Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be discharged from

further consideration of House Resolution 1448 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of the resolution just adopted.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1433 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the point of order is about whether to consider the rule and ultimately the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. In fact, I would say this is simply an effort to kill the bill.

In the midst of the energy crisis, the bill takes important steps towards increasing domestic energy production, encouraging the development of alternative fuels and cutting down on the corruption between the Bush administration regulators and the oil industry.

By expanding access to offshore oil reserves, the bill encourages oil exploration and could lead to increased domestic energy production.

By releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the bill will lead quickly to reducing prices at the pump.

In light of an Inspector General report showing that Minerals Management Service employees were accepting gifts from the oil companies they regulate, engaging in unethical sexual and drug conduct, this bill would subject the MMS employees to higher ethical standards and make it a Federal offense for oil companies to provide gifts for MMS employees.

By promoting energy efficiency and conservation in buildings, through updated building codes and incentives for energy-efficient construction, this bill will lead to reduced energy use and lower utility bills. At the same time, by providing more funding for home heating assistance, we ensure that seniors and other vulnerable populations will not have to choose between food and heating oil.

By providing incentives and support for development and deployment of domestic alternative energy technologies, the bill will promote energy security for the United States. Under this bill, power companies would be required to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, reducing air pollution from power plants and helping to address the threat of climate change.

As Americans use more public transportation in the face of high gas prices, this bill will help transit agencies deal with added costs and increased ridership by providing $1.7 billion in grants. At a time of record-breaking oil company profits, the bill will require the oil companies to pay their fair share by repealing tax subsidies that they certainly don't need, and by closing a royalty loophole in lease agreements from 1998 and 1999.

In short, the bill is a much-needed compromise approach to a widespread crisis facing our country. This is simply a case today whether we support, with our votes, the oil companies or the consumers and the citizens of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, Independence and Global Warming, Mr. Markey.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers my colleague has?

All right. Then I shall wait to close.

I have one more, but I only have about half a minute left, so it is going to be very brief.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to

revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1433 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. The resolution provides 3 hours of debate on the bill, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, American families and businesses from every city, town and village across our districts are struggling with the skyrocketing gas prices and ever-increasing energy costs, which have obviously gone over into the cost of food and every other commodity that we use. The American people are calling out for relief, which is why we have this comprehensive energy package before us today.

In considering this legislation, we must ask ourselves: How did our great Nation get into this terrible place concerning energy in the first place? Eight years ago, two oilmen took the reins of America's energy policy, and they never looked back. They held secret, closed door meetings with Big Oil and energy companies at a tremendous cost to the American people. And the Republican Congress supported them every step of the way. To this day, we do not know about the secret meetings that the Vice President held.

Just this past summer, the American people struggled through an excessive speculation crisis when oil prices jumped over $150 a barrel. Of course, when the Democrats threatened to rein in speculators, they pulled over $39 billion out of the futures market. We must address speculation before we leave this session. Because now, the oil prices are hovering over $90 a barrel, and we cannot let that go uncared for.

Just last week, we saw the havoc that the Bush-Cheney energy policies have wreaked when the Interior Department's Inspector General reported that administration employees at the Minerals Management Service, who were supposed to be regulating oil royalties, were literally accepting improper gifts and engaging in unethical conduct, such as having sex at parties, using drugs with persons, employees of the oil companies. They were literally, Mr. Speaker, in bed with each other.

My colleagues across the aisle say they want to change the energy policy, but their record certainly proves differently. The very same Republicans voted ``no'' to the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years that would have saved $1,000 in fuel costs per car per year. They said ``no'' to recouping the royalties that the oil companies failed to pay to taxpayers. They said ``no'' to curbing excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, and ``no'' to requiring the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of Federal land that they already control nationwide, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, if the other party has its way in energy, we will have more of the same Bush-Cheney energy policy written by and for the oil companies. They would help Big Oil to get more public land owned by every American, more American oil, more taxpayer dollars, and continuing record profits while American families and businesses get stuck paying record prices at the pump and heating prices.

Mr. Speaker, today this comprehensive bill presents the administration and its allies in Congress with a clear choice on energy. Either side with the American taxpayer, side with the people who sent you here to vote and vote for this, or side with the Big Oil companies who have had the largest profits in the history of mankind and certainly do not need more tax breaks from the American public.

Now, there are significant differences between the Bush administration's policy that got us into this mess and the plan before us today. This package is an energy package for a 21st century policy that will help Americans to reclaim a clean energy future.

And the choice is very clear, as I said before, which side are you on? The bill addresses America's energy crisis in both the short term and the long term.

By releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we will immediately lower prices at the pump for American families struggling with high gas costs. And we will replace the oil at the reserve as the gas prices stabilize.

Meanwhile, by investing billions of dollars over the long term in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and mass transportation, we will harness innovation and create good-paying American jobs while strengthening our energy security.

By expanding the access to offshore oil reserves and encouraging responsible drilling, the bill promotes more exploration and will lead to increased domestic energy production.

By promoting energy efficiency and conservation in buildings, through upgraded building codes and incentives for energy-efficient construction, the bill would lead to reduced energy use and lower utility prices.

In light of the Inspector General report from the Interior Department showing that the Minerals Management Service employees were accepting gifts from the oil companies and engaging in unethical conduct, this bill would subject the MMS employees to a higher ethical standard and make it a Federal offense for oil companies to provide them with gifts of any kind.

At the same time, by providing more funding for home heating assistance, we ensure that seniors and other vulnerable populations do not have to choose between food and heating oil.

Under this bill, we would enact our first national renewable electricity standard. The power companies would be required to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, reducing the air pollution from power plants and helping address the threat of global warming.

As Americans use more public transportation in the face of high gas prices, this bill will help the transit agencies deal with the added costs of increased ridership by providing $1.7 billion in grants.

And at the same time, with the record-breaking oil company profits, it requires the oil companies to pay their fair share by repealing the tax subsidies they do not need and by requiring that the Federal Government collect the oil royalties due to the American people. That's one of the reasons why reform at the committee is so important.

This comprehensive energy legislation is the result of a serious compromise on the part of this Congress to bring down prices now and to invest in a clean renewable future. It will provide America with the American-owned energy policy that this administration has failed to deliver in the last 8 years.

Mr. Speaker, there are precious few moments in each of our lives where we have a chance to do something that profoundly affects not only our own lives but the lives of future generations.

Today, we do have a choice. Do we want to continue on the same dangerous energy policies of the past or do we want to invest in a clean energy future that will help to ease consumer costs in the short term while putting the Nation on a path to a clean energy future that will create a stronger and safer America?

Our energy choices will not only affect Americans who are suffering at the pump but profoundly affect the future of life on this planet.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford more of the same when it comes to this administration's energy policy.

We are all proud Americans, but it is time we start acting like Americans once again. Our great Nation is known around the world for dreaming big and for reaching those dreams. When President Kennedy set a goal to put a man on the Moon in 10 years, America got to work and did it. It is time to set big goals and work diligently to achieve them, and that's exactly what this bill does.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make history by supporting this comprehensive bill that sets the country back on track to a clean energy future and finally begins to break our dangerous addiction to oil which we have been promising to break for at least the last 30 years. The world deserves nothing less.

[From the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, July 30, 2008]

The GOP Energy Plan: None of the Above

Republicans may talk a good game, but their actions speak

louder than words. Republicans have voted against the

critical solutions that must be part of a comprehensive

New Direction for Energy Independence. They voted against

renewable energy and conservation, responsible domestic oil

production, short-term measures to bring down prices now and

punish those who are manipulating the oil market, and new

requirements that oil companies pay their fair share.

Instead of working on behalf of American families and

businesses, the House Republicans ``all of the above'' energy

plan simply rehashes failed ideas on domestic drilling or

proposes ideas that Republicans have repeatedly blocked in

the past. Their all-out legislative battle in recent years to

protect the record profits of oil companies earning record

profits has earned them the moniker ``Grand Oil Party.''

Americans paying $4 a gallon thanks to an energy policy

literally written by the oil industry cannot afford this the

GOP's ``none of the above'' energy plan.

The Republican leadership's ``none of the above'' record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use it, or Price Renewable NOPEC price Public Energy

Free our oil Drill act lose it gouging energy fixing transit security -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Boehner, Republican Leader......... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Roy Blunt, Republican Whip.............. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ Adam Putnam, Conference Chairman........ NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Thaddeus McCotter, Policy Committee NO NO NO ............ NO ............ ............ NO Chairman............................... Kay Granger, Conference Vice-Chair...... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO John Carter, Conference Secretary....... NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO NO Tom Cole, Chairman, National Republican NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO Congressional Committee................ Eric Cantor, Chief Deputy Whip.......... NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO David Dreier, Rules Committee Ranking NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Republican.............................

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Castor.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Green.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve.

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

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have one further speaker, and then I will close.

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

May I inquire if my colleague has more speakers?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Committees on Natural Resources and Transportation, Mr. DeFazio.

Let me give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this whole debate boils down to one issue today: whose side are you on? Which side are you on, the side of the persons who sent you here, your constituents and the businesses that you represent, or are you on the side of the oil companies? I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1433 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Strike all after the resolved clause and add the following:

That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the

House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6899) to advance the

national security interests of the United States by reducing

its dependency on oil through renewable and clean,

alternative fuel technologies while building a bridge to the

future through expanded access to Federal oil and natural gas

resources, revising the relationship between the oil and gas

industry and the consumers who own those resources and

deserve a fair return from the development of publicly owned

oil and gas, ending tax subsidies for large oil and gas

companies, and facilitating energy efficiencies in the

building, housing, and transportation sectors, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of

rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of

order against provisions of the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of

debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural

Resources; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute

consisting of the text of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act,

as introduced, if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio

or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention

of any point of order or demand for division of the question,

shall be considered as read, and shall be separately

debatable for 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 598, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 570, I was unable to vote because I was chairing a Rules Committee meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1388 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1388.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1388 provides for consideration of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order six amendments which are printed in the Rules Committee report, and the rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, our great Nation recently celebrated the 160th anniversary of the 1848 Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. This groundbreaking convention was dedicated to the key principle in the Declaration of Independence that we are all created equal. Women have had a hard time to recognize that because it took more than 70 years for us to pass legislation giving women the right to vote.

But in the years since Seneca Falls, generations of courageous women have made great strides towards equality. From securing a woman's right to vote in 1920 to serving our country in World War II, American women have come a long way. In this Congress alone, we have much to celebrate. Speaker Pelosi is the first woman to lead this esteemed body. And Senator Clinton made ``18 million cracks'' in the Nation's highest glass ceiling as the first woman to run a formidable Presidential campaign.

Yet as we celebrate these important milestones and look back on all we

have achieved since 1848, we know full well that our journey toward gender equality is not complete. Despite the strong leadership of several generations of women, we are still struggling to achieve equality in the workplace. Among the most distressing disparities is the significant gap in pay between American men and women as they work side by side doing the very same work.

Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago President John F. Kennedy signed into law the Equal Pay Act to address the unconscionable practice of paying women less for the same job. That was 45 years ago and we still struggle. At that time when this bill was signed, women were earning 59 cents for each dollar earned by a man in a comparable job. While the wage gap has narrowed, today the working women in America still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In other words, let me put it this way, 18 cents more has been achieved in the past 45 years.

According to the Department of Labor, which maintains data on over 300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and every category. This is so important, I'm going to say it again. The Department of Labor says in 300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and every 1 of them. Even in what they call the female-dominated industries where women comprise 70 percent of that labor force, women earn 20 percent less than their male coworkers.

Experts estimate that the average woman worker will lose anywhere from $200,000 to $2 million over her lifetime as a result of the wage gap. Over time women earn significantly less than men, and lower wages translate into less income that counts in calculating pensions and in some cases Social Security benefits. Closing the wage gap will have a long-term impact on the women's economic security, especially in retirement.

To all the cynics who dismiss equal pay as just another women's issue, I want to point out that the wage gap not only hurts women, it hurts families. It hurts children being raised by single moms who have to work two jobs to make ends meet when one might suffice were she to be paid equally with her male coworkers. It hurts families with two working parents who are struggling as one partner makes 20 percent less than her male colleagues. Currently, single women who are heads of households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single fathers. Again, currently single women who are heads of households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single fathers. That is a fact that we must face here and remedy. And we know that pay equity for women is closely linked to eradicating poverty. For families who live below or near the poverty line, the equal pay for women will make a significant difference to the well-being of American families. And after all, Mr. Speaker, isn't that why we are here?

Despite these statistics and shocking data that indicates that men make over 20 percent more than their female colleagues on average, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to working women last year when it decided Ledbetter v. Goodyear. In that case, former Goodyear employee Lilly Ledbetter, an employee of 28 years, sued the company after she left the company after discovering she had been paid significantly less than male employees doing the same job during her nearly two decades of employment. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was in effect at that time. Though Ms. Ledbetter was clearly treated as a second-class employee, although she got wonderful ratings and compliments on her job, the Supreme Court let Goodyear off the hook on what I think is a misrepresentation of the law.

The Supreme Court ruled that in order to enforce her right to be paid fairly, Ms. Ledbetter would have had to file a wage discrimination complaint within 180 days of when the discrimination began. Now, imagine that. You're new on the job. You're happy to be there. You're learning your job. And you have no idea what other people are paid or whether you're being discriminated against. That shows you the grave mistake made by the Supreme Court. But since pay practices typically take place in secret, it would be impossible for a woman to discover discrimination within a 180-day window that she has to file a claim.

Justice Ginsberg, the only woman serving on the Court, wisely noted that the Ledbetter decision essentially gutted legislative protections against discriminatory pay practices. Again, that would have been the law of 1963. In its Ledbetter ruling, the Supreme Court has all but endorsed gender discrimination in employment by robbing women of a legal remedy to enforce equality. One certainly understands that we need more women on the United States Supreme Court.

To overcome these efforts to nullify the Equal Pay Act, we must redouble our efforts to insist that Lilly Ledbetter and the countless hardworking women like her in America are compensated fairly.

Earlier this month I was proud to join Speaker Pelosi, Senator Clinton, Rosa DeLauro, Lilly Ledbetter, and many of my colleagues at an event in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

This legislation we are debating today prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who discuss salary information with coworkers. Can you imagine that in most companies that is against the rules? It puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages, and it will help prevent future pay disparities by requiring the Department of Labor to expand outreach to employers and to continue to collect and share wage information based on gender.

Finally, it creates a grant program to strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women to help our daughters fight for the compensation to which they are entitled.

Today, we have an historic opportunity to stand up for the women of America and say, You deserve equal pay for equal work. Today, we have an opportunity and an obligation to stand up for our mothers and daughters and sisters and nieces who are making less than their male counterparts for the exact same work.

Today, even though it is late in the day, we have an opportunity to secure the promise of America so that tomorrow our daughters and sons and granddaughters and grandsons will all have equal opportunity to achieve the American dream. Until we do, we will never reach the gender equality that women and men present at the 1848 Women's Rights Convention aspired to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to the working women in our lives and to the generations of hardworking women who came before us to support this legislation. It is my sincere hope that this bill will soon become law, and I implore my colleagues to vote for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Rules Committee and also from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the author of this legislation, an outstanding Member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules Committee.

I would like to inform my colleague that I have no further speakers and would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to explain to the listening persons and those in our galley why we are here today.

The other side has consistently talked as though this is an energy bill, but let me remind all of us that this is an opportunity for the United States to bring into compliance with pay scales, in compliance with the law of 1963 for women who, as my colleague Ms. DeLauro pointed out, comprise 40 percent of the workforce.

This legislation cures a wrong that has cost many women between $400,000 and $2 million, not only in the lost wages they should have been paid had there been equality, but also indirectly their pensions and their Social Security in many cases. This hurts families, Mr. Speaker. This hurts single parents who are trying, oftentimes doing two jobs, to try to keep food on the table.

All the statistics show, which absolutely astonished me, that more women who are single heads of household than men are under the poverty line. One reason for that is they did not get equal pay. We have to right this wrong. We have to do it today. I can't express enough my gratitude for Congresswoman DeLauro and the Women's Caucus for all the work that they have done. But it has been since 1963, 45 years ago, when the law was passed demanding equal pay. And here we are in 2008, Mr. Speaker, and we still don't have it.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question, yes on the rule, and, by all means, yes on the underlying bill.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1388 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down

energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production,

encouraging the development of alternative and renewable

energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order

against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority

leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if

offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, which shall

be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an Opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 520 and 521. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 520 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 521.

H.R. 6545, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, rollcall No. 520--``Yea.''

H.R. 6545, To Table the Motion to Reconsider, rollcall No. 521-- ``Yea.''

Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 528, had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

I certainly thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her exemplary service on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we know today that we are in a crisis without question. Families all across this great Nation are wondering if they're going to lose their house, what they're going to do next, burdened by a mortgage crisis that we have not seen in a generation, and it makes me angry.

As America's families call out for relief, we have this bipartisan bill before us today to try to address it. As we consider this legislation, we have to ask ourselves why are we in this position and how did we get into this situation in the first place? If we don't know the answer to that, we're not going to be sure that the next generation is not going to be asked to bail out the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, the past 7 years brought some of the most egregious financial blunders this country has ever seen. On a daily basis we discover new evidence of incompetence. Americans have been blindsided by the mortgage crisis just as they were blinded by the savings and loan crisis. Due to the lack of oversight by this administration and the previous Congresses believing that most businesses and agencies should simply police themselves, American families are paying the price at the same time as the cost of gasoline and groceries skyrocket and foreclosure rates continue to climb.

We're seeing the evidence of this administration's failed policies play out in neighborhoods across the country. From California to New York, from Texas to Michigan, millions of hardworking families, mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, grandmothers, and grandfathers have had their homes foreclosed, their dreams shattered, and many of them find themselves homeless.

Mr. Speaker, recent reports estimate that 1.4 million homes will enter into foreclosure this year alone. It was reported in May that there were 157 new mortgage foreclosures filed every day in New York City. In my district in New York, the housing vacancy rate in Buffalo has risen 46 percent over the past 6 years, and soon the city will own one out of every 12 or 13 homes. That is 7,000 to 8,000 homes.

Despite these staggering numbers, our President, the optimist, continues to insist that our financial systems are ``basically sound.'' I have to wonder if the Americans who poured their lives and savings into their homes feel the same way.

Make no mistake about it, this crisis didn't jump out of the woodwork yesterday. It has been years in the making. But instead of taking meaningful action to protect Americans, their investments, their livelihood, and the American economy, the administration and the previous Congress has insisted the problem didn't exist. They told Americans a story of a healthy robust economy while the reality they were living told them something quite different.

Pervasive greed has replaced the public good. This is the administration that led us into war in Iraq, that won't address global warming, and built an energy policy based on the Enron loophole. Insisting upon living in a dreamworld, this administration failed to take any meaningful action to rein in the housing crisis until it was spiraling completely out of control. The failure to accept the reality of the situation has led us to this problem we're in today.

Crucial opportunities were missed to investigate the risky lending practices that Americans are suffering the consequences of today. Opportunities to instill safeguards to ensure that Americans are able to afford their mortgages were lost.

Mr. Speaker, the mortgage crisis is complex, and there is enough blame to go around. But it is clear that the lack of oversight allowed, if not encouraged, this crisis, and at the same time, the heads of the GSEs were paid millions of dollars in salary and millions of dollars in bonuses every year for not overseeing the work they were hired to do.

At the very least, thorough oversight would have uncovered how risky the lending and investment practices at the root of this crisis actually are--serving as a warning sign to the likely participants. Instead of oversight, they encouraged deregulation. Instead of holding hearings, they allowed big business to run rampant over protecting the most vulnerable Americans. Instead of strengthening our critical safeguards, they looked the other way while our Nation entered into a mortgage meltdown. For the past 7 years, this administration has ignored the needs and security of the American people.

Should Americans working every day pay the price for this recklessness? Should retired Americans who depend on their homes for their retirement pay the price for their troubling risks? Should future generations lose their shot at the American dream because of this incompetence?

Mr. Speaker, the Congress is not going to stand for it. Like President Franklin Roosevelt, who led this Nation out of our last great economic crisis, this Democrat-led Congress is committed to helping families out of this crisis and ensuring the situation never happens again.

Sadly after 1929, all the safeguards that President Roosevelt put on to have no more bank failures in the United States have almost all been removed. He recognized, President Roosevelt did, the strength of a great nation depends on the strength of its working families, and our strength is about exhausted.

Everything that he did, as I say, has been done away in the past 7 years, and I think that restoring some of the safeguards that he put on financial institutions would be a start.

The legislation we are considering today was forged by bipartisan consensus, and it will take bipartisan consensus to focus on future legislation to address the issues. This is a short-term solution today to a large and long-term problem. In these troubled times, righting the housing crisis is an important first step to getting our country back on track.

Quite simply, ladies and gentlemen, we need stronger regulations, we need real teeth, we need oversight, and we have to clean up the mess. I'm happy that Members on both sides are dedicated to doing that. I implore my colleagues to commit to increased oversight. Together we have to make sure this does not happen again.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Protectives Co. 1 of Rochester, New York as they approach their 150th anniversary. Ever since their formation on August 23, 1858 these volunteer citizens have spent thousands of hours a year protecting the property of their neighbors from fire, smoke and water damage thereby reducing the costs to the businesses and citizens of Rochester in their most distressing times.

Formed as part of a general reorganization of a fractured and dysfunctional Rochester Fire Department, the Protectives Property Protection and Salvage Company instilled a sense of security that the community it served had been missing. Before its inception, the citizens of Rochester relied on ten separate, and often bickering, fire departments to protect their homes and businesses from fires. The Protectives helped bring about a renewed commitment to protecting the community.

The original Protectives Property Protection and Salvage Company has not only saved countless dollars in property damage over the years, but has also saved the lives of many individuals and firefighters from out of control fires. The Protectives No. 1 operates as a volunteer unit under the Rochester Fire Department assisting them with salvage, ventilation, lighting and holding fire hoses as ordered by the fire Chief, thereby relieving the firefighting manpower at the scene of an active fire.

The Protectives have been there supporting the Greater Rochester community throughout some of its most trying times, including the Great Sibley Fire of 1904 which totaled 4 million dollars worth of damage at the time. And today they continue to work many of the most fundamental and underappreciated jobs including pumping out flooded basements, and setting up and operating fans and lighting during salvaging efforts. Each and every day they subscribe to their motto, ``we strive to save.''

The Greater Rochester Area owes them a debt of gratitude for their dedicated work and thousands of hours of volunteer services. So it is with great pride and appreciation that I congratulate the Protectives Co. 1 for 150 years of great service, and may it continue to serve as a model of volunteer service and community activism for the citizens of Rochester, NY and across America.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1281.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1281 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. The waiver would apply to any rule reported on the legislative day of June 19, 2008, that provides for consideration or disposition of a measure making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 2008.

Madam Speaker, with the passage of this rule, the House would move one step closer to taking up the supplemental appropriations bill, a bill forged in bipartisan compromise that provides funding for our troops currently on the ground, critical domestic savings for Americans calling out for relief, and a dramatic expansion for veterans' educational benefits.

The same-day rule will allow us to do all of this in an expedited manner. Later today, the Rules Committee will report out a rule that will give the Chamber the opportunity to debate the bipartisan legislation dealing with some of the most pressing issues facing our Nation today.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, just one response to my good friend from California and my dear friend, that had the Republican Party voted for the last supplemental bill which funded the troops, it would not be necessary to be here today.

I will be happy to yield.

I just want to make one inquiry: Is the massive tax increase you're talking about the extension of unemployment benefits?

Well, I will just close by saying we've been trying very hard to do just that.

I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1284 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume and also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1284.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1284 provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2642, Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that the House, one, concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment numbered 1, and two, concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment numbered 2, with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report.

The motion is debatable for 1 hour and controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and the Chair shall divide the question between the dispositions of the two Senate amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the issue to be debated today could not be of greater consequence to the future of our Nation or the citizens of this body and all of this country. For that reason, the Rules Committee has reported out a rule that gives each Member the opportunity to vote his/ her conscience on the most pressing issue of our day: funding for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as critical domestic spending to bring relief to the American people and provide our veterans with access to higher education.

This legislation meets the spending requirements made by President Bush

with the exception of the $2.65 billion in disaster relief for the aftermath of the tornadoes and floods that hit the Midwest which was added at the President's request.

In addition, the bill includes the $5.8 billion that President Bush asked for to strengthen the levees in New Orleans and does not include a single earmark except those explicitly requested by his administration.

Mr. Speaker, in order to bring the legislation forward today, the Democrat majority had to make very difficult decisions. However, making difficult choices is appropriate when deciding issues of great importance such as the war in Iraq, a war that has placed unprecedented strain on this Nation.

At no time in our history has America fought a war of this magnitude, or one that is this difficult, with an entirely voluntary military force composed of only 1 percent of the general population. And no one in this country has been asked to sacrifice as our troops and their families have.

Our soldiers are well aware of what the current situation means for them, two, three, four, sometimes five deployments of duty, while their political leaders casually use words like ``political progress'' to justify their redeployment.

However, these extraordinary individuals know full well that they return again and again to a conflict that has taken the lives of over 4,000, almost 5,000 now, of their fellow soldiers and 28 from my district alone.

They know that tens of thousands of American men and women are returning home wounded and physically disabled, many suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a host of other mental health issues.

They know full well that they are redeployed to a civil war that has left millions of Iraqi men, women and children dead and millions more in refugee camps or fleeing to other countries that will accept them.

Our soldiers already know quite a lot, and by that I mean, they've come to learn that terms like ``political progress'' are little more than political posturing and empty rhetoric, and that is not how a Nation shows respect for its military.

Unfortunately, such disrespect is what our brave men and women in uniform are accustomed to. Our troops were repeatedly promised that they would have the equipment they needed to do their jobs. Yet we all saw the reports of desperate searches through junk heaps to refit ill- equipped armored vehicles. We all heard the stories of struggling families frantically emptying their savings accounts to purchase adequate body armor for their children going off to war.

Our troops were repeatedly promised that they would be taken care of when they came home from combat. Yet once again this administration's promises turned out to be nothing more than rhetoric. Remember the disgraceful images of Walter Reed Hospital, and that is not how a grateful Nation shows respect for its troops.

Mr. Speaker, it is with this in mind that we proceed today with this legislation. While some pieces of this bill required difficult decisions before it could be brought to the floor, others were easy to make.

The bill provides immediate resources to our troops currently in the field, and nothing is more important than their safety and security. And in addition, the bill keeps our promises to our veterans.

Part of the cost of waging war is ensuring that those who fight receive the resources that they need to resume their lives when they return home. Given all the sacrifices that our troops have made for this Nation, it is simply unconscionable to nickel and dime them when it comes time for us to keep up our end of the bargain.

The underlying legislation includes a dramatic expansion of the education benefits provided to our veterans. Not only do our troops deserve this benefit, the same one provided to veterans of World War II, but for every dollar we spend on education today, we will see a return that will bolster our economy tomorrow. And frankly, our economy needs bolstering.

Far too many hardworking Americans are feeling enormous pressure with skyrocketing gas and food prices, unaffordable health care costs, rising college tuition rates, home foreclosures that are far too commonplace, and a terrible job market.

Last month's atrocious unemployment numbers highlight the urgent need for assistance to millions of struggling families calling out for relief. In fact, the number of Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over the last year, and the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 since the beginning of 2008.

This bill takes immediate action to extend unemployment insurance for workers who have exhausted their benefits by up to 13 weeks in every State.

Furthermore, the American people are feeling the pain as their hard- earned tax dollars finance the rebuilding of a foreign Nation while their country's own economy and infrastructure are falling apart at the seams. To that end, this legislation removes the unfair burden placed on the American taxpayer by requiring the Iraqi government to pull its own weight and match U.S. reconstruction money dollar-for-dollar.

In addition, it prohibits, once again--and we have to look out for those signing statements--but it prohibits once more the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, blocking this administration from saddling the American people with a costly occupation long after their soldiers are home.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation deals with some of the most important issues of the day, our fellow citizens who have been sent to fight in a conflict far away from home, as well as critical domestic spending that will give relief to the millions of Americans struggling just to survive.

The structure of the rule we consider today provides each Member the opportunity to cast his or her vote according to their values and their priorities. I am proud to support the rule, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

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

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

And, Mr. Speaker, let me add an additional minute to that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

(Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one brief remark and that is in answer to what my dear friend and colleague Mr. Dreier said about only the United States of America could afford this war. I'm not sure what kind of bookkeeping allows him to say that. Obviously the fact we are in such extraordinary debt, as one speaker on your side already pointed out today, this is an unprecedented debt. In the history of the Republic we have never been so far in debt and to say that we can afford to continue to do this, not just in money, not just in treasure, but what we are losing in lives and young people whose lives will never be the same because of the life-threatening wounds that they are bringing home.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

If I may reclaim my time, I think doing this job probably says we can give enough soldiers to die or to be maimed and that we have the money to pay for it. At least that would be my interpretation of what you had said.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for this bill and I hope a ``no'' vote when we get to final passage on amendment 1.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise with a heavy heart today because last Friday, one of Buffalo's most cherished sons was taken from us Today, I join my colleagues in celebrating the life of Tim Russert, whose contributions to journalism and American discourse will outlive us all.

As anyone who watched ``Meet the Press'' knows, Tim Russert never forgot where he came from. He was an unabashed and shameless fan of anything Buffalo, and that was fitting. He embodied the values of the old steel town: honesty, integrity, and hard work. Instead of forgetting them when he came to Washington, as so many do, he brought Buffalo with him.

When Tim Russert spoke with someone, he was making a friend, not climbing a ladder. While his career soared, he stood with his feet solidly on the ground. A product of his South Buffalo roots, his character was his trademark and earned him the respect of journalists and politicians and all Americans alike.

Tim Russert didn't chase ratings by taking cheap shots. He didn't distort his guests' positions to create a news story. He always asked fair questions, encouraged open debate, and held politicians accountable to the people who

elected them. He was the epitome of a journalist, sorely lacking today, and his show was the gold standard.

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention his role in honoring fatherhood. Tim Russert reminded Americans of the important role fathers play in child rearing, both through his books and by sharing stories about ``Big Russ'' and his own son. His admiration for his father and his unconditional love for his son were evident every time he spoke of them.

There will be a void on America's television sets every Sunday, and later this fall, the Bills and the Sabers will miss the sounds of cheers from their most loyal fan. But Tim Russert's legacy, his unwavering pride in Buffalo, his devotion to his family, and his indelible mark on journalism will live on.

My thoughts are with his wife and son and the rest of the Russert family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1233 and the underlying bill, H.R. 5540--Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act. I believe this is a fair rule that provides ample time for debate on this important matter and also makes in order the only amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill.

But I also want to take this opportunity to set the record straight on the claims made on energy policy during this debate by the other side of the aisle. I would like to submit for the Record the following statement released by Speaker Pelosi talking about the significant action taken by this Congress to address the energy concerns of our Nation and also about the recordbreaking profits of oil companies in these times of rising fuel prices.

Oil Companies Reap Billions in Royalty Relief

Americans are paying record high prices at the pump and the

price of oil continues to skyrocket. But thanks to energy

policies put forward by President Bush and the previous

Republican-led Congresses, oil companies are making tens of

billions of dollars in record profits. According to news

reports, a new draft report from the Government

Accountability Office estimates oil companies will avoid

paying roughly $53 billion in royalty payments to taxpayers

for deep water drilling contracts on public lands in the Gulf

of Mexico. These contracts were awarded between 1996 and 2000

after the Republican-led Congress passed the ``Deep Water

Royalty Relief Act'' in 1995.

$17.82: Price of barrel of oil in 1995 [EIA, Historical

Tables, 11/8/95].

$124.33: Price of barrel of oil yesterday [6/3/08].

598%: Percent increase from 1995 to today.

$1.07: Gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in 1995 [EIA

Historical Tables, 11/8/95].

$3.98: Gallon of regular unleaded gasoline today [AAA, 6/4/

08].

272%: Percent increase from 1995 to today.

$123.3 billion: Oil Company profits, 2007.

$36.9 billion: Oil Company profits--1st Quarter this year.

For years, Democrats in Congress have fought to roll back

some of the royalty relief given to Big Oil companies, while

Republicans have blocked these efforts. In the first 100

hours of the New Direction Congress, the House passed H.R. 6

to require oil companies, which have not paid royalties for

deepwater drilling contracts in the Gulf region as a result

of the 1998 and 1999 leases, to pay their fair share in order

to be eligible for new federal leases for drilling. That

provision was also included in the House version of the

Energy Independence bill but did not make it into the final

House-Senate passed package due to Republican opposition.

This ``holiday'' from paying royalties was supposed to end

when the price of oil reached about $40 a barrel. Instead,

the Bush Administration has continued to provide royalty-free

oil from public lands, as the price of oil has now risen to

over three times the intended trigger.

The New Direction Congress is committed to bringing real

relief to hardworking Americans struggling with high gas

prices and putting the needs of families before the interests

of the oil companies. Below is a list of action the

Democratic-led Congress has taken so far:

passed this spring

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer

Protection Act--Congress has enacted legislation to suspend

the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, starting June

30th and through the end of the year, as long as the price of

crude oil remains above $75 per barrel. This is a critical

first step for hardworking families, businesses and the

economy, which in the past has brought gas prices down. The

President, who was previously opposed, suspended shipments

and signed the bill because of overwhelming bipartisan

support in Congress.

Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act--This legislation

will extend and expand tax incentives for renewable energy,

retain and create hundreds of thousands of green jobs, spur

American innovation and business investment, and cut taxes

for millions of Americans. These provisions are critical to

creating and preserving hundreds of thousands of good-paying

green collar American jobs. A recent study showed that

allowing the renewable energy incentives to expire would lead

to about 116,000 jobs being lost in the wind and solar

industries alone through the end of 2009.

The OPEC and Big Oil Companies Accountability Bill--This

bill will combat record gas prices by authorizing lawsuits

against oil cartel members for oil price fixing, and creating

a an Antitrust Task Force to crack down on oil companies

engaged in anticompetitive behavior or market manipulation.

President Bush has threatened to veto this bill.

other recent action

Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007--Historic

energy legislation with provisions to combat oil market

manipulation, increase fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon

in 2020--the first congressional increase in more than three

decades, and promote the use of more affordable American

biofuels. The initial version of this bill included a

provision to rollback the royal relief given to Big Oil

companies for deepwater drilling contracts in the Gulf

region. Unfortunately, this provision did not make it into

the final House-Senate passed package. Signed into law on

December 19, 2007. Under new requirements in the Energy

Independence Law and pressure from Congress, the FTC

announced in May it would begin the rulemaking process to

implement-the market manipulation provision.

Reduces our dependence on foreign oil--cutting our

consumption of oil by 2.9 million gallons per year in 2030--

more than what we currently import from all Persian Gulf

countries combined.

Lowers energy costs for consumers with oil prices projected

to decline from more than $100 per barrel to $57 per barrel

in 2016 (in 2006 dollars) in part due to the new energy law.

The new fuel standard for cars and trucks will save

American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump.

Reduces global warming emissions by 2030 by up to 24

percent of what the U.S. needs to do to help save the planet.

Building, appliance, and lighting efficiency standards will

save consumers $400 billion through 2030.

Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act--This

legislation would end unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil

companies, invest in clean, renewable energy and energy

efficiency, and help reduce global warming. The bill includes

provisions that will generate hundreds of thousands of green

jobs including an estimated 70,000 solar energy jobs, more

than 20,000 biodiesel jobs, and protect an additional 75,000

wind industry jobs. President Bush has threatened to veto

this bill

Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act--This bill will provide

immediate relief to consumers by giving the Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) the authority to investigate and punish

those who artificially inflate the price of energy. It will

ensure the Federal Government has the tools it needs to

adequately respond to energy emergencies and prohibit price

gouging--with a priority on refineries and big oil companies.

President Bush has threatened to veto this bill.

No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act--

Legislation to enable the Department of Justice to take legal

action against foreign nations for participating in

oil cartels that drive up oil prices globally and in the

United States. President Bush has threatened to veto this

bill.

Energy Market Manipulation Prevention--The new Farm Bill

increases Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight

authority to detect and prevent manipulation of energy

prices. President Bush vetoed this bill, but the Congress has

overridden that veto.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1233 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the operation of the previous question, it

shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which

the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of

lowering the national average price per gallon of regular

unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be considered as

read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be

subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question in the House or in the Committee

of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are

waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For

purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a

statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record

by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration

shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.