Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, and if I infer by what he said, this may be the end of open rules in this House. There have been many people that have said on the floor today that this rule is in fact an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an open rule. It does not permit an open process that allows Members to come to the floor and offer amendments to this veterans funding bill. Instead, it restricts and closes down the ability, by limiting amendments to only those who preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. I didn't, Mr. Speaker, so I am prohibited later on today from offering an amendment if I chose to do so. This clearly violates the open process by which appropriations bills have long been considered in this House.

Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. I would like to quote several statements from my Democrat colleagues in the past Congress and in this Congress.

On September 15, 2005, this is in the last Congress, Mr. Hastings of Florida made the following statement on the House floor about a preprinting requirement for a Coast Guard authorization bill.

Mr. Hastings from Florida said, and I am quoting: ``I am nevertheless disappointed that the preprinting of amendments was even required. Despite the majority's claims, this legislative process which they call 'open' is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because every Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.'' Mr. Hastings of Florida said that in the last Congress.

In a report prepared by Ms. Slaughter before becoming chairman of the Rules Committee, in this report, which is entitled ``Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy,'' Ms. Slaughter and her Democrat colleagues stated, and I quote from page 26 of this report, ``Rules with preprinting requirements are not open rules.''

Quoting further from the same page: ``Further, there is a significant difference between an open rule and a rule with a preprinting requirement. A preprinting requirement forces Members to reveal their amendments in advance of floor consideration, something that may assist the floor managers, but can disadvantage the Member offering it. In addition, a preprinting requirement blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the course of debate.'' That comes from a Democrat publication.

The rule before the House today is not an open rule, by their own definition. The long-standing tradition has been deliberately violated. But don't take my word about the past.

Quoting again from the Congressional Record, this is Ms. Matsui from last year, and she is a member of the Rules Committee, last year in the 110th Congress she states regarding the Energy and Water appropriations bill: ``As I mentioned at the outset of this debate, this bill is made in order under an open rule, which is our tradition. I hope that all Members will give that tradition the respect it deserves.''

Where is the respect, Mr. Speaker? Where is the respect?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record excerpts from ``Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy,'' printed by the then-minority party of the Rules Committee.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this House has been blocked repeatedly for many months from being allowed to vote on lifting the ban on drilling. Congress needs to act now to produce more American-made energy. Congress needs to vote now on lifting the offshore drilling ban. By defeating the previous question on this rule, the House can vote on drilling offshore. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6108, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues this will not slow down the

process of working on the MILCON bill. This is just an addition to it, an addition that I think is very, very important, since Congress is contemplating and probably will go on a 5-week break without taking up any energy legislation.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can consider this vitally important issue for America.

Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy

A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic

Process in the 108th Congress

(Compiled by the House Rules Committee Minority Office--Hon. Louise M.

Slaughter, Ranking Member)

4. Rules with Pre-Printing Requirements are not ``Open

Rules''

During the 108th Congress, the Rules Committee reported out

four rules with a so-called ``pre-printing'' requirement.

This provision requires Members to submit their amendments

for publication in the Congressional Record, in accordance

with clause 8 of Rule XVIII, on the day preceding floor

debate of the legislation. While the majority optimistically

calls such rules ``modified open rules,'' we consider them

``restrictive'' rules and have scored them as such in the

appendices attached to this report.

While we concede that considering a bill with a pre-

printing requirement is less restrictive than the more common

tactic of limiting amendments to those printed in the Rules

Committee report, there is a significant difference between

an open rule and a rule with a pre-printing requirement. A

pre-printing requirement forces Members to reveal their

amendments in advance of floor consideration, something that

may assist the floor managers, but can disadvantage the

Member offering it. In addition, a pre-printing requirement

blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the

course of the debate. When Chairman Dreier was in the

minority, he made the following statement about the

preprinting requirement during debate on a rule on national

service legislation:

``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in the

Congressional Record. That might not sound like much, but it

is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of House

debate. If amendments must be preprinted, then it is

impossible to listen to the debate on the floor, come up with

a new idea to improve the bill, and then offer an amendment

to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this burdensome pre-

printing process? Shouldn't the committees that report these

bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the legislation

under their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we can

do better.''

We agree with Chairman Dreier's statement that the purpose

of the amendment process on the floor is to give duly elected

Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a

manner that they believe is in the best interest of their

constituents and the Nation as a whole. It is not to help the

floor manager with his or her job. A majority interested in

allowing ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions''

would allow at least some House business to occur in an open

format--in a procedural framework that allows Members to

bring their amendments directly to the floor for discussion

and debate under the five-minute rule.

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

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Washington state, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, that amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow tax- exempt bond financing for airplanes that

exclusively provide emergency medical services.

Our current tax code prohibits the use of tax-exempt bonds for the purchase of airplanes. This exclusion was meant to prevent the use of tax-exempt bonds for frivolous purposes, including corporate jets. My legislation would continue the ban on using tax-exempt bonds for extravagant reasons and simply allow tax-exempt bond financing for airplanes that exclusively provide emergency medical services.

This issue is particularly important to my district because Inland Northwest Health Services (INHS), a non-profit organization based in Spokane, is looking to expand air ambulance service to rural areas by purchasing new planes. In 2007, INHS provided 2,891 emergency medical flights. INHS currently serves Central and Eastern Washington, as well as parts of Oregon, Idaho and Montana. In my district, INHS serves residents in Adams, Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas and Klickitat counties.

The IRS currently allows tax-exempt bonds to be used to purchase helicopters for air ambulance services. Some may wonder why then do we need to amend the tax code for fixed wing aircraft. In rural areas, such as my district, the use of helicopters is often impractical because of the long distances that patients must be transported. Airplanes are commonly the best mode of transportation for critically ill patients because they can travel longer distances and provide the safest and fastest mode of travel during inclement weather.

While I have focused on why this legislation is important to the residents of my district, I want to be clear that my legislation does not only assist the non-profit INHS. Under this bill, any organization that would like to obtain tax-exempt bond financing for airplanes that are exclusively dedicated to providing acute emergency care would be eligible.

I urge my colleagues to support this simple change to our tax code and I hope that this bill will become law in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake from Florida 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, the underlying intelligence authorization bill that this rule makes in order generally has bipartisan support in this House. This support comes in part from a number of Republican amendments that were adopted during the Intelligence Committee markup.

Among the adopted amendments was one offered by Ranking Member Hoekstra to eliminate all earmarks from the bill and to strike the provision transferring $39 billion to the Department of Justice for an entity known as the National Drug Intelligence Center.

This appropriateness of earmarking intelligence funds, and controversy surrounding this earmark in particular, was a serious issue during last year's consideration of this bill.

By adopting the Republican ban on earmarks in committee, such controversies are diminished, but Mr. Speaker, the larger need for earmark reform across Congress still remains.

Mr. Speaker, I support a 1-year earmark moratorium for all Members to allow for reforms to take place. Key among these reforms should be a definition of what is an appropriate allocation of Federal funds and what is an abuse of taxpayer dollars that assumes no essential or relevant Federal Government need.

Republican efforts to institute a 1-year ban on earmarks and to allow for a reform have been stymied by opposition from Speaker Pelosi and the other liberal leaders of the House.

While it is a small sign of success that earmarks have been stricken from this bill, a great deal more needs to be done to restore the American people's faith on how Congress spends taxpayers' money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the rule itself, I would like to make two points. First, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive and only makes in order half of the 20 amendments filed with the Rules Committee; just 10 amendments will be debated on this bill. There were other relevant amendments that were offered by Representatives on both sides of the aisle that were blocked by the Democrat Rules Committee.

In this instance, Mr. Speaker, the best that can be said about this unfair rule is that it at least treats both Republicans and Democrats unfairly by

blocking an almost equal number of amendments from Representatives of each party. However, Mr. Speaker, restricting debate on both sides of the aisle is not what the American people were promised by those who now control this House. They promised an historic level of bipartisan openness, not the record-setting shutdown of debate on the House floor that they've been practicing for the past year and a half.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule waives the PAYGO rule written and passed by the liberal Democrat majority in January of 2007. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may rush to say that they had to waive PAYGO rules because this is an intelligence bill and there is a classified section that isn't public, so it can't be read to make a parliamentary ruling on whether PAYGO has been violated. That's what the argument will probably be. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is a false excuse.

The fault here rests not with the need to keep secret the classified information in the bill, it's that the Democrat majority chose to write the new House rules--initially--behind closed doors without consulting with the whole House or with Republicans. In doing so, they have made error after embarrassing error. On multiple occasions, this House has had to go back and fix mistakes in the rules that Democrat leaders made by refusing to work or even consult with Republicans. They had to do it on charitable fund raising, plane travel, and banning Members from flying their own airplanes.

And when it comes to PAYGO, not only was the rule written poorly to apply to classified parts of the bill, but it's a rule that Democrat leaders have decided to ignore for politically expedient reasons.

There is a great deal of talk from the liberal majority on their allegiance to PAYGO, yet they've just ignored it time after time when it suits their purposes; for example, on the farm bill, on unemployment insurance extensions, and on fixing the alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, it's inconsistent to use PAYGO as an excuse to block proposals and amendments you oppose and then ignore PAYGO on a bill that you really want to pass. PAYGO is simply a smokescreen, Mr. Speaker, that this Democrat Congress is trying to use to cover for the largest proposed tax increase in American history and tens of billions of dollars in higher government spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend from Massachusetts, who is substituting for my namesake, I gather, if he has any more speakers on his side.

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

This rule provides for the consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Bill for the next fiscal year. This legislation is important to our national security, and it deserves the attention of this House. However, this Congress also needs to address the issue of skyrocketing gas prices that affect both our economic and our national security.

For months now, Democratic leaders have blocked debate and votes on legislation that would produce more American-made energy, which would open parts of Alaska, Federal lands and offshore to oil and gas drilling. As a result, in the long run, it would lower the price of gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting and Congress needs to act. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow for much needed energy legislation to be considered on this House floor.

By defeating the previous question, the House can finally vote on this vital economic and national security issue.

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 urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this House can get serious about rising gas prices and so that we can start producing American-made gasoline.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. 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 oppose this unfair rule and the underlying bill that makes a mockery of our Nation's Wild and Scenic River law.

First, this rule unfairly restricts Members from being able to offer amendments on the House floor. It's not the first time. It's a continuing pattern that we have seen over and over and over again. While every Democrat amendment filed with the Rules Committee was made in order, this rule allows only two out of 15 Republican amendments to be offered on the floor.

Seven attempts were made in the Rules Committee meeting on Monday to allow more amendments to be offered and to allow the House to consider the bill under an open rule allowing every Member of this body an opportunity to offer amendments on the House floor. Yet Democrats on the Rules Committee voted to block each and every attempt to allow a more open consideration of this bill.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may attempt to argue that some of the amendments weren't allowed for technical reasons, but those excuses ring hollow, Mr. Speaker, when they block every single attempt to allow for a more open debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the underlying bill to designate the Taunton River in Massachusetts as a wild and scenic river. Mr. Speaker, I openly admit that I have never visited this river myself. But as they say, ``a picture is worth a thousand words.'' Mr. Speaker, I could say nothing at all, but a picture does say a thousand words. Here I have a photograph with me of a portion of this river that is anything but wild and scenic.

Now, a simple glance at this photo would be enough for the House to just halt consideration of this legislation. Such a heavily developed and industrialized riverfront, with its multilane roadways, massive bridges and fuel storage tanks should disqualify, should disqualify this section of the river from being labeled wild and scenic.

Now it's argued that the reason this portion is included is because it's ``recreational.'' Mr. Speaker, honestly, it's hard to imagine that one would choose to go swimming or enjoy a peaceful canoe trip through this portion of the river. Quite simply, this portion of the river simply should not be afforded among the highest environmental protections possible under Federal law by designating it as a wild and scenic river. Mr. Speaker, quite bluntly, if this qualifies, if this qualifies as a wild and scenic river under the intent of that statute, then downtown Manhattan can be a national forest and Six Flags can be a national park.

This bill was scheduled to be considered by the House last week, yet it was postponed and rescheduled again for this week. This delay was caused when questions were raised that the true purpose of the bill, to name this river as wild and scenic, was to block a liquefied natural gas, or LNG, plant that has been proposed to be sited there. With record gas prices and high energy costs, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question, because passage of this bill would block the proposed LNG plant from ever being built.

Now my colleagues will argue, as they have already argued, that it already won't be built because the Coast Guard and others have raised objections and there are difficult hurdles under current law to overcome. However, the fundamental point is that today the law allows, the law allows today, for an LNG plant to be built if it can meet the necessary requirements. If it can't meet them right at this minute, then over time they may meet them. Or as the need for this energy becomes more apparent, then maybe the groundswell of support could allow this project to go forward. But if this law passes, Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible to build an LNG plant if this bill becomes law.

So, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the liberal leaders of this House block any effort to increase energy production right here in America, when gas prices are skyrocketing and Americans are hurting, now is not the time, is not the time, to make energy more difficult to get or more expensive.

Now the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Frank, testified before the Rules Committee on Monday. And Mr. McGovern in his remarks elaborated on this facility. He asked that the wishes of the

Massachusetts delegation be respected in naming this a wild and scenic river because it only applies to them in Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must note with irony, with irony, that a request coming from the Massachusetts delegation to respect their wishes on this river, this bill, in opposition to this LNG plant. The argument is that this is in their backyard. And yet, Mr. Speaker, members of the Massachusetts delegation have repeatedly, repeatedly, voted to oppose the wishes of the Alaska delegation. On what you might ask? Well specifically on Alaska's wishes to develop the oil reserves in ANWR. Mr. Speaker, the folks of Massachusetts may have big backyards. But they don't stretch thousands of miles away to Alaska.

We must recognize that if this industrial riverfront is permitted to be added to our Nation's wild and scenic rivers list, then truly all qualified rivers are diminished. This doesn't just affect Massachusetts. It affects every State in which there is a wild and scenic river. And in my home State of Washington, there are several.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

Well, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I tried to get him to yield when he was closing on the last bill, and he didn't. So when one talks about collegiality, one should start maybe with his own.

The point is, on this issue, is it not correct that in Rules Committee last night or the night before last when we were up there, you stated, and Mr. Frank stated, very specifically, that the House should respect the wishes of the Massachusetts delegation? And is it not true that the gentleman I think from Massachusetts and maybe other members of the Massachusetts delegation have done precisely the opposite as it relates to the wishes of the Alaska delegation?

Would the gentleman yield on that point just for clarification? Is the gentleman denying that this is not a photograph of the Taunton River?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. WESTMORElAND. If you can look at the overall connection of the dots, this is just another one of those connections that shows that the majority party here is not going to give a clear up-or-down vote on increasing our oil production. It is going to continue to give the world and other countries the idea that we are going to be dependent on their foreign oil, and it is another example of: Well, we may have stretched the truth, and the people ate it up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I made the observation that passing this bill with what this picture shows--

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, when I asked the gentleman if this in fact was a picture of the Taunton River, the gentleman responded in the affirmative. Now there may be some changes, but he did say this is the Taunton River.

Now in my remarks I said that this diminishes the wild and scenic rivers that are in every place in this country. I said that there are several of them in my State. So I would just ask my colleagues this one simple question: Are we going to change the wild and scenic designation in this country to look like this? Or like this? This is a picture of the Klickitat River which is a wild and scenic designation in my State.

So if we are going to argue on the merits of wild and scenic, and making something that is urban like this as wild and scenic, we need to take into consideration what it historically has been, like the Klickitat River in my State.

That is a fundamental argument that is going on here today. There are others things that enter into it, and I would be more than happy to engage in that later in my remarks. But this is a fundamental difference, and what they are trying to do with this wild and scenic designation in an urban area compared to what has been done all across the country, including my home State of Washington.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Louisiana, I want to ask my friend from Massachusetts, and I will be happy to yield, that picture you have, I understand, is an artist's rendering of the river; is that correct?

It is a photograph?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

A lot has been said here just recently in the last exchange about plans. I have here a Boston Herald editorial called ``Cold Water on River Plan'' dated the 10th of July. I will read parts of it here:

``Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law rather creatively to further their own political aims. But the effort by U.S. Representative Barney Frank to transform a stretch of industrial riverfront in Fall River into a 'wild and scenic' resource is as shameless as it gets.''

They go on to say, ``It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial plan for the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal.''

I repeat once again, it's not people from other parts of the country talking about this. This is the Boston Globe. Or the Boston Herald.

[From the Boston Herald, July 10, 2008]

Cold Water on River Plan

Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law

rather creatively to further their own political aims. But

the effort by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank to transform a stretch

of industrial riverfront in Fall River into a ``wild and

scenic'' resource is as shameless as it gets.

Think ``A River Runs Through It'' and you can picture the

waterways that typically win ``wild and scenic'' designation.

But until Republicans intervened Frank was close to securing

that protected status for the Taunton River, limiting

development along the river and its ``immediate

environment.''

It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial plan for

the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal. A vote was

canceled yesterday, with Frank's office suggesting

Republicans wanted to make it a ``national issue.''

Well, they HAVE pointed out the irony of top Democratic

leaders (Sens. Kennedy and Kerry sponsored the bill in the

Senate) going all out to kill a plan that would ease the

delivery of natural gas to New England customers. . . .

Yes, environmentalists have been seeking a special

designation of the river for years. But if anyone believes it

would have gained this kind of momentum without Weaver's

Cove, well, we have some rusty container ships, fuel storage

tanks and warehouses along the Taunton River you might be

interested in.

The amusing thing is none of this seems necessary, given

that the Coast Guard has already rejected Weaver's Cove based

on quite ligitimate concerns about navigation and safety.

Guess you never can have enough insurance.

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

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

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

We have had a discussion in several areas on this project. Let me start with the most fundamental area, and that's the designation of wild and scenic. I pointed out, by making this river, which is industrial--and I might add, by the way, that the initial study called for studying the wild and scenic designation only on the upper stretches, as I understand, of the Taunton River, not the lower. But the final report came back, because, as the report said, if the river could talk, this would be what they wanted.

My goodness, we are listening to rivers. I would like to see that testimony to see what the river exactly said.

But at any rate, the bottom half was put into this wild and scenic designation.

As I pointed out, this is dramatically different, dramatically different from other wild and scenic designations across the country like the Klickitat River in my district. We talked about the issue of power and siting energy plants.

The gentleman from Louisiana, where there are a lot of natural gas areas, among other energy producers in that State, is certainly knowledgeable when it comes to that. There is a lively exchange on this.

Also, the Boston Herald, as I pointed out said, editorially, a week ago, less than a week ago, that this is a shameless way in order to take this issue off the table.

But here is the final component, and we really haven't talked about that yet, but I do want to talk about that.

I have an article here from The Herald News, which is the Fall River Herald News, and it's an article, the byline is by Mr. Will Richmond, it was written on the 15th of July, which was yesterday.

The headline that I see here is ``Scenic Designation Could Sink Riverfront Businesses.'' I bring that up in this context because my friend on the other side of the aisle was making the argument that this designation would be

good for the economy and so forth, presumably from the standpoint of tourism and so forth, but there are some businesses that are located right in this area, and they have some real doubts.

Let me read a couple of excerpts, if I may, out of this article:

``With the U.S. House of Representatives scheduled today to vote on the designation of the lower Taunton River as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, shipbuilders and other businesses located on the banks of the waterway are anxiously watching.

``The designation would hamper businesses, they say, possibly even leading to closures.''

Now before I go on, I would just say, how does that help the people that live in this area by this designation?

And I go on to quote, and I'm quoting a Mr. Donald Church, who is with Seaboats, Inc. He is the owner of Seaboats, Inc. And he says, ``It's all great to be touchy and feely, and it's great to protect the environment. But people in this city have got to have jobs.''

He goes on to say that because of this, there is some question, and it ``could easily lead to him selling his business,'' which, I might add, has a $5 million annual payroll.

On the other side of the river, there is another shipbuilder, Gladding-Hearn, and their president, Peter Duclos, and I hope I say that correctly, said, and I quote, ``Our feeling is that it's a stretch to be applying a noble environmental act on this part of the river,'' Duclos said. ``This area is industrial historically. Fall River wouldn't be here without a deep water part. I'm not sure this legislation is in the best interest of the businesses along the river.'' And he's talking about potentially adding 50 new jobs, but they have some real concerns about this designation.

Now, I might say, Mr. Speaker, from my experience in the western part of the United States, where we have these ``nice'' environmental designations, wild and scenic being among them, you have, our experience in the West has been, a restriction of use on these rivers, rather than an expansion. And this is precisely what these shipbuilder owners are saying with this potential designation on the industrial area of this river.

So we have three aspects to this, as I mentioned. We have the aspects of undermining what the intent was of wild and scenic designation as it was put in law to really protect wild and scenic. We have the issue of energy. That has been well discussed, especially when we have energy prices going up, and we have a potential here to locate an LNG plant. And then we have the issue of jobs in this area where there is concern in this area.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that, if for no other reason, it is a reason to defeat the rule, it is a reason, actually, to defeat the previous question so we can talk about energy; and I will be offering an amendment to that effect. But it is about defeating the rule so maybe the Rules Committee can go back, make an open rule and perfect this legislation to make it more palatable, not only to the Members of this House, but also to people that live in that area.

And, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have this inserted in the Record.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, how much time is on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from Massachusetts if he is prepared to close, if I close.

I just asked the gentleman is he acknowledging that the other was an artist's rendition? Is he acknowledging that then?

I am talking about the other one.

Mr. Speaker, I surmise from that that he is the last speaker on that side; is that correct?

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

Mr. Speaker, instead of considering a bill to designate industrialized riverfronts as wild and scenic to block an LNG energy plant from ever being built, this Congress should be debating bills that result in more energy and more energy production within the United States. Instead of bills that could result in higher energy costs, like this one, Congress should be working to lower gas prices and decrease the cost of energy. America needs to produce more oil and gas and energy using our own abundant reserves.

It is time for the House to debate and vote on bills to open ANWR, our oceans and Federal lands to drilling. If we were to increase the supply of oil, then the price of oil will decrease. Instead of allowing these proposals to be given a fair vote, the liberal leaders of this House are bending over backwards to block ideas to produce more American-made energy. Today, every Representative will have a chance to break Speaker Pelosi's blockage against bills aimed at lowering gas prices, and they can do that, Mr. Speaker, by voting no on the previous question. By voting no, we can end this obstruction and we can get to work.

If the previous question is defeated, I will simply amend the rule to allow the House to consider H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act, which will reduce the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contributed to unaffordable gas prices. This is a commonsense bill that will help lower gas prices by ending government mandates and manipulation that increase the cost to everybody's pain at the pump.

So, 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 once again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can debate, in an open manner, the part of the energy crisis and solutions to the energy crisis that we face in this country.

And 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3227, legislation to allow for the continued stocking of fish in certain alpine lakes in the North Cascades National Park Complex, including the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

Many of these lakes have been stocked since the turn of the 20th century, long before they became part of the National Park complex. For decades, volunteer groups, working with the State of Washington, have stocked trout in a number of lakes in this area under carefully constructed management plans written by State and Park Service biologists. In addition, congressional consideration of the creation of the North Cascades National Park points to allowing fish stocking.

In order to protect this longstanding practice in the North Cascades, I introduced H.R. 3227 to ensure that fish stocking can continue. While I believe the original text of this bill provided the clearest path to the protection and continuation of fish stocking, I am also confident that this amended text also fully ensures the stocking of fish in these lakes.

I would like to briefly mention two of the changes to the legislation. First, the amended version of H.R. 3227 reduces the number of lakes that can be studied from 91, which is the number of lakes that have historically had fish stocking, to 42. I believe this reduction was unnecessary but am supporting it to ensure the advancement of this legislation. In my view, it should be left up to scientists in the Park Service and the State of Washington to decide which lakes should be stocked. Congress does not have the proper science to study which lakes are best and, therefore, we should not be arbitrarily limiting the number of lakes that can be studied.

The changes made in the Resources Committee also limited the type of fish that can be used to stock the lakes. After working with the National Park Service and the State of Washington, my original legislation was drafted to allow fish that are either native to the watershed or functionally sterile to be used. The version before us today states that the fish have to be both native to the Cascade Range and functionally sterile. The one word change from ``or'' to ``and'' puts a needless burden on those who stock the lakes. Those involved with fish stocking want to ensure that the lakes and the surrounding area are kept in pristine condition. In addition, the National Park Service and the State of Washington are the only entities with the authority to stock the lakes. Again, it is my view that these decisions should be left up to science and the people working in the North Cascades to decide what fish are both safe for the environment and the best for stocking. This change will only serve to increase the cost and the effort needed to stock the lakes of the North Cascades--but such a compromise moves this bill forward.

Despite my disagreement on the wisdom of changes made to this legislation, I am pleased that the House has the opportunity to pass H.R. 3227 today. Although the version before us is far from perfect, it does allow fish stocking to rightfully continue in the North Cascades. Compromise is never easy, and at times it produces a diminished product. That is the case today. However, I can support it as a result of bipartisan negotiations and agreement. But, more importantly, I can support it because it provides firm protections to continue fish stocking where it was always intended to be allowed.

Finally, I would like to thank many of my Washington state colleagues who cosponsored H.R. 3227, including Rick Larsen, Norm Dicks, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brian Baird and Adam Smith. I especially would like to note the assistance provided by Norm Dicks, whose involvement in this issue goes back to his time as a staff member in Congress. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation to make sure that my constituents and many other residents of Washington and our surrounding States can continue to enjoy the recreation opportunities created by fish stocking in the North Cascades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

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

The gentleman is prepared to close if I close?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake from Florida, the other Mr. Hastings, 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, this bill deals specifically with Indian land claims settlements in Michigan and designating new tribal trust lands that will be used to open any new Indian casinos in two Michigan towns.

The Michigan delegation is split in their support and opposition to this legislation, with the two Representatives whose districts will become home to the new casinos being strongly in favor of this proposal.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, it has been my long-held view that when it comes

to matters that affect individual congressional districts that the House should give great consideration and deference to the views of the Representatives elected by the voters in those districts.

However, I know many of my colleagues join me in having various serious concerns about our Nation's broken Indian gaming law, as well as the troubling issue of Indian tribes seeking to acquire new, prime locations to open casinos where no business or interest would be allowed to do so otherwise, and doing this without the ability of the local community to have a say in the expansion of gambling in their community.

These aren't just matters affecting Michigan. They affect States across the Nation. Yet, this House is not being permitted to debate needed improvements to Federal Indian gaming law.

This totally closed rule blocks every single Member of this House from coming to the floor and offering an amendment to this bill. The House is being severely restricted and is spending its time refereeing a parochial Michigan dispute instead of addressing the larger, more serious matters confronting other States.

This violates the promises made by the liberal leaders of this House to the American people to operate in an open manner. This is not an open process, Mr. Speaker. It's a closed process. It's not open when debate is restricted only to Michigan when, in fact, there are very serious issues affecting many States all across this country.

Congress created the ability of Indian tribes to get special treatment in opening casinos, and we've got a duty to police this process.

The Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is broken and needs improvement. The simple fact the House is spending several hours today debating this Michigan matter is evidence that the law is broken.

If the House is going to spend time debating this subject, we should be fixing the larger problem. And if Congress is going to spend its precious time resolving a Michigan dispute, then we could use some real help in the State of Washington, my home State, where the citizens are seeing a dramatic expansion of Indian gaming, more casinos, bigger casinos, higher betting limits, with big profits being collected, and yet our State doesn't get one dime in revenue sharing.

One of the reasons the proponents of this Michigan legislation, including the State's Governor, argue in favor of creating this new tribal land and two new casinos is because it will bring in millions of dollars in more revenue to the government of Michigan.

Yet, in my home State of Washington, our State government gets nothing from Indian casinos that generate over $1.3 billion a year in revenue. In fact, there was a proposed revenue sharing of $140 million a year that the Governor of Washington State rejected without input from the citizens of the State or a vote of the State legislature. Some would say, well, your Governor made a terrible deal, and I would, of course, wholeheartedly agree. But there is something seriously wrong if a law allows giveaways of this magnitude to Indian casinos.

But instead of allowing the House to discuss and consider amendment on the larger issues of revenue sharing, compact negotiations, and off- reservation gaming, today's debate is restricted just to Michigan.

Meanwhile, the liberal leaders of this House continue to refuse to let Representatives consider and vote on solutions to lower the price of gas in our country.

Prices are skyrocketing. In Florida, the average price for a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline is $4.03. In Michigan, it's $4.07. In my State of Washington, it's $4.33. That's 31 cents higher than just a month ago and $1.20 higher than a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation needs to produce more American-made energy. We have the resources and technology to do it now. Now we just need to get the will of Congress here to allow it. For far too long, our Nation's reserves have been off limits. We can't afford these policies anymore, Mr. Speaker.

America has abundant reserves in Alaska, in the West and offshore. Let's produce more oil and natural gas here in our country.

But of course, this isn't the only answer. We need to invest in more nuclear power, hydropower, wind, solar, and other new energy sources. But all of this needs to happen in addition to tapping our own oil and gas reserves.

Gas prices just keep going up and the liberal leaders of this Congress just can't say ``no'' to American-made energy anymore.

Let the House debate proposals to generate more energy here in America. Stop blocking a House vote on tapping into America's oil and gas reserves while the price of gasoline climbs higher and higher.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that the House can right away debate solutions to our higher gasoline prices.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

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

Mr. Speaker, after I made my opening remarks, my friend from Florida stood up and said that I was on message, and I thank him very, very much for the compliment because I was talking about something that the American people clearly, clearly are concerned about, and that is the high energy costs and particularly the high prices of gasoline. So I think, Mr. Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing price of gasoline.

By defeating the previous question, the House will have that opportunity. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule, not rewrite the rule, just amend the rule, to make in order and allow the House to consider H.R. 5656, introduced by Representative Hensarling of Texas.

If this House has time to spend several hours debating Indian land claims and new casinos in Michigan, then it certainly has time to debate the high price of gasoline. It's time we start producing more American-made energy. Our country can't afford the knee-jerk, no-to- any-drilling-in-America approach that the liberal leaders of this House still cling to. The citizens of our country can't afford a Congress that does nothing. It's time for this House to act, and defeating the previous question will allow us to do so.

So, 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 urge my colleagues, then, to defeat the previous question so this House can get serious about rising gas prices and so we can start producing American-made gasoline and energy.

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