Floor Statements

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two young women who showed extraordinary character during a recent college softball game in Ellensburg, Washington.

Last month, the women's softball team at Central Washington University played Western Oregon University for a spot in the NCAA Division lI playoffs.

During the second inning of this scoreless game, Western Oregon senior Sara Tucholsky hit the first home run of her college career, only to fall to the ground with a knee injury after rounding first base. Unable to finish running around the bases, the only option available to Ms. Tucholsky was to bring in a new runner at first base, which would replace her home run with a single.

At this point, a truly amazing thing happened. Believing that Ms. Tucholsky should not be cheated of her first home run, Central Washington University senior first baseman and White Salmon native Mallory Holtman asked the umpire if the rules would allow members of the opposing team to assist her around the bases. When the umpire agreed, she and shortstop Liz Wallace carried the injured opponent to each bag to complete the home run.

By placing the interests of an athlete from the opposing team above their own, Ms. Holtman and Ms. Wallace, along with the rest of the Central Washington University softball team demonstrated outstanding sportsmanship. Although Central Washington University lost the game, they revealed a level of maturity well beyond their years by helping Ms. Tucholsky to achieve a major softball accomplishment.

I am honored to have this opportunity to recognize Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace and the rest of the Central Washington University softball team for their selfless actions and generosity, which have moved people across the Nation. These young women exemplified strong character and true sportsmanship with their selfless act. Their university, teammates, Coach Gary Frederick. and the people of Washington are proud of these individuals. I wish them the very best in their future endeavors.

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I would just like to make this point. This rule provides for waivers of other rules. Last night when we were up in the Rules Committee----

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side receive an additional 2 minutes so we may discuss this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my 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.)

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a final farm bill, a farm bill that is over 7 months late. It was supposed to be completed last September when the old farm bill law expired. It's long past time for Congress to be voting on a final farm bill, and the one the House will consider today is far from perfect.

It spends billions more than it was supposed to. Mr. Speaker, in fact, despite this being called the farm bill, nearly 75 percent of the spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture or farming. It goes to pay for government food assistance programs. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. In fact, despite this being called a farm bill, nearly 75 percent of the spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture or farming. It goes to pay for government food assistance programs. To me, that is very concerning.

There's also considerable dissatisfaction with the income limitations being too high for farmers who may receive payments under this bill.

There are also concerns that while commodity prices in the marketplace have risen since the last farm bill, the guarantees in this farm bill have also gone up.

There are also special interest provisions that are unrelated to farming or food stamps that have been stuck on this bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree that this farm bill is very far from perfect, but like many of my colleagues in the House, I must measure this bill by the impact on my constituents in my district.

And as the representative of one of the most diverse and productive agricultural areas in this country, I will vote for the farm bill because it does more to support the specialty crops that are grown in my district than any other farm bill in history.

I must point out that the assistance provided for the specialty crops grown in my district are not direct subsidy payments or handouts. What matters most to farmers and growers in central Washington are research dollars and help in opening up new markets abroad. Specifically, I'm pleased that the farm bill includes a new initiative to fund research projects for these specialty crops.

The conference report also expands the successful fresh fruit and vegetable SNACK program to children in all 50 States. This worthwhile program provides fresh fruits and vegetables for schoolchildren.

The Market Access Program is also very important in central Washington and something that I've worked very hard on to support for many years. The Market Access Program, or MAP, assists our agriculture community in expanding access to markets overseas.

For far too long, American farm products have had difficulty getting into foreign countries, and sometimes are unfairly blocked outright. Fair market access and fair trade agreements help our farmers compete, and the MAP program has proven this to be very successful.

While I will vote to pass this farm bill, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unfair rule because it shuts down fair opportunities for debate and votes on the House floor and because, Mr. Speaker, it waives new anti-earmark and PAYGO rules written just last January, a year ago last January, by the Democrat majority.

And already today, Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of discussion on PAYGO and the ramifications. We heard it says it complies with the spirit of PAYGO and so forth.

Let me just make a point of what happened last night in the Rules Committee. In the Rules Committee, there is a provision in this rule that waives all points of order. We had discussion up there on PAYGO. So the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, offered an amendment to keep all the waivers, all the waivers in the farm bill with the exception of the

PAYGO provision that was adopted just a year ago last January by the new majority. That amendment simply said if there's no problem with PAYGO, then why not keep that provision in there. It was voted down, Mr. Speaker, on a direct party-line vote.

So it appears what has happened here in this instance--because I think the rules are very clear. I think Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin pointed out exactly where we are on this and what the procedures are. Apparently what we have done--and this to me I think is probably unprecedented--we have adopted Senate rules in the House for consideration of the farm bill. Maybe that's a pattern that we will see hopefully in other things that we'll debate, like, for example, maybe having more debate on issues because the Senate does have unlimited debate under their house rules. So, if we're going to start adopting Senate rules, maybe we ought to do that on the debate area.

Mr. Speaker, a conscious decision has been made to break the PAYGO rules to increase spending by several billions of dollars.

The farm bill, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue, and I'm disappointed that a bill that provides new levels of recognition to specialty crops, as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, from central Washington is coming before the House with so many other questionable provisions within the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased my friend from California said we are complying with Senate rules, but I believe this is the U.S. House of Representatives, and the fact is we have waived the House PAYGO rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

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

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

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

If the gentleman would yield, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can amend the rule, not replace the rule, amend the rule so that we can discuss energy prices and legislation to bring the price of gasoline at the pump down.

It would be based on supply and demand. The gentleman is exactly correct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time to allow more equity in the time.

Once again I will continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, who, along with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, their persistence was such to bring this product to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a farm bill that is 7 months overdue, and I want to again commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for their persistence in bringing this product to the floor.

But there is another concern for farmers in our country that this Democrat Congress is totally neglecting, and that's addressing skyrocketing gasoline, diesel and energy costs. The cost of running a tractor, trucking products to market, and running a farm has risen dramatically since Democrats took control of Congress, and they have done nothing to help farmers, truckers or millions of Americans hurt by rising fuel costs.

One of the principles of the farm bill is ensuring that America does not become dependent on foreign nations for our food supply. We, as a country, have fertile fields that can produce as much food as our country needs to eat and even export billions of dollars of foodstuffs overseas. But we, as a country, are not using our energy sources like farmers use our fields.

For decades, our country has been handicapped by not tapping into our existing oil reserves. The effort to develop just a tiny portion of ANWR has been fought and blocked to the detriment of America's energy independence and with high prices that we are now paying at the pump.

Today I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule, not rewrite it, just amend it, to allow for consideration of H.R. 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, 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 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.''

With diesel and gasoline prices going up and American farmers having to cope with these skyrocketing costs, it's time for Congress to act. The Democrat majority has refused time and again to act. We can act by defeating the previous question.

Defeating the previous question will be simply to allow the House to debate rising energy prices. The farm bill will still be considered and voted upon.

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 do something about rising fuel costs, and the way to do that is by voting to defeat the previous question.

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.

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 very, very, very good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 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 rule is redundant and totally unnecessary. The House doesn't need to pass this rule to go to conference with the Senate. Democrats already have all the power they need to go to conference on the budget. The Budget Committee chairman already has the ability to make a motion to go to conference, and a rule that this House passed 2 months ago also provides that authority. We have already done this with the rule, H. Res. 1036, which my very, very, very good friend, Mr. McGovern, managed only a couple of months ago. There is no reason for the House to be considering this rule, except perhaps one, Mr. Speaker, and that's so that the Democrat majority can deny Republicans their rights as the minority party.

Democrats are going to get their way at the end of the day; majorities always do that. But in putting this rule on the floor, Democrats are saying that they needn't even bother with respecting minority rights. This rule exists solely as an abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker, when Democrats won control of the Congress in 2006, they promised the American people that they would run the most open and honest House in history. They would seek to work in a bipartisan manner. Instead of keeping that promise, the Democrat majority has stooped to depths and gone to extremes that no previous majority in the House has ever dared. When it comes time to shutting down debate, silencing ideas, restricting minority rights, ignoring rules they themselves wrote, and running the House in a top-down, shut-up, sit- down manner, this Democrat majority has no peer.

The Democrat promise to run the most open, honest House in history has been revealed as a hollow charade. They have passed more closed rules that block all amendments and debate than any House in history. They wrote new rules to prohibit votes from being held open to change the vote's outcome, and then violated that rule time after time. They passed new rules to ensure House and Senate conference committees are more open and public, but instead they turn around and retreat even further behind closed doors. They almost totally abandon even holding conference committees.

Mr. Speaker, why is this rule suddenly on the House floor today? Why the sudden interest of Democrats in the House to go to conference with the Senate on a budget? The House passed their version of the budget on March 13. The Senate passed their version on March 14. Today is May 14. Why didn't we go to conference 2 months ago? Never mind, of course, that the law sets April 15 as the deadline for Congress to pass a final budget resolution. The facts are that this House could and should have gone to conference 2 months ago. But Democrats have instead hid behind closed doors to negotiate, bargain and cut deals to write a final budget.

By reading media reports, Mr. Speaker, it appears the Democrat majority in the House and Senate have reached a final agreement on the final budget for fiscal year 2009. That agreement will apparently increase spending by billions of dollars and include the largest tax increase in history. So now they apparently are going to go to a phony conference after all the true tax and spend work has been done in secret. Mr. Speaker, they aren't doing this to be more open and honest. They are doing this to force through their plan to massively increase taxes and increase government spending.

Mr. Speaker, the news media also reports that the Democrat majority has abandoned another of their promises it made to the American people when they wrote the new law for the House that is known as PAYGO. This is a rule that was sought by the Blue Dog Democrats. This rule places a blanket requirement that any bill that lowers taxes or increases spending must be correspondingly offset. Under the secret budget agreement, it appears that the Democrat PAYGO rule was jettisoned.

Blue Dog Democrats have given up on their rule and their PAYGO principle. They traded an enforceable House rule for a meaningless promise from a Senator. It's meaningless because everyone knows that this one Senator will in all likelihood be overridden by his Senate colleagues. Mr. Speaker, one can respect my colleagues

on the other side of the aisle for standing on principle, but this is a principle that's being abandoned.

This rule isn't necessary. The Democrats already have all the power they need to go to conference. So the only reason we are here is because the majority is trying to restrict the rights of the minority to be heard and for the Republicans to have a fair opportunity to offer alternative proposals to legislation Americans care about most, taxing and spending.

We are being blocked, shut down, and unfairly restricted in our rights. And as a result, our constituents will potentially be subjected to higher taxes and more government spending. I really don't think Americans want that.

When it comes to Democrat plans for billions of dollars in new government spending, Republicans have the right to protest, to demand votes in the House, to have the voices of Members representing almost half of this country to be heard.

We especially have the right to protest the Democrat majority's writing of a $200 billion appropriations bill that just completely skips over any hearing or markup in the Appropriations Committee. Instead of passing a bill to fund our troops who are fighting to protect America, Democrats are short-circuiting the legislative process, shutting out Republicans and larding the bill up with billions and billions of dollars of unrelated spending.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, upstairs in the Capitol on the third floor, the House Rules Committee is meeting to consider this massive $200 billion supplemental spending bill. The text of this bill was just released an hour before the committee met. It never went before the Appropriations Committee. Republicans have obviously just had minutes to read the bill. This is wrong and is abuse of power by the Democrat majority. The American people deserve to have a more open process on how their tax dollars are spent.

So, Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that this rule is totally unnecessary. Democrats already have the power to go to conference. They're just 2 months late in doing so. The Democrats have broken their promise to the American people to operate the House in an open and honest manner. They are conspiring in secret to write a budget that increases taxes by the largest amount in history and use a vital troop funding bill to try to pass billions and billions of new dollars in unrelated government spending.

So for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire from my very good friend from Massachusetts if he has any more requests for time on his side.

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

I would like to ask my good friend from Massachusetts just a very straight-up question, and I will be happy to yield to him.

Why are we addressing and debating this redundant rule today?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, of course, which we already did on H. Res. 1036, which my good friend managed on the floor here just a couple of months ago.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about an issue that's been talked a great deal about here on the House floor by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I certainly hear about it when I go home.

Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of gasoline has risen to record-setting prices. In fact, the cost of gasoline has gone up more in 16 months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years. According to a report from just 2 days ago by AAA in my State of Washington, the price for a gallon of gasoline is at a record $3.80. That's 26 cents higher than it was just last month. The average price of a gallon of diesel is $4.53, which is $1.46 higher than a year ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really believe 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 Democrats to reveal their promised plan.

So 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, just to add a section to the rule, that would allow the House to consider H.R. 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by Representative Bartlett of Maryland, 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, the United States is the only developed nation in the world that

forbids safe energy production on its Outer Continental Shelf. This puts our country and economy at a disadvantage to other countries. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The Outer Continental Shelf contains 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. That's 86 billion barrels of American oil that sits waiting while we import a little over 4\1/2\ billion barrels from foreign countries each year.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about addressing gas prices and energy costs in America, we need to get serious about accessing our country's energy resources.

Some will declare that it's unsafe to produce energy from reserves beneath the ocean in the Outer Continental Shelf. But other countries do it safely all around the world. As a matter of fact, our country utilizes deep sea production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, this technology was severely tested, severely tested, and proven safe when two back-to-back category five storms hit the Gulf of Mexico in 2005. Almost 3,000 offshore platforms were in the direct path of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Some experienced 5 to 6 hours of sustained winds at 170 miles per hour and gusts over 200 miles per hour.

Now, to be sure, production was halted and platform workers were evacuated during these terrible hurricanes; so there was no loss of life.

But, Mr. Speaker, do you know how many of these rigs ruptured? The answer is zero. Zero. Some tops fell off but no platforms ruptured. So I think we must make a distinction between concerns that production can be done safely and scare tactics that oppose efforts to make use of America's resources and reduce imports from foreign nations.

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's families; workers; truckers; small businesses; and, for that matter, our entire economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an oppressive rule, written to restrict debate in the House and to strip away rights from the minority.

This rule makes in order four Democrat amendments and only three Republican amendments. This means that 80 percent of requested Democrat amendments were made in order, but just 33 percent, or one-third, of Republican amendments filed with the Rules Committee were made in order. Mr. Speaker, this isn't balanced. It's restrictive and not in the tradition of having an open debate on important issues.

Last night at the Rules Committee, Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank said that he supported allowing debate on an amendment relating to illegal immigration and legitimate concerns of ensuring that persons illegally present in this country do not benefit from the new Federal program created by this bill.

Rules Committee Democrats responded by making in order the least substantive, most meaningless and unenforceable immigration amendment possible. A Republican amendment by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite. of Florida had very clearly and explicitly made certain that anyone illegally present in this country cannot rent or buy a house from this new government program. That amendment was not made in order. Every Democrat on the Rules Committee voted to deny the House voting on this meaningful amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when Democrat leaders aren't totally shutting down debate, they are giving the House window dressing instead of substance on important issues. Not content with blocking two-thirds of Republican amendments and restricting the opportunity of every Member of this institution to come to the House floor and offer amendments to improve, fix or alter this bill, House Democrat leaders went even further to shut down the minority, squelch dissent and take away their parliamentary rights.

Section 2 of this rule takes away the right of any Member of this House to make a motion that the House rise out of the Committee of the Whole and places it solely in the hands of the Democrat majority leader or the Democrat chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the new majority promised to run the most open, honest House in history. Instead of keeping their promises to the American people, Democrat leaders are acting with impunity as they shed any semblance of openness, fairness or regular order.

I don't believe many of the freshmen Democrat Members who were elected in the last election came to Congress to block debate and prohibit Members from offering amendments on the House floor. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they have joined lock-step with Speaker Pelosi in stooping to a level of oppressive partisanship that far exceeds the sins of any previous Congresses. It's a shameful record that shatters the promise Democrat leaders made to the American people to run an open, honest House.

Mr. Speaker, all this is being done to pass a bill that would create a brand new, Big Government, $15 billion Federal program to buy, remodel, resell or rent thousands and thousands of houses across the country. Who will profit from this new $15 billion government program are the lenders who made the bad loans and then foreclosed on families who didn't make their mortgage payments. It's a bailout for home lenders that knowingly took risks.

It's terribly unwise and wasteful of taxpayer dollars to create a new government program that invites other lenders to take gambles on home loans because the American taxpayer will come along and wipe away their bad decisions. Mr. Speaker, why should American taxpayers be footing the bill for calculated mistakes made by others? Why should American taxpayers,

who are making their mortgage payments each month or who are paying rent, have to come along and fund billions of dollars to give away grants and zero interest loans for those who speculated, gambled and lost? Mr. Speaker, taxpayers should not take this hit.

Now I recognize that this bill is titled the Neighborhood Stabilization Act and that its stated intent is to help rehabilitate neighborhoods in metropolitan cities and urban communities that have multiple foreclosed homes sitting vacant and empty. But, Mr. Speaker, why should rural and middle America be forced to have their tax dollars used to bail out lenders in big cities and urban areas? I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should work to find incentives for people to purchase these homes and improve these neighborhoods.

But we should oppose a new $15 billion spending program so the Federal Government can be involved in flipping houses or renting out homes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this oppressive rule and the bad underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side get an additional 2 minutes so I can engage the gentleman and so he can have the time to yield to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 1 minute of my time.

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

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

If the gentleman will yield, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can address another issue of tremendous import in this country that has hit every family, and that's the high prices of gasoline. So I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can address issues, allow Members on the floor to be able to debate the issue of lower gas prices.

It would give us the opportunity to do that because there are some ideas here. The gentleman is correct.

If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.

If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.

If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.

If the gentleman will yield, I think every Member should allow every Member the opportunity to address these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, a classmate of mine, Mr. LaHood.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly there is enough to talk about here, and so I ask unanimous consent that each side have an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my colleague from Florida if there are any more speakers on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague if she would be willing, since she has time and she is the last speaker, if she would yield time to us so we may control that time for the speakers we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I again inquire of my colleague from Florida if there are any more speakers on her side.

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

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised Americans a Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump. Democrats have controlled Congress for 16 months but we have still not seen the plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gas has gone so high it is setting record after record.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of gasoline has gone up by more than 50 percent. In fact, the cost of gasoline has gone up more in 16 months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

Despite Speaker Pelosi's promise of a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump,'' this Democrat Congress has put forward no plan, taken no action, and passed no bills to lower gas prices.

It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices and it is time for Democrats to reveal their promised plan.

By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow any amendment to be made in order on the underlying bill that ``would have the effect of lowering the national average price of gasoline.''

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, on April 21, CNNMoneyline.com had a poll, and the things that Americans were most concerned about from a financial standpoint were: the cost of gasoline, 65 percent; the cost of food, 16 percent; the cost of health care, 13 percent; and the cost of housing, 6 percent.

Mr. Speaker, that makes the case in my view for defeating the previous question so we can respond to the 65 percent of Americans who are concerned about the rising price of gasoline. This will give the House of Representatives an opportunity to debate ideas to reduce the cost of gasoline. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can consider this vitally important question for American families, for workers, truckers, small businesses, and for the entire economy.

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the majority leader for yielding.

Under the rules of the House, the Members have the right to vote if they're in the well. You're certainly not suggesting that the presiding officer or the Speaker is going to not abide by that privilege that a Member has when they're in the well of the House.

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