Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) 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, I believe that we must do all that we can to make education more affordable so that more Americans can achieve the dream of graduating from college. This year alone over $90 billion in Federal financial aid is available to students. However, with tuition costs on the rise, students and their families continue to face the inevitable question of how to pay for a college education. I believe a balanced approach is needed, one that increases transparency of higher education costs and targets aid to the neediest students while simplifying the financial aid process and addressing the growing

number of burdensome reporting requirements colleges and universities face.

I share the goal of increasing access to higher education, but I have a number of concerns with the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, and I believe improvements to the bill are needed. Mr. Speaker, apparently Members on both sides of the aisle also share this view because over 60 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee before the deadline.

The last time that this House considered a comprehensive higher education reauthorization bill was in 1998. At that time, the Rules Committee reported a modified open rule, and as a result, all Members of the House had an opportunity to preprint their amendments in the Congressional Record and offer them on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this time the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose a closed process to consider a long overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Unfortunately, by reporting out a closed rule, Democrats on the Rules Committee once again chose to deny over 400 Members of Congress the opportunity to offer amendments to improve the bill. Furthermore, this rule makes in order five times as many Democrat amendments as Republican amendments.

Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act is important, but by adopting this closed rule, an opportunity will be missed to make the underlying bill even better. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), also a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Utah, the gentlelady made the point in her initial remarks when she was talking about the reauthorization 2 years ago that it was done in a bipartisan way and it was done successfully. We know that this process, the administration already has some problems with it. And while they haven't issued a veto threat, they have some concerns.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 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.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), also a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), former member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

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

Mr. Speaker, much has been talked about about this unfair closed rule dealing with this underlying issue, and that seems to be a recurring pattern, and I wish that it would change, but I don't hold out any hope that that will happen. But, Mr. Speaker, since House earmark rules were changed just last year, loopholes and concerns have been raised. Questions remain such as what is and what is not an earmark; when do earmark rules apply and how are earmark rules enforced? We have seen examples of Members trying to enforce earmark rules only to be told they can't because the rules don't apply, and we have seen earmarks repeatedly air-dropped into bills at the last minute that were not subject to transparency or scrutiny.

Time and time again, Republicans have come to the floor advocating for additional earmark reforms, including stronger transparency and enforceability. Taxpayers also recognize the earmark process is broken and are outraged with wasteful spending. This has lead to an erosion of public confidence in Congress and could explain part of the reason why Congress' approval ratings are so low. It is clear Americans want Congress to act now and fix the broken earmark process. An earmark timeout is needed in order to get our fiscal house in order and restore public confidence.

In January, House Republicans united together and called on House Democrats to join us in an immediate moratorium on earmarks and the appointment of a bipartisan, bicameral joint committee to reform the earmark process and eliminate wasteful spending. House Democrat leaders were invited to join with Republicans and take the sensible bicameral course of action and reform a broken earmark process, but Democrats have remained silent and chosen to continue the broken status quo. So, today, I am going to give all Members an opportunity to show their support for a bipartisan solution.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately consider House Concurrent Resolution 263, which would establish a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform. The Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform would hold hearings and make recommendations for the comprehensive reform of the earmark process. The resolution would also prohibit bills, resolutions, and conference reports containing earmarks requested by Members of Congress or the administration to be considered until the joint select committee has filed its report.

Considering and adopting House Concurrent Resolution 263 today is a sensible, bipartisan solution that will bring genuine accountability and transparency to the spending process and will restore taxpayer trust and the integrity of Congress.

Let me be clear: with my motion, every Member of this House will have a chance to publicly vote and take a stand and end earmark abuse and earmark secrecy. Every Member will vote on whether they believe the earmark process must be reformed.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will do all that we can on our side to challenge the

leaders to adopt this resolution. Until a moratorium or bipartisan committee is in place, House Republicans have adopted already a series of earmark reforms standards that we will adhere to, including barring Members from using taxpayer money named after themselves and prohibiting earmarks from being air-dropped into bills at the last minute to avoid transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment, the letter sent from the Republican leaders to Speaker Pelosi on January 25, 2008, and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me today in acting to permanently change the way in which Washington spends taxpayers' money. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can address this very important House concurrent resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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, it is imperative that the over 200,000 miners in the United States work in a safe environment. Tragedies in recent years have highlighted the need to improve mine safety. In an effort to improve mine safety and prevent future tragedies, I was pleased that in 2006 the Senate unanimously, and the House overwhelmingly, passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act, which was signed into law. This comprehensive, overwhelmingly bipartisan law represented a significant step, the first in some 30 years, forward in improving mine safety. But, Madam Speaker, it's unfortunate that today Democrat leaders have put bipartisanship aside and brought forth a rule to allow the House to consider legislation that threatens to jeopardize, not improve, meaningful achievements and efforts currently under way.

The MINER law of 2006 is still being implemented, and to date, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has met all of its statutory deadlines in implementing the new law. However, Democratic leaders have chosen to bring forth the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, which ignores the progress that has been made, and further, provides no opportunity for stakeholder participation in the regulatory process and imposes unrealistic time requirements on employers.

In addition, it is concerning that this bill would allow technology to be placed in mines that has not been deemed ``intrinsically safe'' by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. This has the potential, Madam Speaker, to result in serious safety issues, such as maybe an explosion.

Another major safety concern is that this bill creates a two-tiered notification system in the event of an accident, with one set of reportable incidents being subject to be reported within 15 minutes and another set within an hour. Madam Speaker, current law requires a mine operator to call the Mine Safety and Health Administration within 15 minutes of a reportable incident or face a fine. This new confusing tiered system could potentially lessen protection to miners.

Lastly, this bill does not empower all miners to participate in the development of safety policies and procedures through the formation of safety teams. Currently, miners who are not part of a union can be prohibited from working with management to promote safety. Representatives Kline of Minnesota and Wilson of South Carolina will be offering a substitute amendment later to end this discrimination between union and nonunion employees. All miners should be able to have a say when it comes to their safety, and this bill fails to do that.

Before enacting additional legislation that could be counterproductive, Congress should allow current law to be fully implemented. Congress should also review the law first before dictating mine safety regulations that fail to advance safety, potentially threatens jobs, and impose over $1 billion in unfunded mandates on the mining industry.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I do have another speaker.

At this time, I would like to recognize the ranking member of the Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon, for 5 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, for the last several months, Republicans have highlighted the need to change the House rules in order to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Clearly, the rules are flawed when it comes to enforceability of earmarks. House Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable on the House floor, but time after time Members have been denied the opportunity to challenge earmarks during consideration of the rule and the bill.

Over the last several months, we have learned that the earmark rule does not apply when considering amendments between the Houses. This loophole has prevented numerous earmarks from being challenged in the energy bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion legislation, and the omnibus bill, which contained nearly 9,000 earmarks, including at least 150 earmarks that were air-dropped in the bill at the last minute.

Madam Speaker, in October Parliamentarian John Sullivan sent a letter to Chairwoman Slaughter confirming that the current rules are flawed as they relate to earmarks. In his letter, he states the earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

Madam Speaker, I will insert this letter from House Parliamentarian John Sullivan into the Record.

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

.Madam Speaker, today I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule in order to close the loopholes and restore accountability and enforceability to the House earmark rules.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, authorizing the necessary resources for our Nation's intelligence community is one of the most important responsibilities of Congress. The attacks of September 11, 2001, showed us that we must be vigilant against the threat of terrorism, and our intelligence community is a critical part of protecting America from its enemies abroad.

I have strong concerns about what appears to be an unfortunate and utter lack of bipartisan work on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

In addition to failing to incorporate Intelligence Committee Republicans in the development of this bill, the bill also fails to consider the input of Armed Services Committee Republicans.

Serious concerns exist about the bill's mandate that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies be governed by the U.S. Army Field Manual on interrogation designed to cover combatants picked up in the battlefield. The Army manual was never designed to cover America's most dangerous enemies, such as Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. At a minimum, we deserve to know, Madam Speaker, how these new standards would impact intelligence operations and, ultimately, U.S. national security before rushing to attach them to this legislation.

Proponents of this new requirement view this as a simple application of one organization's set of rules onto every other entity engaged in the activity. Madam Speaker, this isn't simple; I believe it's simplistic. And it could have dire consequences on our national security.

To illustrate the logic at work here, why not require the NBA and Major League Baseball to play by the NFL rule book and use a football in their games? They all use a ball, after all, and if a football is good enough for the NFL, it should work for the NBA and for Major League Baseball. We all know that that would be a disaster, Madam Speaker, and before we require all Federal agencies to adhere to the Army manual, we should be certain it won't create a disaster for protecting our country in the war on terror.

This bill also includes provisions that are questionable as to whether or not they will help improve America's security. Specifically, the House Democrats included language to fund and pursue research into an intelligence assessment of global warming. At a time when our Nation is engaged in a global war on terrorism, our intelligence community should not be required to focus on reports about climate change.

I am also concerned that, despite bipartisan passage of a motion to instruct conferees that earmarks should not be included, this conference report contains more than $75 million worth of intelligence earmarks. Intelligence funding should be based on national security, not potential special interests.

Instead of funding global warming studies, earmarks, and mandating Army Field Manual provisions, House Democrats should be taking steps needed to ensure that our intelligence officials are able to monitor foreign terrorists overseas.

House Democrats have stalled the passage of a permanent update on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The bipartisan Protect America Act expires in less than 2 months, and the American people deserve a permanent bill as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I inform my good friend from Florida that I have no requests for speakers; and if he's prepared to close, I will close on my side.

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

Madam Speaker, on December 4, Mr. Hoekstra offered a motion to instruct conferees that earmarks should be eliminated from a final conference report. This motion passed by a bipartisan vote of 249-160. However, despite bipartisan agreement that earmarks should not be included, this conference report contains more than $75 million worth of intelligence earmarks. Intelligence funding should be based on national security, not on special interests.

I am concerned with the level of earmark funding in this authorization conference report, and I am concerned that the House rules are flawed when it comes to the enforceability of earmarks. House Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable on the House floor, and for the last several months we have made repeated attempts to close loopholes in the House rules as they relate to earmarks.

So, Madam Speaker, today I will again be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by Republican Leader Boehner that would improve the House rules and allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills.

We must defeat the previous question so that American taxpayers are no longer left wondering what hidden earmarks are contained in bills before the House and this Congress.

Madam 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.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and with that I yield back my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) 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, this rule allows for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This conference report is largely bipartisan, as it should be, and is an example of what Democrats and Republicans can accomplish when working together.

This conference report contains important authorizations for increases in force protection and retains provisions of the overdue Wounded Warrior Assistance Act. By passing these provisions, we will help provide the tools needed to protect our men and women currently deployed in the global war on terror. We will be setting up the improvements needed to ensure excellence in our military and veterans care system.

There are also provisions in this conference report that are important to those that I represent in central Washington.

This conference report authorizes $29 million for the Yakima Training Center. This funding will be used to increase the size of the Army's training space, allow for urban operation training, and support the digital systems used by today's Stryker forces. This new range is expected to be completed in August of 2009 and will provide critical training for our active duty and Reserve Army soldiers.

In addition, I am pleased that this conference report extends the operation of the Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupation Illness Compensation Program Act. The Ombudsman's office plays an important role in assisting workers at Hanford and other sites seeking illness compensation that they are due. I might add, Madam Speaker, this issue goes way back to the Second World War when we were involved, obviously, in atomic power. Hanford, which is in my district and a county adjacent to my district, played an important part of that and those workers that worked at those sites in many cases gave the ultimate sacrifice as our men and women overseas did, but in a kind of different setting. This compensation program, I think, is very important for those that worked at the Hanford site and other sites during the Second World War.

Madam Speaker, again, I would like to stress that this conference report was achieved in a bipartisan manner, and I hope to see more bipartisan conference reports brought to the floor as Congress wraps up its business in this first session of the 110th Congress.

As the first session of the 110th Congress comes to a close, I am disappointed that Democrat leaders are still intent on micromanaging the war on terror by blocking the funding requested for all our troops on the battlefield. At a time when both Democrats and Republicans are seeing recent progress in the war on terror, this approach, frankly, Madam Speaker, strikes me as unnecessary, divisive and dangerous.

If a supplemental spending bill is not signed into law soon, some Army civilian employees may get layoff notices before the Christmas holidays, and if this funding continues to be delayed, Department of Defense officials have reported that it could affect as many as 200,000 civilian employees and contractors.

Madam Speaker, I am also concerned that Democrat leaders continue to use delaying tactics to block a vote on a final bipartisan bill to fund veterans services.

This inaction is causing our veterans to lose critical funding each and every day. As I have done in the past, Madam Speaker, I will later be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order to appoint conferees and quickly approve a veterans funding conference report that, again, has strong bipartisan support and which is long overdue.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, who's a member of the Armed Services Committee and former member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, understanding that the gentlewoman is prepared to close, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I must ask once again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill, and to appoint conferees.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that a final veterans funding bill is sitting waiting to be acted on and that the Democrat leaders have bent over backwards to prevent this Congress in this session from passing the final bill. Democrat leaders in the House have refused to name conferees, and instead have chosen to put partisanship and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met. They have been stalling since September and have ignored the fact that the new spending bill began October 1 of this year, nearly over 2 months ago.

Since the beginning of the new spending year, our Nation's 8 million veterans have been waiting for their $37 billion in promised veterans benefits. Sadly, each day Democrat leaders choose not to act and move final funding forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Since the fiscal year began 73 days ago, our Nation's veterans are out $1.35 billion.

What is even more disappointing is that this bill has almost unanimous support, unanimous support, from Republicans and Democrats; yet we are not being allowed to pass it into law, and we are getting to the waning days of this session. Meanwhile, our Nation's veterans, who have sacrificed so much on behalf of our country, are left paying the price.

It is time, Madam Speaker, like in the underlying bill that this rule makes in order, to put partisanship and politics aside and work together to do what is in the best interest of our Nation's veterans. I see no better time than right now. By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong message to our veterans that they have our commitment to provide them with the funding increase they need, deserve, and were promised.

Once Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward and pass a stand-alone veterans funding bill, and it will pass with strong bipartisan support.

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.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) 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, this rule provides for consideration of a tax bill that would raise taxes permanently to give 1 year's worth of tax relief. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. This rule provides for consideration of a tax bill that would raise taxes permanently to give 1 year's worth of tax relief.

The AMT was enacted in 1969 to prevent a small number of wealthy taxpayers from using, at that time, legitimate deductions and credits to avoid paying taxes altogether. Back then, the tax affected only 155 people, the super-rich. The AMT was never adjusted to match inflation. Therefore, the AMT is affecting more and more taxpayers today. Without fixing the AMT problem, millions of taxpayers will be hit by the AMT, costing the average taxpayer about $2,000.

When Republicans gained control of the Congress, we passed legislation to protect American taxpayers from the unintended consequences of the bracket creep of AMT. Unfortunately, this measure was vetoed by President Clinton. So here we are again today trying to temporarily protect taxpayers from the AMT.

The longer we wait to fix the AMT, the longer it will take for the IRS to make the necessary changes in the tax forms and to process tax returns under the changes in the law. That is for this tax year. As of right now, the Democrat majority's failure to pass an AMT fix will force the IRS to delay processing tax refunds until mid-March at the earliest. This is likely to delay returns for over 20 million taxpayers who currently would be subjected to the AMT but who, with the patch, would not have to pay the AMT. This comes out, Madam Speaker, to about a $75 billion interest-free loan to the Federal Government from the taxpayer and paid for by the taxpayer.

I support fixing the AMT trap, but it is a tax that was never intended to occur. It is going to affect millions of Americans. But the Democrat leaders in the House are making it nearly impossible to help these Americans. Let's just pass a bill to eliminate the tax. Stop using this tax relief bill to raise taxes by over $50 billion.

Just as disappointing as the tax increases included in the bill is tax relief that is not included in this bill, and I am talking about a particular loophole in the tax law. I am dismayed that an extension of the sales tax deduction is not in this bill, the sales tax deduction for those States that do not have a State income tax. It is a matter of fairness. The AMT fix is for 1 year. I think it is only a matter of fairness to extend the sales tax deduction for those States who don't have a State income tax for 1 year.

I attempted to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee last night, to allow me to offer an amendment to close this loophole or adjust this loophole on the floor today to extend the sales tax deduction again to those States that don't have State income taxes.

It was defeated unfortunately on a party-line vote of 2-8 with every Democrat voting to block allowing this amendment to be made in order, including two Members from Florida, which is one of the eight States affected by this legislation.

But there is another way, Madam Speaker, and the House will vote today on extending the sales tax deduction so it doesn't expire at the end of the year. If you are from Washington, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question.

I will then amend the rule so we can vote to extend the deduction and modify this loophole that I was talking about and ensure that our constituents in States that do not have a State income tax are treated fairly.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I appreciate my friend from Oregon making his remarks. I am glad he acknowledges that President Clinton vetoed the permanent tax relief from the AMT. Let me make my points, and then I will be happy to yield.

Ever since that time, I might point out to my colleague, there has been a 1-year fix. We know that issue is coming. We know that this issue is coming and it needs to be resolved. It hasn't been resolved, and we know that it won't be resolved by raising taxes on other people.

I know my friends on the other side of the aisle can say no, these are adjustments. If they are adjustments, I hope they will acknowledge with me that what I am trying to do on the previous question is to make an adjustment for those States, for the people in States that don't have a State sales tax, to make that adjustment so they can have fairness across the board of being able to deduct sales tax from their Federal income tax. I will be making that motion, Madam Speaker, on the previous question.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

No. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not correct on that, because in all of the budgets that we put together, there was never a provision that said that this income was something that we would use.

That is, by the way, in your budget. You do it with a mechanism called the reserve fund which says you have to offset.

But I will say this, and I will talk about economic policy and tax policy. Because of the tax policies we have put in place with the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, we have seen an extraordinarily strong economy in this country. I think that is pretty hard to refute, and so I just want to point that out to my friend.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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

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

I yield myself 2 minutes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the previous speaker, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has always been one that believes that this House ought to do their work, and he has worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that this House does their work on the appropriation process.

But I find it ironic that in the gentleman's remarks talking about what happened with a bill that President Clinton vetoed is because, at least the inference is there's a lot of extraneous stuff on that bill.

My goodness, how history repeats itself, because here we are in the closing days of the first session of this 110th Congress, and what are we contemplating? There are so many rumors around here about an omnibus bill. And we know what omnibus bills are. There are so many things that are stuck in there to extract votes, generally they come out after the fact, embarrasses the institution, and yet we seem to be going down exactly the same path.

I appreciate the gentleman for acknowledging that President Clinton did veto a permanent repeal of the AMT, which was simply the point that I made in the outset of my remarks.

But I would just say, Madam Speaker, it seems to me we're going, that there will be a speech maybe later on this week, probably next week, about everything put into one package. And maybe we should take my friend from Wisconsin's remarks and just repeat them again, because history does repeat itself.

With that, I will reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I reserve my time, Madam Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time and I am prepared to close if the gentleman from California is prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's put this thing in perspective. This Democrat tax plan essentially allows the State sales tax deduction for those States that don't have a State income tax to expire.

Residents of States with no income tax deserve to be allowed to deduct their State sales tax from their Federal income tax bill. To me, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of fairness, which is why the Republican Congress acted in 2004 to restore the State and local sales tax deduction. This law provided tax fairness to Washingtonians and those who live in other non-income tax States for the first time in nearly 20 years.

Now, this deduction, Mr. Speaker, expires in just days, at the end of this year. But this House will have the chance to vote today, Mr. Speaker, to extend the State sales tax deduction by joining me in voting ``no'' on the previous question. I will then amend the rule to allow an amendment to be offered on the underlying bill to extend the State and local sales tax deduction for 1 year, just for 1 year, as a matter of fairness.

To all the Members from Washington, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can give State sales tax deduction fairness for our constituents. This is a bipartisan issue, and we can achieve an extension today with a bipartisan vote against the previous question. Our constituents deserve fair treatment; so let's give this to them. The underlying bill that this rule makes in order is going to raise taxes by $50 billion. The very least we can do is to extend the sales tax deduction out of fairness.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear because there has been a great deal of discussion on the floor today about PAYGO. I think PAYGO has a lot of merit. I happen to disagree as it relates to this particular tax plan in the underlying bill, but there has been a great deal of discussion about PAYGO. So let me make perfectly clear this previous question vote does not waive the PAYGO rule. If the previous question is defeated and my amendment is made in order, the PAYGO rule is not waived. If a Member then wants to raise, when the issue is on the floor, a point of order against that amendment, they are perfectly able to do that. So my amendment does not waive the PAYGO rule.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material in the Record prior to the vote on 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule as was described by my friend from Florida that allows not a single amendment to be offered on the floor of the House today and in opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill won't become law, and it shouldn't become law. Its priorities are all wrong. It won't lower gas prices; it is going to increase them. It totally ignores nuclear power as a non-emitting energy source. It totally ignores hydropower as a clean, non-emitting energy source. It raises taxes by unknown billions. And, Mr. Speaker, it gives a tax credit to people for riding their bikes to work. I am sorry, but gas prices and climate change aren't going to be fixed by making people ride their bikes to work.

This isn't a plan to make America energy independent and to free us from foreign oil. It is just a dream for the political left in this country. And let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, it raises taxes, it is anti- nuclear and anti-dams, it forces people out of their cars, and gives tax credits for riding their bike to work.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address an issue, the Secure Rural Schools issue. And you might ask, why do I want to address that issue, because it has nothing to do with energy. And that is a very good question. It has nothing to do with energy, but it is in this bill. It is another cynical way the Democrats have approached this issue.

Time after time this year, Democrat leaders have attached Secure Rural Schools to bills they know will never become law, like this bill, and blocked attempt after attempt to put it in bills that will become law. The way this bill is written, it abandons our rural schools and communities and it moves in the program.

Don't take my word for it. Just last Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi told the Oregonian newspaper in Portland, Oregon, during a visit to Portland that ``where we go from here is to see how we can phase this system out.''

Mr. Speaker, I submit the full text of the article for printing in the Record.

[From the Oregonian, Nov. 28, 2007]

Pelosi Says Health Care Change Can Start Here

(By Harry Esteve)

Oregon could become a leader in the drive to establish

centralized computer health records for everyone who gets

medical care, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday in

Portland.

Pelosi, D-Calif., stressed the importance of records as a

way to save billions of dollars in health care costs, reduce

medical mistakes and ensure better care in rural communities.

``Electronic records are essential to improving health

care,'' Pelosi said. ``This is the future. I see Oregon

taking the lead in that future.''

Pelosi made her comments after holding a round-table

discussion with a group of medical experts, hospital

administrators and elected officials, including U.S. Rep.

David Wu, D-Ore., and Gov. Ted Kulongoski. The discussion,

held at Oregon Health & Science University's South Waterfront

office tower, was closed to the media.

Pelosi's visit to Oregon was part of her ``innovation

agenda,'' an effort to boost technological progress, such as

more broadband access and alternative energy systems, and to

increase the number of scientists, mathematicians and

engineers coming out of U.S. schools.

At the same news conference, Kulongoski announced the state

has received a $20 million federal grant to install broadband

cable at rural hospitals and clinics throughout the state.

The grant, from the Federal Communications Commission, would

allow a doctor in a remote part of the state to send a

digital MRI image to a specialist at OHSU Hospital, for

example.

Kulongoski said the grant and Pelosi's initiative are part

of a widespread movement toward better communication in the

health care industry. He said he saw a recent study that

showed savings of $1 billion in Oregon alone if electronic

health care records were in place.

In Oregon, as with much of the country, recent attention on

medical issues has focused on the escalating cost of health

care and the rapidly rising number of uninsured or

underinsured.

After talking to reporters for about five minutes, Pelosi

answered two questions. One was about the trade-off between

her goal of improved record-keeping and efforts to make

health care more affordable to everyone. The other was on an

unrelated topic: federal timber payments to Oregon counties.

Pelosi said the push for centralized medical records would

not take away from efforts to give health coverage to

millions of people who lack it. Medical experts say the

ability to transfer records with ease is as important as

other medical breakthroughs, such as new medicines or

therapies, Pelosi said.

``We're not talking about this as some kind of elitist

thing for people who already have health care,'' Pelosi said.

``We're talking about it as essential.''

Pelosi all but brushed off the question on timber payments.

Oregon's congressional delegation has been pushing to keep

federal payments to counties that used to receive millions of

dollars from logging on national forests.

That program expired, although Congress passed a one-year

extension this year.

``Where we go from here is to see how to phase this system

out'' over the next few years, Pelosi said Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leaders of this House need to stop with these false promises regarding rural schools. Let's get serious. Let's keep the promises that were made, the full promise, not one that dwindles towards nothing. Let's get it done as relates to rural schools in a responsible way before the year ends and before this program expires.

Mr. 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.)

Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for the consideration of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, aimed at reforming mortgage lending practices in order to prevent subprime mortgage problems in the future.

I support efforts to better protect homeowners through simplified borrower disclosure, greater focus on deceptive practices, and enhanced education, training and oversight of lenders.

While I recognize that several significant changes were made to address some of the most concerning parts of this legislation during the committee markup, additional improvements and clarification are still needed. Consumers must have protections without unduly restricting credit opportunities or creating enormous liability for the mortgage lending industry.

We must improve the mortgage process to empower consumers to make good choices among competitors, not limit options for them. Also, we must ensure that this bill does not hurt the consumers that it is intended to help, especially those consumers with less than perfect credit histories that hope to achieve the American Dream of homeownership.

The current climate of rising defaults and foreclosures, especially in the subprime market, has shown us that poor lending decisions and abusive lending practices must be addressed.

And while we must deal with the bad actors in the lending industry, let's not forget about the good lenders and investors that have helped thousands of families successfully purchase their homes.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but improvements should be made as this legislation moves forward. I was hoping that the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee would see fit to provide an open rule for consideration of this bill. Under an open rule, Members could come to the floor and offer amendments in their effort to perfect this bill. While this rule allows several amendments to be offered, it is unfortunate that this restrictive rule also prevents Members of Congress from offering amendments on the floor during debate of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Financial Services Committee (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield myself 2 minutes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my friend from Massachusetts when he outlined the amendments that were made in order and the substance of some of those amendments to be debated and also suggesting that he would oppose some and accept others. I have always admired that in him when he comes up to the Rules Committee and feels that that's part of the legislative process.

The point that the gentleman from Texas was making, apparently he had two amendments, and one of them the gentleman from Massachusetts is going to work with him on; so that one will be resolved. But the gentleman from Texas felt very strongly that the amendment that was not made in order, really the only amendment that had any substance was not made in order, was his amendment, and we don't get a chance to debate it. I think that's a valid argument from his perspective. And I know the gentleman from Massachusetts had nothing to say obviously about that.

So I just wanted to make that point, that, yes, there are a lot of amendments that were made in order. Some of the amendments that were made in order will be addressed later on. But I wanted to make the point of what the gentleman from Texas had made that his amendment was not made in order.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The gentleman has always been open to debate. I am glad he has given us advice on maybe what we want to put in the motion to recommit. One of the easiest ways to do that obviously would be to have made that amendment in order. He had nothing to do with that decision. That was a decision of the Rules Committee. I wish it had been made in order. An amendment was offered to make that in order and was defeated on a party-line vote.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I always appreciate the gentleman offering his advice.

I reserve my time.

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

So if the gentleman is prepared to close, I will close on my side.

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

Mr. Speaker, it really is time for Congress to act and pass a stand- alone veterans funding bill. For the last several weeks, I have encouraged my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill and appoint conferees.

We have heard comments from Democrats that when Republicans were in charge that we did not get our work on the veterans funding bill completed on time. So I would ask my Democrat colleagues, if you don't like the way things were run then, then why are you exactly on the same path? Mr. Speaker, a final veterans funding bill is sitting waiting to be acted on. The Democrat leaders have bent over backwards to prevent Congress from passing the final bill. The stalling is costing our American veterans $18.5 million a day. Since the fiscal year began 46 days ago, our Nations's veterans are out $851 million. The veterans funding bill passed the House this summer with over 400 votes and passed the Senate with over 90 votes, and the President will sign the bill. So let's stop delaying, and let's defeat the previous question so that we cannot just say that we are committed to providing for veterans the funding increase that they need, but we actually get this increase to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman and my namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee held a second hearing to consider a second rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 3773, the Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective, or the RESTORE Act. As you may recall, a month ago the House considered and approved a closed rule for the RESTORE Act. Not only was it a closed rule, prohibiting any debate on amendments, but it also denied Members the opportunity to cast a separate vote on a manager's amendment and changes to the amendment which became part of the base bill once the rule was adopted.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The result a month ago was that the Democrat majority recognized the RESTORE Act was insufficient and decided to pull the bill from the House floor without a vote. Rather than spending a month working in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the bill, yesterday the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee was at it again, rewriting and denying Republican Members the chance to even offer input or suggestions and prohibiting every single Member of the House from offering amendments and alternatives. The Democrat majority's take-it-or-leave-it strategy on this bill is dangerous and is destined to fail, Mr. Speaker. It will not close our Nation's intelligence gap. In fact, it could widen it.

In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to establish a procedure for electronic surveillance of international communications. As enacted into law, FISA had two principles: first, to protect the civil liberties of Americans by requiring the government to first obtain a court order before collecting electronic intelligence on U.S. citizens in our country; second, the law specified how intelligence officials working to perfect our national security could collect information on foreign persons in foreign places without having to get a warrant.

The intent of the original FISA law was to enhance American security, while at the same time protecting American privacy. Recognizing that no responsibility of the Federal Government is more important than providing for the defense and security of the American people, Congress should be doing all it can to ensure that FISA continues to reflect the intent of the original law.

In August, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, took an important step forward to close our Nation's intelligence gap. The Protect America Act passed only after repeated attempts by Republicans to give our Nation's intelligence professionals the tools and the authority they needed to protect our homeland. This action was long overdue, and this law marked a significant step forward in improving our national security. The Democrats forced the security tools that we passed in August to expire after 6 months.

Now Congress must act again to renew this law by early next year before the Democrat expiration date arrives and our national security once again will be at serious risk. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today does not provide the security we need to protect our Nation from a potential future terrorist attack. It is a retreat, Mr. Speaker, from a law enacted in August, and jeopardizes the safety and security of Americans from foreign terrorist threats.

I am concerned that not only were final changes to the bill given to the minority just yesterday afternoon, but it was stated in our hearing that the Democrat chairman of the Judiciary Committee got the revised text just moments before we did. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Conyers' willingness expressed in his testimony before the Rules Committee to work with Republicans and perhaps even postpone consideration of a rule until the bill could be properly reviewed and Republicans had a chance to offer a substitute or changes to the bill. Sadly, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee overruled Mr. Conyers and expressed her intention to move this bill without any alternatives, amendments, or possible improvements being considered.

The action of the Rules Committee in October and again yesterday to completely shut down the legislative process shatters the promises made by Democrat leaders a year ago. The distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee on December 27, 2006, was quoted in the New York Times, Mr. Speaker: ``We are going to give people an honest and contemplative body they can be proud of once more. We are going to have a much more open process.''

House Majority Leader Hoyer, on December 5, 2006, was quoted in Congress Daily PM as saying, Mr. Speaker: ``We intend to have a Rules Committee that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals an ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''

Mr. Speaker, actions obviously speak louder than words. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security priority. It is alarming that the Democrat majority wants to move full speed ahead on a bill that weakens Americans' privacy protections, while at the same time strengthening protections for our enemies in the war on terror. I must therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule so that we can make absolutely certain that we are making our laws more, not less, effective in our constant battle to prevent a future terrorist attack against our Nation.

If this rule is adopted, Members will only have the choice to vote for or against a seriously flawed bill that threatens, not strengthens, our national security. The Democrat take-it-or-leave-it strategy shuts down all voices from being heard, and ultimately every American can suffer the consequences if this bill and the rule are adopted.

Enacting the Protect Act last August, which was a major accomplishment of this Congress, which has chosen to spend, frankly, more time debating and enacting legislation naming post offices and Federal buildings than real policy, it is ironic that the Democrat majority now wants to pull the rug out from under this successful accomplishment.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about

process here on this very, very important issue. Everybody on both sides of the aisle has talked about the need to make sure that we have the right intelligence, and yet through this process there are a number of questions, I think very legitimate questions, that were raised; because if this rule is adopted, then we will have no opportunity to even vote on the manager's amendment. It will be self-executing.

It seems to me like it is a process by which, because we all know pretty much that rule votes are party votes. So it is like denying anybody an opportunity. If somebody on the other side has some questions about the questions that were raised here, they will be denied the opportunity because you have got to stay with the party and support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I just simply say that is a very, very bad process.

Mr. Speaker, we also need to pass the stand-alone veterans funding bill. It has now been over 150 days since the veterans funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill and appointed its conferees 2 months ago. Sadly, Democrat leadership in the House has refused to name conferees and instead has chosen to put politics and partisanship ahead of ensuring that our veterans' needs are met.

Once the Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward and pass the stand-alone veterans bill. Mr. Boehner took a positive historic step in that direction; now Speaker Pelosi must follow. Therefore, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Funding Bill and appoint conferees.

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.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the 42nd, Mr. Speaker, closed rule that we are debating here today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me clear up this issue here about the time requirements. The rules of the House say there shall be a 72-hour, or 3-day layover on these bills. That was waived. That was waived by the majority party. Then as a courtesy in their ``new directions,'' they say it should be at least 24 hours. So here they are even waiving a promise of a waiving of a rule of 3 days.

So I wanted to clarify that. It is supposed to be 3 days, that is the premise from which we start, and then we come down to a promise of 24 hours. They are even waiving that promise.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my 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, the clock is ticking and time is running out. At the end of the year, many of the important tax provisions that have helped our economy grow will expire. Unless Congress acts and gets a bill to the President that he will sign into law, workers, families and small businesses will face a tax increase this year.

Congress can either accomplish this the easy way, by working together in a bipartisan manner, or it can be done the hard way, by dragging out the process, passing a bill in the House that the Senate won't even consider and the President has threatened to veto, only for the Democrats then to rush a bill to the floor at the last minute that no one has had time to read and that should have been considered in the first place.

I'm disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen the hard way on this and so many other pieces of legislation this year.

The parts of this bill that prevent tax increases are good, and I support most of them, Mr. Speaker. I support ensuring over 20 million Americans are not caught up in paying the AMT. Over the years, this tax burdens more and more middle-income Americans, clearly an unintended consequence of the original bill.

I support extending the State and local sales tax deduction so that taxpayers in my State of Washington and other States without a State income tax will continue to be able to deduct State sales tax from their Federal tax bill.

I support extending tax incentives to enhance the affordability of higher education, which will help more middle-income students access post-secondary education.

I support extending an important above-the-line deduction to help teachers contain the costs of out-of-pocket classroom expenses like books, supplies and computer equipment.

I support, Mr. Speaker, extending the research and experimentation tax credit in order to allow the United States to remain a global competitor.

And I support keeping taxes low for small businesses.

These are reasonable parts of the bill, and I have supported them in the past, I support them being extended this year, and I support seeing that they become made into permanent law.

However, I cannot support a bill that temporarily stops certain tax increases by permanently raising other taxes. Let me repeat that. I cannot support a bill that temporarily stops certain tax increases by permanently raising other taxes. It's not right and it's not fair. But the Democrat majority is using temporary tax relief as an excuse to permanently raise taxes.

Under this bill, you may get to keep one of your hard-earned dollars in your right-hand pocket, but the Federal Government is right there taking a dollar out of your left-hand pocket year after year. This is the wrong approach.

Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way, every American will face a tax increase sooner or later. If not this year, then next. If not next year, then certainly in 3 years when tax relief enacted by the Republican Congress will expire, tax relief that lowers rates for every single taxpayer in America. If these tax cuts expire, taxpayers will be forced to pay $3.5 trillion more to the Federal Government over 10 years, and the Democrats plan to spend every dime of it on more government spending.

But, Mr. Speaker, don't take just my word for it. Look at the budget the Democrats adopted earlier this year. When Democrats were faced with the choice of how best to balance the Federal budget, they flat out rejected the option of spending less and declared their allegiance to raising taxes. The Democrat budget would impose the largest tax increase in American history.

Their budget doesn't extend relief from the marriage tax penalty. It doesn't extend the $1,000 child tax credit, it doesn't end the death tax, it doesn't fix the AMT for middle-class families, it doesn't protect the lowest tax rate, and it will force lower-income Americans who today pay no income tax, thanks to the Republicans' tax relief, to start paying taxes again.

The Democrats will call this tax relief bill a tax relief bill. They will deny that they are raising taxes, but the plain hard facts are this bill that this rule would make in order would raise taxes by over $80 billion.

Congress doesn't need to be raising Americans' taxes to pay for Democrat plans to pay for more and higher government spending. Don't raise taxes; reduce spending.

Several of my Republican colleagues that serve on the Ways and Means Committee submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to make this a better bill, a bill that would pass the House on a strong bipartisan basis, pass the Senate and could be signed into law. Amendments to increase the teacher tax credit from $250 to $400, permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, and strike tax increases from the bill that were denied by the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee.

I am especially troubled that an amendment offered by my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) to strike language in the bill that gives special treatment to State legislatures was not made in order. It is difficult to understand why this Democrat bill would allow State legislators to earn tax-free income.

For example, in my State of Washington, the State legislators in Olympia have increased spending by 33 percent since 2005 and raised taxes by $500 million, not exactly behavior that deserves rewarding them with a special Federal tax break.

A Washington Post article on November 6 says: ``An official of the nonpartisan congressional Committee on Joint Taxation estimated that the yearly deduction could reach $55,000 for a State lawmaker whose legislature declared enough pro forma days.''

Of all the people in America, State legislators are not at the top of my list and probably not at the top of the list for most Americans. But apparently allowing State legislators tax-free income is a top priority of House Democrats.

This provision was slipped into the bill at the last minute, and it only seeks to benefit a few. It will cost American taxpayers an estimated $4 million. It should be removed from this bill.

This is a bad rule that brings a bill to the floor that is bad policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a fellow colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a classmate of mine, Mr. English.

Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I have highlighted the need to pass a stand-alone veterans funding bill. Today is our last opportunity to pass a veterans funding bill and get it to the President before Veterans Day.

The veterans funding bill passed this House this summer with over 400 votes and passed the Senate with over 90 votes. A final veterans funding bill is sitting, waiting to be acted on, but Democrat leaders have bent over backwards to prevent Congress from passing the final bill. They have been stalling since September and have ignored the fact that the new spending year began October 1 this year.

Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nations's veterans lose $18.5 billion. Since the fiscal year began 40 days ago, our Nation's veterans are out $740 million. It has now been nearly 150 days since the Veterans funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill and appointed its conferees 2 months ago. Sadly, the Democratic leadership in the House has refused to name conferees and instead has chosen to put partisanship and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met.

Once Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward and pass the stand-alone Veterans funding bill. Three weeks ago, Republican Leader Boehner took a positive step towards naming House Republican conferees. Now, the Speaker must follow suit.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the MilCon and Veterans Affairs funding bill, and appoint conferees.

By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong message to our veterans that they will have our commitment to providing them the funding increase they need, deserve and were promised.

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 oppose the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman 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, Federal law bans job discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or gender. In addition to Federal law, 11 States have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, while another eight States bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would extend Federal employment discrimination protections to employees on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose discrimination in the workplace, and I believe that skills and job performance are essential for determining whether employees are hired, promoted, or dismissed. However, I do not think it is the place of the Federal Government to legislate how each and every workplace operates. As a former small business owner, I know that what brings success

to one company does not necessarily bring success to another.

As I mentioned, a number of States have enacted State laws in this area. That is their right as States. Many small businesses and large corporations have chosen to adopt their own policies. That is appropriate as well, Mr. Speaker. This bill as written, though, raises a number of concerns, including that it would expand Federal law into a realm where perception, Mr. Speaker, would be a measure under discrimination law.

On Monday, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and Members testifying before the committee pointed out that debate on the bill, at least in committee, had been productive and a respectful one. Mr. Speaker, I am truly disappointed that moments later, the Democrat- controlled Rules Committee chose to report out a rule that denies the House and the American people the opportunity for a full and fair debate by prohibiting 99 percent of the Members of the U.S. House the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments.

For the last 2 weeks, Democrat leaders have had the opportunity to amend, alter, and change this bill. This editing and rewriting has been done behind closed doors and is contained within the Miller-Stupak amendment. Democrat leaders have acted to deny a public debate and to deny Republicans the opportunity to offer an amendment similar in scope to the Miller-Stupak amendment. This is not an open and honest way to run the House, and it is not what Democrat leaders promised the American people only a year ago.

This rule only makes three amendments in order, Mr. Speaker, but buried in this rule there is a special provision, a special provision, that allows amendment No. 3 in the report of the Committee on Rules to be withdrawn by its proponent before the question of adoption.

Mr. Speaker, what does this mean? It means that the Rules Committee decided to make three amendments in order but denies the House a vote on one of those amendments. I just have to wonder why the Democrat Rules Committee is denying a vote on this amendment. My friend from Florida was up there, and I would yield to the gentlewoman from Florida if she can tell me why this provision is in the bill to deny the House a vote on amendment No. 3.

I would yield to my friend if she would explain this for me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for giving me that option. I can't remember how many times I have been in the Rules Committee talking about and asking Members who come forward with potential amendments what their choice would be, would they like to have an open rule or would they like to have a closed rule. And every time I hear, at least from the members of the Rules Committee, that the Rules Committee will decide.

Now, it sounds in this particular case that one Member decided that she didn't want a vote on it, so we deny everybody in the House an opportunity. The gentlewoman said that she would like to be able to vote on this. I will give her the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I have served on this Rules Committee for a decade, and I cannot recall one instance when Republicans were in control that a rule allowed a Member to bypass House Rules and withdraw an amendment. I believe it is wrong for a substantive legislative issue to be raised on the floor only to deny Americans, through their representatives, a voice on that amendment.

Let's be clear about what is happening here. And that is that the rules of the House are being altered to block the House from voting on this amendment. It is clear and simple. We were elected to represent our constituents by casting a vote and votes, and today Democrat leaders are denying us a vote. I am extremely concerned with this unprecedented rule and I have an amendment, and I hope the gentlewoman will support me. My amendment would, in section 1 of the resolution, strike the sentence which begins, ``Amendment No. 3 in the report of the Committee on Rules.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be amended to reflect the change as offered in my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, did I hear objection?

No, the question I have, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered and adopted.

Is my amendment now before the body?

Does the gentlewoman yield to me so that I can offer the amendment?

I just want to make this clear, Mr. Speaker. I am asking unanimous consent to have the amendment that I described be considered. Now, if I have to engage the gentlewoman for that determination, I would be happy to do so, but I am asking unanimous consent that that be done. I am just asking for a ruling on this.

So, Mr. Speaker, the way I understand your ruling, then, is that I hear no objection; so, therefore, my amendment should be made in order, and I would like to move the proper procedure as I don't hear any objection.

So there has been an objection?

Will the gentlewoman yield? Did she reserve the right to object and would she yield at least to explain why she objected?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

If I attempt to amend this, what procedure would I go through in order to try to amend this rule?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Then the only means I have is through the previous question and not to ask unanimous consent?

Will the gentlewoman yield so I can ask unanimous consent to amend the rule?

I understand.

Well, if that's the case, then, Mr. Speaker, I accept the ruling, and I wish I had a more full description of why there is a problem not at least allowing potentially a vote on amendment No. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other choice but to ask my colleagues, then, later on today to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the rule by striking the language that I described that allows the proponent of amendment No. 3 to withdraw their amendment before a vote.

So, just let me be clear. When I offered this motion, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will, therefore, be allowed to show their support or opposition on amendment No. 3, which would expand the bill's protections to persons discriminated against based on gender identity. This is defined in the amendment as ``gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to an individual's designated sex at birth.'' Now, Members who choose to say ``yes,'' then, on the previous question would, therefore, be showing their support for denying Members of this House an opportunity to vote on that issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge, and I will talk about this later, but I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' when I offer that motion on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

You were speaking, if I heard you correctly, on the Baldwin amendment. Now, the way the rule is structured, there is potential for not a vote on that amendment. I'm going to offer a motion on the previous question to allow that to be voted. Now, if I understood what the gentlelady was saying in her remarks, she would like the opportunity to debate that and presumably vote on that. So I would hope that the gentlelady would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question.

I yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentlelady then will join with me in defeating the previous question so, in fact, we can have a vote on that amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If the gentleman was listening to my remarks, I know he came in, unfortunately, after I had started making my remarks, but my whole point was suggesting that we have a process here where we can dispose of the measure, either for or against. That's all I'm saying.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts for yielding to me and at least airing in a brief exchange where I was trying to explain my position base was on the procedure and the rule. He took back his time. And while I think he may have conceded that that's what I was talking about, he said something to the effect of that's not what you meant. Now, I think he is expanding what my thought process is, but I do appreciate the gentleman for at least yielding to me.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, and he is one chairman who regularly comes to the Rules Committee and wants to have a full and open debate.

I think that the gentleman would have to concede that this is a very unusual step where we are self-building into the rule an opportunity to deny a vote on an amendment that was made in order. That is contrary to what I've heard the gentleman say many times.

Sure, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

This is a very, very unusual procedure. And the whole point of a body like the United States Congress is to debate and dispose of issues. We are being denied that under the rule.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to a classmate of mine, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman from Ohio 30 seconds, if the gentleman will yield.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I gave the gentleman time to hopefully respond to what I am going to suggest,

and that is if he would vote ``no'' on the previous question, that would be to amend the rule to allow a vote under normal rules, normal order. So if you would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question, you will have an opportunity to vote on that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the newest Member, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would probably respond to your direct question that for the same reason for the 20 years prior to that your party didn't bring it up either.

But what I want to say, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, the gentleman said that the purpose of the House is not to debate every issue. I would tend to agree with that. But I think that the gentleman would have to agree with me that when there are propositions that are made in order, whether it is a bill or whether it is an amendment, that they ought to be debated and disposed of by the House and not be covered up, if you will.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman would do that. I hope he would join me. I am just worried that this is so unprecedented for this to happen. That is the point I made from the outset, and that is the point I make right now.

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

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

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