Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 2245, my bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Wenatchee, Washington in honor of Elwood ``Bud'' Link.

Bud joined the Navy in 1941 and served on the destroyer USS Tracy that aided U.S. forces at Guadalcanal, Okinawa, and elsewhere in the Pacific. He was one of many residents of north central Washington who were called to serve their country during World War II. However, Bud's support for his Nation didn't stop when his military service ended.

As an active member of the local Cashmere Veterans of Foreign Wars post, Bud was a dedicated advocate for increased hometown health care. He experienced firsthand the long distances north central Washington veterans had to travel for even the most basic health care. In 2001, the Cashmere-Leavenworth VFW passed a motion to research the need for a VA clinic, and Bud quickly took the lead. He became a tireless proponent of bringing a veterans outpatient clinic to north central Washington.

Bud was instrumental in keeping the local veterans motivated, active and informed about how to successfully make a clinic a reality. He championed the clinic until his death in 2003.

For several years I worked with Bud Link and local veterans to make the case for a new clinic in north central Washington and press the VA when the project faced delays. Our hard work paid off in 2006 when the Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved a new clinic. And, in 2007 I was very proud to attend the grand opening of the new VA clinic in Wenatchee.

As a tribute to Bud's work to support hometown health care for rural Washington state veterans, Senator Patty Murray and I introduced legislation to name the clinic in Bud's honor.

This bill has the endorsement of the local community, the entire Washington state Congressional delegation, the Washington state Chapters of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Vietnam Veterans of America.

By officially naming this clinic in Wenatchee after Bud, we are paying respect to a local veteran who fought for the quality care his fellow veterans deserve.

I would like to thank Bud's wife, Helen, for her steadfast support of Bud's efforts. I would also like to thank the members of the Cashmere- Leavenworth VFW for their work to organize the local community in support of the clinic. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer for their work to bring this bill to the floor today.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2245. Through this bill we are recognizing the heroic efforts of Bud Link and his work to improve the health care of his fellow veterans.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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, I am very pleased to be able to urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bipartisan bill to update our Nation's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Since the Protect America Act expired in February, our Nation has been relying on an outdated 1970s law to monitor foreign persons in foreign places who seek to do our Nation's citizens harm. At long last, Madam Speaker, the House will be permitted to vote on a bipartisan bill that our Nation's intelligence leaders are confident will allow them to do their jobs without costly delays and mountains of paperwork.

This bill is not perfect, but it takes vital steps to modernize FISA to reflect 21st century cell phone and Internet technology, and to protect our Nation from today's determined and sophisticated terrorist threats.

In February, 68 Senators voted to pass a bipartisan compromise. Yet, ever since that overwhelming bipartisan Senate vote, the liberal leaders of this House have refused to allow a vote because they knew a majority would pass it. Republicans tried for months to advance the bipartisan Senate compromise to a vote in the House, but we were blocked time after time. Today, this blockade will be broken when Democrats join Republicans in voting to pass the bipartisan FISA modernization bill.

So Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of my friend from New York, I have no requests for time and I'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman is prepared to close.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, on June 8, the New York Times published a story that raised questions about Senators that amended legislation to protect home State hospitals from a new move in this Congress to ban doctor-owned hospitals. The article labeled these actions as ``special interest'' and questioned their appropriateness. It cited specific Senators, including a senior Senator from my State of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding each hospital in the article, but I am very familiar with Wenatchee Valley Medical Center and efforts being undertaken by those who represented in Congress to protect this institution from the threat of a government- forced closure or sale.

The criticism leveled against the Washington State Senator in the New York Times article is unjustified and totally without merit. Senator Murray's action to protect the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center was entirely appropriate. In fact, it's what this Nation's citizens should expect from their elected representatives.

Mr. Speaker, it's troubling that the targets of scrutiny are those who are standing up and who are protecting their constituents and not those seeking to force the closure or sale of a hometown hospital system simply because it is doctor-owned.

The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center and its seven clinics serve a rural population, in my State, of a quarter of a million people in an area the size of the State of Maryland. The medical center accepts all patients regardless of their ability to pay, and it has a long record of providing quality care. Today, it is jointly owned by 150 doctors. For this simple reason, it is a target for some who think doctor ownership should be banned.

Twice in this Congress House Democrats have passed bills that would outlaw the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center as it exists today, not because of any poor care or bad behavior by its doctors but simply because it is owned by doctors. I offered amendments to both bills. Some of my amendments would have stopped the ban on doctor-owned hospitals. Others would have altered the ban to protect the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center. Unfortunately, House Democrat leaders blocked every one from even being debated and voted on the floor of the House. These same House leaders also swept aside the objections and concerns of at least eleven Democrats who have spoken out against this proposal and the harm it would cause to their local hospitals.

When I last spoke on the House floor against such legislation, I asked the Democrat chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee if he would work with me to exempt the few existing doctor-owned hospitals that would be impacted in both Democrat and Republican districts. He replied, ``The answer is no.''

The Democrat chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health

was quoted by the New York Times as saying, ``He would prefer not to exempt any doctor-owned hospitals.''

When the Federal Government dictates that doctors can't own a hospital, Mr. Speaker, this is a step towards a Canadian-style, government-run health care system under which the Federal Government decides where, when, how, and even if Americans get care. This means Americans could be faced with waiting lists and rationing and bureaucrats, not doctors, making decisions about their health.

With those who control the House intent and insistent on banning doctor-owned hospitals, at a minimum, protection must be given to allow existing facilities like the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center to continue serving patients like it has, Mr. Speaker, for 60 years.

Being 1 out of 100, the powers of an individual Senator are considerable. Senator Murray used her committee position to add language protecting the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center to legislation that included the ban on doctor-owned hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, she has done the right thing. Despite what may have been printed in the New York Times, I will keep working with Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers to fully protect the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center. I reject any notion that what Senator Murray has done is anything but appropriate and necessary, and I commend her for her actions.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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.)

Madam Speaker, it is an unfortunate spectacle to see the leaders of this Congress manipulate the extension of unemployment benefits into a partisan weapon and a diversion from their failure to do anything about the skyrocketing price of gasoline and diesel. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want the American people to believe that Republicans are mean, uncaring and opposed to providing help to unemployed workers as they look for a job.

I am certain, Madam Speaker, that Democrat after Democrat will come to the House floor and attempt to paint this cartoon view of the world. But nothing, Madam Speaker, is further from the truth. It is Republicans who have been trying for weeks, months and years to overcome the near monolithic Democrat opposition to producing more American-made energy, which will increase the oil supply and lower prices at the pump to keep our economy working. The high cost of gasoline is affecting families, workers and businesses in every town in this country, and this Democrat Congress does nothing.

Let me state for the record that Republicans not only believe in the importance and value of unemployment benefits and that we support extension of benefits in times of needs, but that it was a Republican Congress and President that last enacted unemployment benefit extensions in 2003, and I supported and voted for those extensions.

Yet the liberal leaders of this Congress decided to bring an unemployment benefit extension bill to the House floor that purposely undermines the bipartisan, responsible manner in which extensions have been enacted for the past 27 years, going all the way back to 1981. Democrat leaders decided to change the rules and to do it while blocking every single Representative, Republican or Democrat, from being able to come to the floor of the House and offer their suggestions for improving unemployment insurance or better directing benefits to those Americans or those communities in our country that are most in need.

As written in this bill, Madam Speaker, Democrats have mutated the requirements for receiving benefits so that an individual could work for just 2 weeks and then get an entire year's worth of unemployment benefits. Madam Speaker, giving 365 days worth of benefit checks for having worked just 14 days violates most Americans' sense of fairness. There is a big difference between providing a leg up and giving a handout, and I think this bill crosses that line.

This bill also gives an extra 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to States where the unemployment rate is incredibly low, below 3 percent. Instead of focusing benefit extensions to where it is needed, this bill gives it to places where it is not.

As I said, Democrats have chosen to mutate the way unemployment benefit extensions have been done for the past 27 years so that they can try to score political points. But Democrats have also decided it is okay to break the promises they made to the American people in just the last election.

One of the promises that Democrat leaders spoke about the loudest and most often was their commitment to what is known as PAYGO, or pay-as- you-go. Under the promise made by Democrat leaders, a new rule was written in the House at the start of this Congress to prevent any bill from passing that wasn't budget neutral, that didn't offset new spending with spending cuts or tax increases.

Madam Speaker, Democrats are not keeping that promise on this bill. On this bill, they are waiving PAYGO rules. They are now saying that the PAYGO rule they wrote and the promise they made to the American people can be ignored whenever it is convenient or expedient.

Madam Speaker, my purpose in raising the issue of PAYGO rules being violated is not to use it as an argument against the extension of unemployment benefits, but to point out the broken promises and hypocrisy of the liberal leaders of this Congress. They claim it is okay to ignore PAYGO because American people pay unemployment insurance tax out of every paycheck, so it is the American people's own money that is paying for the bill.

Well, when it comes to income tax increases, that is the American people's money too. Yet it was just 2 days ago that the Democrat majority leader flat out declared that Americans will face billions of dollars of tax increases this year if expiring tax rates aren't offset by PAYGO rules.

Madam Speaker, the leaders of this House are using PAYGO to hold hostage tax relief legislation that would prevent 25 million Americans from having their taxes go up by an average of $2,000 next April to pay the AMT tax.

They are holding an extension of the State sales tax deduction hostage under PAYGO rules by requiring taxes to be increased so that the residents of sales tax States, like my State, can be treated as fairly and equally as residents of income tax States. For the leaders of this Congress, PAYGO is an excuse to raise taxes by billions of dollars, but PAYGO can be ignored when they mutate long-standing unemployment benefits to allow someone who works just 2 weeks, just 2 weeks, to get an entire year's worth of benefits checks.

This extension of unemployment benefits is labeled as an emergency, as an emergency, because unemployment rose from 5 to 5.5 percent last month. It's stated that this is the largest 1-month increase in two decades and so Congress must now pass legislation. This 1-month increase of 10 percent is justification for urgent, immediate action that this House and the Senate must clear all other schedules and vote to pass this legislation without delay. That's what has been said.

Where is the same level of urgency and need for immediate action on gas prices? Gas prices have gone up over 10 percent in the last month. Americans aren't just paying the highest gas prices in the past two decades, they are paying the highest prices ever, ever, recorded in the history of this country? Almost every day the price of gasoline sets a new record.

Since Democrats took control of Congress the price of gasoline has gone up over 75 percent. At the pace that prices are climbing, it may only be a matter of time until they have doubled, doubled, while this liberal Congress does nothing.

I absolutely agree that losing one's job is a painful experience and that it deserves the attention of Congress. But

the pain of filling up your gas tank is felt by every American, whether they just lost their job or not. The pain of skyrocketing gas prices is hurting all Americans, all Americans, yet this liberal Congress does nothing to help increase the supply of gasoline to lower prices at the pump.

Time after time Democrats have blocked real solutions for more American-made energy by increasing oil and gas production and refining here, right here, in America. America has billions of barrels of oil reserves and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, but Democrats insist on keeping it off limits. We are not allowed to make our own energy, and so the prices continue to climb.

How long will Speaker Pelosi and this liberal Congress refuse to act to increase supply and lower gas prices? How high do prices have to go before they stop blockading America from tapping its own resources? There were thousands of oil-drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico that weathered two back-to-back Category 5 hurricanes, Rita and Katrina, and not one single rig ruptured. America has the resources and safe technology to produce oil for years, but Democrats refuse to allow it.

Eighty-six percent of congressional Democrats have opposed more American-made energy, while 91 percent of Republicans have supported producing more energy right here in our own country. If this Congress is serious about addressing economic pain, then they need to get serious about gas prices and stop blocking real solutions.

For months Republicans have tried to force this House, and for months Democrats have refused to act. Meanwhile, the price of gas and diesel just goes up and up and up.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Putnam of Florida.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

I will reserve my time so that we can equal the time out here.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

I want to remind my friend from Michigan that the last time that we passed an unemployment benefit extension in this Congress was in 2003. It passed on a bipartisan basis.

And the opposition that the constituents in my area are concerned about is this 2-week window. That is where the issue is.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, how much time again remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I will reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I would ask my friend from New York how many speakers he has.

Madam Speaker, I have 3 minutes left; is that correct?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, the idea here is to take care of those that have lost their jobs by extending unemployment benefits. The idea is to get a bill to the President that he will sign. As the gentleman from Illinois said, this bill has been waiting now for 8 weeks before it has been brought to the floor, but the bill, in its present form, will not be signed because it has changed 27 years of bipartisan support on extending unemployment benefits.

So I think that we need to go back to the drawing board, if you will, and get a bill that we know that the President will sign. But more importantly, more importantly, we need to get our economy going again. And so it's time, in my mind, for the House to debate ideas for lowering gas prices to get the economy going again.

I'm going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that the House can consider H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses energy bill. By defeating the previous question, the House will still be able to act on the unemployment benefit extension bill, but the House will also be able to finally act on legislation that will create more American-made energy and jobs to increase the supply of gas by producing more gas and producing more gas here in our Nation. It will increase the supply and decrease the price at the pump. Skyrocketing prices need the attention of this Congress, and we've got to act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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, the House of Representatives is currently spending 1 hour debating what rules will be used to consider the underlying Chesapeake Bay Watertrails bill. This is legislation that has passed the House in prior years with little or no dissent and without controversy. So the question must be asked, Mr. Speaker, why are the Democrat leaders going through all of this trouble of having the House consider this bill under this special rule? Why is the House going to spend 2 hours today discussing a bill that could have been handled in just 20 minutes under suspension and ultimately passed by an overwhelming number of votes in this House? And why, if the House is going to such lengths and dedicating 2 hours to consider watertrails on the Chesapeake Bay, are Members being blocked from a true, meaningful debate on the issue?

This rule allows only one amendment to be offered, and that amendment would simply limit the extension of this existing Chesapeake Bay law for another 5 years, instead of extending it forever as the bill is currently written. If we are going to go through all the trouble of bringing this noncontroversial bill to the floor, why don't we have a real debate that allows every Member who has an amendment or an idea to improve this legislation to come to the House floor and have it discussed and voted on?

When the Democrat leaders took control of the Congress after the 2006 election, they promised the American people that they would run the House in a more open and honest manner. But ever since they made that promise, Democrat leaders have been doing just exactly the opposite. The Congressional Record shows that this Democrat Congress actually has the worst record, Mr. Speaker, the worst record on openness in the history of our country. In the past year-and-a-half, they have only allowed one bill, one bill, to come to the House floor and be debated under an open rule. As we see today on this Chesapeake Bay bill, they are even shutting down debate on even the most noncontroversial pieces of legislation.

Now, I might point out also that the Democrat leaders today convened the House early. Normally when you get to work early it is either because you have a lot to do or you want to go home early. Let's consider that the only two things the House is scheduled to do today is to spend 2 hours debating watertrails and the Chesapeake Bay and one hour of debate on a final budget that was supposed to have been done, Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, and it is a budget that raises taxes by the largest amount in American history. At any rate, that is just 3 hours of time.

So why did we convene early? What are we going to do the rest of the day? It seems pretty clear that the House didn't get to work early today because they had so much to do, but rather it

is, I believe, so the House can leave early and go home.

Mr. Speaker, I have another idea, and that is that this House get serious about the rising price of gasoline in our country.

So I urge my colleagues to vote no against the previous question when they bring that up at the end of the debate to allow the House to debate ``an amendment to a bill which the proponents assert if enacted would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.''

Mr. Speaker, I first proposed this action on a similar previous question rule back on April 23. In the 44 days since, this liberal Congress has done nothing to address rising gas prices. According to information gathered by the AAA, the citizens of Washington State, my home State, who buy gas are paying the highest reported price for gasoline that has ever been paid in that State. It is at $4.19 per gallon.

Speaker Pelosi promised the American people that Democrats had ``a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Speaker Pelosi also said that the Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.'' Despite this promise of a plan and lower prices, since Democrats took control of the Congress, they have put forward no plan and prices have gone up, up and up to record levels.

And Democrats have blocked every try after try by Republicans to allow the House to debate, just simply to debate legislation to lower the price of gasoline. The only bill that Democrats have brought to the floor and passed was to file lawsuits against OPEC countries in the Middle East and to try to get them to produce more oil and to reduce prices. That is all, Mr. Speaker.

Democrats may believe that suing Middle Eastern countries and raising taxes is a plan to lower gas prices here in America, but common sense says that is just wrong. It is Republicans that have a plan to produce American made gas and energy and it is the Democrats who are standing in the way of these solutions.

Prices go up when demand goes up, and around the world the demand for oil and gas is going way up. Our country can either continue to sit here and be at the mercy of overseas Nations for our energy needs, or we as Americans can start taking matters into our own hands and start accessing the millions of barrels of known reserves right here within the United States. Our Nation's energy reserves have been put off- limits, and Democrats continue to block even exploring the possibility of producing more energy here in America.

With record gas prices at gas stations across the country, Americans can't afford to continue to rely on other countries in volatile parts of the world to sell us the gas and oil that we need. We need to produce this energy ourselves, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so this House can debate the serious issue of rising gas prices confronting Americans in our country and so we can start producing, producing, Mr. Speaker, American-made gasoline.

If the House is going to spend 2 hours debating authorizing the Chesapeake Bay Watertrails law for 5 years or not, we certainly I think, Mr. Speaker, can afford to dedicate some time to considering ways to reduce the rising price of gasoline.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Before I yield to the gentleman from California, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of my friend from New York if he has any further speakers.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of my friend

from New York if he's the last speaker still.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leaders today have put a noncontroversial Chesapeake Bay watertrails bill on the House floor, but what is first and foremost on the minds of Americans is gas prices, as we have talked about today. And it's also a huge concern in the Chesapeake Bay communities.

I venture to guess the citizens and families living around the Chesapeake Bay don't wake up in the morning worried about watertrails but they do worry in the Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake basin about the price of gasoline.

I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, for the Record, several news releases here talking about the price of gasoline. This is from WJZ, a local Maryland station. And it says here, ``Watermen Feeling Pain At the Pump.'' It talks about the beautiful weather, but it also says that the price of gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going down, and that's a bad combination.

Here is another one: ``Gas prices force business owners to clamp down.'' And there's talk about a gentleman who has to spend $4,000 a month on gasoline.

And here is another one regarding the Chesapeake Bay community. It says, ``Gas prices fuel dip in fishing.''

[From WJZ--a local Maryland station, May 30, 2008]

Watermen Feeling Pain At The Pump

(By Alex DeMetrick)

The weather is beautiful on the Chesapeake Bay. But things

are downright ugly at fuel docks.

Alex DeMetrich reports gas prices are soaring and that's

having an impact on those who depend upon boats and the bay

to make a living.

Naming a work boat the ``Last Penny'' may have been a stab

at humor once, but it's striking a little too close to

reality at fuel docks around the bay. Diesel is at $4.50 a

gallon and climbing.

``The gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going

down,'' said Waterman Bucky Murphy.

Working the water takes constant moving. But with crabs

spotty and fuel high, watermen are trying to conserve.

``They're hurting us bad. Its almost double in the past

year, so it's taking a right good bite out of us.'' said

waterman Wendell Lednun.

Joe Spurry buys crabs on Tilghman Island, but his truck

might carry them as far away as New York.

Right now, crabs are selling for around $90 a bushel

dockside. By the time they get to a seafood market in

Baltimore, they could cost around $200 a bushel.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, given the stated concerns of borrowing by the majority, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that pursuant to rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House, upon adoption of the conference report on the budget by both the House and the Senate, the Clerk of the House will be instructed to prepare a joint resolution adjusting the public debt limit; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, further inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, am I further correct that by operation of rule XXVIII, upon adoption of this conference report by both the House and the Senate, this joint resolution adjusting the debt limit will be considered as passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, will there be a separate vote in the House on passing this joint resolution adjusting the debt limit upwards?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, by operation of this rule, will the vote by which the conference report is passed by the House be considered the vote on passage of the joint resolution adjusting the debt limit?

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the time.

I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee voted along party lines to not allow the U.S. House of Representatives, this body, to even consider two amendments that I offered that would have helped school districts whose tax bases are significantly reduced by the presence of tax-exempt Federal lands.

This bill would drastically expand the Federal Government's role in school construction and maintenance, activities historically funded at the State and local level before. But they're doing this before the Federal Government meets its existing responsibilities to schools that are impacted by Federal land ownership.

Mr. Speaker, over 33 percent of my district in Central Washington is owned by the Federal Government; making 11 school districts eligible for Impact Aid programs. I know all too well the consequences of Federal land ownership and the impact it has on the ability of schools to make needed improvements.

In the Grand Coulee Dam area in my district, students attend classes in buildings that are more than half a century old and that are literally falling apart. While the local residents in those districts have agreed to pay one of the highest school levies to maintain current levels in the State of Washington, the school district remains unable to secure a bond to make improvements on physical facilities because the community is surrounded by Federal lands and, therefore, has a limited tax base.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that no child's education is shortchanged because of Federal land ownership. And, in my view, it's only fair that the Federal Government take care of federally impacted schools before launching a brand new spending program costing billions of dollars that's aimed at schools that aren't federally impacted.

I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee. The first would have required that our commitment to federally impacted schools be met through full funding in the Impact Aid program before funding is spent on new Federal spending in this bill.

My second amendment, which I offered along with my colleague, Robin Hayes of North Carolina, would have simply given preference, preference, to federally impacted schools as the new construction and maintenance funds were distributed.

Unfortunately, Democrat leadership blocked both of my amendments from being debated or voted on today on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, if the Federal Government cannot meet its current responsibilities to federally impacted schools, then it certainly has no business creating a brand new $20 billion spending program for other schools. Rather than passing this massive expansion of the Federal Government's role in school construction, we should refocus our efforts on fulfilling existing obligations to schools and children impacted by Federal actions.

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

Madam Speaker, 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, D.C. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Cardoza) 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, there are two primary purposes to the rule that is before the House today. One purpose, legitimate, though unfair, relating to the defense authorization bill. The other purpose, a unilateral, partisan abuse of power by the liberal leaders of the House.

The first purpose. This rule provides for consideration of 58 amendments to the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Of the 58 amendments that this rule makes in order, 42 are Democrat amendments. Just 14 Republican amendments were allowed. Two of those amendments have bipartisan support.

The Rules Committee has blocked two-thirds of the amendments submitted by members of the Republican Party. Reasonable, responsible amendments that raise legitimate national defense issues relating to the security of American troops and the American people are not being permitted to be debated on the House floor.

The defense authorization bill was approved by a unanimous bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker, of the Armed Services Committee. But that does not mean that that bill is perfect. Indeed, amendments to the bill were filed with the Rules Committee by both Democrats and Republican members of the Armed Services Committee. These members, who had worked in a bipartisan way in committee and who wanted to have their ideas for improving the defense authorization bill considered by the House, were denied that opportunity, and among those amendments that were blocked by the Rules Committee is the ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, for whom this bill is named.

At the same time we are applauding those committee members for their bipartisan work, the Rules Committee steps in and shuts down what has been an open, cooperative process by blocking so many Republican amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the House should recognize that when a committee works in an open and honest manner to produce a truly bipartisan bill, we should recognize that, especially because it has become a rarity in this Congress.

Despite the promises made by the Democrat leaders to run the most open and honest House in history, they have made it a matter of routine to close down debate, take away the ability of every Representative to offer amendments on the House floor, to defy rules,

and to ignore over 200 years of legislative precedents. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this House has never seen anything the likes of what the Democrat leaders did last night with the vote to override the President's veto of the farm bill.

Despite having full knowledge that the bill that the Speaker of the House certified with her signature and sent to the President was not the exact same bill that passed both the House and the Senate, Democrat leaders deliberately acted to have this House vote on overriding the President's veto. The bill that the Speaker sent to the President completely omitted title III of the farm bill. This is the entire trade section that runs several dozen pages.

It has been asserted that deletion of this title from the farm bill that the Speaker sent to the President was simply a mistake, an oversight, or a technical error. That may very well be. That may very well be, Mr. Speaker. Yet Democrat leaders deliberately acted yesterday to have the House vote to override a Presidential veto on a bill that the House had never, ever passed. They took this action in direct contradiction to the simple procedures established in article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I have often spoken to elementary and high school students about my job as a Congressman and how Congress works. The most fundamental lesson I always convey is how a bill becomes law in this Congress. It's very simple. The House and the Senate must pass the exact same bill. It must be exact. No comma difference. When they do that, the bill is sent to the President to be signed into law or vetoed and returned to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this did not happen with the farm bill. The bill passed by both the House and the Senate was not the bill that the Speaker of the House signed and sent to the President.

Mr. Speaker, last week I stood right here on the House floor and stated that while I believed that the farm bill was far from perfect, I would vote for the bill because of the positive provisions it included for specialty crop growers in my congressional district.

In my speech to the House and in my communications with my constituents, I specifically cited parts of the farm bill that helped convince me to vote to pass it. In particular, I spoke about the Market Access Program in reference to technical trade assistance for specialty crops, both of which help to break down unfair trade barriers and open new markets for farmers overseas. Both of these programs are part of title III of the farm bill which passed the House and Senate but was not sent to the President.

Mr. Speaker, the farm bill I voted for, and the very reasons I voted for it, was not the bill that the House voted to override yesterday.

Democrat leaders of this Congress acted in an unconstitutional way in voting to override the veto vote yesterday. That the leaders acted unconstitutionally is not a matter of my personal opinion, it is a matter that has been ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court. In a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Stevens in the 1998 line-item veto case, Clinton v. The City of New York, the court concluded, and I quote:

``The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became Public Law 105-33 after three procedural steps were taken. One, a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives. Two, the Senate approved precisely the same text. Three, that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of these three steps be taken before a bill may `become a law.' Article 1, section 7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted.''

Mr. Speaker, last night it wasn't until Republicans objected that the Democrat majority took any action to speak on the floor and inform the House of what had occurred by the omission of title III of the bill. The Democrat majority then responded, as they have for the past 16 months, by choosing the path of unilateral, partisan action over working in a bipartisan way. Keep in mind, this farm bill passed by over 300 votes in a bipartisan way.

As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, there are two parts to this rule. The first makes in order amendments to the defense authorization bill. The second provides blanket authority for any bill relating to agricultural programs to be considered under suspension of the House rules.

The inclusion of this blanket authority to suspend House rules and consider bills was not even discussed with Republicans. I say that with the knowledge I have as I speak here today, right now, at 10:39 a.m.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim that this is simply an effort to fix the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the farm bill and I support getting it enacted into law. But this isn't just about a fix or finding the most convenient or face-saving way to act on the farm bill. It's about following the Constitution and holding Democrat leaders accountable for their deliberate actions yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

They knew the bill they put to an override vote yesterday had never passed the House in the version that it was presented to us for the override, but they did it anyway. The House should not gloss over an incident of this magnitude with such serious constitutional violations.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I just want to make this point, and this is a very, very important point. Yesterday, prior to taking up the veto override of the farm bill, the Democrat leaders knew that title III was out of the bill. Therefore, it was not a bill that had passed either House. Therefore, the ultimate rule of this land, the Constitution, was violated.

It was at that point, Mr. Speaker, that there should have been discussions on how to remedy this in a way, but there was no discussions on that, at least with the leaders on our side. Yet we went ahead with the action of overriding a veto, overriding a bill that the House had not passed.

That is what the facts were yesterday, and it was not brought to the full House's attention until the leaders on our side stood up after the vote to ask what the procedures were for clarification. Had we known that ahead of time, we probably could have gone through regular order and got this resolved in such a way that would have been acceptable to all sides.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the namesake of the bill that we are debating later on, the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act of 2009. The gentleman from California served as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He has been somebody that I have looked up to in my years in Congress. He probably, if not the most knowledgable person in this House on military affairs, he is certainly one of the most.

I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee and now a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

For the purpose of a unanimous consent, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Franks.

I have numerous people that would like to speak, but I haven't got the time for that. If the gentleman would entertain an extension of time on both sides, I would be more than happy to allow my Members to speak. But I'm constrained for time.

So if the gentleman would allow me unanimous consent for some more, I would do that. But I will leave it up to the gentleman.

I am the last speaker under the regular time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I woke up today and heard on the news that oil is $137 a barrel on the worldwide market, and I think it's time for the House to debate ideas. I know there are a number of ideas in this House on lowering the cost of gasoline specifically.

So I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so that this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the entire rule. But that section would say it shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.

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

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can now really have a dialogue on the rising price of energy in this country. I believe it's strongly the responsibility of the elected leaders of the people to take this issue up, and we will have this opportunity by defeating the previous question.

I yield back 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 my colleague and friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 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 rule marks the 60th time that the leaders of this Congress have totally closed down the House floor by refusing to allow any Member of this House to offer an amendment to a bill pending and have it debated and voted upon. This is more closed rules than any Congress in the history of our country, which is exactly the opposite of the promise that the Democrat leaders made to the American people when they promised to run the most open and honest House ever.

The House is not open when no amendments are allowed to be offered and when a Republican alternative is blocked from even a minute of debate and denied a vote on the House floor. And it is not in the most honest House when the Rules Committee Democrats block the Republican plan to prevent tax increases from being considered, using the excuse that it doesn't meet House PAYGO rules, especially, Mr. Speaker, when it was just one week ago that the same Democrats were blatantly violating PAYGO rules by billions of dollars in the farm bill. Under this liberal Congress, it is only okay to break the House rules, apparently, when you are increasing spending by billions of dollars, but not by preventing tax increases on the American people.

The Republican plan that was denied, that the Democrats refused to allow the House to vote upon, would provide the following: 1 year of relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, or the AMT; a 2-year extension of the State and local sales tax deduction for those States that do not have a State income tax; 2 more years for the research and development tax credit; 2 years for the tuition tax credit; and extensions for more expiring tax provisions.

This Democrat bill, for example, does absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to fix the AMT tax for 2008. Twenty-one million middle class individuals will pay an additional $61.5 billion in higher taxes next April if the AMT is not fixed and addressed. That is an average of over $2,800 per affected taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. The Republican plan fully fixes it, but today that fix is not even allowed to be considered on the House floor. Instead, the House is given one choice, and that is a fool's choice bargain to raise taxes by $54 billion in order to simply extend existing tax policies that are due to expire.

Mr. Speaker, current provisions in tax law are expiring, and Congress needs to act to keep these taxes from going up. But, Mr. Speaker, we all know that is no excuse to raise other taxes by billions of dollars.

I and many of my Republican colleagues support a great number of the tax relief extensions included in this bill, including the State and local sales tax deduction, the research and development tax credit, education and tuition tax credits, tax credits for teachers, and several renewable income tax credits. These low tax policies have been law for many years, Mr. Speaker, and they have been extended multiple times, multiple times, and always without raising taxes.

My Democrat colleagues will try to defend their tax-raising ways by invoking the PAYGO rules they ignored just last week. They will claim that this is just being responsible and it is not about increasing the national debt, that it is about government living within its means.

If only that were true, Mr. Speaker. But it is not. All you have to do is to read the final budget plan for next year that this House will vote on later today. Their budget reveals this Congress as what they truly are, and what they truly are, Mr. Speaker, is old time tax-and- spend liberals. In their budget, spending increases by $250 billion over the next 5 years. They increase the debt limit in 2008 by $654 billion, which is the largest increase in history, and they raise taxes by $683 billion, which is the largest amount in American history. More spending, higher debt, record tax increases. That is obviously the plan of this liberal Congress.

Now, my Democrat colleagues will also try to claim the tax increases that are in this bill aren't really that bad. But the facts are the facts, and the facts are that this bill unnecessarily increases taxes by over $50 billion. And that is just the beginning. Remember that their budget would increase taxes by over two-thirds of a trillion dollars. If they aren't raising your taxes this time in this bill, I can assure you, your time is coming. They will get you the next time.

When this liberal Congress imposes the largest tax increase in American history to pay for more government spending, don't think that you can escape permanently their tax-and-spend ways. Their tax increase plans include cutting the child tax credit, cutting that in half; reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax; and a tax increase for every single American taxpayer. It would even levy taxes on low- income workers who currently pay none.

But if there is a ray of sunshine, and there always is a ray of sunshine in bills, there is a newly created tax break, one that will put a big smile on the faces of some in this country, and it is worth over $1.5 billion.

The only problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this new tax break is only for trial lawyers. So the only people who will be smiling are the trial lawyers and presumably the Democrats that they give tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to each year.

Under this bill, the American taxpayers will be subsidizing speculative lawsuits by trial lawyers to the tune of $1.5 billion. This special interest tax break will allow trial lawyers to make special arrangements that essentially allow them to gamble on lawsuits where they get paid on contingency fees if they win. Meanwhile, taxpayers will be footing the bill for trial lawyers writing off the expenses of conducting these ``sue them and see what we can win'' lawsuits. Count me among those, Mr. Speaker, who believe we already have too many lawsuits in this country and that we shouldn't be inventing new special tax breaks that may and probably will encourage more lawsuits. Our justice system can operate fairly, as it has done so for many years, without having to give special tax treatment to trial lawyers.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically mention the extension of the State and local sales tax deduction that is included in this bill. For nearly 20 years, Americans who paid State income taxes could deduct those taxes from their Federal tax bill, while Americans who paid State sales taxes but had no State income tax were not allowed to do so.

In 2006, the Republican Congress restored the sales tax deduction after years of bipartisan effort from the congressional delegations of the affected States, including my home State of Washington. The initial reinstatement of the deduction was for 2 years, 2004 and 2005. In 2006, the Republican Congress extended the sales tax deduction for 2 more years, 2006 and 2007. That deduction has now expired, and this deduction does not exist for this year, 2008.

Efforts last year to extend this deduction and ensure it didn't expire were unfortunately blocked by the Democrat leaders. I regret that the extension provided for the sales tax deduction in this bill is for 1 year only.

Mr. Speaker, this is a step backwards. This deduction has been extended 2 years each time in the past, and it should be extended 2 years now. Otherwise, we face expiring in about 6 months from now because, as I mentioned, there is no sales tax deduction for the calendar year 2008. So if we are to pass this and it were to be signed into law, we would have 6 months on it

from right now. The bipartisan Senate bill introduced last month by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee includes a 2-year extension of this sales tax deduction.

The Republican plan that House leaders and the Rules Committee last night blocked from being considered and debated on the floor today provided for a 2-year extension. An amendment was filed with the Rules Committee by Mr. Brady of Texas which also would have extended the deduction for 2 years, but that too was blocked by the Rules Committee from being debated on this floor.

It is very unfortunate that this bill moves sales tax deduction fairness backwards, not forwards. Taxpayers in income tax States have a permanent tax deduction, and taxpayers in sales tax States that have no State income tax deserve, in my view, equal treatment. The sales tax deduction should be made into permanent law. Even though I think a 2- year extension is better than 1, it should be made permanent. At the very least, they deserve at least a 2-year extension.

What really is more upsetting, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill could have provided very easily under existing PAYGO rules a 2-year extension. The over $1.5 billion cost of the tax deduction given to trial lawyers could instead have been used to give a 1-year extension of the sales tax deduction for those States.

So this bill chooses to create a new billion-plus-dollar tax cut for trial lawyers over tax fairness for the millions of residents in the State of Washington, my State, the State of Florida, the States of Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Mr. Speaker, I have supported every bill that has passed this House to reinstate and extend the State sales tax deduction, but none of these bills, none of these bills that extended that was being held hostage for another tax cut for another special interest.

Restoring and continuing the State sales tax deduction is a matter of fairness. The residents of sales tax States shouldn't have their fair treatment conditioned upon passing huge tax increases.

The rule that is currently before the House and the underlying bill reveal this Congress for what it really is. The rule is totally closed and does not allow debate or a vote on any amendments or an alternative Republican plan. It violates Speaker Pelosi's promise to the American people to run an open and honest House. The bill itself is just the opening act of a move to impose the largest tax increase in history on the American people. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress the only tax bill allowed on the floor of the House is one that will raise taxes. Under this liberal Congress, tax relief is a myth and tax increases are a certainty. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress, Americans will be sending more and more of their hard-earned dollars to Washington, DC so this Congress can increase spending and the size of the Federal Government.

My colleagues should oppose this closed rule and this tax increase bill. We should demand a clean tax relief extension bill that doesn't include new tax breaks for trial lawyers and over $50 billion in tax increases. This bill we know will never pass the Senate, and it will never be signed into law, if on the slim chance that it should pass both Houses and be sent to the President. Raising taxes right now on the American economy is simply the wrong thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

In response to my good friend from New York's response, let's set the record straight. We are talking about tax extenders. By definition, tax extenders mean we are extending existing tax relief for people. These are in law already. They have been extended many, many times in the past and always been extended without raising taxes on the other end.

Now the gentleman says that the provision they have in this bill may or may not have bipartisan support. I'm not going to argue with that point. It probably should be looked at on its merits.

But my point in this and the whole part of this debate is that these are extending existing tax relief for the American people, and you don't have to start setting the principle of raising taxes in other areas to continue tax extensions that are already in law. That's the point that I was making.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, can I inquire of the time on both sides.

I would inquire of my friend from New York how many speakers he has.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so we can address the issue of high gasoline prices. But before I make my motion and explain what my motion would be if we defeat the previous question, I want to quote several parts of an editorial that was written by Tracy Warner who is the editorial writer for the Wenatchee World newspaper in Wenatchee, Washington, in my district. He kind of hits some of the issues of what we are doing, or probably I should say not doing, on the head.

[From the Wenatchee World, May 14, 2008]

Irrational Policy Part of the Show

(By Tracy Warner)

The Keystone Cops of Congress wave their truncheons, circle

and bump and wriggle their mustaches, then rush to the paddy

wagon in search of greedy oil companies. In this time of

hardship, this will have to suffice for energy policy.

The goal of the troupe is to somehow make the price of

gasoline lower. High gasoline prices are extremely unpopular.

If they could be forced downward, this would please Americans

at an advantageous time on the political calendar. If that is

not possible, and likely it is not, then complaining loudly

will do. Or, for a real show of statesmanship, you can dole

out financial punishment to the companies that make the

product you want more of.

The most recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the

government cease stockpiling oil in the strategic petroleum

reserve, where some 700 million barrels are kept for national

emergencies. This halt, passed by the Senate 97-1 and the

House 385-25, will reduce federal petroleum purchases by

70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world oil

markets, which are based on global production of 87 million

barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08

percent. We should be grateful.

In a very small way this shows our representatives have

some understanding of economics. Oil markets are mainly a

supply-and-demand issue. Raise supply and the price should

drop, if demand is steady. Raise supplies by 0.08 percent and

the price will drop, maybe by a like amount. We will watch

with great anticipation.

The other legs of the constantly evolving federal oil

policy are not so easily explained. Congress remains adamant

that we will not attempt to affect supplies by drilling on a

few thousand acres of the vast Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge, where production could exceed 1 million barrels a

day. The reason given is this is part of an ``oil friendly

policy'' and we cannot ``drill our way'' to ``energy

independence'' because the effect of a million barrels is so

small. So we deny ourselves a million barrels a day because

it is so little, and then demand the federal government cease

purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that is too much.

Some propose sending the Justice Department to file an

antitrust case against OPEC, because its members scheme to

limit the supply of oil and thus drive up the price. So, we

do not wish to drill ourselves, because that would be wrong,

but we demand OPEC sell us more, and if they don't we will

send lawyers. And oh, we want ``energy independence.''

And with lawyers after OPEC, the cops will still be after

the oil companies. The line is oil companies get ``tax

subsidies'' they do not deserve. So the House has voted to

rescind a tax break for the five largest oil companies. The

``subsidy'' to which these congressmen refer was no special

deal. It was a two-point corporate tax cut given to all

manufacturers in 2004. In the meantime, oil companies pay

taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, based on data from

the Energy Information Agency, it is only in the last three

years that after-tax profits of the oil industry have

exceeded its taxes paid to federal and state governments. In

the last 25 years, oil company taxes were nearly double oil

company profits--government makes twice off oil what oil

companies make off oil.

On we go. Newly popular in Congress is a windfall profits

tax, to collect for government the oil profits government

considers ``obscene.'' Oil company profit margins are less

than many other industries, but setting that aside, what

would be the effect of confiscating them? When this was tried

in 1980, oil companies stopped selling the product from which

only government would profit, and we went from expensive gas

to no gas.'

And, we can make price gouging a crime, even though it

already is a crime in most states. Make it a crime to sell

fuel when prices are high. Won't that increase supplies?

The sum of all this policymaking is astonishing

incompetence. Playing for the crowd usually leads this way.

Let me just make a few points here that he raised that I thought were rather interesting.

He talks about what Congress is doing or not doing, and he says then, and I will quote verbatim, Mr. Speaker, from his editorial, ``The most recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the government cease stockpiling oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, where some 700 million barrels are kept for national emergencies. This halt, passed by the Senate 97-1 and the House 385-25, will reduce Federal petroleum purchases by 70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world oil prices or oil markets which are based on global production of 87 million barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08 percent.''

He then goes on to say, after I quote there, he goes on to talk then about things that we probably are not doing and should be doing otherwise. He goes on to compliment Congress by saying that ``at least they have some understanding of economics.'' If you're going to not put oil in a reserve, you presumably have more supply.

He then goes on to talk about what we haven't been doing, which of course is looking at more known reserves we have in our country to be energy independent. Again I would like to quote, then, verbatim as he makes, I think, a very good point:

``Congress remains adamant that we will not attempt to affect supplies by drilling on a few thousand acres of the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where the production could exceed 1 million barrels a day. The reason given is this is part of an `oil friendly policy' and we cannot `drill our way' to `energy independence' because the effect of a million barrels is so small. So we deny ourselves a million barrels a day because it is so little, and then demand the Federal Government cease purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that is too much.''

Mr. Speaker, he goes on to talk about other things here, but they make a very good point. The bottom line is our energy policy is not looking at the supply side of it. We import so much of our crude oil and we aren't energy independent in that sense.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I have an opportunity to amend the rule.

Since the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of gasoline has risen to record-setting prices. According to a report from just 2 days ago by the AAA in my State of Washington, the price of gasoline is at a record $3.86 per gallon. That's 24 cents higher than just last month. The average price of a gallon of diesel is $4.69, which is $1.61 higher than a year ago. In the Tri-Cities where I live, a gallon of gas is $3.83. In Yakima, in the central part of my district, it's $3.84.

[From the Seattle Times, May 19, 2008]

AAA: Average Gallon of Gas in Washington Hits $3.86

The AAA auto club says the average price of a gallon of

gasoline in Washington continues to climb into record

territory at $3.86.

That's up 24 cents in the past month and 42 cents in the

past year. It's seven cents higher than the national average.

The AAA survey for today found that the average price of a

gallon of diesel in the state is $4.69. That's up 29 cents in

the past month and $1.61 in the past year.

The AAA says the highest gas prices in the state are at

Bellingham at $3.93 and the lowest in Spokane at $3.70.

Prices in some other cities, according to the AAA: Olympia

$3.89, Seattle $3.88, Tacoma $3.87, Vancouver $3.84, Tri-

Cities $3.83, Yakima $3.84.

This increase in prices is causing real strain on family budgets, farmers, and for small businesses. This Congress needs to act, and we can't afford to sit and do nothing while prices continue to climb. The American people deserve action.

Speaker Pelosi made a promise that the Democrats had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump.'' But this Democrat Congress has done nothing but see fuel prices rise.

One of the most important things that this House can do is recognize a

basic economic principle of supply and demand. Mr. Speaker, the laws of supply and demand cannot be changed by wishful thinking. At times, I get the distinct impression that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that wishful thinking will actually lower gas prices.

I support proposals to invent and to develop new sources of energy. I think we should have a diverse portfolio of energy, and I believe a vast majority of my colleagues do as well. But gas, diesel, and oil are absolutely vital to our economy and our way of life and our future.

The problem we are facing at the gas pump is one of high demand and limited supply, and it's part of a global economy and a global product. With India and China suddenly consuming enormous amounts of oil, the price of it is being bid up around the world. The way to combat rising prices due to high demand is to increase supply. And yet proposals to increase oil and gas production and exploration in our country have faced years and years in opposition. Mr. Tracy, in his article, points that out as it relates to ANWR.

We've been stymied by Democrats in the House, blocked by Democrat Senators, and vetoed by a Democrat Senator specifically with ANWR. This liberal Congress is continuing to say ``no'' to developing energy in our country, to block any bill from being considered or voted upon that would allow for oil and natural gas exploration in Alaska or in the oceans on the Outer Continental Shelf, while at the same time they pass bills threatening to sue foreign countries to produce more oil. That doesn't increase supply, Mr. Speaker.

We are now paying the price for so many years of repeated refusal to make use of our country's own natural resources. Not only are we seeing gas prices going up and up, but our country is even more dependent on foreign sources of oil. Often the response to this argument from the other side of the aisle is that even if we approve production in ANWR or coastal reserves today, it wouldn't come on line for years and wouldn't really help much.

The hollowness of this argument in my mind, Mr. Speaker, is astonishing. We are paying the price today for their years of opposition to real solutions, and they want to keep saying ``no'' and blaming somebody else.

America can't afford to keep sticking its head in the sand when it comes to building more refineries and developing our own oil and gas reserves. It's time for the House to act. It's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices, and it's time for the majority to reveal their promised plan.

By defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the rule, that would lower the gas prices of unleaded gasoline.

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 we can consider this vitally important issue for America.

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 and namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes to discuss part one of the proposed rule for the consideration of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, 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 legislation, which was approved by the Armed Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 61-0, as my friend from Florida mentioned, would make a number of very positive improvements to our armed services, and I think this entire House should be particularly proud of the committee's bipartisan efforts to improve the quality of life and safety of those serving our country in the armed services and their families.

This legislation would authorize $600 billion in spending for our Nation's Armed Forces, including $530 billion in spending for defense programs at the Pentagon and Energy Departments and $70 billion to bolster the success of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for part of 2009.

It would authorize $783 million for continued procurement and enhancement of current body armor systems; $1 billion for the training and support of the Iraqi security forces; and nearly $2 billion for unfunded readiness initiatives as requested by the services.

It increases Active Duty Army personnel, Mr. Speaker, by 7,000 and Active Duty Marine Corps personnel by 5,000, while also providing our uniformed servicemembers with a much-deserved pay raise of 3.9 percent.

And for our active duty troops and veterans who have already done so much to serve our country, it prohibits increased copayments and premiums for TRICARE recipients, and expands suicide prevention efforts.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report on Iran's nuclear capabilities so that this Congress can take a proactive role on recognizing the potential of this threat and be made aware of the threat that these capabilities pose to America and our allies.

While this legislation does a great deal to improve our armed services and to provide them with the resources that they need--and it accomplishes much of this in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion--there are a few areas that I think could still be greatly improved.

While the Rules Committee has not yet reported out a rule governing amendment debate on this legislation--we will do that this afternoon--I want to take this opportunity to make clear that there are a number of areas that I and a number of my Republican colleagues believe can be used to improve this bill through the amendment process.

First, it is my hope that the amendment process for this year's authorization bill, while it will be a structured rule, will still be as open as it has been under Republican majority, when between 30 and 40 amendments were regularly allowed to be debated and decided by the entire House of Representatives.

Of particular concern is the reduction in funds and focus that the Armed Services Committee chose to provide in this bill for protecting America from the threat posed by ballistic missiles.

In the Armed Services Committee, my colleague Terry Everett from Alabama offered amendments to both authorize the President's request fully for missile defense and allow procurement to go forward and to restore half of the $10 million that the committee eliminated from the request for the study of a space test bed.

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a fellow cochairman of the Missile Defense Caucus, offered his own amendment to add $100 million to a program to launch multiple interceptor missiles at once to defeat multiple incoming missiles or decoys in the event of an attack.

While these amendments, Mr. Speaker, were defeated in committee, I believe that the entire House should have the opportunity to hear their arguments and make their own decisions on these issues, as well as the amendment by my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Sessions of Texas, to state the sense of Congress that we need to support the development, testing, and fielding of the capability to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase to protect America's interests.

Again, Mr. Speaker, while this rule provides for 2 hours of general debate on the bill, there are areas that this House needs and deserves to address through the amendment process. That will be addressed in the second rule that we will discuss in the Rules Committee tonight and will presumably be on the floor tomorrow. I certainly hope that the House is given a full and fair chance to consider these issues that I've highlighted, as well as others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, a person in whose name this defense bill is named after. I would join my friend from Missouri, the chairman of the committee, suggesting and acknowledging that it is an honor that is well, well deserved.

I had an opportunity to serve on the committee for 2 years, my first 2 years in Congress. There are probably few, if any, that are more knowledgeable on these issues surrounding defending our country than the namesake of this defense authorization bill.

I now yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Conaway.

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

Once again I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that, with the high price of gasoline that all Americans have experienced, by defeating the previous question, this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the entire rule, that would allow the House to consider H.R. 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), as well as ``any amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf.''

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 once again so that we can consider this vitally important issue for America's families, workers, truckers, small businesses, and, for that matter, the entire economy.

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

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