Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on its 100th anniversary. On this important centennial, I would like to commemorate the men and women who have served and continue to serve in the shipyard. In their honor, I have introduced H. Res. 1193.

Congress established the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on May 13, 1908, and it has grown from a ``coaling and repair station'' to being known as the ``No Ka Oi Shipyard'' and a national treasure that is strategically important to our Nation and equally vital to Hawaii. During World War II, shipyard workers earned the motto, ``We keep them fit to fight'', by resurrecting the United States Pacific Fleet from the bottom of Pearl Harbor, helping turn the tide of the war at Midway, and maintaining the ships that would ultimately win victory at sea and sail triumphantly into Tokyo Bay.

Throughout the decades, the shipyard has demonstrated its diverse capabilities by supporting America's space exploration, Antarctic expeditions, and national missile defense. It continues to support the United States Pacific Fleet as the largest ship repair facility between the western coast of the United States and the Far East, providing full-service maintenance for Pacific Fleet ships and submarines throughout the Asia-Pacific theater.

The shipyard has become the largest single industrial employer in Hawaii and is the largest fully integrated military-civilian workforce involved in full-service shipyard work in the United States. The shipyard has a direct annual economic impact of more than $600,000,000 in Hawaii, and through its apprentice, engineer co-op, and other student-hire programs, provides extraordinary training, employment, and career opportunities for residents. Moreover, the shipyard has earned multiple national awards for its dedicated environmental stewardship and excellent safety programs, such as the prestigious Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Star award in May 2007.

On this historic day, I would like to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and congratulate the men and women who provide exceptional service to our military and keep our Pacific Fleet ``fit to fight.''

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008. Among the many important provisions of this bill is one that is particularly needed to help ensure that our coastwise laws are properly and promptly enforced.

Section 220 of the manager's amendment recognizes the importance of vigorous enforcement of our Nation's coastwise laws by expanding the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement authority to include the Coast Guard in addition to Customs and Border Protection.

In keeping with this important objective we hope that the Administration will make good on the effort that was begun last November with the publication of a proposed interpretive rule designed to address evasion by foreign cruise lines of one of our coastwise laws, the Passenger Vessel Services Act.

I have written to Secretary Michael Chertoff urging prompt implementation of a modified rule that addresses concerns raised during the comment process while ensuring that the coastwise laws are properly enforced. My letter details the frustration of important Congressional objectives that will result if the rule is not implemented and I ask that a copy be included in the Record.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 31, 2007.

Re Hawaiian Coastwise Cruises (USCBP-2007-0098)

Hon. Michael Chertoff,

Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Secretary: Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')

proposed an interpretive rule regarding ``Hawaiian Coastwise

Cruises'' on November 21, 2007. Since issuing the notice and

accepting comments on the proposal, no final action has been

taken to protect the only oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise ships

in operation from unfair foreign competition. As a result, it

has been announced that a second U.S.-flag cruise ship will

be leaving Hawaii service and the U.S. registry in May 2008.

I write today to urge the Department to immediately adopt a

Hawaii specific rule in order to ensure that the remaining

U.S.-flag cruise ship does not have the same fate.

On December 21, 2007, I joined the Hawai'i Congressional

delegation and also offered separate comments of my own with

respect to the proposed criteria to be used by CBP to

determine whether non-coastwise-qualified passenger vessels

are in violation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act

(``PVSA'') (46 U.S.C. 55103) and the Hawaii Cruise Ship

Initiative enacted in 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7) when engaging in

Hawaii cruise itineraries that include a ``sham'' foreign

port stop of as little as an hour in the middle of the night

to cleanse the voyage and avoid the application of U.S. laws.

As the preamble to the interpretive rule accurately states,

``The intent of the maritime cabotage laws, including the

PVSA, was to provide a `legal structure that guarantees a

coastwise monopol to American shipping and thereby promotes

development of the American merchant marine' ''. I strongly

support the PVSA, and was a primary sponsor of the

subsequently enacted 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative. I

also strongly believe that CBP must take steps to vigorously

enforce the PVSA, including adoption of the proposed

interpretive rule for Hawaii. But I am concerned that CBP's

effort to do so may unnecessarily slow implementation of the

interpretive rule by needlessly trying to apply it broadly to

all U.S. ports, where no oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise ships

operate in regular service.

CBP's proposed interpretive rule is unnecessarily

expansive. It goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the

economic and national security policy objective of the PVSA

and the 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative. In fact, I

believe a reasonable interpretation under those laws would

limit the scope of proposed interpretation to Hawaii because

it would further those important public policy goals.

Indeed, the vast majority of the opposition to CBP's

proposed interpretation is based on the far reaching nature

of the proposal. As a result, comments have been received

from interested parties as far away from Hawaii as Maine and

Florida who have understandably expressed concerns about the

potential impact of the proposal on foreign cruise ships

operating in areas where no oceangoing U.S. flag ships call.

MARAD and CBP identified a specific and intentional effort to

circumvent the PVSA on Hawaii cruises. Under the authorities

provided by the PVSA and the 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship

Initiative, the final remedy proposed by CBP should be

limited to addressing that specific issue in the Hawaii

market where U.S. flag ships operate.

Moreover, the 2003 Hawai'i Cruise Ship Initiative requires

that the affected U.S. flag ships identified in this proposed

interpretation be in ``regular service'' in Hawai'i and

explicitly prohibits their operation in coastwise service in

Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea, areas

where interested parties have raised concerns about the

application of the proposal. For these reasons, I strongly

recommend that CBP issue a proposed PVSA interpretation

limited to Hawai'i as follows:

CBP interprets a Hawai'i cruise itinerary to be ``solely to

one or more coastwise ports'' even where it stops at a

foreign port, unless the stop at the foreign port is a

legitimate object of the cruise. CBP will assume that a stop

at a foreign port is not a legitimate object of the cruise

unless:

1. The amount of time at the foreign port is more than 50

percent of the total amount of time at the Hawai'i ports of

call; and

2. The passengers are permitted to go ashore temporarily at

the foreign port.

Accordingly, CBP proposes to adopt an interpretive rule

under which it will presume that any Hawai'i cruise itinerary

that does not include a foreign port of call that satisfies

each of these two criteria constitutes coastwise

transportation of passengers in violation of 19 CFR

4.80a(b)(1).

Thank you for considering my views on this important

matter. I firmly believe that if CBP acts on the proposed

rule as I have recommended, many of the concerns expressed by

commenters in this docket will be alleviated, while at the

same time ensuring the protection of the very oceangoing

U.S.-flag cruise ships intended by the PVSA and the 2003

Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative.

Sincerely,

Neil Abercrombie,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 5613, the ``Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008,'' a bill that I proudly cosponsored. The bill would place a 1-year moratorium on proposed Medicaid regulations by the Bush administration intended to save money.

Unfortunately, these cuts would take Federal funds from States at a time that many are struggling to meet obligations within Medicaid and other programmatic areas. By limiting access to rehabilitation and targeted case management services, the administration cynically attacks the poorest and weakest members of our society. Eliminating the reimbursement for transportation services for certain special needs students would deny them the basic right to an education. The regulations halt important payments to hospitals at a time that many across the Nation and within my home State of Hawaii are actually losing money.

Placing the 1-year moratorium would help us better asses the full impact of these disastrous cuts, and come up with a plan that controls the growing costs of Medicaid without harming quality, as these regulations seem to do. The extent of the unpopularity of these cuts is clearly shown by the expedited move by the Committee on Energy and Commerce to report the bill unanimously to the House floor, in contravention of the President's veto threat.

Medicaid provides medical coverage for the poorest and neediest of our country. It is the insurer of last resort for many who have either lost jobs or are barely subsisting. To take away these funds at this time is cruel and undermines the intent of the very program. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was ill and missed rollcall vote No. 205 through 207. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all votes.

Madam Speaker, today I have joined with my colleagues Congressman Simpson of Idaho and Congressman Westmoreland of Georgia in introducing a resolution to end disparity in college sports that is an unintended consequence of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). This resolution declares the BCS an illegal restraint on trade, and demands that the US Department of Justice take the proper actions to investigate and end the unfair BCS system. It also encourages the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to establish a true football playoff system to determine the national collegiate football champion in the interest of parity and sportsmanship.

The BCS is fundamentally unfair. Non-BCS schools, those in conferences not automatically qualified for the BCS bowls, are at a disadvantage prior to the first kickoff of the season. Non-BCS schools must basically have perfect seasons, and must be the best of over 50 schools to even be considered to play in a BCS bowl, while schools that belong to conferences that are automatically-qualified for BCS bowls (BCS schools) must only be the best of 8-12 schools, depending on the conference they compete in. Six of the ten schools that participate in the BCS bowls qualify by becoming the regular season champion of a BCS automatically-qualifying conference: the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 10, Big 11, Big Fast, Pacific-10. and the Southeastern Conference (SEC). The four others are determined based on rankings, conference standings, and in some cases, selected by bowl officials. There is also a rule prohibiting more than one non-BCS school from competing in a single year.

These unfair eligibility requirements produce effects that go far beyond restricting access to playing for the national championship. The BCS generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue annually, and this money is disproportionately awarded to BCS conferences. Of the more than $217 million generated by the 2006-2007 post-season bowls, $185 million, or 85 percent went to the BCS schools, which represent 66, or 55 percent of Division I schools. Money generated by the post- season games help schools cover costs for their athletic departments, facilities, equipment, recruitment, and other sports programs. Non-BCS schools must use their general funds to cover costs of their athletic departments, which takes funding from academic and administrative needs.

The lopsided distribution of BCS revenue results in two tiers within the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division 1), those with access to the BCS, and those without. Those without are unable to change their situation as the money and prestige associated with the BCS makes it highly unlikely that a non-BCS school will be able to compete for the same recruits, coaches, sponsorships, national television exposure, and the revenue it generates. This disparity keeps them in the second-class status and must be changed.

Questions about the legality of the BCS have also arisen. Legal scholars have analyzed the anti-trust aspects of the BCS, and some have concluded that the BCS violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act under the Rule of Reason test. This requires that the competitive benefits of the system outweigh the anti-competitive effects. However, the anti- competitive effects of the financial gain and recruiting advantage of the BCS schools can easily outweigh the pro-competitive benefits of arranging for the top two ranking BCS teams to play for the national championship.

Many have called for the end of or change to the BCS, and the current system is only the latest reincarnation. The NCAA has, on multiple occasions, studied and considered moving to a playoff to determine the national champion. Successful BCS school football coaches and presidents have called for a playoff system, as have presidents of non- BCS schools. Congress has held multiple hearings questioning the fairness of the BCS and states have introduced and passed legislation calling for changes to the system.

NCAA football is the only college team sport without a playoff determining the national champion. While the NCAA Basketball Championship's format will not transfer perfectly to college football, it is an ideal system. All Division I schools start the season with an equal chance of making it to the playoffs. The championship is decided on the court by the players and their talent, not rankings and their schedule before the tournament. The basketball championship also allows for a nearly annual ``Cinderella story,'' an underrated team that defies expectations, upsets traditionally strong opponents and competes deep into the tournament. This year it was Davidson College, a member of the Southern Conference, which was seeded tenth in its region and made it to the Elite Eight, beating former champion Georgetown University, the University of Wisconsin and Gonzaga University along the way. This scenario is highly unlikely in the BCS system, as there is little chance for a non-BCS school to even be offered an invitation to play. Non-BCS schools, the University of Hawaii in 2008 and Boise State University in 2007 were undefeated going into the BCS and were not even given the opportunity to play for the national championship.

Something must be done to ensure that money and opportunity are evenly distributed among all college football programs. Congress should act in the interest of all the athletes, coaches, staff and supporters to guarantee parity and competition in college football. The current system leaves much to be desired and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution calling for the NCAA Division I national champion to be determined by a playoff.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was out of town attending a memorial service last week. I missed rollcall vote Nos. 161 thru 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on votes 161 thru 167, 171, and 174 thru 177. I would have voted ``nay'' on votes 168, 169, 170, 172, and 173.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1077, calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet. The resolution also calls for the Chinese Government to enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated solution that respects the distinctive language, culture, religious identity, and fundamental freedoms of all Tibetans.

The Dalai Lama has stated his willingness to accept cultural autonomy for Tibet under the Chinese Constitution. He has also been willing to negotiate with Beijing and has advanced a number of very moderate proposals regarding Tibet's future status. The Communist regime, however, has only met this attempt at accommodation with stiff opposition, and is currently instigating yet another crackdown in the lead up to the Beijing Olympics.

To date, Congress has stood strongly by the Tibetan people as they bravely struggle for their rights:

In 1991, Congress passed a resolution stating that Tibet is an occupied country.

In September of 2007, Representative Rohrabacher introduced House Resolution 610, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Government should take immediate steps to boycott the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing in August 2008 unless the Chinese regime stops engaging in serious human rights abuses against its citizens and stops supporting serious human rights abuses by the Governments of Sudan, Burma, and North Korea against their citizens. I wholeheartedly support and cosponsor this measure.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and I recently formed the Tibet Caucus and already have 8 new members.

Congress awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal.

We cannot stand silently by and watch as another wave of brutality and oppression sweeps across the country by the Beijing regime. Congress must continue to stand by the Tibetan people and uphold their rights as human beings. I urge every Member of Congress to join the Tibetan Caucus, vote ``yes'' for House Resolution 1077, and urge the President of the United States to issue an executive order boycotting the Beijing Olympics and uphold the rights of the Tibetan people to ensure their voice is not silenced.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4933) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to protect captive wildlife and to make technical corrections, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 4933, the Captive Wildlife Safety Technical Amendments Act of 2008, was introduced by my colleague from Guam (Ms. Bordallo). As Mr. Kennedy indicated, unfortunately, she cannot be here in person at the moment because she is on her way here from Guam, but hopefully will arrive before the end of the proceedings. Coming as I do, Madam Speaker, on a 5,000 mile one-way commute, I have a lot of empathy and sympathy for her journey. But the issue before us today is very, very important both to her and to Members of the House and, by extension, the Nation.

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act, Public Law 108-191, amended the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, and that made it unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any prohibited wildlife species.

After the law was enacted, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Justice identified technical drafting problems that made full implementation and enforcement impossible. H.R. 4933 would make those technical changes to the law needed to allow the original intent of the legislation to be achieved.

Madam Speaker, on a personal note, I might add that, under Chairman Pombo, I had the privilege of traveling with him to Africa for the CITES, Convention on International Treaty on Endangered Species, so we could see with our own eyes what the consequences are by not having legislation like this correctly in place. The wildlife species are totally dependent upon human beings as the stewards of this planet and, most certainly, as the stewards of their welfare and for the salvation of endangered species, not just in our country, but overseas as well. Therefore, I ask Members on both sides to support passage of this noncontroversial bill.

May I say also, Madam Speaker, what a privilege it is to be on the floor with Mr. Bishop of Utah. I have the honor of serving with him on the Resources Committee, and have always valued his insight and perspective.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3352) to reauthorize and amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3352 was introduced by my colleague and our good friend from Alaska (Mr. Young), and it amends the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act to authorize the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to expand the use of hydrographic data and hydrographic services.

The Office of Coast Survey, which is within NOAA's National Ocean Service, conducts hydrographic surveys measuring the depth and bottom configuration of bodies of water. The Hydrographic Services Review Panel, a quality assurance program authorized in 2002, suggested several recommendations to improve NOAA's hydrographic services. Strengthening the emergency response and recovery capabilities were among the recommendations suggested. H.R. 3352 addresses these recommendations directly, and meets homeland security and maritime domain awareness needs.

I want to commend our friend Congressman Don Young for introducing this bill, and urge all Members to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3891) to amend the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act to increase the number of Directors on the Board of Directors of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3891, introduced by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), expands the size of the Board of Directors of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation from 25 to 30 members.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established by Congress in 1984 as a charitable nonprofit corporation. The foundation was formed to further the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants, and other natural resources by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

While the foundation and its conservation programs continue to grow and fundraising for these programs keeps pace, it is considerably more difficult to meet the increasing administrative expenses of the foundation. Expanding the size of the board of directors will improve the ability of the foundation to raise private funds, to cover its administrative expenses, and to improve the implementation of its conservation programs.

I commend Congressman Henry Brown, again, a good friend of many of us here in the Congress and a friend of the Natural Resources, for introducing this bill, and urge all Members to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before yielding back the balance of my time, and I will do so, I have a brief closing insert that I would like to read from Congresswoman Bordallo who, as I indicated, finds it impossible to be here today at this time. She says as follows:

Madam Speaker, as Chairwoman on the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, I reiterate that the Natural Resources Committee supports this bill as a means to maximize community participation in the activities of the Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

It is our expectation, that is to say Congresswoman Bordallo's expectation, that the foundation will view this expansion of its Board of Directors as an opportunity to increase the diversity of professional backgrounds and views that board members bring to the foundation, and also that the Secretary of the Interior will appoint qualified individuals, hopefully with conservation experience in the offshore territories.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2675) to provide for the conveyance of approximately 140 acres of land in the Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma to the Indian Nations Council, Inc., of the Boy Scouts of America, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2675 was introduced by my colleague and our friend on the Natural Resources Committee, Representative Dan Boren.

The legislation directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey 140 acres of public land in Oklahoma, administered by the United States Forest Service, to the Indian Nations Council of the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts will use this land to expand their existing camping. The Boy Scouts will pay a fair market value for the land.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend our colleague and friend, Representative Boren, for his work on this bill. I support the passage of H.R. 2675, as amended.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I can't spot any more tenderfeet on the floor, and so we will yield back our time as well.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3651) to require the conveyance of certain public land within the boundaries of Camp Williams, Utah, to support the training and readiness of the Utah National Guard, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3651 was introduced by the ranking member on the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, Representative Bishop. The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain identified public lands to the State of Utah for use by the Utah National Guard. The land would revert to the United States should it ever cease to be used by the National Guard.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and friend, Representative Bishop, for his leadership in this matter and his willingness to work with the committee to resolve issues raised in earlier consideration of the legislation. I am sure that I speak for Chairman Rahall in that regard, and most certainly his fellow members on the Resources Committee. Therefore, I have no objection to the passage of H.R. 3651; and, in fact, enthusiastically endorse it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, and as chairman of the Air Land Subcommittee of that committee, I particularly want to commend Mr. Bishop for his remarks regarding the National Guard deployments and our obligations to them. And in recognition of that, I would like his remarks to be incorporated as my own with regard to his bill. With his permission I would like to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2515) to authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2515, as introduced by our colleague and friend, Representative Dean Heller, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the multi-species habitat conservation plan on the lower 400 miles of the Colorado River. The States of Nevada, Arizona and California, along with several major water districts, are participants and funding partners in this program.

As amended, this legislation is not controversial and should be supported. And I might say, Madam Speaker, exhibits the multiple responsibilities of the Resources Committee and the really extraordinary complications and details that have to be considered when such legislation comes forward. It is a tribute to the staffs of the members on the committee, and most particularly the professional staff of the Resources Committee, that this legislation is able to be compiled, understood and comprehended by the members, and then brought forward to the body as a whole in a way that advances the public interest.

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

Madam Speaker, I observed that Mr. Bishop was looking directly at me when he recited, with a look that I can only determine as ``gleeful,'' he cited the razorback sucker and the bonytail chub. I am not sure whether I was being categorized by him in the sucker category or the chub category, or he was gazing at me metaphorically.

Do you suppose he might be able to answer that for me.

I will yield.

Mr. BISHOP of UTAH. I have certainly never thought of the gentleman as either a razorback or a bonytail.

Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, it is now clear for me.

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

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Will time be allowed on the Democratic side of the aisle in opposition?

Will time be allotted on the Democratic side of the aisle for opposition?

Parliamentary inquiry.

Can the Speaker inquire of the gentlelady whether time will be given in opposition on the Democratic side of the aisle?

Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that a question has been directed to the gentlelady.

That's my question, Mr. Speaker.

Will time be made available on the Democratic side in opposition?

Does any time remain?

Mr. Speaker, that's nonresponsive. Mr. Speaker, I have permission to ask, and I'm trying to get an answer. That's certainly fair. Will there be time or not?

And this is about ethics.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

I want to make sure I understand.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I'm sorry, the time is incorrect. The time is 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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