Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 6599, the Fiscal Year 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill.

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

Bill Number: H.R. 6599, Report 110-775.

Account: Military Construction, Army.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: United States Southern Command.

Address of Requesting Entity: 3511 NW 91st Ave., Miami, FL 33172- 1217.

Description of Request: I received an earmark of $81,600,000 for the second increment of funding for the construction of a new headquarters for the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in Doral, FL. The funding will continue the work of the first installment in which SOUTHCOM received $100,000,000 in the FY08 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill. The authorization for this funding was included in the H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which passed the House of Representatives May 22, 2008. The total cost of the headquarters construction is estimated to be $237,000,000.

Through the Department of Defense, this project has been undergone an open bid process and the planning, engineering and design phase is well underway. The funds would be used by the Department of Defense to build the new SOUTHCOM headquarters adjacent to the current SOUTHCOM facility in Doral, FL. The land for this facility is under long-term lease from the State of Florida.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend and fellow co-chairman of the Florida congressional delegation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush outlined a bold new plan to confront and combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Congress followed through and passed the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act, commonly known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), authorizing $15 billion in assistance to combat these diseases for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. That was the largest commitment ever by any Nation for an international health initiative.

Since its enactment in 2003, the programs created by this landmark legislation have made admirable progress in combating these horrible diseases.

So far more than 1.4 million people have received life-preserving antiretroviral treatment, over 2.7 million HIV/AIDS-affected orphans have received care, and many millions more have received instruction on how to protect themselves from infection. Tens of millions of people have received malaria and tuberculosis prevention or treatment services.

Even though this program has achieved remarkable successes, there is more that we can do. Tuberculosis still kills an estimated 2 million people each year and is the leading cause of death for people with AIDS; 1 million people die from malaria each year; and AIDS is the world's fourth leading cause of death.

The devastating consequences of these diseases are plaguing sub- Saharan Africa. Over 22 million people are living with HIV, and approximately 1.7 million additional sub-Saharan Africans were infected with HIV last year. That represents about 68 percent of the world's HIV positive population and 90 percent of all HIV-infected children. Just last year the horrible AIDS epidemic claimed the lives of an estimated 1.6 million people in that region. More than 11 million children have been orphaned by AIDS. Many families are losing their income earners. Health services are overburdened. Life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa is now 47 years. Economic activity and social progress has been impeded. We must do all we can to prevent those tragedies.

The underlying legislation, justly and appropriately named the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, will augment our commitment to fight those horrible diseases with an increase of approximately $35 billion in funding over the next 5 years. This landmark legislation will help prevent 12 million new HIV infections and treat at least 3 million people living with HIV/AIDS. It will also provide supporting care for 12 million people infected with HIV/AIDS, including 5 million orphans and children.

Some of my constituents, Madam Speaker, are from Haiti and have families and friends in their land of origin. I often hear about the disastrous effects that HIV/AIDS is having on that noble country. As of 2007, Haiti had an HIV rate of almost 4 percent, and according to the World Bank, continued increases in HIV prevalence in the Caribbean will negatively affect economic growth. Fortunately, since Congress first passed PEPFAR, we have invested over $300 million to help Haiti combat the AIDS pandemic by building on existing clinic- and community-based health resources; expanding a network of satellite connections to the Centers of Excellence to permit instant review of difficult cases; training staff members of health care facilities that provide prenatal, gynecological, and maternity care and prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission; and enhancing the lab network for clinical sites to support the diagnosis and treatment of HIV and other associated infections. I am pleased that the legislation will also now cover several other countries that previously were not part of PEPFAR.

I believe that when we look upon our work in this Congress, Madam Speaker, many years from now, I can think of nothing that we or anyone else will be able to point to that is of more importance than this admirable effort by the great and generous American people. This extraordinary effort proposed by President Bush here in the U.S. House of Representatives during his state of the Union address of 2003, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

I would like to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their bipartisan work on this important issue. I also wish to thank them for naming this landmark program for two ultimately respected colleagues of ours who have recently left us, Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos. This is truly a fitting tribute for two remarkable human beings in public service.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

I am the last speaker.

Madam Speaker, again I thank my good friend, Mr. Hastings, for having yielded me the time and all of those who have participated in this important debate with regard to the critically important legislation that is being brought to the floor today.

Madam Speaker, as Americans throughout the country are taking their summer family vacations, they're continually shocked by the record prices of gasoline. Part of the reason that we're seeing increases continuously in the price of gasoline is because we have become more and more dependent on oil, on foreign oil, while we avoid developing domestic energy sources.

One important source of domestic energy is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. However, efforts to develop just a tiny portion of that section of ANWR have been fought and blocked to the detriment of America's energy independence, even though the people of Alaska are overwhelmingly in favor of searching for energy in ANWR, both of their Senators and their Representative, in representation of really a societal consensus in that State. With the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon, we should be looking to do all we can to lower the price of gasoline. And that includes domestic exploration when the people of a State wish to search for it.

Today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to the 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 national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in that section of Alaska, in the Arctic National Refuge, as the people of that State, their Senators and their Representative, wish to do.

I remind Members that defeating the previous question will not stop debate on this important underlying legislation. It simply would allow debate on an amendment to permit the Congress to consider another very important issue.

Madam 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 the high fuel prices and our reliance on foreign energy sources.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of our colleagues and denounce the unjustified arrest of Leonardo Miguel Bruzon Avila, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Bruzon's commitment to liberty and freedom of expression has characterized the life of that Cuban patriot. On February 23, 2002, he was arrested by the regime's thugs in order to prevent him from participating in demonstrations commemorating the sixth anniversary of the Cuban dictatorship's Air Force's shoot down, on February 24th 1996, of two Brothers to the Rescue airplanes, when four unarmed civilians were murdered.

Mr. Bruzon, acting as president of the ``Movimiento Pro Derechos Humanos 24 de Febrero'' (the 24 of February Human Rights Movement), sought to commemorate and denounce the murder on that infamous day in 1996 of three American citizens and a US resident. After being arrested in 2002, Mr. Bruzon spent the following two years in the tyranny's gulags without ever having had even a farcical trial or formal ``charges'' filed against him.

During his imprisonment, Mr. Bruzon participated in several hunger strikes protesting his continued brutal and unjustified detention without trial. As reported by Amnesty International, his continued hunger strikes led to poor health and serious medical complications. Despite his poor health, the totalitarian regime denied him medical attention.

In 2003 Bruzon was offered release from the gulag on the condition that he make statements beneficial to the regime in the controlled Cuban ``media''. Mr. Bruzon valiantly refused to do so, and he remained imprisoned until June, 2004.

In April of 2008, regime thugs again arrested Mr. Bruzon for hosting a prayer group where worshippers proclaimed support for freedom for Cuban political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. A day later, Mr. Bruzon Avila was released, after being subjected to repeated brutal interrogations.

On July 3, 2008, Mr. Bruzon was one of thirty-six pro-democracy activists arrested by Cuban regime thugs in order to prevent them from participating in activities commemorating the Independence of the United States of America. According to various reports, Mr. Bruzon remains detained.

The Cuban regime has embarked upon a ``new tactic'' of intimidation of the internal opposition. Pro-democracy activists are routinely picked up, psychologically and often even physically tortured, and then placed back in the streets.

Madam Speaker, the arrest and torture of Mr. Bruzon Avila is yet another example of the gangster-like nature of the Cubans dictatorship; a regime of gangsters, by gangsters and for gangsters, directed by a gangster-in-chief. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Leonardo Miguel Bruzon Avila and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recall the brutal invasion of Cyprus that occurred thirty-four years ago on July 20, 1974.

The people of Cyprus continue to suffer the consequences of that contemptible invasion. Even now, Turkish troops continue to illegally occupy Cyprus. The island remains torn by a militarized fence that slices a 113-mile line across the island.

I encourage both sides to fully comply with the guiding principles of the July 8, 2006 agreement. This agreement seeks to establish working groups that can operate together to reunify Cyprus into one bizonal, bicommunal federation. The July 8 agreement is an important achievement which gives us great cause to remain optimistic that a resolution is possible.

While we can mark the significance of the July 8 agreement, we cannot celebrate until the goal of a unified Cyprus is fully and finally realized. We cannot celebrate until the anniversary of the July 20 invasion is no longer a source of pain for Cypriots, and barbed wire fence no longer splits Cyprus into two disparate sections. The United States, the European Union, and the United Nations have all expressed their support for a solution that will reunify Cyprus. With the steadfast determination of the international community and the people of Cyprus, we will persist until the goal of a free, undivided Cyprus is realized at last.

Madam Speaker, I remain hopeful that Cyprus will once again be free and undivided. After thirty-four years of division, illegal occupation and oppression, the long-suffering Cypriot people deserve to live in freedom and unity today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On August 1, 2007, the deteriorating condition of some of America's bridges and infrastructure became tragically apparent when the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minnesota failed and plunged into the riverbank below. We must always honor the victims that were lost in that tragic accident.

We must do all in our power to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring again, and that is why I am pleased we are considering the underlying legislation, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008. The legislation authorizes $1 billion for fiscal year 2009 for the Department of Transportation to identify, inspect, repair, and if necessary, replace structurally deficient or obsolete bridges in the national highway system.

This legislation is quite important considering that the U.S. Department of Transportation reports that one out of every eight bridges in the Nation is structurally deficient.

However, I have some concerns with the way the legislation distributes funding. The legislation distributes funding to States based on the number of deficient bridges in each State. In other words, the more deficient bridges a State has, the more money a State gets. Unfortunately, this approach penalizes States that place a high priority on maintaining their infrastructure, and rewards States that have let their infrastructure fall into disrepair with additional Federal funding.

For example, the State of Florida has a ``maintenance first'' policy for infrastructure at the State level. Florida's first priority is keeping their existing infrastructure in a state of good repair. As a result, the percentage of Florida's bridges that are rated as deficient is one of the lowest in the Nation. But rather than be rewarded for its responsible funding decisions, Florida is penalized because most of the funding that is distributed through this formula will go to States that have not properly maintained their bridges and therefore have a very high percentage of deficient bridges.

I would also like to bring the Long Key Bridge in South Florida to the attention of Chairman Oberstar. The bridge spans between Long Key and Conch Key in the Florida Keys. It was one of the first segmental bridges built back in 1981, and allows the entire population of the lower keys to evacuate to the mainland before a hurricane. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, who is with us this afternoon, is concerned about this issue and continuously brings it to the attention of all of our colleagues.

The structure was originally built using a V-pier concept creating a control point between the segment and the pier cap. Due to the weakness of the design, the Florida Department of Transportation is attempting to seek funding to replace the V-pier design to a more conventional configuration that would provide stronger structural integrity. This improvement would cost approximately $60 million and would maintain the existing piers in the top segments which are in good condition.

Unfortunately, the Florida Department of Transportation currently lacks the funding for this important project, and the necessary improvements have been postponed until 2012.

In this regard I am pleased that the House will have an opportunity to vote for the Representative Mario Diaz-Balart amendment. That commonsense amendment would add emergency evacuation routes, such as Long Key Bridge, to the risk-based priority criteria in the legislation.

Even though I'm pleased that that amendment was made in order, I once again note that this rule continues the unfortunate policy of the majority's unfairly restricting debate. A total of 21 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, six majority amendments, 14 minority amendments, and one bipartisan amendment. The majority made every majority amendment in order, while only allowing four minority amendments. In other words, the majority got 100 percent of their amendments made in order, while the minority got 28 percent of their amendments in order. That's unnecessary and unfair, Mr. Speaker.

This bill would have much more bipartisan support if the Rules Committee had not blocked an important amendment from Ranking Member Mica. His amendment would have allowed a State to transfer funding out of the highway bridge program only if the State met two strict criteria. I understand that Chairman Oberstar is concerned that some States have acted responsibly in maintaining their bridges and that he seeks to make sure that they change their behavior. But others, such as Florida, have done a good job of repairing and maintaining their bridges. Unfortunately, since the Mica amendment was not allowed, responsible States will, in effect, be punished and their hands tied when they attempt to address their unique needs.

I think it's a missed opportunity, and I hope that since the House will not be able to consider the Mica amendment that as the legislation continues through the legislative process, these concerns of responsible States will be considered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished representative from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who is very concerned on this issue representing her constituents.

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

I thank again my friend Mr. Arcuri for the time and all who have participated in this debate on this rule that brings forth to the floor important legislation with regard to the infrastructure in our Nation.

Transportation is an integral part of our economy, and the underlying legislation will help fund some of our critical infrastructure needs by providing $1 billion to repair bridges in the national highway system. Now, while providing critical funding to repair bridges is an important priority for our transportation system, we must not ignore the overarching problem facing the American transportation system, which is gasoline at over $4 a gallon.

For weeks we in the minority have pushed efforts to debate energy legislation, but the majority consistently blocks our efforts to address one of the most important issues facing the United States today. It's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices at the pump and addressing 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 rising energy costs. 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. This legislation provides a comprehensive approach that will increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote renewable and alternative energy technologies.

Now specifically with regard to the Outer Continental Shelf, this legislation provides Florida with 50 miles of permanent protection from energy exploration and allows the State the option for an additional 50 miles of protection.

Many of us in the Florida delegation came together 2 years ago to support this compromise, to support this legislation. I think we've been proven right. I think we've been proven right, Mr. Speaker. This is a critical issue that needs to be debated by this Congress. It's unfortunate that the other side of the aisle refuses to permit even a debate on critical issues such as this even after gasoline has reached $4 a gallon. It's most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, by voting ``no'' on this previous question, Members can take a stand against these high fuel prices and we can finally begin a comprehensive energy debate. I encourage a ``no'' 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.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During an interview last week, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, said that he is opposed to a lame-duck session, and that he is committed to adjournment sine die by the previously announced date of September 26. If the majority decides to follow that commitment to adjourn the 110th Congress on September 26, then Congress has only 7 weeks of session left to complete its work for the year.

And so as Congress begins its last 7 weeks of work before recessing, what important pieces of legislation are at the top of the majority's priority list? Well, maybe it's passing the 12 appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year, or maybe energy legislation to deal with the record gasoline prices consumers are paying each day. No, Mr. Speaker, they've decided that those problems can wait for another day, for another Congress. Instead, their legislative priorities are to designate a 600-mile historic trail and to require preservation of electronic records.

I spent most of last week meeting and speaking with constituents in my district about the issues that matter to them; and, Mr. Speaker, no one mentioned anything closely related to these two bills. These bills may be important in their own right, but there certainly are other issues that are much more pressing issues that we should be debating, that we should be dealing with.

When Americans are paying over $4 per gallon for gasoline, we should be working on legislation to lower gasoline, increasing domestic energy exploration, and reducing our reliance on unstable foreign energy. France produces approximately 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and yet the United States has not built a new nuclear plant in about 30 years.

Why does the majority refuse to consider legislation to deal with our energy and other serious problems? According to an article published in the newspaper The Hill on Tuesday, the majority, and I quote, ``has scrubbed the floor schedule of the energy legislation that it vowed to tackle after the Fourth of July recess.''

Why doesn't the majority schedule energy legislation for debate? Maybe it's because they don't have a real plan. If you read the rest of The Hill article, you find out what a Democratic aid called the majority's plan: ``Right now, our strategy on gas prices is to drive small cars and wait for the wind.'' That's most unfortunate. That ``non-plan'' ignores the urgent call of Americans for Congress to pass serious energy legislation.

I know the majority will claim that they expect to take up energy legislation soon and the committees of jurisdiction are considering possible legislation, but they already pulled legislation they expected to consider after the July 4 recess, and we still have to consider 12 appropriations bills, housing legislation, the Medicare payment fix for physicians, an alternative minimum tax fix, and numerous conference reports. That doesn't leave much time for energy legislation. Maybe if the majority had different priorities, we would be considering energy legislation today instead of legislation designating a 600-mile historic trail and legislation requiring promulgation of regulations to preserve electronic records.

I wish to take this occasion to congratulate the majority on breaking their own record of most closed rules. The proposed rule we are considering now marks the 59th closed rule of this Congress, the most of any Congress in the history of the Nation. It didn't have to be that way.

Before the new majority took over control of the House they laid out their promises for a more civil, more open, and more transparent House in a document entitled ``The New Direction for America.'' The document provides clear guidelines for how legislation should move through the House. One of the promises made in the document is that ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, including a substitute,'' yet here we are with a closed process that doesn't allow Members from either party the ability to offer amendments.

The majority continues to break their promise on allowing an open, full, and fair debate and their promise to consider energy legislation after the July 4 recess. So much for their promises.

Energy Bill Out of Gas

(By Jared Allen and Mike Soraghan)

House Democrats are in a bind on the focal point of their

energy plan.

Worried that a floor vote on any energy-related measure

would trigger a Republican-forced vote on domestic drilling,

the leadership has scrubbed the floor schedule of the energy

legislation that it vowed to tackle after the Fourth of July

recess.

Just before leaving for their districts, a number of House

Democrats called a press conference to declare victory on a

number of energy bills--including overwhelming passage of a

bill to rein in excessive oil market speculation.

Democrats declared victory on a bill they failed to pass on

the suspension calendar--their ``use it or lose it bill'' to

force energy companies to either start drilling on their

federally leased land or give it back--saying they had put

176 Republicans on record as siding with the oil companies

over consumers.

And they vowed that the bill, the centerpiece of their

energy message, would be back.

``We've taken some bold steps this week, and we're going to

build on that [after recess] with the bills we take up,''

Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said at

the press conference.

But, as of Monday afternoon, neither ``use it or lose it''

nor any other energy measure had been scheduled for floor

action this week.

Democrats said they were simply taking a different approach

to passing their top energy-related priorities.

Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

(D-Calif.), said energy activity this week is taking place at

the committee level, noting that there are four hearings

planned on the issue of speculation in oil trading.

``Different members have different ideas,'' Elshami said.

``We'll bring forward the best piece of legislation based on

the recommendations and hearings we are having this week.''

Republicans pounced, saying Democrats were backtracking

after realizing they would be unable to defeat a Republican

vote on increased domestic oil drilling in new areas.

``It's panic time for Democrats,'' said a senior Republican

aide. ``They are on the wrong side of three-quarters of the

American people who support increased production of American-

made energy.''

While Democrats were in their districts advocating their

plans to end gas price-gouging, rein in speculation, pass

``use it or lose it'' and even call for President Bush to

release millions of barrels of crude oil from the Strategic

Petroleum Reserve (SPR), Republicans were touting polls

showing that a healthy majority of Americans now support

increased domestic energy production.

That is proving to be a particular concern for Democrats in

that any non-suspension-calendar energy vote would be subject

to a Republican alternative, almost certainly calling for

offshore and Arctic drilling, that would very likely pass.

``If we could send deepwater drilling over, it would pass

the Senate,'' said a Republican leadership aide, highlighting

just how much an energy vote could backfire on Democrats.

A senior Democratic leadership aide acknowledged this week

that there are plenty of members of the majority caucus ``who

want to drill and want to drill where Republicans want to

drill.''

Even if Democratic leaders could beat back a GOP motion on

drilling, the vote could be used as political ammunition

against their vulnerable members this fall.

The Democratic setbacks come after they scored a political

victory this spring when they overwhelmingly passed an SPR

bill over initial White House objections. But Republicans now

claim they have the upper hand, noting that Sen. John McCain

(R-Ariz.) is citing drilling repeatedly on the campaign

trail.

Further complicating matters for Democrats is the growing

number of pro-drilling Democrats who are becoming

increasingly worried that voters might throw them in with

their anti-drilling leadership.

One pro-drilling Democrat predicted that the backlash

against Congress for gas prices could rival the outrage

voters felt about the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

Another, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), is frustrated at

not being listened to.

``My concern with my leadership is that they're not letting

all the people in the room to present the facts,'' said

Melancon, a proponent of more offshore drilling. ``Where are

all the pro-oil legislators? I'm not in the room. I don't

know who is. My feeling is we are not being all-inclusive to

pass legislation that can get through the Senate and avoid a

veto.''

For now, though, there will be no legislation to pass, as

the only energy-related action this week will occur at the

committee level.

Republicans may try to continue a strategy they

demonstrated before recess by forcing drilling votes as

energy amendments to bills being considered at the committee

level, including appropriations bills.

And Republicans may go one step further by trying to get

amendments added to the energy and water appropriations bill,

a likely contender to see the floor this week.

``We're going to demand a pro-production energy vote before

Congress goes home for the month of August,'' said House

Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.). ``We've

tried to highlight efforts to solve America's energy problem

a thousand ways to Sunday, and [Democrats] keep pulling them

from committee, pulling them from the floor and kicking the

can down the road.''

Exactly when Democrats will change their present course and

bring an energy bill to the floor remains uncertain.

``Right now, our strategy on gas prices is `Drive small

cars and wait for the wind,' '' said a Democratic aide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I thank my friend from Vermont for his courtesy in yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are now paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline; yet the majority fails to bring legislation to the floor to lower gas prices or decrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices at the pump and addressing the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2208, the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act. This legislation would encourage the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology, authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuel.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against these high fuel prices and for doing something about them. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

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

With gas prices averaging over $4 a gallon, more and more Americans are using public transportation for their commuting needs. Reports from Metropolitan transit systems throughout the country are showing a significant increase in ridership, in some cases as much as 15 percent--and perhaps even higher--over last year's figures. At the same time, highway vehicle miles traveled declined by 2 percent.

Meeting this increased demand for public transportation is causing a burden on local transit agencies which, just like commuters, must pay record fuel prices to pay for buses and subway trains and light rail.

To help meet this increased demand for public transportation, the underlying legislation, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, would provide $1.7 billion in funding to increase public transportation use across the United States. Transit agencies would be able to use those funds to reduce transit fares or expand transit services.

I think this funding is important for communities throughout the country, certainly the community I'm honored to represent. Recently, Miami-Dade County, the 12th largest public transit agency in the country, announced that bus routes would be cut and others adjusted due to the rising cost of fuel. So this at a time when more and more commuters are looking to use public transportation, but public transportation systems are definitely being affected by the rise in energy costs. So it is my hope that the $36 million this legislation would provide South Florida would help reestablish some of the routes that were cut and would expand others so that commuters would have a more reliable public transportation system.

To further promote the use of public transportation, the legislation establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and requires all Federal agencies to offer transit passes to Federal employees working in urbanized areas with fixed route transit systems.

To help alleviate the reliance on gasoline to power our transit systems, the bill will increase the Federal share for clean and alternative fuel transit projects. This will also have the beneficial effect of reducing transportation-related emissions.

I would like to congratulate Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for working together to draft a bipartisan bill that both sides of the aisle can support. This legislation, the underlying legislation, will be a great benefit to transit systems throughout the country at a time when they are needing additional funding.

Madam Speaker, once again, the bipartisan spirit of the bill, the underlying legislation, never made it past the doors of the Rules Committee. Yesterday, the majority in the Rules Committee only allowed one minority amendment to be debated today, while allowing three amendments from the majority.

Before the new majority took control of the House in January of 2007, they published a document called ``A New Direction for America,'' which set out their promises to the American people. Page 24 of that document says, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, including a substitute.''

Yet here we are today with a process that, contrary to their promise to the American people, blocks a full and fair debate and allows only one minority amendment. Actually, this one minority amendment is the only one the majority has allowed the minority to offer all week. Four bills, one amendment.

Actually, it is more like six bills, one amendment, because this rule will allow the House to debate two additional bills under suspension of the rules, one against speculation in the oil market, and we have to speculate on what it says because we haven't seen it. And the majority's bringing those bills to floor without allowing the minority to offer any amendments or a motion to recommit.

So, at a time when gas prices are hitting almost daily records, the majority should be offering a ``full and fair debate'' on this critical issue, a debate that considers ideas from both sides of the aisle, of all Members of this House, to help reduce gasoline prices.

Polls across the country are consistent with a recent poll that I saw that said 71 percent want their elected leaders in Washington to focus on ``increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the cost of gasoline and electricity.'' But instead, the majority is offering no-new-energy legislation, obstructing debate, and impeding solutions to the energy crisis, contrary to what the American people wish.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule, which continues to block the minority from offering more than one amendment and blocks a thorough debate on the critical energy situation facing the Nation.

At this time, I reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

It is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished lady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

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

I thank again my distinguished friend for having yielded me the time this morning, and I thank all of those who have come to debate on this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, the problem is, when the process by which legislation is brought to the floor is unfair, especially when the issue being dealt with by the legislation is as important as is the issue today, many Members' ideas are shut out, oftentimes ideas on which they have worked for months or years, and in this instance, they are ideas and proposals to bring down the cost of energy and the cost of gasoline. That's why process, something that may sound often theoretical, can have a significant impact on policy. In this instance, an unfair process is denying Members the opportunity to bring concrete ideas to the floor, for debate, to lower the price of energy. That's one of the reasons we are so disturbed, why we think it's so unfortunate that the process on an issue as important as this that the majority has chosen to utilize to bring this legislation to the floor is so unfair.

On almost a daily basis, Madam Speaker, the cost of gasoline is breaking new records. Americans are now paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline. Yet the majority fails to bring legislation to the floor that will actually lower gas prices or decrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

We believe it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, which would repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternatives fuels, introduced by Mr. Hensarling of Texas. This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology.

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

Madam Speaker, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and in favor of debating legislation to actually deal with that crisis. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this previous question.

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

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

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

At this time I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), for the time and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, when families send their children to private residential treatment facilities, they expect their children to receive proper treatment for their emotional and behavioral problems. Unfortunately, some of these treatment facilities have not provided the treatment these children need.

Instead, we have heard reports of abuse, neglect and even death. The Government Accountability Office recently looked into these reports of child abuse.

While researching the reports, the GAO found that the current patchwork of Federal legislation and oversight addressing youth well- being have led to a substantial disparity in protecting the well-being and civil rights of some of the Nation's most vulnerable youth. The safety and well-being of these vulnerable children is of great importance, and we must do all we can to stop child abuse and neglect at residential treatment facilities.

For that reason I am pleased that the underlying legislation, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, seeks to help remedy the issues addressed in the GAO report. The legislation seeks to ensure effective regulation, monitoring and enforcement of residential treatment programs by the States, with the Federal Government playing an oversight role.

I would like to commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for working to bridge their differences on this legislation. I think they should be commended for coming up with a compromise acceptable to both sides of the aisle.

Unfortunately, unlike the Education and Labor Committee, compromise and bipartisanship are concepts that do not make it past the door of the majority in the Rules Committee, because the majority there has blocked all Republican amendments. The majority might call this a structured rule, but for members on the minority side of the

aisle, this might as well be the 55th closed rule in this Congress.

Not only does this rule completely undermine the spirit of bipartisanship that Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon worked so hard to achieve, it also stands in stark contrast to how the new majority promised they would run the House of Representatives.

Before the new majority took over control of the House, they laid out their promises for a more civil, more open, more transparent House in a document they entitled ``The New Direction for America.''

The document provides clear guidelines for how legislation should move through the House. One of the promises made in the document is, and I quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, including a substitute.

Yet here we are today with a process that completely shuts out the minority from offering any amendments. Obviously the majority left their campaign promises on the campaign trail.

I would ask all of my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule which completely contradicts the majority's rhetoric about running the most open, honest, and transparent Congress in history.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to address a separate issue. Last week we received the desperate plea of a father in Cuba. The father's name, Pedro Andres Ferrera, concerns his 21-year-old son, Yuselin Ferrera, who at this time, as we speak, is being tortured in the psychiatric hospital in Sagua la Grande, Cuba, the San Luis psychiatric hospital.

His crime--a bracelet like the one I am wearing, that has the word ``change'' in it. This young man, 21 years old, supports freedom and democracy. For that crime, at this moment, he is in the San Luis psychiatric hospital in Sagua la Grande, Cuba, being tortured.

His father's plea, which is really extraordinary, describes continuous interrogations that the young man is being subjected to, with the objective of changing his way of thinking so that he will renounce, give up his probative democracy beliefs.

His father, in his desperation, said that he makes responsible for the consequences that may ensue to his son the Cuban dictatorship and, specifically, its state security apparatus.

I, at this time, join with Pedro Andres Ferrera, the father of that young man, 21-year-old Yuselin Ferrera, to also make responsible publicly the jailers, so-called doctors, torturers of the young man, Yuselin Ferrera. Let them not think even for one instant that we will forget this crime. Let them not think even for one moment that this crime against humanity will be subject to any sort of statute of limitations. There will be justice for criminals such as those so- called doctors in the psychiatric hospital torturing that 21-year-old man simply for supporting a peaceful campaign of change within the totalitarian state of Cuba.

I ask my friend, my dear friend, also a strong supporter of freedom wherever there is injustice anywhere in the world, Dennis Cardoza, to join me in a bipartisan spirit also denouncing those torturers and putting them on notice that we will not forget their crimes against that young man.

At this time, Madam Speaker, and returning to the subject of the legislation, I see that Chairman Miller is here, and I thank him again, along with Ranking Member McKeon, for their important work and especially in making possible this bipartisan legislation that is coming to the floor today, the underlying legislation that we bring to the floor today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would ask my friend if he has any additional speakers on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I assume from my friend that he has no further speakers on the rule.

Madam Speaker, back on April 24 of 2006, just over 2 years ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement, which I quote:

``With skyrocketing gas prices it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price when President Bush first came into office.''

Madam Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 today for a gallon of gasoline. When Americans are paying over $4 for gasoline, we should be working on legislation to lower the cost of gasoline, increasing domestic energy exploration, reducing our reliance on unstable foreign sources of oil.

So today, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this House can immediately consider solutions to rising energy costs. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2279, Expanding American Refinery Capacity on Closed Military Installations, introduced by Representative Pitts.

This legislation would significantly reduce the cost of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process. It will also require the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries.

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 take a stand against high fuel prices and in favor of taking action to confront that problem.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, next month we are set to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, in the beginning of its mission ``to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.''

Since then, NASA has sent men to the moon, established a permanent human presence in space aboard the International Space Station, sent robots to explore Mars for signs of life, and launched the Hubble Telescope that revolutionized astronomy by providing unprecedented deep and clear views of the universe. One can only imagine what NASA will accomplish in the next 50 years as we begin working building a permanent base on the moon and eventually sending astronauts to explore Mars and beyond.

Since the creation of the Kennedy Space Center in 1962, as my good friend Mr. Hastings has explained, Florida has played an integral role supporting NASA's mission through a partnership between Florida's academic and business sectors. Florida will continue to play an important role as the space flights to the moon and Mars begin their journey of exploration at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. I am pleased that the underlying legislation, H.R. 6063, will continue this successful partnership.

Three years ago, Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 which provided policy and programmatic guidance for NASA that made clear that NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency, with a balanced portfolio of programs in space, aeronautics and human space flight, including human and robotic exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

Today's legislation reaffirms those basic principles, while emphasizing the importance of NASA leadership and Earth observations and research, aeronautics research and development to address critical national needs, and an exploration program strengthened by international cooperation under strong United States leadership.

The underlying legislation authorizes $20.21 billion in funding for fiscal year 2009. That is a 2.8 percent increase in investment from fiscal year 2008.

As we all know, NASA intends to retire the shuttle fleet in 2010. The shuttle will be replaced with a 21st century exploration system, the Constellation Program, that will be cost-effective, reliable, versatile, and, most importantly, safe for our brave and brilliant astronauts.

Until the Constellation Program is ready for lift off in 2015, we will be reliant upon Russia to ferry our crews and equipment to the International Space Station. NASA has agreements to pay Russia $760 million, and those costs could rise as high as $2.8 billion during the gap. To reduce our reliance on Russia, the bill authorizes an additional $1 billion to accelerate the development of the replacement Orion and Ares rockets and reduce the 5-year gap. Doing that will help retain thousands of well-paying aerospace, engineering and technician jobs and maintain American expertise in those areas.

The legislation also fully authorizes the administration's request for the International Space Station to ensure

its safety and long-term viability and funds additional shuttle missions, including one to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. The spectrometer is designed to search for unusual matter by measuring cosmic rays. Its experiments will help researchers study and unlock the mysteries of the formation of the universe.

This legislation fully authorizes NASA's Education Program, which seeks to inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I believe it is vital to keep the United States competitive in science, math and engineering. Our children are our future, and by seriously funding math and science programs we ensure that our future generations will continue to excel, explore and discover.

I would like to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and Subcommittee Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Feeney for their bipartisan work in the Science Committee on this important reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that bipartisan spirit didn't make it past the doors of the Rules Committee, where the majority only allowed one Republican amendment, while allowing 10 Democratic amendments. It is a new ratio, 10 to 1. And that one Republican amendment is just a sense of Congress, while many of the Democratic amendments call for substantive changes in policy.

One example of how the majority consistently blocks Republicans but allows Democratic amendments is illustrated with the disparate treatment of the Lampson and Gingrey amendments. The majority on the Rules Committee made in order the Lampson amendment exempting NASA from section 526(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act, and yet when Representative Gingrey submitted two amendments to the Rules Committee regarding the same issue, they were both rejected.

So far this year, the majority on the Rules Committee has issued a record 54 closed rules, while only allowing one open rule. The majority had an opportunity yesterday to change their ways and provide an open rule for this legislation, thus doubling their amount of open rules, but instead they decided by a party-line vote that they are quite content blocking an open debate.

An open debate on the NASA reauthorization would be particularly helpful in getting this legislation signed into law. Prior to the hearing in the Rules Committee, the administration issued its Statement of Administrative Policy, or SAP, as it is known. The SAP stated that the administration has several areas of concern with the legislation. By allowing an open debate process, we could vet the areas of concern so we can produce a bill that can be signed into law. However, the majority decided against an open and fair debate, and now this important reauthorization may be delayed.

It didn't have to be like that. One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6, 2006, Speaker Pelosi reiterated her campaign promise. She said, and I quote, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will.''

Yet here we are, three-fourths of the way through the 110th Congress, and the majority has come forth with one open rule. What a shame that their promises were left on the campaign trail.

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

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, June 10, 2008,

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 6063--National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization

Act of 2008

(Rep. Udall (D) Colorado and 7 cosponsors)

The Administration supports maintaining a strong national

civil space science and aeronautics enterprise and is

committed to advancing the quest for new knowledge,

discovery, and exploration that is embodied in NASA programs

and activities. However, the Administration strongly opposes

H.R. 6063 because it mandates specific Space Shuttle flights

that greatly threaten NASA's ability to retire the Shuttle in

2010, an action that is critical to implementing the

President's Vision for Space Exploration. In addition, the

Administration has other serious objections to several

provisions of H.R. 6063 that must be satisfactorily addressed

prior to final congressional action on reauthorization

legislation.

The bill contains provisions that mandate two contingency

logistics flights and an additional Shuttle flight for the

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and require that these flights

take place before Shuttle retirement,

thus effectively superseding the 2010 Shuttle retirement date

that is a critical step to enabling successful development of

the Crew Exploration Vehicle as called for by the President's

Vision for Space Exploration. Consistent with the Vision, the

current Space Shuttle flight manifest is a measured and

carefully balanced plan to allow the completion of the

International Space Station (ISS), a safe and orderly

retirement of the Shuttle, and the smooth transition of

facilities and personnel to Exploration Systems programs by

September 2010. The direction in this section would almost

certainly result in several serious impacts and risks to

NASA's exploration programs and other activities, including:

(1) significantly increasing costs of the Shuttle program,

not including potential recertification activities; (2)

delaying the operational capability of the Orion CEV well

beyond its current projected dates; (3) exacerbating

transition challenges, including facilities and workforce;

and (4) exposing astronaut crews to increased risks. In

addition, statutorily mandating additional flights regardless

of safety assessments and costs sets a dangerous and unwise

precedent.

The Space Shuttle must be retired by the end of 2010, and

the NASA Administrator's authority to make the final

determination on Shuttle flights based on safety

considerations must be preserved. In addition, any increased

cost of an additional Shuttle flight must be satisfactorily

accommodated within the President's proposed discretionary

spending total.

The FY 2009 budget request of $17.6 billion is sufficient

to achieve NASA's goals, and the additional $2.6 billion

authorized in the bill above the President's request is

inconsistent with the Administration's fiscal policies.

Accordingly, the Administration opposes this increased

authorization level.

In addition, H.R. 6063 directs several specific activities

under the assumption that additional funding will be

appropriated, making it likely they will become unfunded

mandates. Directing activities in this manner would severely

disrupt the budgets for NASA's ongoing, carefully-balanced

programs and Centers linked to other high-priority goals and

activities. For this reason and in view of associated

problematic policy implications, the following requirements

should either be removed from the bill or appropriately

modified: (1) carrying out an additional procurement for

Commercial Orbital Transfer Services (COTS) crew

capabilities, and mandating that NASA purchase commercial

services regardless of cost; (2) establishing an Exploration-

related technology research and development program that

would draw funding away from the Orion CEV, delaying its

availability; (3) establishing a cross-cutting technology

development program within the Science Mission Directorate at

a level of five percent of the Directorate's budget; (4)

requiring the continued operation and utilization of the ISS

by the United States after 2016, without first mitigating

significant budget implications in the outyears; and (5)

prescribing specific roles and responsibilities regarding

NASA's work with various advisory and external review

committees and other Federal agencies that the Administration

believes would be problematic and duplicative of already

well-established roles and responsibilities.

The Administration also is concerned with the proposed

wording of certain provisions and strongly urges that these

provisions be modified before passage of the bill. For

example, the direction in the bill to limit NASA's ability to

dispose of Space Shuttle-related hardware is likely to

severely disrupt ongoing Shuttle retirement and transition

activities. Similarly, the specific wording of other

provisions in H.R. 6063, including requiring all space

observatories to be serviceable regardless of practicality;

overly-prescribed aeronautics research goals; and

unproductive astronaut health surveys could lead to serious

unintended consequences, including greatly increased costs to

carry out these mandates. The Administration calls on

Congress to modify these provisions to provide NASA

sufficient flexibility to make programmatic and management

decisions as necessary.

In addition, the bill directs NASA to initiate discussions

with foreign nations on ``space traffic management.'' This

provision directly infringes upon the President's authority

to conduct foreign affairs. The United States already

actively promotes international cooperation to enhance

spaceflight safety and supports consideration of voluntary

transparency and confidence building measures in appropriate

venues under the leadership of the Department of State, with

appropriate assistance from the Department of Defense. These

provisions accordingly should be removed. A similar

objectionable provision is contained in the bill's section

governing ``exploration crew rescue.''

Finally, in addition to the significant concerns

highlighted above that must be satisfactorily addressed prior

to final congressional action, the Administration has an

overarching concern about the highly prescriptive nature of

the bill and the significant number of reports and studies

that this legislation would require. The Administration

understands the need for timely information for Congress to

conduct its oversight responsibilities; however, the burden

that would be placed on various agencies of the Executive

Branch, including NASA, is of concern. The Administration

looks forward to working with Congress to modify these

aspects of the bill.

The President does not threaten to veto the legislation. He enumerates in this statement a number of concerns with the legislation and finalizes the statement by saying that the administration looks forward to working with Congress to modify these aspects of the bill.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished colleague from Michigan, whose father was an aeronautical engineer and always has demonstrated great leadership on the issue of NASA and cutting-edge space technology, Mrs. Miller.

I thank my good friend.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a great leader from the State of Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, just over 2 years ago, now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement: ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber-stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican Big Oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''

Madam Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 a gallon today instead of over $4 a gallon.

Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront the high price of gasoline, just over a month ago the newspaper Investor's Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress ``is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

Madam Speaker, I include for the Congressional Record the editorial from the Investor's Business Daily.

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]

Congress Vs. You

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress

is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is

especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional

energy policy.

The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its

failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an

ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from

understanding how free markets and supply and demand really

work. Sad, but true.

So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling

out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-

ranging press conference Tuesday.

``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues

affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to

mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to

their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,

on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''

Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just

generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of

congressional energy inaction, including:

Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,

estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from

this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and

diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of

the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so

your representative can raise campaign cash.

Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one

since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''

fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem

at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price

spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with

advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems

have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--

the same as a decade ago--producing just 19 percent of our

total energy. (Many European nations produce 40 percent or

more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power

plants are expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce

energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35

for natural gas.

Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic

understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and

needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.

So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy

companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy

situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all

while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add

more than a million barrels of new demand each and every

year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand

growing 40 percent by 2030, including a 28 percent increase

in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their

country, including runaway energy and food prices, should

keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing

a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.

The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker

who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two

years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and

irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

Today I will be asking each of my 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 any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act introduced by Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, which would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses.

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

Madam Speaker, before finishing my remarks, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, precisely. In order to be able to take up legislation to give a tax break to commuters for the expenses, their expenses, rising expenses, daily rising expenses of getting to and back from work, I am going to ask all of our distinguished colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can take a stand against these high fuel prices and begin to give commuters a break in this country. I urge 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, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the House is set to consider H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of Education to make grants and loans to local educational agencies for the construction, modernization or repair of public educational facilities. It also would require the funds to be used only for projects that meet certain green standards such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star, or an equivalent State or local standard.

Tomorrow, we are scheduled to consider H.R. 5540, to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network.

I spent last week, Mr. Speaker, meeting and speaking with constituents in my district about the issues that matter to them, and no one mentioned anything closely related to these two bills. Both of these bills may be important in their own right, but I believe there are other issues that are much more pressing, issues we should be debating.

When Americans are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, we should be working on legislation to lower the cost of gasoline, increasing domestic energy exploration, reducing our reliance on unstable foreign energy.

France produces over 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and there's a strong environmental movement in France. And yet the United States hasn't built a nuclear power plant in 30 years.

When our military forces are running out of personnel, operation and maintenance funds, we should be working to bring bipartisan legislation to the President's desk that he can quickly sign and fund the troops.

When the intelligence community is stripped of one of their key tools in the fight against international terrorism because the majority let the Protect America Act expire, we should be working to give our intelligence officials the tools they need to stop terrorist attacks.

Instead, the majority has decided to work on a green schools bill and a water trails network reauthorization. These are not exactly the pressing issues facing Americans every day. These are not the issues our constituents want us working on today.

One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006, Mr. Speaker, was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``we promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will.''

However, that promise has yet to come to fruition as the majority has consistently blocked an open process through the Rules Committee. A prime example of how they've consistently stymied openness and bipartisanship is by the number of open rules that they've allowed in the 110th Congress. We're three-quarters of the way through the 110th Congress, and so far the majority has allowed only one open rule. One open rule, Mr. Speaker, in 18 months.

They had a chance to double to two the open rules last night, but by a party line vote they decided that they would once again use a restrictive rule process in making only four Republican amendments in order. They struck down 15 Republican amendments that had been introduced, including one from the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon. So much for the open process they promised.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished lady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, first it's important to set the record straight. Ten years ago, this Congress passed drilling in the ANWR, and it faced a Presidential veto by then- President Clinton, and imagine if it hadn't faced a veto how much of a difference we would have been able to make.

Now we're seeing the consequences of that, as Mr. Price of Georgia pointed out. Effort after effort that we've engaged in to try to increase the production of energy, the supply of energy has been opposed by the other side of the aisle and I think nowhere more dramatically than when we were able to pass legislation to have production in Alaska, and it was vetoed by the last President, a Democratic President.

So these things have to be put on the record, Mr. Speaker, because now with $4 gas the record counts, and the record is of interest to all Americans, and it will be more and more of interest every day.

Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, just over 2 years ago, now- Speaker Pelosi issued the following statement:

``With skyrocketing gas prices it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''

Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 a gallon today. Yet here we are this week debating bills on green schools and watertrails network instead of working on legislation to reduce the price of gasoline and increase supply. Now, the price of gasoline is at $4 gallon now.

Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront that issue, just over a month ago the newspaper Investors Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress ``is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]

Congress Vs. You

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress

is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is

especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional

energy policy.

The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its

failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an

ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from

understanding how free markets and supply and demand really

work. Sad, but true.

So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling

out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-

ranging press conference Tuesday.

``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues

affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to

mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to

their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,

on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''

Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just

generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of

congressional energy inaction, including:

Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,

estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from

this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and

diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of

the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so

your representative can raise campaign cash.

Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one

since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''

fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem

at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price

spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with

advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems

have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--

the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total

energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their

power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are

expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at

$1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural

gas.

Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic

understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and

needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.

So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy

companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy

situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all

while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add

more than a million barrels of new demand each and every

year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand

growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their

country, including runaway energy and food prices, should

keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing

a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.

The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker

who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two

years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and

irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

Today, I will be asking each of my 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 any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, which would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses and require the Speaker of the House to submit a plan to lower gas prices.

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.

I am so pleased that our colleague Dr. Price pointed out on issue after issue, whether it's ANWR exploration or coal-to-liquid or oil shale exploration or refinery increased capacity or on the issue of nuclear power. There is a strong environmental movement in France, but over 80 percent of their electricity is generated from nuclear power. Yet we haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country in over 30 years.

It's time to face the issue of energy independence in this country.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Again, Mr. Speaker, we're asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question to be able to address the energy issue. If we're ever going to address it, it's time to start doing so with $4 a gallon gasoline.

Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and insist that the energy issue be addressed seriously by voting ``no'' on the previous question. I encourage a ``no'' 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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Erick Jesus Valdes Alvarez, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

At a time when the totalitarian regime is trying to gain acceptance from the international community by enacting smoke and mirror ``reforms'', we see that the repressive machine is still working hard to make every Cuban on the island suffer for having a mind of their own. Such a case is Mr. Valdes Alvarez. In November of 2007, Mr. Valdes Alvarez was categorized as a ``pre-criminal social danger'' for being a member of the Youth Movement for Democracy, a group that calls for the autonomy of the universities so that they become true places of thought and learning separated from the ideology and influence from the propagandist, totalitarian dictatorship.

At that time Mr. Valdes Alvarez was sentenced to 3 years of forced labor, which is the totalitarian regime's idea of ``correctional work'' for those who associate themselves with groups that express free thinking. Although he escaped imprisonment, the ``probation'' imposed on him did not last half a year. On April 25 of this year his ``probation'' was revoked and he was arrested by agents of the tyranny. Mr. Valdes Alvarez, a young man of only 25 years of age, now sits in one of the prisons of Castro's gulag without being charged for any crime.

What exactly did Mr. Valdes Alvarez do to cause his designation as ``dangerous'' and his cruel incarceration? This is impossible to fully know in the totalitarian circus of present day Cuba, but perhaps the regime was afraid of the courage and patriotism demonstrated by Mr. Valdes Alvarez.

Mr. Valdes Alvarez represents the best of the Cuban people; a people that, through brutalized and oppressed for almost half a century, have never ceased to fight for their dignity and their freedom.

Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that students like Mr. Valdes Alvarez are locked in dungeons for simply expressing a desire for freedom and an education free of indoctrination. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Erick Jesus Valdes Alvarez before his imprisonment turns into a death sentence, and of all the political prisoners in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to balance the budget: You can either spend less or you can increase the amount of money coming in.

The majority, as reflected in their budget, have rejected the first option and instead have chosen higher spending, higher taxes, and a bigger Federal Government.

Republicans have chosen a more responsible approach by committing to spending less and letting workers, families, and small businesses keep more of their hard-earned income to save, invest, and spend as they see fit.

While Republicans have faith in the ability of workers and families to decide how best to use their paychecks, the majority budget reflects the majority's belief that the Federal Government can make better choices at spending money than individual Americans.

That is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. In order for the majority to fund their government spending, their budget raises taxes by two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 5 years. That is almost $700 billion. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Two-thirds of a trillion dollars.

At a time of an economic slowdown and increased cost of living, American families everywhere are tightening their belts and carefully budgeting their hard-earned money. This is not the time for the majority to be forcing American families to send more of their hard- earned money to Washington. Instead, we should be passing pro-growth policies to help create jobs and economic prosperity. Mr. Speaker, tax increases are not a pro-growth policy. They are anti-growth, anti-small business, anti-job creation, and we should reject them.

Now you can call this a tax increase or you can call it letting tax cuts expire, but the reality is that under the majority's budget, every American will pay more of their paycheck to the Federal Government. That includes many middle class families, small business owners, and entrepreneurs.

Although Democrats try to claim otherwise, the numbers in their own budget document show that taxes will increase nearly three times more than when the largest enacted tax hike to date was passed, making this the largest tax increase in American history. While the majority claims their budget will protect middle class families, their budget numbers tell a different story.

Under the massive tax increases in the majority's budget, the average taxpayer in the State of Florida, for example, will see his or her annual bill increase by over $3,000. The majority's budget lets the current tax cuts expire, and some of those tax cuts are very important to Americans, to our economy.

For example, seniors could see taxes on their investments and savings income double. Forty-eight million married couples could once again face a marriage tax penalty, costing them $3,000 per year. Young families could see a reduction in the child tax credit. States such as Florida may not get an extension of the State sales tax deduction.

The majority's budget may even manage to resurrect the death tax. This will particularly hurt the small businesses in the district that I'm honored to represent, which provide the majority of the community's jobs. It may even hit 26 million additional middle class taxpayers with the alternative minimum tax. Their budget also assumes that 6 million Americans who currently do not pay any taxes, will once again have to pay taxes.

Mr. Speaker, in order to boost our economy, increase investment in the United States, create jobs, Congress should not be raising taxes by the largest amount in history.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis of California.

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

It has been an interesting debate. Basically I have heard two contradictory arguments. One is that when the Republicans were in the majority, we didn't spend enough on social programs. I remember every year of our majority, for example, increasing veterans spending. As a matter of fact, there has been significant criticism of Republicans when we were in the majority for too much spending globally and in general. I have heard basically two different theories. So I wish that our friends on the other side the aisle would kind of choose which of the two scripts to read. Either we spent too much, or we spent too little.

The reality is that in the Democrats' budget, basically it is a blindfold budget, Mr. Speaker, because the minefields that are laying before the future of this Nation, the needs that we do have to look at and see how we are going to address, the major problems facing this Nation, for example, entitlement reform, all the objective, nonpartisan economists and other experts will tell us that we need to look at such matters in the future of this Nation. But they are not even touched upon, not even mentioned, by the majority in its budget.

Obviously they have a tremendous amount of increased spending. It is evident. They don't call them tax increases, they call them the end of tax cuts. But there are massive tax increases that will be required to fund the Democrats' budget, and then the great problems facing this Nation are simply in blindfold fashion ignored. So it is a very shortsighted budget, it is fiscally irresponsible, and certainly we hope that all Members will oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides obviously for consideration of the budget conference report. Budgets inevitably are a very important issue, and especially to many Americans who are taking nowadays a deeper, more careful look into their own budgets, because every day the rising cost of gasoline is taking more and more of their hard-earned income. Part of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is because we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil while avoiding development of domestic energy sources.

I learned the other day how more than 80 percent of the electricity generated in France, for example, is from nuclear power. There is a very strong environmental movement in France, and yet in consensus fashion there they have moved forward with nuclear energy.

Imagine if we had built nuclear power plants. We haven't in about 30 years, nor any refineries. Imagine the amount of oil that we would be saving, how consumption would be reduced, if we also had had the vision and the determination to build nuclear power plants, safe, new nuclear plants in this country to substitute for oil. Well, we haven't. So part of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is because we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil, while avoiding developing domestic energy sources.

Now, 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 Alaska, Mr. Speaker, are overwhelmingly in favor of searching for energy there. With the price of gasoline reaching records every day, we should be looking to do all we can to lower the price of gasoline, and that includes domestic exploration, when the people of a State wish to search for energy.

Today I will be asking each of my 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 national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil, by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as the people of that great State and their Senators and Representative here in Congress wish to do.

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 high fuel prices and our reliance on foreign energy sources.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify my vote on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for the Conference Report on S. Con. Res. 70, the Budget Resolution.

In the 109th Congress, the Florida delegation, on a bi-partisan basis, worked hard to protect Florida's environmental treasures. The bill we achieved passage of, Public Law 109-432 (HR 6111), provided Florida with 125 mile protection off our coast. Furthermore, the legislation codified the ban on drilling within the ``military mission line''--approximately 234 miles from Tampa--to provide even more protection for Florida's west coast through the year 2022. I strongly support the current ban. I also believe other states should have the right to search for energy if they wish to do so.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to posthumously honor Jose de Armas y Cardenas, a prominent Cuban journalist who wrote under the pseudonym Justo de Lara.

From the time of his birth in 1866 in Guanabacoa, Cuba, Mr. de Armas y Cardenas was taught the fundamentals of journalism and literature by his parents Jose de Armas y Cespedes, the editor of La Nacion newspaper and his mother Fermina de Cardenas, a noted feminist, who founded and was the editor of the Pink Pages newspaper.

After being educated as a lawyer Mr. de Armas y Cardenas began his remarkable and prolific journalistic career at his father's newspaper, La Nacion. He then went on to found El Peregrino magazine in Madrid, Spain, and La Avispa magazine in Havana and New York. He also served as a journalist for The New York Sun and New York Herald newspapers. While working for The Sun during Cuban War of Independence and later during the Spanish-American War he became an official translator of conversations between Cuban General Calixto Garcia and U.S. Lt. Colonel Theodore Roosevelt.

But his career as a journalist was not enough to satisfy Mr. de Armas y Cardenas' intellectual curiosity. Mr. de Armas y Cardenas was fluent in Spanish, Italian, French and English. He also became a distinguished Cervantes scholar and in 1916 was the only Spanish-speaking person to be named by the Government of the United Kingdom to be a member of a commission responsible for the celebration of the life and work of William Shakespeare.

Although Mr. de Armas y Cardenas passed away in 1919 he continues to posthumously serve as an example to all true journalists throughout the world. So much so that the Florida House of Representatives recently honored Mr. de Armas y Cardenas by designating March 28, 2008 as ``Spanish Language Journalism Day in Honor of Justo de Lara.''

Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my fellow Floridians in honoring Mr. de Armas y Cardenas for being an exemplary model for journalists of calling everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On February 7, 2008, a terrible explosion occurred at the Imperial Sugar Company refinery in the community of Port Wentworth, Georgia. The explosion killed 13 people, injured over 40 refinery workers. That explosion at the Imperial Sugar Company refinery pointed to the danger of combustible dust in the workplace. It's a very serious concern, and we must take every possible step to protect workers from those dangers.

The underlying legislation, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act, would require OSHA to issue an interim final combustible dust standard within 90 days and a permanent standard within 18 months. It also

lists a specific number of items that would be required under the Interim Final Standard including a written dust control program, hazard assessment, worker training and employee participation in the development and conduct of the dust control program. OSHA would also be required to include combustible dust in the definition of physical hazards in OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard.

It is quite disconcerting, Mr. Speaker, that on an issue as important as workplace safety, the majority is only allowing the House of Representatives to consider one amendment by the minority, one Republican amendment. The majority campaign platform said they would run the House of Representatives in an open and bipartisan manner, yet they systematically and consistently block the minority time and time again from offering amendments.

All Members of this representative institution wish to do the most they can to provide workers a safe working environment, Mr. Speaker. And it is most unfortunate that the majority blocks Members from offering their proposals. Instead of offering such a tightly structured rule, the majority should be allowing every Member the opportunity to offer their thoughts and proposals to the House for consideration.

As important as the underlying legislation may be, I believe there are other issues that are on the minds of Americans at this point that are pressing to Americans: For example, confronting the rising cost of gasoline.

On Monday, hundreds of truckers drove through the streets of this capital city to protest in desperation the rising cost of diesel fuel. They are not the only ones desperate due to the rising oil prices. All consumers are paying more for gasoline, which also causes price increases in virtually every consumer product, including food. A recent policy found that 44 percent of Americans find paying for gasoline to be their top personal economic problem.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon of unleaded gasoline has skyrocketed. According to AAA, the national average for regular unleaded gas has gone up $1.20 during that time. The cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

But oil prices don't have to be so high, Mr. Speaker, because I understand the majority claims to have a plan, a plan to reduce oil prices. Just over 2 years ago, April 2006, now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release claiming that House Democrats, ``have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Two weeks after that press release, then- Minority Leader Pelosi said that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would lower the price at the pump. That was 2 years ago.

Democrats have controlled Congress for a year and a half, and we have yet to see them act on their ``commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Instead of empty promises, Republicans are working on providing relief to consumers faced with the constantly rising cost of gasoline. For example, last week, I, along with several of my colleagues, introduced H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, the prime sponsor of which is Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart. That legislation would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses. That important legislation will actually help taxpayers with the rising cost of gasoline, unlike the majority's ``mystery plan,'' the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker, that we have not yet seen.

At this time, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank Mr. McGovern for the time. Back in April of 2006, as I just said, over 2 years ago, the now distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, issued the following statement, ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubberstamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''

Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 for a gallon of gasoline.

In the same press release, the distinguished Speaker went on to say, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Well, while I hear they have a plan, I haven't seen the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker. Instead, while we wait for the majority to act, the cost of fuel continues to rise with the average cost of a gallon of gasoline now being over $3.60, hitting consumers at the pump every time they go to fill up their cars, reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront the high price of gasoline.

Today, Investor's Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress is ``possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Congressional Record that editorial from Investor's Business Daily.

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 30, 2008]

Congress Vs. You

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress

is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is

especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional

energy policy.

The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its

failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an

ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from

understanding how free markets and supply and demand really

work. Sad, but true.

So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling

out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-

ranging press conference Tuesday.

``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues

affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to

mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to

their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,

on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''

Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just

generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of

congressional energy inaction, including:

Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,

estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from

this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and

diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of

the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so

your representative can raise campaign cash.

Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one

since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''

fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem

at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price

spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with

advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems

have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--

the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total

energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their

power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are

expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at

$1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural

gas.

Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic

understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and

needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.

So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy

companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy

situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all

while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add

more than a million barrels of new demand each and every

year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand

growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their

country, including runaway energy and food prices, should

keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing

a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.

The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker

who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two

years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and

irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

Today, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question for this rule, Mr. Speaker. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, which would give

commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses and actually help alleviate the price of energy for the consumer. It will also give the majority the chance to introduce, Mr. Speaker, the ``mystery plan'' that they claim to have.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against these high fuel prices and demand that the majority act on their plan. The majority said they had a plan. Let's see the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker. Let's see the mystery plan.

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.