Floor Statements

This last December 6, 2 months ago, was the ninth anniversary of the imprisonment--the cruel and unjust imprisonment in a cold and damp cell in the most inhuman of conditions--of the great Cuban leader in the fight for democracy and human rights in that enslaved island, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Dr. Biscet is prohibited from even walking in the prison's yard, and he is incarcerated along with common criminals.

Dr. Biscet was released from prison in 2003, for a few weeks, before being rearrested and subsequently sentenced to 25 years in the gulag due to his peaceful pro-democracy activities.

Biscet personifies the opposition to the brutal totalitarian regime Fidel Castro and his brother, who the dictator has now given some additional titles to because of the ailing tyrant's failing health.

Dr. Biscet is an admirer of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

A physician by training, he began his opposition to the totalitarian regime by speaking out against the regime's forced abortion when there is any indication whatsoever that a pregnancy may have an abnormality policy. Biscet described that policy as inhuman. He was immediately fired from his job at the hospital, prohibited from practicing his profession as a physician, and his wife Elsa Morejon was also fired from her job as a practicing nurse. Within hours, the couple and their son were summarily evicted from their apartment and their physical possessions thrown into the street.

Fortunately, an elderly patient of Elsa allowed the family to move into her house. Dr. Biscet continued peacefully denouncing the totalitarian regime's absolute denial of human rights to the Cuban people; and, because of that, he has been unjustly and cruelly imprisoned for 9 years and counting.

Hundreds of other brave human rights activists are also suffering in the political prisons of the Cuban totalitarian dictatorship for the crime of supporting democracy and liberty and opposing tyranny, including 23 known journalists thrown into dungeons because of articles they wrote that bothered the dictator. No regime in the world has more journalists in prison, with the possible exception of another totalitarian dictatorship in an obviously much larger nation, communist China.

A few weeks ago, the respected international organization, Reporters Without Borders, gave one of those Cuban journalists in the gulag, Ricardo Gonzalez Alfonso, sentenced by the Cuban tyrant to 20 years in prison in 2003, and currently in very poor health, the Reporters Without Borders Journalist of the Year Award. Reporters Without Border is to be commended, Mr. Speaker.

Three other Cuban prisoners of conscience, Aldolfo Fernandez Sainz, Pedro Arguelles Moran, and Antonio Diaz Sanchez, are known to have begun a hunger strike due to brutal conditions they are subjected to. Where is the outrage, Mr. Speaker? Where is the international solidarity? Where is there one word of coverage of this in the world's press?

The reality is that for too many in the world today Cubans are supposed to be content with their lot, to be quiet; to, in the words of one of our colleagues in this Congress recently, to move on. The regime that enslaves a Nation and imprisons hundreds of heroes simply for their beliefs deserves unilateral rewards and concessions, many argue, such as more travel or dollars. But Dr. Biscet and the many other heroes imprisoned in the Castro brothers' gulag will not be able to be ignored forever. They must be freed. And political parties must be legalized, as well as independent press agencies, and labor unions. And free and fair elections must take place in Cuba.

Many of those imprisoned today, Mr. Speaker, will be democratically elected leaders tomorrow. That is what is going to happen in Cuba tomorrow. Today, as they suffer the most unjust of cruel imprisonment, we here remember and honor them and, once again, demand the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience in the Castro brothers' infernal gulag.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'd like to thank my friend the distinguished gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) for the time.

I wish to welcome my distinguished colleague to the Rules Committee. She is a very important addition to the Rules Committee, and all of us have had the privilege of welcoming her in the last days. She stated in her statement that she is a new Member. She's also a new member of our committee, and obviously we are very pleased that she is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule that, once again, clearly contradicts the majority's pledge to the American people to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Today, the majority proceeds to consider this legislation here on the floor of the House under a closed rule. That means, Mr. Speaker, that if this rule is passed and this legislation is brought to the floor under it, every Member of this House will be forbidden from offering any amendments to it. And what makes this act even more unfortunate is that this bill did not make its way through the committee process during this Congress, thereby abandoning the critical committee vetting and amendment process. In effect, what the majority is doing is sidelining the legislative process.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, may say that they would refute that claim because this legislation was considered in the previous Congress and should be passed quickly. But I bring to my colleagues' attention that we have dozens of new Members who were not here in the last Congress and are now not given the opportunity to participate in the usual and proper legislative process. So, something that truly concerns me is that this closed rule may, in effect, foreshadow how the majority will continue to run this House.

Considering the fact that we are only in the fourth week of the 111th Congress, and that when we take into account this rule, we count this rule, the majority has already considered four pieces of legislation under closed rules, I am quite concerned that the future will bring closed rule after closed rule to this floor.

So, Mr. Speaker, the question is obvious. Will the majority continue its current path of blocking a bipartisan legislative process? Will they break their record of offering 64 bills, as they did under closed rules in the 110th Congress? Or will they change their behavior and open up this legislative process?

The majority promised that it would when it achieved the majority 2 years ago, but it has not done so. In fact, as I stated, in the last Congress, 64 bills--breaking all records of all prior Congresses--64 bills were brought to this floor under closed rules that do not permit any Members in this House to have their ideas considered in the form of amendments. So the facts do not lead to optimism.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind my distinguished friend that we did make known our protest with regard to the fact that this legislation was in the list of bills that the majority on the first day of this Congress made clear would be brought to the floor without the possibility of amendments.

But it's interesting. When the Senate considered this legislation, the Senate did authorize and have debate on amendments. And so the question really, I think, is begged. What is the harm in allowing Members of this House to bring forth their ideas and letting this House work its way via the majority, the majority decide, and that way vet the ideas, discuss, debate, and decide which ideas brought forth by colleagues are appropriate and should be adopted. There's no harm in that, Mr. Speaker. There's no harm.

But, unfortunately, the pattern is continuing. The record was broken in the last Congress with regard to the number of closed rules, with regard to the number of pieces of legislation that were brought to this floor under a structure that did not allow any amendments to be proposed and debated by Members of either party. And that trend continues.

So we saw it not only on the first day of this Congress, but we see it today. Already, four bills, in the few days that this Congress has met, the 111th Congress has met already, we have seen four bills brought forth under these structures known as closed rules that do not allow Members of either party

from proposing ideas to improve any of the pieces of legislation that have been brought to the floor. I think that's the most unfortunate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that every piece of legislation brought to this floor is preceded by a debate on the terms of debate. In other words, the rule that we are now considering as a resolution sets the framework for how the underlying piece of legislation can be debated; and, if you will, it does set the process, the parameters for the process of the debate. It establishes the resolution, the rule that is debated and voted on before the underlying legislation can be considered, sets forth, determines if amendments are authorized; and, if so, what amendments are authorized. And so it is process that is debated by the rule, resolution commonly known as the rule, that is brought to the floor before legislation is considered. And that is what we are on right now. That is what we are discussing right now, the resolution, the rule to set the terms of debate.

What I am pointing out and will reiterate now is that it is most unfortunate and unnecessary, totally unnecessary, for the majority to bring forth legislation that will have the support of the majority on the floor when it is considered, the underlying legislation, to bring it forth with a rule that prohibits debate, that shuts out debate, that does not allow any amendments from any Member, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, on the underlying piece of legislation. That is what I am trying to point out, and I thought it was pretty clear.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that there is no need to close off debate; that this legislation could very easily have been debated openly; that Members on both sides of the aisle could have been given the opportunity to bring forth amendments as they were able to in the Senate, and that this legislation would move forward. It is not only unfortunate but unnecessary for the majority to close off debate. And, as I stated previously, there is a pattern.

In the last Congress, despite having promised the most open and the most transparent, the most fair Congress in history, the reality was exactly the opposite: More pieces of legislation were brought to this floor under closed rules that did not allow any amendments during the last Congress, the first Congress where our friends on the other side of the aisle had the majority in many years. More pieces of legislation were brought to the floor with closed rules prohibiting all amendments than in history, in all of history before in the history of Republic. So that is unfortunate.

But we are seeing the pattern continue. It has continued in these weeks in the beginning of the 111th Congress, and already this is the fourth bill, the fourth piece of legislation brought to the floor under a structure that does not permit any amendments under closed rules. That is what we are saying, it is uncalled for, it is unfortunate. And we hope, I guess because hope springs eternal, that our friends on the other side of the aisle will open the process up and will allow Members from both sides of the aisle to introduce amendments and have them debated and have the majority work its will.

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

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

I thank my friend.

It is unfortunate the rule is closed. It is such an important issue we are discussing. For example, a new member of the majority party came before us in the Rules Committee, Mr. Kissell, with a very thoughtful amendment. It was rejected, not permitted for debate. That is unfortunate and unnecessary.

Now, I had said last year, Madam Speaker, that I wasn't going to support a major expansion of SCHIP until legal immigrant children were included, because we should not discriminate against legal immigrants. I represent South Florida. I represent hundreds of thousands of immigrants. So I made clear, I am not going to support an expansion of SCHIP until they are included.

Well, they are in the legislation that we are going to vote on today and so I am going to vote for it. I commend the leadership for having included it, and I think the Senate has to do the same. As I said before, it was a sine qua non for me. Until legal immigrant children were included, I wasn't going to support an expansion of SCHIP.

So, it is a good day. We are going to have a vote on this program that is going to include thousands of children and their moms who unfairly have been excluded. And, by the way, that affects kids in school and the other children in school. When the children who are sick have to go to the emergency room or when they are sick in the classroom, they affect all the kids in the classroom. It just doesn't make sense. And they are legal in this country.

Anyway, I am going to be supporting the legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, for 100 years, the motion to recommit has really been sacrosanct in this House, and the essence of representative democracy is, yes, rule by the majority with respect to the rights of the minority.

Today, history will record that in this rules package by the majority, the severe limitation of the right of the minority to offer an alternative in legislation, this severe limitation of the motion to recommit, is a sad, unfortunate, and wholly unnecessary step that takes a very strong, a very significant step toward unaccountability.

So it is really a sad day for this House, that the House, the leadership, the majority leadership, would commence this Congress by retrogression, by taking such a significant and unfortunate step towards unaccountability, severely limiting the option, the ability of the minority to offer an alternative known for 100 years and respected in this House as the motion to recommit.

I thank my friend, Mr. Dreier, and echo his words.

Madam Speaker, I was hoping that we would not see this legislation brought forth under a martial law rule that is going to change, is going to waive, is going to waive the rules of the House so that legislation that was filed just a little while ago does not have 24 hours for the American people and the membership of this House to review and study. I think that it was not necessary to do this. I think it's unfortunate for the martial law rule to have been brought forth to close down this process absolutely.

The legislation that the House would be considering, obviously, with regard to the automobile industry, deals with a very important industry. I also believe that, as Mr. Dreier has stated, the U.S.- Colombia Free Trade Agreement is one step that this Congress could and should take that would create jobs for the American people, and it would create jobs throughout the entire Nation. I was hoping, Madam Speaker, that after the election, and the decibels of the electoral debate have been turned down, that we could have had consideration and a vote on that important, implementing legislation, legislation to implement the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

It is most unfortunate that the majority leadership has decided, in effect, to continue its policy, really, that offends our relationship with our best, best ally in South America. It hurts that relationship at this critical time, in addition to preventing in this delicate economic time, the creation of many, many jobs in the United States.

So it's most unfortunate that the majority leadership has decided to act in this irresponsible manner, not only closing down, unnecessarily, the process with regard to the legislation brought forth today, unnecessarily, but failing to consider that most important implementary legislation with regard to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, and would have hoped that we would have seen another attitude after the election.

Madam Speaker, this last December 6 was the 9th anniversary of the imprisonment--the cruel and unjust imprisonment in a cold and damp cell in the most inhuman of conditions--of the great Cuban leader in the fight for democracy and human rights in that imprisoned island, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Dr. Biscet is prohibited even from walking in the prison's yard, and he is incarcerated along with common criminals.

Dr. Biscet was released from prison early in 2003, for a few weeks only, before being re-arrested and subsequently sentenced to 25 years in the Communist gulag due to his peaceful pro-democracy activities.

A few days ago, I was honored to receive a congratulatory letter from Ms. Elsa Morejon, Dr. Biscet's courageous and admirable wife.

Oscar Elias Biscet personifies the opposition to the brutal totalitarian regime of Fidel Castro and his brother, who the dictator has given some additional titles to because of the ailing tyrant's failing health. Dr. Biscet is an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

A physician by training, he began his opposition to the totalitarian regime by speaking out against the regime's ``forced abortion when there is any indication whatsoever that the pregnancy may have an abnormality'' policy. Biscet described that policy as inhuman. He was immediately fired from his job at the hospital, prohibited from practicing his profession as a physician, and his wife was also fired from her job as a practicing nurse. Within hours, the couple and their son were summarily evicted from their apartment and their physical possessions thrown into the street.

Fortunately, an elderly patient of Elsa's allowed the family to move into her house. Dr. Biscet continued peacefully denouncing the totalitarian regime's absolute denial of human rights to the Cuban people--and because of that he has been unjustly and cruelly imprisoned for 9 years, and counting.

Hundreds of other brave human rights activists are also suffering in the political prisons of the Cuban totalitarian dictatorship for the ``crime'' of supporting democracy and liberty and opposing tyranny, including 23 known journalists, thrown into dungeons because of articles they wrote that bothered the dictator. No regime in the world has more journalists in prison, with the possible exception of another totalitarian dictatorship in an obviously much larger nation, communist China.

Just last week the respected international organization, ``Reporters Without Borders'' gave one of the Cuban journalists in the gulag, Ricardo Gonzalez Alfonso, sentenced by the Cuban tyrant to 20 years in prison in the year 2003 and currently in very poor health, the ``Reporters Without Borders'' Journalist of the Year Award. ``Reporters Without Borders'' is to be commended.

Three other Cuban prisoners of conscience, Adolfo Fernandez Sainz, Pedro Arguelles Moran, and Antonio Diaz Sanchez, are known to have begun a hunger strike due to the brutal conditions they are subjected to.

Where is the outrage? Where is the solidarity in the international community?

The reality is that for too many in the world today, Cubans are supposed to be content with their lot, to be quiet, to . . . ``move on'', in the words of one of our pro-Cuban dictatorship colleagues here in the U.S. Congress. The regime that enslaves a nation and imprisons hundreds of heroes simply for their beliefs deserves unilateral rewards and concessions, many maintain.

But Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, and the many other heroes imprisoned in the Castro brothers' gulag will not be able to be ignored forever. They must be freed. And political parties be legalized, as well as independent press agencies, and labor unions. And free and fair elections must take place in Cuba.

Many of those imprisoned today will be democratically elected leaders tomorrow. That is what is going to occur in Cuba tomorrow. Today, as they suffer the most unjust of cruel imprisonments, we here remember and honor them--and once again demand their immediate release.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Fiscal Year 2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act.

Requesting Member: Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21).

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Army, RDT&E.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Lehman Injury Research Center (Ryder Trauma Center).

Address of Requesting Entity: 1800 NW 10th Avenue, Miami, FL 33136.

Description of Request: The funding would be used for the Army Trauma Training Center (ATTC) at the Ryder Trauma Center situated

in the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center. The ATTC has functioned as the national training center for U.S. Army Forward Surgical Teams (FSTs) since 2001. Monthly, the ATTC conducts a 14-day training program for deploying FSTs in order to improve clinical skills and teamwork. The resources of the Ryder Trauma Center and the William Lehman Injury Research Center present a unique opportunity to develop and evaluate new and innovative diagnostic and treatment tools and point-of-care information systems to maximize the care of injured soldiers. The Ryder Trauma Center is developing diagnostics and devices to enhance the capability of first responders to effectively treat casualties as close to the geographic location and time of the injury as possible. Since January 2001, the Army Trauma Training Center, in conjunction with the Ryder Trauma Center, has trained over 25 forward surgical teams and more than 650 Army personnel in active duty and reserve components--two-thirds of all forward surgical teams in the U.S. Army--supporting over 75,000 combat troops.

Budget Plan

Lehman Injury Research Center (Ryder Trauma Center) will likely receive $5 million in CR/FY 2009 DOD.

Salaries

Faculty, $419,195.00; Staff, $1,349,209.00.

Total Salaries (includes fringe benefits), $1,769,194.00.

Telemedicine equipment, $300,000.00.

Minor other equipment, $70,000.00.

Software licenses, $120,000.00.

Programming consultants, $500,000.00.

Minor supplies, $387,000.00.

Total equipment, $1,377,000.00.

Grand total, $3,146,194.00.

Indirect costs, $853,806.00.

TATRC 20 percent, $1,000,000.00.

Total Award, $5,000,000.00.

Requesting Member: Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21).

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Army, RDT&E.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Heavy Fuel Burning Engines for UAVs (Locust USA, Inc.).

Address of Requesting Entity: 8312 NW 74th Avenue, Miami, FL 33166.

Description of Request: The funding will be used to accelerate development of very small engines (Microturbines) to meet present requirements at the Department of Defense. During the past 18 months Locust USA has made significant advancements in the design of the product, and bringing to test the smallest turbine engine (5 horsepower). A version of this engine was selected in September 2006 to power the Army's FCS (Future Combat System) Class I UAV. The DOD is currently in the process of purchasing nearly 500 MAVs (Micro Air Vehicles) for special missions; all are powered by a gasoline engine instead of the heavy fuel requirements that would be preferred under this project.

Budget Plan

$800,000 of the FY 09 funds are to be used to refine performance and durability of prototype heavy fuel propulsion systems in the 40 to 70 horsepower class.

$1,200,000 will be used for the power range of 5 to 10 horsepower engines, to include the original heavy fuel system that was to power the MAV (Micro Air Vehicle).

Specifically, improvements in component efficiency which will lead to improvements in basic performance (horsepower, fuel consumption, and internal electrical power generation) as well as durability of bearings, improved castings of critical parts that operate at speeds as high as 230,000 RPM.

Requesting Member: Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21).

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Army, RDT&E.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Medium-Sized Unmanned Ground Vehicles Platform (Phoenix Worldwide Industries).

Address of Requesting Entity: 10780 SW 190th Street, Miami, FL 33351.

Description of Request: The funding will be used to develop and implement smaller, lightweight command platforms with reduced power requirements for biological, video and systematic sensors to be installed to function with medium-sized Unmanned Ground Vehicles. Phoenix Worldwide mobile command platforms would be fitted onto military vehicles. This effort would be overseen and directed by the Robotic and Joint Center for Unmanned Ground Vehicles at TARDEC, the attending agency.

Unmanned Ground Vehicles and Robotics are of high importance to our warfighters. The U.S. military is currently using numerous types and designs of these UGVs overseas. The U.S. military will continue to develop newer UGVs and mobile command platforms whose technologies will reduce exposure in hazardous situations and at the same time gather information and intelligence. For this reason, the U.S. Army created the Future Combat System directive to increase situational awareness while reducing human exposure for our ground troops.

Budget Plan--Budget Proposal, UNCLASSIFIED

Appropriation--Phoenix Worldwide Industries.

Platform: DoD or Military Spec. The design platform will be one that can be air lifted and/or driven.

Materials: Much of the technology that will be incorporated in the working prototype developed for the Mobile Command and Control Platform will be Commercial, off-the-shelf products (COTS).

We will use and intergrate current DoD or Military Spec sensors which will be listed as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) as per instructions.

Platform Costs--structure reinforcing, balancing weight distribution, etc., electrical adaptations, shelter. $150,000.00.

Vehicle Transportation, $12,000.00.

Labor Costs--mechanical engineering, software engineering, design engineering, project management, trade labor. $750,000.00.

COTS Material Cost, $913,000.00.

GFE Adaptations, $50,000.00.

Contract Costs--NASEA and TARDEC, $125,000.00.

Schedule: 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Welch, the gentleman from Vermont, for the time,

and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this rule, which is a framework under which legislation is brought to the floor, if passed, will allow the House to consider legislation under suspension of the rules until Sunday.

Suspension of the rules is a procedure by which the House of Representatives generally acts to approve legislation promptly. Legislation considered under suspension of the rules is usually noncontroversial. It usually has bipartisan support, by virtue of the fact that in order for bills to pass under that procedure known as suspension of the rules bills have to pass with at least two-thirds of the votes of the House.

Yesterday I came to the floor to manage for the minority a similar rule. I did not ask for a vote in opposition regarding that rule yesterday. But today I must rise and oppose this rule, because unlike yesterday's rule, today's rule does not specify which bills the House of Representatives will consider. Instead, this rule, this framework that we are going to vote on now, in a few minutes, this rule provides blanket or blind authority to the majority.

Now, yesterday we received a list of 44 bills that the House was being authorized to consider. But today we received nothing, just a request in effect for absolute power to bring legislation to the floor. So this will allow the majority to bring legislation to the floor that most Members haven't even heard about, much less read, not to mention that we will have absolutely no chance to amend any of the bills.

According to a senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee, such a procedure is ``outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is quite unfortunate that the majority has opted to pursue this path. In reality, this is the sixth time that the majority is bringing forth a rule like this during this Congress. I know the majority will claim that is the same number, the same amount of times that the 109th Congress used this procedure, but I would remind our friends on the other side of the aisle that in every other record for limiting debate in the House, they have far exceeded the 109th Congress, and that is so even though on the opening day of the 110th Congress the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would ``begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.''

So, let us take a look at their record-breaking performance, Mr. Speaker. First let us begin with closed rules.

There can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the spirit of representative democracy than the closed rule. Those rules, closed rules, block Members from both sides of the aisle from offering amendments to legislation, no matter their party affiliation. When the House of Representatives is operating under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor. Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, they silenced the voice of every Member and of all the constituents of every Member a record 64 times, Mr. Speaker. Sixty-four times.

No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought forth 64 pieces of legislation during one Congress under the parliamentary procedure known as the closed rule, that shuts out all amendments, all possibility of Members, from both sides of the aisle from introducing amendments.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority is most unfortunate. It is really, I believe, quite offensive to the democratic spirit, and really obviously a contradiction with regard to the promises made by the majority.

They have also systematically bypassed the conference process, the process by which the House and Senate reconciles differences on legislation before voting on a final version, an identical, final version of legislation before sending it to the President. They have systematically bypassed this conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

They also have used a technique known as ping-pong 14 times to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. Now, in comparison, in the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, that technique, ping-pong, that the majority has used 14 times during this Congress, that technique was used a total of three times in the prior two Congresses.

So, again, the tendency can be seen time and time again, in contradiction, direct contradiction to the promises to go in the other direction, to go in the direction of transparency and fairness and openness. So with ping-pong we also see the tendency of the majority not fail.

They also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments, again, even though they promised a procedure that, ``grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' Again, the majority contradicted its own promise, directly, directly contradicted its own promise again.

Now, these records that I have alluded to, do not etch them in stone yet. We still have a few days left in the 110th Congress. I would bet that the majority will break their own records yet again and, once again, their promises for a fair and open Congress.

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

I thank my friend for his presentation.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to point out, that we make distinct and analyze a number of the matters that we have brought forth.

With regard to the ability of the House to consider suspension bills, it's evident that that is a process that has much tradition. My objection, and I know that in the last Congress it was done six times, and it's done six times in this Congress, but I think it's unfair, really, in an exceptional way to the membership, for them, for Members not to know even the title of legislation that is being brought forth so that, along with their staffs, they can study bills that are expected to be noncontroversial because of the two-thirds requirement, but there is a great difference. We all accept that suspension bills are a part of the process towards the end of the session, but there is a great difference between authorizing suspensions that are identified, legislation bills that are identified, like we did yesterday, and, you know, in a blanket way authorizing the majority to bring forth any bills on suspension without even identifying them, which is what we are doing today.

There is a difference. Yes, it was done six times in the last Congress, and it has been done six times in this Congress.

What I pointed out was that the tendency toward unfairness becomes evident when one analyzes the entire spectrum of activity by the majority, procedurally, six and six on what I consider to be inappropriate formats for presenting suspension bills.

But when we leave that particular aspect of the suspension bills unidentified, and we analyze, for example, the closed rules, there the majority broke the record in a significant way, 64 closed rules. That's extraordinary, that's unprecedented.

I would remind you that the closed rule is most undemocratic. Then my friend referred to the ping-pong process, the process by which conference is avoided. In the last Congress, there was a similar situation of one party in control of both Houses as there is in this Congress. Yet the times in this Congress that conference has been avoided just went through the ceiling, went through the roof, in comparison to the past. I think it was three versus 14 times. It's extraordinary, the difference. And when we analyze all of this in conjunction with and in the context of the promises made by the majority to improve instead of to worsen significantly. In other words, the promise was, with regard to these questionable procedural processes, or manners of acting, rather, the promise was, we are going to improve, we are going to have transparency, we are going to have openness, we are going to have fairness. That was the promise.

Then when you see that promise and you juxtapose it to the reality of performance, and the reality of performance is much worse, is much more unfair, it really becomes dramatic, the contrast between promise and performance. That's what I was alluding to.

With regard to some points made by my friend, it's almost inevitable for my friend from Vermont not to make appropriate and quite defendable statements, because he is one of the most respected Members of this House, and in the short period of time that he has been here, he has earned that respect on both sides of the aisle.

But I think it's appropriate to analyze, without passion, the points that I brought forth with regard to the great contrast between promise and performance of this majority. It's a dramatic contrast and an unfortunate contrast.

I would ask at this time, my friend, if he has any other speakers.

That being the case, Mr. Speaker, ``man is man plus his circumstances.'' That is one, I think, of the wisest sayings I have ever heard by one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, Jose Ortega y Gasset, who led a fascinating life. He was a professor in various universities in Spain, actually dabbled in politics, was a member of the parliament during the Second Republic in the 1930s in Spain, and then was a long-time exile.

Toward the end of his life, I think he returned to Spain but just for a short period of time because he did not outlive the Franco dictatorship and Ortega y Gasset never wanted to live nor, quite frankly, visit his country under dictatorship.

But that phrase, ``man is man plus his circumstances,'' I think, summarizes so much of life. And so we today, while not engaged, because this is a procedural debate and I would expect my friend on the other side of the aisle to agree that perhaps it is not one of the most popular to watch if a guest were here in the galleries because it is procedural, this debate. And yet process really is key to the functioning of representative democracy, Mr. Speaker.

Why do I say that: because the rights of the minority are just as important

as the right of the majority to rule. You can't have a functioning, a genuine, representative democracy unless, along with the right of the majority to rule, the minority has the right to be heard. And the opposition, the minority, has the right to play a significant role. And so process is what makes that possible. Without process, guaranteeing the rights of the majority to rule and the minority to be heard and to have all of the procedural rights followed by the majority, without that process, there can be no representative democracy. And so even though this debate may seem somewhat technical, process is important.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Ortega y Gasset. In Spain, you often have compound names or long names. Ortega y Gasset. An extraordinary philosopher, really a liberal in the best sense of the word and an open man, a man open to realize, my distinguished friends, that good ideas often come from not only both but all political viewpoints. And Ortega y Gasset was one such thinker. I highly recommend him to such an erudite, studious not only here Member of the House but generally a man of the law as my friend.

I thank my friend.

``Man is man plus his circumstances.''

Repeat the name of the author.

I thank my distinguished colleague for his remarks, and for this opportunity of being able to bring forward the points that we both brought forward today.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at this point that Americans are really upset with regard to spending more and more of their paycheck for energy needs. For months they have been calling on Congress to consider legislation to help lower the price of gasoline.

Just like the American people, the minority has been calling for legislation that will help the American consumer with the skyrocketing price of energy. Yet every time the minority has tried to debate comprehensive energy legislation, the majority has blocked and stymied our efforts.

In August, the majority decided to close shop, head back to their districts, instead of really seeking to solve, in a comprehensive manner, this extraordinary issue facing our constituents, which is the rising price of gasoline.

So I would imagine the majority heard quite a bit from their constituents in August, because when they returned in September they decided that they would finally, at least, debate energy legislation.

Last week the majority brought to the floor their so-called Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, which really, ironically, did nothing to produce energy or provide Americans with energy security since really it only, that legislation, increased our dependence on unstable foreign sources of energy. So that bill is most unfortunate. Also, it won't be enacted into law, and it was only put together to provide the majority with a kind of political cover to say that they actually passed energy legislation, when, in reality, they did nothing.

Now, the majority is set to end this Congress and, really, any chance to actually pass a comprehensive energy bill, comprehensive energy legislation will also end with this Congress for now. Our point is that this is not appropriate. We think that the energy issue is of extraordinary importance, and that we should not leave without comprehensive energy legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' to vote with me to defeat the previous question so that the House can finally consider comprehensive solutions to rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend this rule to prohibit the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment until comprehensive energy legislation has been enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can assure their constituents that they are committed to enacting legislation to help their constituents with rising energy prices.

I also remind Members that the previous question in no way would prevent consideration of any of the suspension bills.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate with the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of their ``National Day.''

On October 10, the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan will celebrate their 97th National Day and remember the uprising that started China on the path toward freedom and democracy. In the 97 years since their revolution, the Republic of China, on Taiwan since 1949, has become a strong democracy and trusted friend to the United States.

As our 8th largest trading partner and member of the World Trade Organization, the Republic of China on Taiwan has achieved a flourishing market-based economy and one of the highest standards of living in the world. I appreciate the contributions of the Republic of China on Taiwan to the freedom and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region, and I look forward to the continued cooperation between the United States and the Republic of China on Taiwan.

As the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan celebrate their National Day, it is my privilege, honor and pleasure to join with my colleagues in congratulating and confirming our mutual commitment to the democratic ideals of freedom of speech, the Rule of Law, and free and fair elections.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Every day our Nation faces new and critical challenges on how to approach globalization, really the great issue of our time. It is an extremely difficult and controversial issue that affects our economy, and it affects so much more.

It is important, now more than ever, to equip our students, not just with the basics, math, reading, social studies, and et cetera, but also with opportunities in areas such as science and the environment to compete in tomorrow's global economy.

This legislation, the legislation we are bringing to the floor with this rule, reauthorizes the National Environmental Education Act administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Among other things, the bill will create opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development in environmental fields.

It authorizes the Secretary of Education to award grants to help environmental education become more effective, more widely practiced. It establishes seven uses of funds aimed at encouraging increased environmental education.

Environmental education is an important issue that Congress should support. But, really, with just a few days left in the legislative calendar for this Congress, what we ask is whether this is what really is considered by the majority among the highest priorities, whether it is legislation that we need to be considering, with just hours before leaving before the end of this Congress, and with great challenges facing the Nation, including very significant economic challenges and an energy situation, extraordinarily rising prices, whether this is the type of priority that we need to be setting aside time for at this time.

This bill, which is a good bill, could easily have been placed on what is known as the suspension calendar, in other words, taking it automatically to the floor. Obviously it received overwhelming bipartisan support. But, instead, we are here today spending time on debating a noncontroversial--an important but noncontroversial environmental education program.

So we think that it's most unfortunate, but symptomatic, of how this new majority has run this Congress. Just last week we spent 2 hours of debate time discussing a study of a river in Vermont. On another occasion we spent precious time debating the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail, the Taunton River in Massachusetts, the land claims of the Bay Mills Indian community, and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network. Those are the priorities of this majority.

Now those are important issues. They are not the energy crisis and the serious attention that we need to be devoting to stabilizing our markets. We need to make sure that America remains the Nation where the entire world seeks to invest because of confidence in the future of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend, Ms. Castor.

Americans are tired of spending more and more of their paycheck, of their resources, for their energy needs. And for months they have been calling on us to take up legislation that will help lower the price of gasoline.

Now just like the overwhelming majority of the American people, we in the minority in this Congress have been calling for legislation that will help the American consumer with the skyrocketing price of energy. Yet every time we have tried to debate real energy legislation, the majority has blocked and has stymied our efforts.

In August, the majority decided to go on the recess instead of seeking to solve an extraordinarily high priority for the American people, the rising gas prices. I guess the majority must have heard quite a bit from their constituents in August because when they returned in September, they decided they would finally say they would debate energy legislation.

On Tuesday of this week, the majority brought to the floor legislation, the so-called Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, which does nothing to produce energy or provide Americans with energy security since it will only increase our dependence on unstable foreign sources of energy. The bill brought to the floor this week by the majority was a farce. It will never be enacted into law and was only put together to provide the majority with an attempt at political cover so they can say that they passed energy legislation when in reality they did nothing.

Now the majority is set to end this Congress and any chance to actually pass genuine comprehensive energy legislation. That's where we are today.

Well, we do not have to leave here and head home without having considered comprehensive energy legislation.

Madam Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so the House can finally consider genuine solutions to rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to prohibit the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment until comprehensive energy legislation has been enacted into law.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can assure their constituents that they are committed to enacting legislation to help their constituents with rising energy prices. I also remind Members that the previous question in no way will prevent consideration of H.R. 3036, this legislation on environmental grants to schools. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

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

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

I rise today in support of the efforts of

AMAVEX, a group of Venezuelan exiles who work, along with more than thirty non-profit organizations, in support of the ``Bring Chavez to Justice'' campaign. This campaign aims to highlight the troubling associations between Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and the Marxist- terrorist group known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia,

I thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time. I wish her the best today, and all those who participate in this debate.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, no worker should ever be subjected to discrimination because of gender or any other reason. Anyone who commits such discrimination must be stopped and punished for reprehensible behavior. Discrimination has no place in the workplace.

For that reason, Congress has passed two major laws that prohibit an employer from paying an employee a different wages or otherwise discriminating in any term or condition of employment on the basis of gender. These prohibitions against discrimination are provided in both title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

The underlying legislation, H.R. 1338, seeks to further prevent gender discrimination in the workplace. The legislation has raised some concerns on how it seeks to achieve the goal. For example, in a letter from the Secretary of Labor, Ms. Chao, to Chairman Miller, the Secretary expressed concerns that the legislation would allow for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, and she also expressed opposition to changes in the establishment requirement. Under current law, employees whose pay is being compared, must work in the same establishment. In the underlying legislation, that would change to mean workplaces in the same county, and it also allows

that change to be defined even more broadly. But, without doubt, Mr. Speaker, this legislation deals with a very important subject.

Mr. Speaker, later this week, the House of Representatives is scheduled to take a 5-week recess so Members can return to their districts but, unfortunately, without having considered comprehensive energy legislation. A few days ago, I held a town hall meeting with constituents. One of them asked very clearly and emphatically that we stay in session until we consider comprehensive energy legislation that would reduce the price of gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. That was no isolated statement. Each and every time I speak to my constituents these days, I hear their frustrations and concerns with one specific issue, one specific problem facing the Nation, the unacceptably high price of gasoline.

I understand my constituents' frustration with the majority's unwillingness to act. They are upset and they want us to take action. I agree with my constituents that we should not leave until we have provided them, the Nation, comprehensive energy legislation.

I explained in that meeting that the minority each and every week has attempted and continues to attempt to bring a number of energy proposals before the House of Representatives for debate. However, the majority consistently blocks all attempts at a comprehensive energy debate.

The majority's constant attempts to block energy debates was even mentioned in a publication that covers Capitol Hill, The Hill. That newspaper, in an article a few days ago, stated, ``Democrats have consistently put energy bills on the suspension calendar to block Republicans from offering any alternatives at all. They have also shut down the appropriations process for the year to avoid possibly losing votes on energy bills.'' That sort of obstruction is unacceptable, especially when the American people are calling for Congress to act.

The majority's obstruction, Mr. Speaker, is not limited to energy legislation. It extends to virtually every bill, including the underlying legislation.

Yesterday, the majority on the Rules Committee passed a restrictive rule that blocked an open and fair debate. A total of 15 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, four majority amendments and 11 minority amendments. Continuing its obstruction of an open debate, the majority on the Rules Committee made every majority amendment in order, while allowing only two minority amendments. The majority got 100 percent of their amendments made in order, while the minority got 18 percent of their amendments made in order.

This isn't the first time that has happened. Just last week, the majority on the Rules Committee did the same thing with regard to a bill, allowing every majority amendment while blocking an overwhelming number of minority amendments.

So what happened to the majority's promise of an open and fair debate? I think it was well described by a recent article in another publication that covers Capitol Hill, called Politico, in an article on the Speaker. It read, ``After promising fairness and open debate, she has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.''

I think it's unnecessary and unfair, Mr. Speaker. I think it's unfortunate and sad.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished Chair how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank all of our distinguished colleagues who have come to the floor today to discuss this issue, the important issue of gender discrimination in the workplace and the fact that as a society we have to continue fighting discrimination.

The issue that I am constantly, constantly being contacted by my constituents about is an issue that affects

our entire society, and that is the unacceptable price of gasoline, the continuous rise of energy prices. There is no subject, Mr. Speaker, again, that my constituents contact me and urge me to act on more than that issue, that subject, that crisis really. It affects men and women. It affects our entire society. The price of gasoline has become simply unacceptable.

For weeks, we in the minority have pushed efforts to debate comprehensive energy legislation, but the majority consistently blocks our efforts to address one of the clearly most important issues facing the United States today.

It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. So today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so the House can finally consider real solutions to the rising energy costs facing Americans throughout our society each day.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, which provides a comprehensive approach that will increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote renewable and alternative energy technologies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

By voting no on the previous question, Members can take a stand against these unacceptable prices of gasoline, and we can finally begin a comprehensive energy debate. And I remind all of our colleagues that voting no on the previous question will not preclude consideration of the legislation, the underlying legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act. And I remind them that the unacceptable price of gasoline affects all of our constituents, men and women. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Increasing the affordability, accessibility, and reliability of our Nation's institutions of higher education is critical to our economic growth and the role of the United States in the global economy. Now more than ever we need to reassure our Nation's youth that we are willing to invest in their future. I believe that we must do all 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 really the question of how to pay for a college education.

This legislation, the Higher Education Opportunity Act, is a bipartisan effort that reauthorizes the Higher Education Act for 5 years and reforms America's higher education system, expanding college access.

Seeking to address the college cost dilemma, the conference report puts in place college affordability comparison tools that put college costs information in the hands of consumers. Students will be able to search, sort, and compare key cost indicators for every college in the country. I believe we must do everything possible to enhance our students' ability to obtain student loans and obtain the aid necessary to complete their college education.

This bill helps to do that by simplifying the financial aid application process, abbreviating the free Application for Federal Student Aid form, and making financial aid information available to students earlier in the college planning process.

I am especially pleased that the conference report will strengthen our Nation's Pell Grants programs by increasing the maximum authorized Pell Grant amount to $8,000, and by giving students access to Pell Grants year round, a measure that will undoubtedly help many students.

I think we as a nation have the responsibility to support those in every way possible who have served this country in the Armed Forces. That is why I am pleased that this legislation includes measures to specifically meet the unique needs of student soldiers.

I am also pleased that the conference report expands opportunities for minority students by providing increased funding for graduate student programs, by reauthorizing programs such as GEAR UP and TRIO. These programs serve our Nation's most under-represented groups and provide the necessary guidance, support and awareness to provide minority students the tools needed to succeed.

This conference report is a testament to the fact that Congress can work in a bipartisan manner to produce quality legislation. Since the Education Committee began working on the Higher Education Reauthorization legislation, both sides of the aisle have worked together to bridge their concerns and worked together to give students a quality education.

I think it is appropriate to thank both the chairman, Mr. Miller, and the ranking member, Mr. McKeon for their work on this important legislation.

I know that the ranking member of the Higher Education Subcommittee, Mr. Keller, has done admirable work on this legislation, and I thank him as well, in addition to the subcommittee chairman.

I also wish to note the conference report has come to the floor for final approval through the normal legislative and conference process, allowing Members from both the minority and the majority to debate and consider the issues of contention in the legislation.

Unfortunately, the majority, Mr. Speaker, in the 110th Congress, has often used a procedure known as amendments between the two Houses to avoid conference and subvert the rights of the minority. So I am pleased that, in this instance, they have decided to use the regular order, the normal conference procedure, and I would urge them to use the conference procedure as well in the future. So while it is unique, what they have done with this legislation, it is commendable.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield so much time as he will consume to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, who has done tremendous work in this legislation, Mr. Keller.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

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

Mr. Speaker, we continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend how many additional speakers she has.

We continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to reserve.

I would ask my friend if she has any additional speakers.

It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation appropriately enjoys extraordinary bipartisan support, and really, I'm pleased to see an example of Congress working together across the aisle for the good of the Nation, in this instance, all of those who seek a higher education, which is such an important part of the American Dream. The dream of being able to acquire a higher education and to see one's children and one's grandchildren do so, to advance that dream as this legislation does is something that's admirable; and I wish to commend all who have worked to make this legislation possible.

Mr. Speaker, we will not fail to utilize every opportunity on this House floor, before leaving for a 5-week break to be with our constituents, to provide our constituents, before we leave a debate on this floor on the issue that I certainly am being contacted most about by my constituents, and I know that many of our colleagues are as well: the unacceptable price of gasoline, the energy crisis facing American families, American workers, American businesses.

Part of the reason that we are seeing this situation and that we are seeking a debate to alleviate this crisis is that gas prices have continued to rise, one important reason being because more and more so we are dependent on foreign oil, while we avoid developing domestic energy sources. And so we think that we need to comprehensively debate this issue to alleviate the crisis. The crisis is affecting all American families and affecting countless millions of businesses.

One important source of domestic energy is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. However, efforts to develop just a tiny portion of ANWR have been fought and blocked to the detriment of America's energy independence, even though the people of that great State overwhelmingly are in favor of searching for energy there.

With the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon, we should be looking to do all we can to lower that price, and that includes domestic exploration when the people of a State wish to permit it. I think it demonstrates arrogance on our part to say we know better than the people of a State and their Representatives. In the case of Alaska, all of their Representatives in Congress are clamoring for what the overwhelming majority of the people of that great State are also clamoring for: the ability to search for additional sources of energy within their borders.

Today I will be asking each of our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider an amendment that would have the effect of lowering the price of gasoline and diesel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as the people of the great State of Alaska wish to do so and their Senators and Representatives wish to do so, in representation of the overwhelming majority of the people of that great State.

I remind the Members that defeating the previous question will not stop debate on the important underlying legislation. It enjoys bipartisan support. We wish, in addition to bringing forward an important piece of legislation like we are today, to offer the American people a debate on the issue that is on the minds of the overwhelming majority of American people, certainly of my constituents, the simply unacceptable price of gasoline.

We have to do everything we can to deal with the issue. And I think it's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we're not and that we're not being allowed to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Again, by voting no on the previous question, Members can take a stand, can show that they want to do everything possible on this issue. Once again, I reiterate that this will not preclude taking action on the important piece of education legislation that we possibly, even unanimously, in this House, certainly in consensus fashion, support.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.