all have in common, Mr. Speaker, is that they have in the past always opposed offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska. I think the majority of the Americans feel contrary to that view. And they fight and block any action on that at every turn. They refuse to act and to allow a vote on a drilling and alternative energy plan that would ultimately lower gas prices.

To me, Mr. Speaker, I just simply have to say in this election year that it's clear that liberalism has been put ahead of the need to help American workers and families struggling with high gas prices. We need to end the stranglehold that they have on America's ability to produce more of its own energy and on American jobs and the economy. And we can do that, Mr. Speaker, very simply by opening the resources that we have in this country. We need to change their no, no, no stance on producing more American energy.

This Congress, Mr. Speaker, and we all know this, needs to vote on the all-of-the-above energy plan. In that plan it includes promoting alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power. I might add parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that we have a nuclear plant in my district, we have hydro plants in my district, and we have wind machines in my district. I am all in favor of all of the above, and our all-of-the-above energy plan includes precisely that.

This plan recognizes the need for more nuclear power. As I mentioned, I have a nuclear power plant in my district. Of course, it protects the value of hydropower, and that is the most abundant energy source for us in the Northwest. But it also allows, while we transition to a new energy source in the future, it allows drilling offshore and in Alaska and on other Federal lands.

Mr. Speaker, it really is time for the liberal leaders of this Congress to stop blocking a vote on producing more American-made energy. It's time for Members of Congress to stop hiding and to start voting.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that we are not elected to avoid taking positions on tough issues. We are elected to stand up and resolve those tough issues for the American people. So it's time for Congress to set aside naming post offices; in deference, again, to my friend from Vermont, studying rivers. It's time to get serious about addressing the high cost of gasoline and voting yes or no on real solutions, including drilling offshore and in Alaska.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is the last speaker, and he is prepared to close. I know I have several Members that have asked for time. So, Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself such time as I may consume until other Members come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned just briefly in my remarks that after the adjournment prior to the 5-week vacation and, by the way, that adjournment resolution was passed on a straight partisan vote. Every Republican voted against it because we felt we needed to stay here to help resolve the energy problem rather than go on a 5-week vacation. But there were a number of Members, I can mention 136 Members, that came down here and talked about the need for energy.

During that time, Mr. Speaker, the lights were off here, the microphones were off, and the cameras were off. Yet there were a number of tourists, as we always have coming through the U.S. Capitol, their Capitol, and they were invited to sit on the floor and talk with us, interact with Members that came down and spoke.

The 2 days that I was here, and I admit I was only here 2 of those days, the last 2 days, and I had private conversations with a number of tourists that came through here. I have to say they were not from the Northwest, although there were some from the Northwest, but there were some from the South, and they were all kind of perplexed as to why the people's House, the House of Representatives, probably the genius part of our Founding Fathers in making a representative body, of which all Members that have served there, and there are slightly over 11,000 Members that have served in this body and, Mr. Speaker, every one, every one of those Members have been elected to this House. There has never been a Member that was appointed to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Now why do I say this in the context of energy prices? The genius of our Founding Fathers was that the House of Representatives and the fact that every one was elected is probably more in tune to what the people's wishes are across the country.

And so they were, frankly, the people I talked to, perplexed. Well, if this is the people's House, why haven't you had the opportunity to have a vote, just a vote up or down, recognizing, listen, we know that a majority rules, and I am prepared to take the consequences of that if my position on any issue fails to get a majority vote. I recognize that. I think every Member of Congress understands that. But to not have the opportunity, not have the opportunity to even vote, even vote on a proposal, really perplexes the tourists that came through here the 2 days I was on the floor.

In talking to my other colleagues, some of whom were down here as many as 13 days, and more, they had what I would say were similar experiences with their conversations with people that came through here.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that my district is the district that in central Washington that is a center of virtually--I won't say all, but a great deal--of electricity that is produced in the Pacific Northwest. Within my district, for example, probably the hydroelectric facility that most Americans can associate with is Grand Coulee Dam. Half of that dam is in my district and the other half is in my colleague's from the Fifth District, Cathy McMorris Rodgers' district.

But, in addition to that, I have up to 10 dams that are wholly within my district or I share with other Members of Congress, including my friend and colleague from across the river in Oregon, Greg Walden. There are three dams there where we share half of those dams.

That produces about 70 percent of the electricity in the northwest. It is renewable, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely renewable, and we need to expand that, and a portion of expanding hydropower is in the all-of- the-above energy plan I talked about earlier that we have been denied a vote on. We have been denied a vote on.

Furthermore, I mentioned that I have wind plants in my district. Because generally in areas that I mentioned earlier on, that there was not a whole lot of rainfall in certain parts of my district, but the wind does blow. Now the wind, of course, is only good if the wind blows. But if the wind blows, it adds to the other facilities, like hydro, like hydro, or like nuclear. And I have a nuclear plant in my district.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that my constituents are well aware that we need to have a diverse energy portfolio. Without having an opportunity in the people's House to at least address the issue of all of the above, seems to me to be contrary, seems to me to be contrary to what this Congress is all about, and indeed what the House of Representatives is all about as it was envisioned by the Founders.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have talked about what we did in August, and I have talked about the fact that up until August, and now we have a new session coming in after the break, that the Democrats have blocked and blocked any vote on lifting the ban.

But I have heard during the break that there are a number of brave Democrats who I think went home, talked to their constituents, and find out that their constituents were saying we need to become more energy independent. As a result, they proclaim that they support now offshore drilling to increase the supply of gasoline and oil and to make America more energy independent.

Well, listen. To all of my colleagues that maybe during the August break and having listened to their colleagues or to their constituents at home, I have a very positive message for you, and I have an opportunity for you, because by voting against the previous question, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues can prove that you are supporters of drilling and producing American-made energy. Of course, if you do not, that means that you side, of course, with Speaker Pelosi and you oppose drilling.

By defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, I will move to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, and I have talked at length about what it is. This bill will reduce the price at the pump by enacting an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Once again, what it does, it increases the supply of American-made energy by using environmentally sound technology and innovations. It does so by improving conservation and efficiency and, Mr. Speaker, it promotes a diversity by renewing alternative energy sources, like wind that I had talked about, and solar.

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

Mr. Speaker, I again ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Congress, as they return from the 5-week recess--vacation, in some people's terms--and begin the work here in the fall before the election, so that we can finally vote, Mr. Speaker, on real solutions to the real and painful problem of high gas and energy prices.

American workers and families are hurting. Congress can help, can help today by voting on and passing this legislation, the American Energy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time to show whether you're really for lowering gas prices or whether you will continue to vote in lockstep with those against lifting the ban on offshore drilling and promoting alternative energy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, of course I am going to do that. And, listen: Mt. Rainier I can see from my district on a clear day, because it is 14,410 feet high. But it is quite a view when you view it from a desert setting. So I invite you the next time you come back to come over to my district for all the great wines, where the wine grapes are grown, by the way. And I understand my friend likes to have a cold beer once in a while. The taste of that beer comes from the hops that are grown in my district.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding on that basis, and I look forward to his visit. I appreciate it and yield back to him.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is astonishing to me to what lengths this liberal Congress will go to shut down debate and close the legislative process.

This House, Mr. Speaker, has become far more dictatorial and far less deliberative in the last 19 months than ever before. In this Congress, there have been 59 closed rules, which is more than in any Congress in the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, a closed rule means Members are prohibited from coming to the House floor and offering an amendment to the bill that is being considered on the floor. An open rule allows Members to offer amendments to a bill that's being considered on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, it is simply as simple as that.

But Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been one single, solitary open rule this entire year in this body. For this entire Congress, going back to January of last year, there has been only one open rule on bills that were not appropriations bills. These facts present a stark picture of just how closed and restrictive this liberal Congress has become.

Yet the Speaker and Democrat-controlled Rules Committee aren't satisfied with having the worst, most closed record in history. They've decided to go even further to undermine the rules and traditions of the U.S. House of Representatives. With this rule, they've reached an absolute new low. They have chosen to breach the long-standing, bipartisan process of an open rule for the consideration of appropriations bills.

On what has been an open process on the House floor not just for years, not for decades, but dating back to the creation of the Appropriations Committee itself, this process is being closed down by this oppressive, liberal Congress.

This rule provides for consideration of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill for the next fiscal year. It is a bill that has always, Mr. Speaker, had strong bipartisan support. For example, last year it passed by a recorded vote of 409 in favor and only two against. And during that debate last year, there were just 15 amendments that were offered. And the total debate on the House floor was just 5 hours, which is a short time for appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, there is no part of this record that justifies what is being proposed today to decimate this open process. There is simply no excuse for what is being done and proposed by this rule.

I can only conclude that this is a blatant political attempt to stifle debate on the House floor in order to hold onto political power. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it is being done at the expense of the rules and traditions of the People's House, the U.S. House of Representatives.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the new fiscal year begins on October 1; that's just 62 days away. Yet this House hasn't passed one single appropriations bill. At the end of the week, it will probably have passed one. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Republican House had passed every bill except one by this point of the year.

It is a troubling, disappointing, and dangerous situation when those who control this liberal Congress are punting on their duty to pass the 12 annual appropriations bills while simultaneously undermining the open consideration of these very same appropriations bills, an open process that has been a bipartisan hallmark of this House since the inception of the Appropriations Committee.

And why is this being done, Mr. Speaker? Again, I can only conclude that it is because this liberal Congress refuses to allow open debate and votes on producing more American-made energy. Those who control this Congress have refused to allow a vote on lifting the ban on offshore drilling, at ANWR in Alaska, and on other Federal lands.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama oppose offshore drilling and in ANWR, but they refuse to let Congress vote on this important issue while gas prices, Mr. Speaker, are at record levels and Americans are hurting.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record three articles, one from the New York Times regarding Speaker Pelosi, one from the McClatchy Washington Bureau regarding Speaker Pelosi's position on offshore drilling, one in the House of nearly 6 weeks ago from The Hill regarding Mr. Obama's opinion on drilling, and one from the Las Vegas Review Journal regarding Majority Leader Reid's position on drilling in the Senate.

As you know, Speaker Pelosi has repeatedly insisted that this House won't ever vote, is not going to be permitted to vote, and that she will do everything possible to block a vote on lowering gas prices by producing more American-made energy by drilling for our own Nation's gas and oil. Americans can't afford this head-in-the-sand approach. Congress needs to stand up and vote on the Republicans' ``all of the above'' energy plan that simply says, let's do everything that we can to produce more American-made energy, including pursuing more clean alternatives like wind and solar, more nuclear power, more biodiesel, improving conservation, more investment in new technology research, and of course, immediately more drilling and refining of oil and gas from America's huge underground reserves.

Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear: we can continue with this ``drill nothing'' approach, or we can decide to act, to change course and to debate and vote on the Republicans ``all of the above'' plan to lower gas prices by producing more energy here in America and finding ways, at the same time, to use less.

Mr. Speaker, I believe our ``all of the above'' approach to lowering gas prices would pass. It would pass, I believe, Mr. Speaker, if it were permitted to have a vote on this House floor. I believe there is a majority that would vote for it in this U.S. House. But such a vote has yet to be allowed and is not being allowed today. And next week, we're going on a 5-week vacation. Mr. Speaker, I think that is intolerable.

The House is being shut down in new, bolder ways to block a vote on producing American-made energy. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this rule is proof of it.

The long-standing, bipartisan practice of considering appropriations bills under an open process is being trampled on by this rule. The actions that are being taken to restrict and shut down Members' ability to offer amendments and debate spending bills--which I might add, Mr. Speaker, is the very job that the American people elected us to do--is being undermined by this appropriations process, and it creates a very dangerous and volatile situation in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the leaders and the chairmen who've made this decision may well rue the day that they chose to go down this path.

By their actions, bipartisanship is being diminished, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the traditions of this House are being diminished. One cannot trample on the rules and practices of traditions of this House with impunity and then expect no long-term damage to result.

This is a sad and shameful rule. So I urge my colleagues to oppose it and demand this House uphold open rules for consideration of appropriations bills, which is one of the best practices historically of this institution. If we do not correct the closed rule course that is being set by this rule, it will do a great deal of long-term harm to this House that will prove, in my opinion, more difficult to reverse in the future.

[From the New York Times, July 17, 2008]

For Pelosi, a Fight Against Offshore Drilling

(By Carl Hulse)

Washington.--Upon entering Congress in 1987, Representative

Nancy Pelosi quickly became part of the solid California

front against oil drilling along much of the nation's coast.

The Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 and the steady push to

tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had

galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore

drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures

like Ms. Pelosi.

She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries

near her San Francisco district and, after joining the

Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the

ban on coastal drilling through spending restrictions each

year.

``We learned the hard way that oil and water do not mix on

our coast,'' Ms. Pelosi told a crucial committee in 1996 as

she argued for keeping the ban before a Congress then

controlled by Republicans.

Now, with gasoline prices soaring, those drilling

restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as

calls intensify to pursue

domestic oil more forcefully. Yet despite increasing pressure

from President Bush, a full-bore assault by Congressional

Republicans and some anxiety among her own rank-and-file

Democrats, Ms. Pelosi is not budging.

``The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a

gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying

to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore,'' Ms.

Pelosi said in an interview. ``That is not the cause, and I

am not going to let him get away with it.''

Her voice carries considerable weight because Ms. Pelosi,

who is now House speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded

drilling from reaching the floor.

And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority

leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to

approve drilling in areas now off limits. They argue that the

oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large

expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They

have also urged Mr. Bush to pour some fuel from national

reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to

lower prices.

Trying to demonstrate that Democrats are not opposed to

drilling in acceptable locales, the House is scheduled to

vote on Thursday on a proposal that would deny oil companies

any new leases unless they can show they are diligently

exploring existing holdings. The measure would also require

annual lease sales from lands in Alaska set aside as a

National Petroleum Reserve, and direct the Interior

Department to make sure a pipeline is linked to the reserves.

Democrats, not subtly, are calling the measure the Drill

Responsibly in Leased Lands, or Drill, Act.

In the Senate, Democrats are pushing a measure to curb

speculation in oil markets.

But Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican

leader, who is escorting a delegation to the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge in Alaska this weekend, said the Democrats'

approach was woefully insufficient. Mr. Boehner said Ms.

Pelosi, in insisting on preserving the drilling ban, was

putting Democrats in the crosshairs of voters furious about

gas prices.

``I think Speaker Pelosi is walking her Blue Dogs and other

vulnerable Democrats off a cliff, and they know it,'' said

Mr. Boehner, referring to the coalition of Democrats

representing more conservative districts.

He accused the speaker of using procedural maneuvers to

thwart votes on expanded drilling, a position that he said

would prevail if the moment arrived. ``Harry Reid and Nancy

Pelosi are standing in the way of what the American people

want,'' Mr. Boehner said.

In both the House and Senate, small groups of Democrats

have begun meeting informally with Republicans to try to

reach a bipartisan response to higher oil prices, and opening

up new areas to drilling is part of the mix. Leaders of the

Blue Dog coalition are openly pressing for drilling in the

Arctic refuge and elsewhere.

Backers of the drilling ban have pushed back furiously and

appear to have bolstered some of their colleagues. Senator

Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who has been fighting

offshore drilling since the 1970s, has been cornering fellow

senators to impress upon them the importance of the ban to

Californians, comparing it to a mainstay of farm-state

senators.

``This is our ethanol,'' Mrs. Boxer said of protecting the

coast from oil drilling.

Since taking over as speaker, Ms. Pelosi has asserted

herself on energy policy, which she sees as an overarching

cause that encompasses national security, climate change, the

economy, health care and the environment.

``This captures everything,'' said Ms. Pelosi, who last

year broke a deadlock that had lasted for decades over

increasing automotive fuel economy standards.

In a private meeting last week, according to some in

attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team

that a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to

capitulation to Republicans and the White House, and that she

was having none of it. She attributes today's energy problems

to a failure of the Bush administration to develop a

comprehensive approach, to its ties to the oil industry and

to a mishandling of the economy.

With the drilling restrictions under such scrutiny, backers

of the ban say they are heartened that Ms. Pelosi wields the

power she does.

``It is really important to have a Californian as speaker

on this topic,'' said Representative Lois Capps, a Democrat

who represents Santa Barbara.

Ms. Pelosi has shown a willingness on issues like terror

surveillance and spending on the Iraq war to look past her

personal views and allow legislation she opposes to move

through the House. But on the drilling ban, it is clear she

sees her position as the one that should carry the day. She

said national policy had to move beyond the long dispute over

the ban.

``This is part of the fight we are in,'' she said. ``We

have to get to a place where one day my grandchildren will

say, `Do you believe our grandparents had to go with their

car and fill up?' It will be like going with a barrel on our

head to a well to get water. That will be the equivalent.''

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding.

Let me ask this question: Would a Member be able to come down to the floor when this bill is being taken up and offer a second-degree amendment to an amendment that is being offered by another Member?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee dealing with this issue, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, just for purposes of trying to plan the time, could I inquire of my distinguished colleague how many speakers she has left.

I thank her for that information, and am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).